ILNews

Many small firms to opt out of health benefits in 2015

J.K. Wall
January 20, 2014
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Brian Adams had made up his mind. He was going to stop providing health insurance to his 15 employees at Indianapolis-based Godby Hearth & Home.

Then in October, Adams decided to renew his group health plan early, extending coverage until Oct. 31, 2014.

After that, however, he plans to work with his employees to help them buy insurance through the Obamacare exchanges.

Many employers with fewer than 50 workers followed Adams’ lead last year. They kept their health plans for 2014, but a growing number say they’ll drop group coverage at the end of this year.

“It’s very hard for a small-business owner to deal with this. It is very complex,” Adams said. “And it is dealing with what is probably the most crucial benefit that an employee can have.”

Things were already trending this way before Obamacare, known officially as the Affordable Care Act.

The percentage of employers with 50 or fewer workers offering health benefits in Indiana declined from 44 percent in 2000 to just 29 percent in 2011, according to a study by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

Nationally, the percentage of small firms offering health benefits dropped 10 points, according to both the RWJF study and an annual employer survey by Kaiser Family Foundation.

Obamacare does not require that small employers offer health benefits, as the law does for employers with 50 or more workers. But the law does encourage them to do so by offering sizable tax credits to offset the cost of health benefits.

If Obamacare does induce small employers to rush to end their health benefits, it will be both good news and bad news for the effectiveness of the law.

On one hand, it shows that Obamacare’s overhaul of the individual insurance market has made that market a far more attractive option, by guaranteeing coverage even for unhealthy consumers and offering individual tax subsidies to lower the cost of insurance. That is allowing some businesses to pursue what they call “an individual strategy” of helping their employees obtain health insurance, but not actually buying it for them.

 On the other hand, Adams and other small-business owners are considering an end to their group benefits because they expect other provisions of Obamacare to send their group plan premiums skyrocketing at the end of 2014.

“My hands are going to be forced,” said Adams, who was an accountant before buying the Godby business. “Once this thing settles through, our group rates will jump to the point where we will not be able to sustain it.”

Community rating

Health insurers such as Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield and UnitedHealthcare have told small-business owners that they face premium increases of 50 percent, 60 percent, 80 percent and sometimes even 100 percent at the end of 2014.

Those predictions were given to employer clients to induce them to renew their current plans early—before the Obamacare rules kicked in Jan. 1, but business owners and insurance brokers take them seriously.

Obamacare will increase insurance rates for many employers because it will not allow health insurers to charge their oldest customers any more than three times as much in premiums as they charge their youngest customers. Previously in Indiana, the oldest customers paid six or seven times more than the youngest.

The new rules, called community rating, mean that companies with younger-than-average workers will face a big increase in insurance rates. For businesses with older-than-average workers, the new rules will probably lead to lower health insurance premiums.

Those rules apply only to individual insurance customers and employers with fewer than 50 workers.

The Indiana Department of Insurance predicted that small employers’ health insurance premiums would rise 8 percent on average this year due to Obamacare. But for all companies with younger-than-average workers, the new rules mean they’ll be paying more.

“I can’t absorb a 60-percent increase. It’s a complete deal-breaker,” said Mike Hutson, owner of Westfield Lighting Co.

He received a projected premium increase from UnitedHealthcare of 60 percent for the end of 2014, which would mean he would pay $50,000 more per year for health benefits for his 17 workers.

He currently pays nearly $5,000 per worker for health insurance, which is a bit lower than national norms.

So instead, Hutson switched his health plan to Anthem on Dec. 1, paying just 6 percent more than he did the year before. That Anthem policy, since it was sold in 2013, does not have to comply with Obamacare’s new community rating rules. But come Dec. 1, 2014, it will, which will likely send Westfield Lighting’s premiums soaring.

At that point, Hutson said, he’s almost certain to send his employees to the Obamacare exchanges. He doesn’t expect to be alone.

“I believe that most small businesses, eventually, will punt,” Hutson said. “I think there will be a tidal wave of this.”

Half could drop coverage

Health insurance consultants who work with small employers agree.

