Friday, May 03, 2013


Yesterday I sent a clarification saying that businesses with less than 50 employees do not have to offer dependent coverage to employees and that this would make them eligible for subsidies. The problem is when I use a $50000 annual household income the cost is the same whether the employer provides coverage for their employees or not. See below.

At $60000 annual household income it goes up to $409 but would go down if covering children only but stays the same if covering just the two adults or two adults with children.

Will this have any bearing on your decision to continuing to provide health insurance for your employees.

From: Micah Weinberg []

Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2013 10:17 AM



Subject: no incentive for employer


The issue that you pointed out is one of the reasons the law states that, at least for businesses over 50, if you are offered dependent coverage those dependents can’t get a subsidy even if the cost of family coverage is unaffordable. If you’re right, there IS no real incentive for the employer to offer coverage to anyone other than higher-wage employees with small families. At the same time, though, it’s going to be difficult to design a system that will be legal, not disadvantage higher wage workers through not offering dependent coverage, and still allow for all of the low to mid-wage employees to go to the Exchange.



Micah Weinberg, PhD
Senior Policy Advisor

1215 K Street, Suite 2220
Sacramento, CA 95814

916-949-6240 (c) 916-706-1277 (o)

Watch this video to see how the Bay Area Council is driving health system transformation toward affordability and better health for Californians.

No comments: