Skip to main content

Home/ ACA for MandM/ Group items tagged hours

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Mal Allison

HEALTH REFORM: Expect Pluses, Minuses for Those With Job-Based Coverage - iVillage - 0 views

  • Beginning in 2014, for instance, the reform package prohibits employer-sponsored health plans from excluding people from coverage based on pre-existing health conditions
  • It also makes larger employers responsible for offering medical coverage. Beginning Jan. 1, 2015, businesses with more than 50 workers must offer health insurance to full-time workers and dependents or pay penalties.
  • annual limits will be banned completely in 2014.
  • ...17 more annotations...
  • Also, if you have an adult child under age 26 and your employer health plan offers coverage for dependents, the plan must allow your son or daughter to enroll. Spiro called th
  • The law also requires most employer health plans to offer certain preventive services at no cost to the employee.
  • Effective Jan. 1, 2014, the law allows employers to boost rewards and penalties (such as premium discounts or surcharges) to 30 percent of the total plan premium, up from 20 percent.
  • ne in five employers has boosted employees' share of health plan premiums,
  • HealthCare Advocates, which helps consumers resolve health insurance problems. "I think at the end of the day, everybody's going to be paying more," he said.
  • e IFEBP survey also estimates that about 16 percent of employers are trimming worker hours to part-time status so fewer employees will qualify for health-plan benefits.
  • Beginning in 2015, large employers -- those with at least 50 full-time workers -- must provide health insurance to employees who log an average of 30 or more hours a week or pay penalties.
  • A study published earlier this year by the University of California, Berkeley Center for Labor Research and Education found that 2.3 million workers nationwide -- particularly retail and restaurant workers -- are at risk of losing hours as a result of the new law.
  • A growing number of midsize and large employers -- 25 percent in 2014 and 44 percent in 2015 -- are also saying they're likely to discontinue health coverage for Medicare-eligible retirees, a new Towers Watson & Co. survey found.
  • Starting in 2018, the law imposes a steep tax on employer plans with premiums exceeding $10,200 for an individual and $27,500 for a family -- plans that are typically offered to high-wage earner
  • About 17 percent of employers are redesigning their high-cost plans to avoid this so-called "Cadillac tax," while 40 percent are considering i
  • The percentage of Americans receiving health insurance on the job or through a family member's job slipped from 69.7 percent in 2000 to 59.5 percent in 2011,
  • Staggering increases in health insurance premiums also contributed to the decline, resulting in fewer employers offering coverage and fewer employees accepting it.
  • Congressional Budget Office estimates suggest that as many as 7 million people will lose job-based coverage by 2017 a
  • But just 26 percent are confident that they will be offering health-care benefits a decade from no
  • r Center, has summarized provisions of the Affordable Care Act affecting employer-sponsored insurance.
  • To read part one of the series, how to navigate the new health insurance exchanges, click here.
  •  
    Experts say smaller companies that employ 50 or more workers and currently provide health insurance may drop coverage because it would be cheaper to pay fines than maintain coverage for all of their workers. Most large employers (with more than 1,000 employees) remain committed to providing health benefits for the next five years, according to an employer survey by Towers Watson/National Business Group on Health. But just 26 percent are confident that they will be offering health-care benefits a decade from now. Meanwhile, a number of large employers are eyeing private health insurance exchanges as a way to continue providing job-based coverage while controlling spending on health benefits. Much like the public exchanges under the Affordable Care Act, private exchanges represent a new way for employees and families to shop for group health coverage and other benefits. Instead of offering a limited number of health plans, the employer would give workers a set amount of money to buy their own coverage. Kaiser, who works in Gallagher Benefit Services' Mount Laurel, N.J., office, anticipates a slow migration toward private exchanges. "I don't think it's going to be a mass disruption of employer-sponsored plans where they all go, 'I'm out of the game,'" he said. More information The University of California, Berkeley Labor Center, has summarized provisions of the Affordable Care Act affecting employer-sponsored insurance.
Mal Allison

Employers: Don t answer employee exchange questions - Articles - Employee Benefit News - 0 views

  • An employee who worked 1,800 hours over the course of the measurement period would average 34.6 hours per week, and would thus be eligible for coverage.  The “administrative period,” which can be up to 90 days, is the period where you enroll these eligible employees. The “stability period,” which has to be at least as long as the measurement period, defines how long they will have coverage.
  • Just remember that, starting in 2015, employees always have to be in a stability period for full compliance. So employers should not wait until October of next year to start planning.  Even though the mandate is delayed, employers still have to prepare.
Mal Allison

'Wildfire' Growth Of Freestanding ERs Raises Concerns About Cost - Kaiser Health News - 0 views

  • Several hospital chains are driving the boom – including HCA Inc., which will open its seventh ER later this year in Florida, and Wake Med Health and Hospitals, which will add its fourth next month in the Raleigh, N.C., metro area. They regard the facilities as a way to expand into new markets, generate admissions to their hospital and reduce crowding at their hospital-based ERs.
  • reater Houston has 150 emergency rooms — twice the number as greater Miami -- even though its population is only slightly bigger, according to a KHN analysis.
  • While the ERs charge insurers double or triple the amount per patient as an urgent care center or doctor's office, patients use them for routine care that could be provided in less costly settings, Ho says. That is the case with standard ERs as well. Yet, insured patients have little incentive to drive past the more expensive, freestanding ERs because their co-payment is only $50 or $100, just modestly more than what it might cost for a visit to an urgent care center or doctor’s office. Their insurers pay the balance generally.
  • ...3 more annotations...
  • The main reason they are more costly than urgent care is that they charge a "facility fee" on top of a fee for the physician's time—just like traditional ERs. The facility fee was originally intended as a way to help hospitals recoup overhead costs
  • In an effort to protect consumers, Texas in 2009 passed a law to license freestanding ERs that are not owned by hospitals. The law requires facilities be open 24 hours, always have doctors on site and give everyone a medical screening regardless of their ability to pay – all requirements that apply to hospital-based ERs. Many of the clinics, though, don’t accept Medicaid or Medicare and the law did not change that.
  • orried that insurers will eventually cut payments to those unaffiliated with hospitals, Emerus has started converting its facilities into "micro hospitals," with a few beds that treat patients such as those needing drug detox or hospice. The company has also recently partnered with Baylor Health System to jointly operate eight such "micro hospitals" in the Dallas area.
  •  
    "You can never have too much care for patients," says Rhonda Sandel, CEO of Texas Emergency Care Center.
Mal Allison

Union Leaders Seek Changes to Affordable Care Act - WSJ.com - 0 views

  • making unionized workers less competitive and potentially causing unionized employers to drop the plans that cover more than 20 million people.
  • To offset the expected rising costs of these "multiemployer" plans, several union groups want their lower-paid members to be able to remain on the plans wh
  • "will shatter not only our hard-earned health benefits, but destroy the foundation of the 40 hour work week that is the backbone of the American middle class," the union officials wrote.
  • ...1 more annotation...
  • Unions argue that several other parts of the health-care law would disadvantage "multiemployer" health plans administered by unions and employers. For instance, the law's lack of penalties for employers with less than 50 employees could force companies to drop insurance in heavily unionized sectors like construction, unions argue. In general, unions say the health plan's impact on multiemployer plans needs to be clarified.
1 - 8 of 8
Showing 20 items per page