September, 29 2009, 11:08am EDT
![Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR)](https://assets.rbl.ms/32012691/origin.png)
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Alan Barber, (202) 293-5380 x115
Reimbursement Roulette: The Baucus Bill's Too Playful Approach to "Play-or-Pay" in Health Care Reform
Analysis by Shawn Fremstad
WASHINGTON
Two of the three leading health care reform proposals being considered by Congress-the House "Tri-Committee" health care reform legislation and the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee's reform legislation-include sensibly designed "play-or-pay" provisions that require employers to pay an assessment if they do not offer insurance to some or all of their employees. The third leading health care reform proposal-the bill proposed by Sen. Max Baucus and currently under consideration by the Senate Finance Committee-also includes a play-or-pay requirement, but it is poorly designed and would be unfair to employers, harmful to employees, and impose wasteful expenses on taxpayers.
Three Big Problems with the Baucus Play-or-Pay Provision 1) Creates a new financial incentive for employers to convert full-time jobs that middle- and working-class families rely on to part-time jobs. 2) Doesn't fairly or accurately target "free-rider" employers. Many of the worst free riders would experience limited or no penalties. 3) Would likely result in a massive increase in costly lawsuits and complaints filed by unsuccessful job applicants and terminated employers with family incomes between 100 and 400 percent of the federal poverty line. |
The Baucus Bill's "Reimbursement Roulette" Approach to Employer Play-or-Pay
The Baucus bill would expand eligibility for Medicaid to all non-elderly individuals and families with incomes below 133 percent of the poverty line. Individuals and families with incomes between 100 and 400 percent of poverty who enroll in health insurance plans offered through a state exchange would be eligible for a new health-insurance tax credit. All individuals would be required to have health insurance.
The two other leading bills include similar expansions of health-insurance assistance, with the important difference that both would make coverage generally more affordable for individuals and families than the Baucus bill. They also include conventional play-or-pay provisions that require employers who do not provide health care to pay an assessment based on either on their payroll (House version) or the total number of employees who are not offered affordable coverage (Senate HELP version).
By contrast, the Baucus bill adopts a more complicated and limited version of play-or-pay. It would require employers with more than 50 employees that do not offer affordable coverage to pay an assessment to the federal government for each full-time employee (defined as more than 30 hours a week) who receives coverage that is subsidized through the individual tax credit created by the legislation. This assessment would not apply to uninsured part-time employees or employees who receive other forms of publicly subsidized coverage, such as Medicaid or the Children's Health Insurance Program.
For each full-time employee enrolled in a state exchange and receiving a tax credit, the employer would be required to pay a flat dollar amount equal to the average tax credit provided to people insured through the state exchanges. The total amount an employer would be required to pay would be capped at $400 multiplied by the total number of employees, including those who do not receive tax credits and/or are covered though Medicaid or other public programs.
Because it seemingly attempts to more closely target the "pay" requirement of play-or-pay on free-rider employers who do not provide health insurance, the provision is sometimes referred to as a "free-rider" penalty. But "reimbursement roulette" would be a more accurate description of the provision's actual effect. Instead of narrowly targeting free-rider employers, the provision will lead to a lottery-like penalty system that is difficult to rationalize. Whether or not an employee is eligible for a subsidy that is subject to the penalty depends both on the income they receive from their employer and the amount of income of other family members. Because employers cannot legally base decisions to hire or fire on the income of other members of a potential hire's family,1 they have only partial control over the precise extent to which they "free ride." Thus, two employers with identical numbers of employees, compensation costs, and profits could end up paying widely different amounts in penalties based on a fact-the income of other members of an employee's family-over which they have no control and may have no knowledge.
A related issue that limits the targeting precision and equity of the Baucus provision is that it excludes employees whose health insurance is subsidized through various other public programs, including those with incomes under 133 percent of the poverty line who receive insurance that is publicly subsidized through Medicaid. Thus, there is no penalty for one major category of free-riding, one that is likely associated with the lowest-paying employers and, often, the largest public subsidization. There is no sound economic basis for this distinction if the purpose is to target free-rider employers.
Targeting Free Riders or Making More Workers Part-Timers?
Another major problem with the Baucus provision has to do with its limitation to uninsured full-time workers. This creates an incentive for employers who want to free ride to increase the hiring of part-time and temporary workers and reduce the hiring of full-time ones.
Research conducted on Hawaii's employer mandate to provide coverage to full-time employees suggests that "employers' primary response to the mandate was increased reliance on the exempt class of workers who are employed for fewer than 20 hours per week."2 Both the Senate HELP and House provisions avoid creating this kind of perverse incentive by applying play-or-pay to all employees.
Targeting Free Riders or Job Creation for Lawyers?
