×

How to Comment:

Tap the quote mark to comment on articles.

Mercer

I was interested to read about a Harris poll on millennials’ savings priorities. The good news is that they are saving – in fact, they are saving more than their Gen X counterparts. The not-so-good news is that they have a lot of priorities that come before saving for retirement – and they’re hoping to retire, on average, at a youthful age 62! Just another nudge for employers to step up communications encouraging optimal use of all the employer-sponsored benefits and provide tools to support effective financial planning. We’re not talking about adding new benefits – just better packaging and communications for higher employee engagement and appreciation.

Helpful
Not Helpful

Offerings of HSA-eligible high-deductible health plans have more than doubled in the past five years. Our 2016 National Survey of Employer-Sponsored Health Plans found that more than half of large employers (53%) now provide this type of plan to their employees, and nearly a quarter of employees (24%) are enrolled. At the same time, there has also been steady growth in offerings of onsite and near-site medical clinics, especially among the largest employers: About a third of employers with 5,000 or more employees provide a clinic for primary care services. An onsite clinic offers the maximum opportunity for control over quality, and more than half of the clinic sponsors in another Mercer survey said that their clinic is integrated with their population health efforts.

Helpful
Not Helpful
Expand Story

The stalled House ACA repeal and replace effort means the next crucial decision about the ACA’s future will probably be made by the White House. Following the canceled vote on the American Health Care Act (AHCA), the immediate concern on the health reform front is whether President Trump is serious about his threat to let the ACA “explode” – to use his term.

Helpful
Not Helpful
Expand Story

Click here to see the full infographic

 

We’ve been tracking the growth of consumer-directed health plans in our national survey for years.  Now policymakers in Washington are signaling interest in liberalizing health savings account rules, intensifying the focus on high-deductible plans that would be eligible for an HSA. While the majority of large employers already offer CDHPs – among the largest they are nearly ubiquitous – most often they are offered as a choice, not as the only medical plan. Building enrollment in a CDHP offered as a choice has proven to be challenging, but it can be done. In this infographic, we present survey findings that should be of interest both to employers thinking about a full replacement strategy and to those committed to offering a CDHP as a choice but looking to encourage more employees who could benefit to make the move. 

 

 

Helpful
Not Helpful
Expand Story

Just a few days after the dramatic collapse of efforts to pass the House GOP’s American Health Care Act, more than 1,300 folks with an interest in employer-sponsored health benefits joined a Mercer webcast* to learn a) what the heck just happened, b) now what, and c) what does this mean for employer health benefits? A team from our Washington Resource Group aced the first question and gave as good a look into the future as possible without a crystal ball. 

Helpful
Not Helpful
Expand Story

After their failed attempt to pass ACA repeal and replace legislation, President Trump and House Speaker Ryan indicated that they were “moving on” to other legislative priorities. On Tuesday, we learned that Republicans have restarted their conversations about healthcare. On Wednesday, Bloomberg reported the GOP was discussing a new vote as early as next week.

Helpful
Not Helpful
Expand Story

A couple of weeks ago (feels like ages) we launched a brief survey to find out where employers stood on specific provisions in the House GOP repeal-and replace-bill, the American Health Care Act (AHCA). We closed the survey on Thursday with more than 900 responses.  As I was reviewing the results on Friday, the bill was apparently dying -- but now House leaders and President Trump are signaling that it may be revived. Either way, the health reform debate is far from over, and many of the provisions introduced in the AHCA will likely remain part of the discussion.

 

The survey asked health benefit professionals how key provisions would affect their organization’s health benefit program, employees, and business success -- as opposed to how they might affect the individual market or people without access to employer-sponsored health insurance. They could also respond that the provision would not affect their organization one way or the other. 

 

HSA changes, repeal of employer mandate seen as positive

We didn’t ask for an overall opinion of the bill, but employers’ reactions to individual provisions added up to a less-than-ringing endorsement. To start with what they liked: 66% said that liberalizing HSA rules -- such as allowing higher contributions -- would have a positive effect on their organizations. That’s in the ballpark of the percentage of large employers nationally that offer HSA-eligible plans (53% in 2016). If you don’t offer an HSA-eligible plan and don’t intend to, or if you do offer one but none of your employees are likely to hit the maximum account contribution, you might not believe this provision would have much of an impact, like 29% of our respondents. 

Helpful
Not Helpful
Expand Story

Last week Republican leaders abruptly canceled a House vote on the proposed American Health Care Act (AHCA) because it was clear that it wouldn’t pass. At a March 24 press conference, Speaker Paul Ryan, R-WI, said that the party will now "move on" to tax reform and other policy priorities.

Helpful
Not Helpful
Expand Story

One possible fix for the public exchanges? Repeal the ACA provision expanding dependent coverage.  Allowing young adults up to age 26 to be covered under their parents’ plans has been one of the law’s most popular provisions, especially since it went into effect at a time when many young people were struggling to find full-time work in the wake of the recession. But it also took these same people out of the potential pool of enrollees when the exchanges opened in 2013. While many factors have contributed to premium spikes in exchange coverage in some states, one quoted across the board has been that fewer young people than expected signed up for coverage. Had young adults not been able get coverage through their parents’ plans, it’s possible a portion of them would have signed up for exchange coverage. And having these younger, and generally healthier (i.e., lower risk) individuals in the pool might have helped to keep the premiums down. 

