Think You Can Dodge Obamacare by Cutting Employees’ Hours? Think Again

Lots of employers are saying that they’re not worried about having to provide health care to employees because they’ll just reduce the employees’ hours to under 30, and voila!  The employer is no longer required to provide coverage.

Think about that for a second.  Let’s assume that the employees you reduce to 30 hours are good employees.  Do you want to lose them to your 40-hour competitor down the street?  I don’t think so.

And what if you’re now offering coverage to some of your people and you decide that you’ll reduce hours for the hourly employees simply and eliminate the plan for those salaried folks now covered?

What happens to those people?  They’ve gone from paying 30-40% of a plan via their Section 125 plan to having to pay 100% of the cost of the plan.  That puts a dent in the old take-home pay.

No problem, you say.  You can just boost their salaries by what you’ve been paying, right?  Then they’ll have the money they need to buy from the Exchange (oops, I forgot – “exchange” translates into a negative word in some languages, so since we want to be ever-PC we are now calling the exchanges “marketplaces.”  Maybe you can, but I can’t.  It’s an exchange, and to hell with those who force their sensitivities on me against my will.)

Anyhow, you’re gonna have them buy the coverage via the exchange?  Let’s d some quick math.  The 30-40% they’re paying now is PRE-TAX, thanks to your 125 plan.  So it costs them maybe 20-30% of their take-home pay because the government is subsidizing it via tax breaks.

Unfortunately, Boobie, there ain’t no tax breaks for health insurance purchase directly by an employee.

So let me do the math for you.  You were paying, say, 60% of the cost.  Employee paid 40% but at a 32% after-tax cost.  So now you’re gonna give him the 60% in his pay, right?  With no 125 plan available, that 60% boils down to 48% at the same tax bracket used above.

So, my brilliant friend, by doing what you’ve done, the employee has gone from spending 32% (after tax) of the cost of coverage to having to pay 100% of the cost of the coverage.  But he doesn’t have 100% of the money.  Heck, he doesn’t even have the 68% of the coverage that he needs – the 60% you gave him percolates down to 48%.  So the employee has to cough up an additional 68% of the cost of coverage on top of the 32% he used to pay.

That’s a THREEFOLD INCREASE IN HIS COST.

And here’s the kicker.  There’s a little-known section of ERISA (the pension-related law) that says that if you conspire to violate an employee’s right to get a benefit that he was going to get, you’re in violation of ERISA.

So in addition to not saving any money by cancelling the plan (because you gave the savings to the employee), you’re facing potential civil litigation from a now-disgruntled employee PLUS MASSIVE FINES!!

So think it over, Chuck.  It ain’t that good a deal.

Ready for a 30% Health Care Rate Increase?? 40%??

You think I’m kidding?

I may be off a bit, but I’m not kidding.  I’ve been trying – in as gentle a manner as possible – over the last three years to express my misgivings about the Health Act (I can’t call it “reform” and I won’t mislabel it by calling it “cost control”). Read more »

Tape, Red Tape Everywhere You Look

Just picture those monumental piles of red tape that you plow through with, say, the DMV.  Now multiply it by 100 or thereabouts.

That’s what’s ahead for us all thanks to the Health Act.  EVERYTHING is being dictated, top down, in Washington fashion.  For example, just last week – we’re talking just ONE week here – we got the following: Read more »

2013 Newsletter Back Issues

January 2013 – Volume 7 – Issue 1

February 2013 – Volume 7 – Issue 2

March 2013 – Volume 7 – Issue 3

 

 

“ The Times, They Are A’Changin’ ”

Remember that old song?  God help me, this really dates me.  That was the title of an album by Bob Dylan, released in (Help me again, God!) January, 1964.  Holy cow, that was 49 years ago!!

Anyhow, it took 49 years for Bob to be correct, at least insofar as health care is concerned.  But it is finally happening – despite the best efforts of politicians everywhere.