Matt Kleymeyer at Bernard Health, a health benefits consulting firm for individuals and small employers, said he has worked with 40 companies that plan to drop their group health plans, but only four of those did so on Jan. 1.

“If you’re going to be faced with a 50-[percent] or 60-percent increase, you may not have an option to keep a group plan,” Kleymeyer said. “Groups need to be aware of this. They need to start communicating to employees early. They need to think about a reimbursement program. And they need to take time to roll it out.”

The main thing that kept Adams, who is one of Kleymeyer’s clients, from dropping Godby’s health benefits was that the majority of his employees would have paid more for health insurance in 2014 on the Obamacare exchanges than in Godby’s group health plan.

But if premiums spike at the end of this year, as Adams expects, the exchanges will become the most attractive option.

Tony Nefouse, a health insurance broker for individuals and small businesses at Indianapolis-based Nefouse & Associates, is also seeing small employers end their group health benefits.

“I’m chopping up groups left and right,” Nefouse said in late 2013, noting that about half his clients with fewer than 50 workers have either already dropped coverage or have decided to drop it at the end of this year.

It’s firms with fewer than 30 workers that are most likely to end group coverage now, Nefouse said. And among firms with fewer than 10 workers, about 80 percent are working to drop coverage.

Employers with lower-wage workers, or that have had low participation rates in their group health plans, are most likely to drop coverage, Nefouse added.

“With skyrocketing premiums over the years, you have employers who feel like their profits are all going to health insurance premiums,” Nefouse wrote in an email.

 But more could add coverage

Certainly not all small employers are talking about ending health benefits. Some are even adding them, as Obamacare encourages them to do.

Indianapolis-based Sun King Brewing Co. decided to add health insurance for the first time, starting on Jan. 1. That was partly because the company expected to exceed 50 employees by the end of 2013 and partly because its owners felt it was the right thing to do.

“Since we founded the company, we planned to offer health insurance, as soon as we could afford it,” said Sun King President Omar Robinson.

In fact, several national studies have concluded that Obamacare will lead to a slight increase in the number of firms offering coverage.

For example, survey data collected by the National Federation of Independent Businesses last fall found that 13 percent of employers with 50 or fewer workers planned to add coverage in 2014 — wice as many as planned to drop it.

Also, a simulation conducted in early 2013 by California-based RAND Corp. found a slight increase in small firms offering insurance by 2016. Small-business coverage will decrease in some states, Rand’s model found. But in either case, the change will be modest, with increases topping out at 5 percent and decreases bottoming at 2 percent.

Obamacare tries to encourage the smallest employers — those with fewer than 25 workers — to continue offering health benefits by allowing them to deduct as much as 50 percent of their health insurance premium contributions from their 2014 corporate income taxes.

Obamacare, since it was passed in 2010, has allowed small businesses to claim a tax credit equal to 35 percent of the money they spend on employee health benefits. But few small businesses have taken advantage of it, according to a 2012 report by the Government Accountability Office.

That’s surprising because so many employers could qualify for the credits, according to data crunched by two liberal health insurance advocacy groups, the Small Business Majority and Families USA.

In Indiana, an estimated 61,410 employers, or 71 percent of all firms with fewer than 25 workers, would qualify for a tax credit, which would average $857 per worker.

Westfield Lighting is one of the companies claiming the credit in Indiana. But Hutson said the tax credit won’t stop him from dropping his group health plan next year.

“While it helps, it is still a cash-flow killer,” he said in an email. “I have to put up the money and then wait for the benevolence of our ‘statesmen’ in Washington to give it back at the end of the year. No thanks.”

Also, a lot of small employers don’t qualify for tax credits. Adams at Godby Hearth & Home, for example, said his employees on average earn more than $50,000, making his firm ineligible for the credits.

Instead of paying for health insurance directly for 2015, Adams said, he will pay Bernard Health to guide his employees through the maze of choices and incentives that now exist for buying health benefits individually. Adams will also contribute what he was paying before for group coverage to subsidize his employees’ insurance purchases.

