Employers Cutting Health Benefits in Preparation for Obamacare’s “Cadillac” Tax

A report on employer-based insurance could add flame to the fire to repeal the tax.

Mark Wilson AFP/Getty
Caitlin Owens
Add to Briefcase
Caitlin Owens
Sept. 22, 2015, 6:51 p.m.

More than two years away from the im­ple­ment­a­tion of the Af­ford­able Care Act’s “Ca­dillac” tax, 16 per­cent of large em­ploy­ers of­fer­ing health be­ne­fits have changed their be­ne­fit plans or moved to less ex­pens­ive plans to avoid go­ing over the lim­its set by the law, ac­cord­ing to a Kais­er Fam­ily Found­a­tion re­port re­leased Tues­day.

The ma­jor­ity of these changes are not good news for the plans’ users: Al­most two-thirds of those plans have in­creased cost shar­ing, and an­oth­er 10 per­cent re­duced the scope of covered ser­vices. Oth­er ac­tions taken in­clude mov­ing be­ne­fit op­tions to ac­count-based plans (such as health sav­ings ac­counts), in­creas­ing in­cent­ives to use less costly pro­viders, and con­sid­er­ing of­fer­ing health in­sur­ance through a private ex­change. More than half of large em­ploy­ers have ana­lyzed their plans to see if they would hit the threshold.

“Our sur­vey finds most large em­ploy­ers are already plan­ning for the Ca­dillac tax, with some already tak­ing steps to min­im­ize its im­pact in 2018,” said study lead­er and Kais­er Vice Pres­id­ent Gary Clax­ton. “Those changes likely will shift costs to work­ers, but ex­actly how and how much will vary for in­di­vidu­al work­ers.”

The Ca­dillac tax, sched­uled to be im­ple­men­ted in 2018, is a 40 per­cent ex­cise tax on em­ploy­er-provided health be­ne­fits that go over a cer­tain threshold. It was in­cluded in the law as an at­tempt to con­trol health care costs, gen­er­ate rev­en­ue for the Af­ford­able Care Act, and ad­dress the gov­ern­ment rev­en­ue lost by the tax ex­clu­sion of em­ploy­er-provided health care plans.

Over the past couple of months, the tax has been at­tacked by groups on and off Cap­it­ol Hill. A group of un­likely al­lies—ran­ging from uni­ons to an or­gan­iz­a­tion rep­res­ent­ing For­tune 500 com­pan­ies—have dubbed them­selves the Al­li­ance to Fight the 40 and are lob­by­ing against the tax. Two bills, with a total of 243 co­spon­sors between them, have been in­tro­duced in the House re­peal­ing the tax. Sens. Dean Heller and Mar­tin Hein­rich in­tro­duced a sim­il­ar re­peal bill in the Sen­ate last week.

But it’s de­bat­able wheth­er the tax is work­ing dif­fer­ently than Demo­crats had en­vi­sioned while writ­ing the law—or if they en­vi­sioned the res­ults at all—as well as wheth­er Re­pub­lic­ans would do much dif­fer­ently giv­en the chance to cre­ate their own health care plan.

“The hope is that em­ploy­ers and in­surers would find ways to re­duce the cost of cov­er­age without shift­ing cost to work­ers, but the ex­pect­a­tion al­ways was that the like­li­est out­come was to re­duce the gen­er­os­ity of cov­er­age,” said Larry Levitt, seni­or vice pres­id­ent of Kais­er, in an in­ter­view be­fore the re­port was pub­lished. “It was in­ten­ded to be a tax on very gen­er­ous in­sur­ance plans.

“It’s some­what iron­ic that Demo­crats who were be­hind the tax are typ­ic­ally not fans of high-de­duct­ible plans or cut­ting back on work­ers’ in­sur­ance cov­er­age,” he ad­ded.

Op­pon­ents of the tax say that it will im­pact not only ex­pens­ive health care plans, as in­ten­ded, but also mod­est health care plans offered in high-cost loc­a­tions or cov­er­ing groups that use dis­pro­por­tion­ate amounts of health care. A sep­ar­ate Kais­er study found that when the law goes in­to ef­fect, about a quarter of em­ploy­ers of­fer­ing health be­ne­fits could be sub­ject to the tax un­less they change their plans.

The polit­ics of re­peal­ing the tax make ac­tu­ally ac­com­plish­ing it com­plic­ated at best. For Demo­crats, it means sup­port­ing a meas­ure that could be later used by Re­pub­lic­ans to point to the fail­ure of the Af­ford­able Care Act. For Re­pub­lic­ans, it would mean re­form­ing the law they have pledged to re­peal be­fore the tax would even take ef­fect. The Ca­dillac tax is also sim­il­ar to parts of con­ser­vat­ive health care re­form plans.

The de­tails of what, ex­actly, the au­thors of the ACA were hop­ing would come from the tax are un­clear.

“Part of the beauty of the Ca­dillac tax was that no one had to get very spe­cif­ic about what ef­fect it might have,” Levitt said. “It would sort of ma­gic­ally pro­duce rev­en­ues and con­trol the growth in premi­ums, but no one had to make any as­sump­tions about how that might hap­pen.”

The Kais­er re­port, which ex­amined em­ploy­er-sponsored cov­er­age as a whole, also found that single and fam­ily premi­ums rose an av­er­age of 4 per­cent this year, which falls in­to a pat­tern of mod­er­ate growth that has pre­vailed over the past dec­ade. Both the share of work­ers with de­duct­ibles and the size of the de­duct­ibles have sharply in­creased since 2010, caus­ing a 67 per­cent in­crease in de­duct­ibles over the same time frame.

“With de­duct­ibles rising so much faster than premi­ums and wages, it’s no sur­prise that con­sumers have not felt the slow­down in health spend­ing,” said Drew Alt­man, Kais­er’s pres­id­ent and CEO.

What We're Following See More »
Collins, Cruz Appear to Oppose Health Bill
1 hours ago

Republican opposition to the GOP health care bill swelled to near-fatal numbers Sunday as Sen. Susan Collins all but closed the door on supporting the last-ditch effort to scrap the Obama health care law and Sen. Ted Cruz said that "right now" he doesn't back it. White House legislative liaison Marc Short and Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., one of the measure's sponsors, said Republicans would press ahead with a vote this week." Collins said she doesn't support the bill's cuts to Medicaid, while Cruz said it wouldn't do enough to lower premiums.


Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.