You see, politicians like to believe that they’re more than posturing, bloviating blowhards.  They’re not, but if they can keep us fooled they’ll have a job and power for life.  So they want us to think that they can somehow affect the laws of economics.  Stupid, stupid, stupid.

Let me explain.  For years health care costs have been rising faster than inflation.  Stupid politicians like those in Massachusetts (from the top, i.e. governor, on down through both houses) think that they can wave their magic wand and declare that – going forward – health care costs will rise only so fast as inflation (actually, after some near-future date, at a rate 0.5% BELOW inflation).  So they passed a law that says that has to happen.

Just how stupid ARE they?  Rates may stay at that level, but NUMBER OF SERVICES will rise.  Doctor’s aren’t – nor should they BE – WILLING TO put themselves out of business or reduce their income to satisfy the ego-driven whims of a bunch or room-temperature-IQ dolts on Beacon Hill – or in Washington, DC.

Costs have gone up faster than inflation because another group of economically stupid people have created over the last 70 years a system in which the employee has NO STAKE IN THE GAME.  It used to matter not at all where you got your care – most expensive hospital, least expensive hospital, high quality, low quality … whatever.  You – the patient – PAID EXACTLY THE SAME NO MATTER WHERE YOU WENT.

So why should patients even care where they go?  They focused on things like closest, most convenient, best reputation.  All of which are ephemeral.

Now carriers are loading in deductibles under which THE PATIENT PAYS FOR THE COST of the treatment.  Suddenly, rates of increase of medical cost have dropped precipitously in the last five years, to about half or less of what they were in 2005-2007.

And carriers are now going to the next step – interactive, easy-to-use internet portals where you can shop – within the specifics of the particular plan you’re on – for the highest quality, lowest cost provider for the service you need.  Harvard Pilgrim, one of the “Big Three” of Massachusetts health is rolling out a site named, appropriately enough,  “Now iKnow.”

It will allow employees, based on their specific health plans, including benefits, deductibles and out-of-pocket costs to:

  • Help them locate physicians and hospitals and give price comparisons for them.
  • Show providers’ quality ratings using national benchmarking data.
  • Enable consumers to “shop” for alternate physicians and hospitals while displaying costs relative to their yearly deductible totals and out-of-pocket expenses.

Is it a useful tool?  OF COURSE IT IS.

Did it come from the elected dolts in Massachusetts or Washington?  OF COURSE IT DIDN’T.

Outpatient Care Costs – Oh, Wow … or Should It Be “Oh, Woe?”

In my last post in this series (I’m summarizing Dr. Aaron Carroll’s series of 2010 posts on the cost of health care in the US)  I talked about Inpatient Care.  It runs about  $458 Billion (2006 cost) and is probably about $40 Billion more expensive than one would guess given our level of national wealth.  Today we’ll summarize Dr. Carroll’s post on Outpatient Care. Read more »

The US Healthcare Cost Challenge

I referenced Dr Aaron Carroll’s series of posts on why America’s health costs were so high in an earlier blog post.  You can see the original on which this series is based by going here (http://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/what-makes-the-us-health-care-system-so-expensive-introduction/ ) and reading all 12 posts.  Or you can take the easy way out and let me do all the reading and transcribing. Read more »

Health Care Cost Control

I’ve written lots about this over the years, but recently I saw a post from Dave Oliker, who is the CEO Emeritus of MVP, a health insurance carrier in New Hampshire and Vermont.  He writes some good stuff on his blog and has been the inspiration for more than one of my newsletter articles and so forth in the past. Read more »

Use limited and tiered networks to control health care costs

In this episode Jim Edholm talks about how to use limited and tiered networks to control health care costs. Read more »

Fight Back Against Highest-in-Nation Health Costs

The Commonwealth Fund, an independent NYC charitable research fund dedicated to promoting “a high performing health care system that achieves better access, improved quality,” last week released some dismal statistics about the cost of health care in the various states. Read more »