The "reimbursement roulette" provision would likely result in a massive increase in costly discrimination lawsuits and complaints filed by potential job applicants and terminated employees with family incomes below 400 percent of the federal poverty line. This is because Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment practices that have the effect of discriminating against individuals because of their race, color, national origin, religion, or sex, even if the practices are not motivated by any intent to discriminate on the basis of race of other protected categories. Given existing racial, ethnic, and gender disparities in income, there is little question that employers who try to avoid free riding penalties by basing their hiring decisions on the income of family members of a potential employee would violate Title VII.3 Even in cases where employers didn't overtly try to obtain information about spouses or other family members, lawsuits would be inevitable as well as costly and difficult to defend.
Finally, the Baucus provision is considerably less efficient than the other two provisions because it would be much more costly to administer per dollar of revenue realized. As former CBO director Robert Reischauer explains:4
If we're talking about systems in which the employer that doesn't provide health insurance has to pay a set fee of "x" dollars or "y" percent of payroll to the subsidy-granting entity or to the exchange, those are fairly simple kinds of payments to work out and aren't particularly intrusive. When we think of going down to the individual level, which is in effect what the [Baucus] proposal would do, it gets administratively horrendously complex as well as quite intrusive. We're in a situation in which we're trying to have an exchange figure out how much is owed to it for subsidies from hundreds, possibly thousands, of different firms. It has to accurately identify the workers with the firms and differentiate workers who have subsidies from those who don't.
Conclusion
Instead of reimbursement roulette, the Senate Finance bill should adopt a fair and conventional play-or-pay provision. The House bill provides the best alternative. It would require employers who do not offer coverage (and contribute at least 65 percent of the premium cost of family coverage and 72.5 percent of individual coverage) to pay 8 percent of their payroll into a Health Insurance Exchange Trust Fund. The assessment would be reduced for employers with annual payrolls of less than $400,000 ($750,000 in the version of the bill approved by the House Energy and Commerce Committee), and eliminated completely for employers with payrolls below $250,000 ($500,000 in the Energy and Commerce Committee version). As a result, the House would be fair for employers and workers, and not impose wasteful expenses on taxpayers.
End Notes
- See discussion below of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
- Tom Buchmuller, John DiNardo, and Rob Valletta, Employer Health Benefits and Insurance Expansions: Hawaii's Experience, Federal Research Bank of San Francisco, June 29, 2009, https://www.frbsf.org/publications/economics/letter/2009/el2009-21.html.
- Title VII also prohibits decisions to hire based on whether or not someone is a sole income earner in a two-parent family or a single parent, if the decisions have a disparate impact on a protected class.
- Remarks of Robert Reischauer at August 5, 2009 press briefing, quoted in Robert Greenstein and Judith Solomon, "Employer Requirement in Baucus Health Reform Plan Would Pose Larger Problems than Previously Realized," Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, September 16, 2009.
Keep reading...Show less
The Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) was established in 1999 to promote democratic debate on the most important economic and social issues that affect people's lives. In order for citizens to effectively exercise their voices in a democracy, they should be informed about the problems and choices that they face. CEPR is committed to presenting issues in an accurate and understandable manner, so that the public is better prepared to choose among the various policy options.
(202) 293-5380LATEST NEWS
'Tragic Outcome' for Gig Workers as California Supreme Court Hands Win to Uber, DoorDash
"Today's ruling only strengthens our demand for the right to join together in a union so that we can begin improving the gig economy for workers and our customers," the case plaintiff said.
Jul 25, 2024
Labor advocates on Thursday decried a ruling by the California Supreme Court upholding a lower court's affirmation of a state ballot measure allowing app-based ride and delivery companies to classify their drivers as independent contractors, limiting their worker rights.
The court's seven justices ruled unanimously in Castellanos v. State of California that Proposition 22, which was approved by 58% of California voters in 2020, complies with the state constitution. Prop 22—which was overturned in 2021 by an Alameda County Superior Court judge in 2021—was upheld in March 2023 by the state's 1st District Court of Appeals.
The business models of app-based companies including DoorDash, Instacart, Lyft, and Uber rely upon minimizing frontline worker compensation by categorizing drivers as independent contractors instead of employees. Independent contractors are not entitled to unemployment insurance, health insurance, or compensation for business expenses.
There are approximately 1.4 million app-based gig workers in California, according to industry estimates.
While DoorDash hailed Thursday's ruling as "not only a victory for Dashers, but also for democracy itself," gig worker advocates condemned the decision.
"Over the last three years, gig workers across California have experienced firsthand that Prop 22 is nothing more than a bait-and-switch meant to enrich global corporations at the expense of the Black, brown, and immigrant workers who power their earnings," plaintiff Hector Castellanos, who drives for Uber and Lyft, said in a statement.
"Prop 22 has allowed gig companies like Uber, Lyft, and DoorDash to deprive us of a living wage, access to workers compensation, paid sick leave, and meaningful healthcare coverage," Castellanos added. "Today's ruling only strengthens our demand for the right to join together in a union so that we can begin improving the gig economy for workers and our customers."
