ObamaCare and Employers

|

Yesterday I looked at how the 2010 health care law might discourage employers from hiring. Today, Scott Gottlieb of The American Enterprise Institute notes a new report on how ObamaCare will affect employers. The Willis Group surveyed over 2,300 employers about what they expect from the law. The group ffound that a lot of employers are taking a wait and see approach, and are still uncertain about how the law will affect them. But there are already some signals of how the law will affect businesses. Gottlieb picked out a few key points:

– Employers report that their healthcare costs have increased by about 2-5%—mainly due to new mandates in the new health law such as requirements that young adults can continue coverage under their parents' policies, first dollar coverage of routine services, and the removal of annual lifetime limits for "essential health benefits."

– More than half of the employer respondents expect to pass on these ACA-endowed rising costs to employees.

– Moreover, fewer than 30% of employers say they were able to maintain grandfathered status of their healthcare plans. This rapid loss of grandfathered status far outpaces Obamacare's original estimates of what would happen. The preamble to the June 2010 regulations noted that by the end of 2011, the Obama administration expected 78% of employers would retain grandfathered status. By the end of 2012, they forecast that 62% would still be grandfathered, and by the end of 2013, 49% would retain their grandfathered status.

The new report states: "The accelerated loss of grandfathered status suggests that employers have had to make many plan changes to offset cost increases, and perhaps employers have been more willing to give up grandfathered status in order to take other steps to control costs."

NEXT: Wind Energy Tax Credits Defeated in Senate

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Make employees more expensive and fewer of them will be hired. It’s really that simple, and without question why unemployment is lingering.

    1. Don’t worry, this will all be solved with the coming Minimum Employment Act. Minimum employment will be set at 2,000 workers per employer and unemployment will plummet, you’ll see.

      1. That doesn’t happen until Obama’s 3rd term, though.

        1. I thought we just drop the pretenses of terms and annoint him furor forever.

  2. This rapid loss of grandfathered status far outpaces Obamacare’s original estimates of what would happen.
    ————————
    who could have guessed this?

    1. Serious question: has anything ever turned out better than the Obama administration predicted it would?

    2. What we’ve seen is very broad interpretation of the kinds of changes that will cost you your grandfathered status.

      Once the administration got their bill through, they had no interest at all in letting people stay grandfathered.

  3. “The group ffound that a lot of employers are taking a wait and see approach, and are still uncertain about how the law will affect them.”

    Didn’t see a number on this set in the link, but I’d be amazed if it was small.
    Who hires someone without knowledge of that that hire costs?

    1. [raises hand sheepishly]

  4. More than half of the employer respondents expect to pass on these ACA-endowed rising costs to employees.

    The rest will pass them on to customers… and then eventually employees.

  5. I suspect Obamacare will prove to be the most destructive legislation passed in American history. When that begins to be more and more apparent the left will start screeching about the use of the name ‘Obamacare’ and insist it be called the Patient Affordable Care Act, and, by some tortured logic, blame it on the republicans.

    Obamacare, they own it, lock stock and barrel. They should wear the stinker with pride. Speaking of stinkers, where is Tony to defend team blue on this?

    1. Let’s not even hypothesize about such horrors — instead, let’s hope it gets repealed completely, and that a subsequent supermajority-Republican government suddenly also becomes supermajority-moral and starts a witch hunt against any and every politician who ever espoused support for Obamacare.

    2. “…[T]he left will start screeching about the use of the name ‘Obamacare’ and insist it be called the Patient Affordable Care Act…”

      That’s been happening for years.

    3. The Left already has the tried and true excuse that anytime their legislation fails it’s because they didn’t go far enough. As a bonus, they’ll just blame Republican obstructionists for not giving Obama carte blanche to do what he wanted to ‘fix’ healthcare.

      The exact same excuse was used for the stimulus.

      1. Masturbatin’ Pete’s First Law of Regulation:

        “All problems in a regulated industry will be successfully blamed on those portions that remain unregulated.”

    4. …the left will start screeching about the use of the name ‘Obamacare’ and insist it be called the Patient Affordable Care Act…

      My girlfriend’s cousin actually got pissed about Social Security being referred to as an entitlement. His argument went something like, “I’ve been paying into it all my life and deserve every penny of it, so how dare they call it an entitlement?” I swear, sometimes it seems like the terms “left-leaning” and “borderline-retarded” are completely interchangeable.

      1. It sounds like she believes in property rights because if you worked for something and paid into it then you are entitled to it. Now why don’t they convert that to the private sphere of our lives?

  6. I’m sure Doherty will have a thread on this later, but Frothy won Alabama while Mississippi is a toss up between Santorum, Gingrich, and Romney. Regardless, this is the end for Gingrich while good news for Romney who was competitive in both races.

    And Ron Paul is hoping to win Hawaii.

    1. Best surprise ever would be if Paul carried the next 20 states or something. That would be colossally full of win.

      1. I shed tears each time I have to say this, and wish so much I am wrong, but….that aint gonna happen.

        1. Seriously, can’t we set the bar at winning one state first and the going on from there?

    2. I don’t see how Gingrich losing one state by a percentage point and the other by five, and coming in second in both, means it’s over for him. Don’t let the media guide your expectations too much. They’ve made so many wrong predictions this nomination season, it’s laughable.

      1. It’s over for him because he has no path to the nomination. He’s far enough behind Romney and Santy in the delegate count that he can’t hope to secure enough delegates to win the nomination even if he runs the table in the remaining primaries.

        And if there’s a brokered convention, he’s not going to win that, either. So he can either muddle along and play spoiler, or he can get out now.

        1. Couldn’t he use the delegates he has and those he picks up going forward to trade for a VP slot/cabinet post.

          1. So, Gingrich is just playing to level up at some point?

  7. Start drinkin your coconut water now, gotta be hydrated for St Paddy’s day

  8. “This rapid loss of grandfathered status far outpaces Obamacare’s original estimates of what would happen.”
    It may be true it outpaces some estimate but what is definitely true is that they don’t give a damn that their estimate was off. These are self righteous people playing games with people’s lives which is an act of evil. Incompetence is not an excuse.

  9. “Incompetence is not an excuse.”

    Well, according to that hag ‘we’ll know what’s in it after we pass it’, it certainly is. Not to mention ‘good intentions’!
    Hey, most politicos run on a platform of ‘we have good intentions’ and a lot win on that.
    Ignoring their incompetence.

  10. Gotta just love our bought and paid for politicians. I mean like seriously. This is just way too cool.

    http://www.World-Anon.tk

  11. I would love to see an analysis of the following:

    (1) The cost per employee of the regulations and laws that Obama has imposed.

    (2) The number of jobs that are lost per $X of increased cost per employee.

    Veronique? This sounds like one for you.

  12. It is a shame that you cannot state the findings of the Willis study correctly but instead slant them to support your anti ACA opinion.

    Employer costs have been rising for well over a decade and employers have been changing benefits and cost sharing with employees long before the ACA passed, which we all know occurred during the current recession. The recession put even more pressure on employers to make changes to cut costs as premiums have continued to rise.

    The study makes it clear that the need to continue with cost reduction measures outweighs maintaining a plan design from 2 years ago in order to maintain grandfather status, which frankly is not that big a deal.

    We can disagree on the law but these continued misrepresentations only confuse the core issues.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.