03 Jul White House To Delay Employer Mandate Until 2015
Originally published by Avik Roy on http://www.forbes.com
The Obama administration has decided to delay the implementation of the employer mandate—the requirement that all firms with 50 or more employees offer health coverage, or pay steep fines—until 2015. The mandate was supposed to go into effect on January 1, 2014. This development will have a significant impact on the rollout of the PPACA, the private health insurance market, and the nation’s economy, as I detail below.
The news was first reported by Mike Dorning and Alex Wayne of Bloomberg this afternoon. The ruling, they say, “will come in regulatory guidance to be issued later this week. It addresses vehement complaints from employer groups about the administrative burden of reporting requirements, though it may also affect coverage provided to some workers.”
“First,” wrote Treasury official Mark Mazur in a statement, the delay “will allow us to consider ways to simplify the new reporting requirements consistent with the law. Second, it will provide time to adapt health coverage and reporting systems while employers are moving toward making health coverage affordable and accessible for their employees.” (Mazur’s full statement is appended to the end of this article.)
Will more employers dump coverage if the mandate is delayed?
As a matter of background, Section 1513/4890H of the Affordable Care Act requires that all firms with more than 50 full-time-equivalent employees—defined as 120 hours per month—offer government-certified health coverage to their workers, or pay a steep fine. For more details on how the mandate works, and how it incentivizes firms to offer “unaffordable” coverage to their workers, read mypiece on the topic from May 21.
In the short term, the delay will have several effects. First, the mandate drives up the cost of labor, and therefore increases unemployment; delaying the mandate by one year may modestly mitigate that disincentive.
Most importantly, the delay of the mandate means that more people will want to enroll in subsidized insurance exchanges. Every year, fewer and fewer employers offer health coverage; given one more year to restructure their workforces, this process could accelerate.
There’s been a lot of debate as to whether or not the PPACA incentivizes employers to drop coverage for their employees. A 2011 survey of employers by McKinsey & Co. found that 30 percent of employers “definitely or probably” would stop offering coverage after 2014; among those who felt that they had the most knowledge of the law’s inner workings, that number rose to 50 percent.
However, the Congressional Budget Office, in a 2012 report, argued that employers do not have a large incentive to dump workers’ coverage. And even if employers dropped coverage for an additional 20 million workers relative to the CBO’s projections, the deficit would not increase, says the CBO, because the subsidies paid to low-income workers would be offset by an increase in tax revenue from lower utilization of the tax exclusion for employer-sponsored insurance.
In general, it would appear that with the rollout of PPACA exchanges in 2014, paired with a delay of the employer mandate until 2015, many more people may enroll in the exchanges. This is both good and bad: good, because it’s a good thing for people to buy insurance on their own, rather than having it bought on their behalf by someone else with their money; bad, because the exchanges are proving to be quite costly, though comparable in cost to premiums in the employer-sponsored market today.
Does Obama have the legal authority to delay the mandate?
The Affordable Care Act is quite clear as to the effective date of the employer mandate. “The amendments made by this section shall apply to months beginning after December 31, 2013,” concludes Section 1513.
The executive branch is charged with enforcing the law, and it can of course choose not to enforce the law if it wants. But people can sue the federal government, and a judge could theoretically force the administration to enforce the mandate.
So the question is: Would anyone sue the Obama administration over this? Employers, of course, will be thrilled to be spared the mandate for one more year. Democratic politicians, similarly, will be glad to have this not hanging over their heads for the 2014 mid-term election.
The wild-card is left-wing activists. Most, you’d think, would defer to the administration on questions of implementation. I’m no lawyer, but it seems to me that all it would take is for one judge to issue an injunction, for an activist to require the administration to enforce the mandate.
The employer mandate is bad policy and should be eliminated. But the unilateral way the WH is doing it isn’t good.
— Ezra Klein (@ezraklein) July 2, 2013
Delay could help to unravel the employer-sponsored insurance market
Health wonks of every persuasion, myself included, have long argued that the original sin of the U.S. health-care system is the quirk in the tax code that incentivizes people to get health coverage through their employers, instead of shopping for it on their own.
If you like the PPACA, and you want it to work, you don’t need the employer mandate. Democrats put the employer mandate in the Affordable Care Act because the President was worried that, without a mandate, employers would dump coverage, violating his oft-repeated promise that “if you like your plan, you can keep it.” Before Mitt Romney signed Massachusetts’ health-reform bill into law, he vetoed that state’s employer mandate. The heavily Democratic legislature overrode his veto.
Even if the Obama administration’s delay lasts for only one year, that delay will give firms time to restructure their businesses to avoid offering costly coverage, leading to an expansion of the individual insurance market and a shrinkage of the employer-sponsored market. Remember that the administration is not delaying the individual mandate, which requires most Americans to buy health coverage or face a fine.
But delaying the employer mandate could lead, ultimately, to its repeal, which would do much to transition our insurance market from an employer-sponsored one to an individually-purchased one. Indeed, earlier this year, a bill to do just that was introduced by Rep. Charles Boustany (R., La.) and Sen. Orrin Hatch (R., Utah). If the employer mandate were to ultimately be repealed, or never implemented, today’s news may turn out to be one of the most significant developments in health care policy in recent memory.