“It is really taking this responsibility of insurance out of the business owner’s hand and putting it into the individual’s,” he said. “The old system clearly was going down, heading toward a cliff, anyway. I think the simple point of empowering people to take control of their own destiny for health care is a good thing.”•
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Mr. Levin says that the BMV engaged in misconduct--that the BMV (or, rather, someone in the BMV) knew Indiana motorists were being overcharged fees but did nothing to correct the situation. Such misconduct, whether engaged in by one individual or by a group, is called theft (defined as knowingly or intentionally exerting unauthorized control over the property of another person with the intent to deprive the other person of the property's value or use). Theft is a crime in Indiana (as it still is in most of the civilized world). One wonders, then, why there have been no criminal prosecutions of BMV officials for this theft? Government misconduct doesn't occur in a vacuum. An individual who works for or oversees a government agency is responsible for the misconduct. In this instance, somebody (or somebodies) with the BMV, at some time, knew Indiana motorists were being overcharged. What's more, this person (or these people), even after having the error of their ways pointed out to them, did nothing to fix the problem. Instead, the overcharges continued. Thus, the taxpayers of Indiana are also on the hook for the millions of dollars in attorneys fees (for both sides; the BMV didn't see fit to avail itself of the services of a lawyer employed by the state government) that had to be spent in order to finally convince the BMV that stealing money from Indiana motorists was a bad thing. Given that the BMV official(s) responsible for this crime continued their misconduct, covered it up, and never did anything until the agency reached an agreeable settlement, it seems the statute of limitations for prosecuting these folks has not yet run. I hope our Attorney General is paying attention to this fiasco and is seriously considering prosecution. Indiana, the state that works . . . for thieves.

  2. I'm glad that attorney Carl Hayes, who represented the BMV in this case, is able to say that his client "is pleased to have resolved the issue". Everyone makes mistakes, even bureaucratic behemoths like Indiana's BMV. So to some extent we need to be forgiving of such mistakes. But when those mistakes are going to cost Indiana taxpayers millions of dollars to rectify (because neither plaintiff's counsel nor Mr. Hayes gave freely of their services, and the BMV, being a state-funded agency, relies on taxpayer dollars to pay these attorneys their fees), the agency doesn't have a right to feel "pleased to have resolved the issue". One is left wondering why the BMV feels so pleased with this resolution? The magnitude of the agency's overcharges might suggest to some that, perhaps, these errors were more than mere oversight. Could this be why the agency is so "pleased" with this resolution? Will Indiana motorists ever be assured that the culture of incompetence (if not worse) that the BMV seems to have fostered is no longer the status quo? Or will even more "overcharges" and lawsuits result? It's fairly obvious who is really "pleased to have resolved the issue", and it's not Indiana's taxpayers who are on the hook for the legal fees generated in these cases.

  3. From the article's fourth paragraph: "Her work underscores the blurry lines in Russia between the government and businesses . . ." Obviously, the author of this piece doesn't pay much attention to the "blurry lines" between government and businesses that exist in the United States. And I'm not talking only about Trump's alleged conflicts of interest. When lobbyists for major industries (pharmaceutical, petroleum, insurance, etc) have greater access to this country's elected representatives than do everyday individuals (i.e., voters), then I would say that the lines between government and business in the United States are just as blurry, if not more so, than in Russia.

  4. For some strange reason this story, like many on this ezine that question the powerful, seems to have been released in two formats. Prior format here: http://www.theindianalawyer.com/nominees-selected-for-us-attorney-in-indiana/PARAMS/article/44263 That observed, I must note that it is quite refreshing that denizens of the great unwashed (like me) can be allowed to openly question powerful elitists at ICE MILLER who are on the public dole like Selby. Kudos to those at this ezine who understand that they cannot be mere lapdogs to the powerful and corrupt, lest freedom bleed out. If you wonder why the Senator resisted Selby, consider reading the comments here for a theory: http://www.theindianalawyer.com/nominees-selected-for-us-attorney-in-indiana/PARAMS/article/44263

  5. Why is it a crisis that people want to protect their rights themselves? The courts have a huge bias against people appearing on their own behalf and these judges and lawyers will face their maker one day and answer for their actions.

ADVERTISEMENT