 

Leading up to Thursday’s vote in the House on the AHCA, the GOP’s repeal and replace bill, lowering the dependent eligibility age to 23 was on the list of possible amendments but then withdrawn. As acknowledged in thisPolitico article, repealing the provision would be political suicide for anyone that proposes it; people don’t react well to losing a benefit they’ve gotten used to having. Yet the upsides for removing this provision are, in principle, aligned with GOP repeal and replace goals, namely, removing additional costs imposed through the ACA and helping to stabilize the individual market.

 

One approach might be to phase out this provision, or grandfather individuals born before a certain date, so that families have time to prepare and plan for alternative coverage for their older children. Of course, this only works if there’s an affordable health care option for these young adults on the exchanges. If the current subsidies are reduced to the levels proposed under the AHCA (an individual under 30 would only receive $2,000 towards health coverage per year regardless of income or location beginning in 2020), then leaving these individuals to the mercy of the individual market may not be wise; it could create a “black hole” of coverage from age 26 perhaps until the age when people are starting their families and see an absolute need for care.  So while employers as well as the individual market could benefit from a rollback of this provision, adequate subsidies on the exchanges would need to be in place to help these individuals purchase and maintain continuous coverage.

Helpful
Not Helpful
Expand Story

Before the ACA, many self-employed individuals found it challenging to find a health plan on the individual market that met their needs, let alone to pay for it. Post ACA, the ability to obtain affordable coverage not tied to an employer has givenentrepreneurs in the growing ‘gig’ economy the flexibility to pursue their goals without having to worry about maintaining health coverage.  These days may be coming to an end if the new GOP health care bill passes, however.  Under theAmerican Health Care Act or AHCA, subsidies are dependent on age, as opposed to income (like under the ACA), and are not adjusted for geography, even though health costs vary widely depending on where you live.  This could mean big changes in the amount of assistance an individual would receive under the AHCA compared to under the ACA.  As cited in the article, a 40 year-old in San Francisco making $30,000 a year would receive $800 less a year under the new plan, and a 40 year-old living in Santa Cruz County, CA would see a $2,490 less per year -- potentially putting coverage out of reach. 

 

A study published by the McKinsey Global Institute estimates that U.S. has between 54 million and 68 million ‘independent workers’, with some working independently full-time and others using independent/freelance work to supplement their primary income. With the proposed changes under the AHCA, some individuals may try to seek traditional employment for the purpose of healthcare coverage, or they may just choose to go without coverage completely. While critics of ACA subsidies have said they discourage people from seeking employment or advancing their careers since an increase in income would result in a decrease in subsidies, this new plan could have the same discouraging impact on the next generation of entrepreneurs.  

Helpful
Not Helpful
Expand Story

Today is the seven-year anniversary of the signing of the ACA, and we spent it with our eyes glued on the House, waiting for a vote to repeal the law. It looks like the vote is delayed, so too soon to call if it’s lucky number seven for the Republicans or the Democrats. 

 

 

Helpful
Not Helpful
Expand Story

Despite last week’s cold snap, the bloom of cherry blossoms along Washington DC’s Tidal Basin is now under way – a peaceful sight that belies this stormy moment in Congress, where new healthcare legislation is being debated and the headlines seem to shift from moment to moment. However, one thing is for sure: any legislation affecting the US healthcare system must consider the impact on employer-sponsored health insurance – the source of coverage for 177 million Americans, 16 times the number enrolled in public exchanges.

 

That’s why the leadership of MMC companies Mercer and Oliver Wyman created a health policy group to help formulate MMC’s views on ACA repeal-and-replace legislation. Our efforts led to the issue of a policy paper that showcased original Mercer research on changing the tax treatment of employer-sponsored coverage.  

 

Last month, we took this research to the US House of Representatives to meet with policymakers actively working on the newly proposed American Health Care Act, or AHCA. We demonstrated that the excise tax on high-cost plans, currently law under the ACA, is not an effective method of penalizing rich “Cadillac” plans because plan design is only one factor affecting plan cost and often less important than location and employee demographics. 

 

This would also be true of a cap on the employee individual tax exclusion for employer-provided health benefits, a provision included in an early draft of the AHCA and favored by powerful voices such as House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI), House Ways and Means Chair Kevin Brady (R-TX) and new HHS head Tom Price. Mercer had also modeled the impact such a cap would have on the effective tax rates of Americans based on their income. The hardest hit, by far, would be lower-paid workers with families. Some staffers faced with this information for the first time were visibly struck.

 

When the bill was released for mark-up, the cap on the exclusion was not included, and the Cadillac tax was delayed until 2025 (and possibly 2026). But while we were pleased with this outcome, we also knew the bill was a long way from becoming law and the cap could easily resurface.  

Helpful
Not Helpful
Expand Story

In an effort to garner more support for their ACA repeal legislation, House Republican leaders revealed changes to the legislation on Monday night pending the Rules Committee vote before going to the House for their vote. Of greatest interest to employer plan sponsors is the delay in the Cadillac Tax from 2025 to 2026. The bill’s amendment repeals some of the other ACA taxes retroactively to the beginning of 2017 instead of 2018 as originally proposed. Other changes include additional funding to increase tax credits for older Americans and some Medicaid revisions.

 

In light of the changes, the House Freedom Caucus has indicated they won’t oppose the legislation, but they may still have enough “no” votes to kill the bill. President Trump went to the Hill on Tuesday to help the House Leaders secure support for the bill. In the meantime, the CBO is analyzing the changes and is expected to issue a new CBO score before Thursday’s House vote. The Brookings Institution doesn’t expect a meaningful improvement in the score.

 

Helpful
Not Helpful
Expand Story
Load More