Lorena Gonzalez, president of the California Federation of Labor Unions, AFL-CIO, said that "we are deeply disappointed that the state Supreme Court has allowed tech corporations to buy their way out of basic labor laws despite Proposition 22's inconsistencies with our state constitution."
"These companies have upended our social contract, forcing workers and the public to take on the inherent risk created by this work, while they profit," she continued. "A.B. 5 granted virtually all California workers the right to be paid for all hours worked, health and safety standards, unemployment insurance, workers compensation, and the right to organize."
"Rideshare and delivery drivers deserve those rights as well," Gonzalez stressed.
The Gig Workers Rising campaign said on social media that "Uber and other app corporations spent $220 million to buy this law, and they did it by tricking Californians."
Prop 22's passage in November 2020 with nearly 59% of the vote was the culmination of what was by far the most expensive ballot measure in California history. App-based companies and their backers outspent labor and progressive groups by more than 10 to 1, with proponents pouring a staggering $204.5 million into the "yes" campaign's coffers against just $19 million for the "no" side.
"Voters were told the initiative would provide us with 'historic new benefits' and guaranteed earnings," said Gig Workers Rising. "But since it went into effect, drivers have seen our pay go down, learned the benefits are a sham, and have to accept unsafe rides because of the constant threat of being 'deactivated,' kicked off the app with little explanation or warning."
"If Uber really cared about good benefits and fair wages, it could make that happen tomorrow," the campaign added. "Instead, it has shown it would rather slash pay, bamboozle voters, and put drivers' lives and livelihoods in danger—all while promising $7 billion in stock buybacks to banks and billionaires."
Veena Dubal, a law professor at the University of California, Irvine who focuses on labor and inequality, toldCalMatters that Thursday's ruling was "a really tragic outcome," but "it's not the end of the road."
Dubal's sentiment was echoed by some California state legislators, who said the ruling presents an opportunity to act.
"While this decision is frustrating, it must also be motivating," said state Senate Labor Committee Chair Lola Smallwood-Cuevas (D-28). "I'm more determined than ever to ensure that all workers—including our diverse and Black, Indigenous, and people of color-led gig workforce—have the basic protections of workers compensation, paid sick leave, family leave, disability insurance, and the right to form a union."
Prop 22 has served as a template for lawmakers in other states seeking to deny or limit basic worker rights, benefits, and protections.
In Massachusetts, app-based companies have been fighting for years to get a measure to classify drivers as contractors on the state ballot. In 2022, Lyft made the largest political donation in state history—$14.4 million—to a coalition funding one such proposal.
Last month, Uber and Lyft reached an agreement with the office of Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Campbell, a Democrat, to pay $175 million to settle a lawsuit filed in 2020. As part of the deal, the companies also agreed to increase driver pay and provide paid sick leave, accident insurance, and some health benefits. The agreement does not address how app-based gig workers should be classified.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Young Voters Tell Kamala Harris to 'Fight for Our Future'
"This is your chance to energize young people and our communities to vote, mount one of the greatest political comebacks in decades, and deliver a resounding defeat to the far-right agenda of Trump and Vance."
Jul 25, 2024
Four youth-led groups on Thursday urged Vice President Kamala Harris, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, to "fight for our future" by pursuing a policy agenda the coalition unveiled in a March letter to U.S. President Joe Biden.
It's been less than a week since Biden left the race and endorsed Harris, who is expected to face former Republican Donald Trump and his running mate, U.S. Sen. JD Vance (R-Ohio), in the November election. Since then, she's racked up endorsements from Democratic members of Congress and progressive groups focused on issues including climate, labor, and reproductive rights.
March for Our Lives, which was launched after the 2018 mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, honored Harris with the group's first-ever endorsement on Wednesday, calling her "the right person to stand up for us and fight for the country we deserve."
"To defeat Trump, you must rebuild support and enthusiasm among young voters."
The gun violence prevention organization is part of the youth-led coalition behind the new letter, which also includes the climate-focused Sunrise Movement; Gen-Z for Change, which advocates on a range of issues; and the national immigrant network United We Dream Action.
"You have an urgent and important task. To defeat Trump, you must rebuild support and enthusiasm among young voters," the coalition told Harris on Thursday, noting that she sought the Democratic nomination during the last cycle. "You should build on your 2020 campaign platform where you put forward a strong vision to make the economy work for everyday people and ensure a livable future for us all."
The groups urged Harris to support the Green New Deal, Medicare for All, and the Reverse Mass Incarceration Act. They pushed her to expand pathways to citizenship, keep families together, end fossil fuel subsidies, and create good, union jobs. They also called on her to prioritize gun violence prevention and investments in public health solutions and green, affordable housing.
"Democrats are at a critical crossroads with young people," the coalition wrote to Harris on Thursday. "Polls showed Biden and Trump neck-and-neck among young voters."
ANew York Times/Siena College poll conducted July 22-24 shows Trump leading Harris 48% to 47% among likely voters and 48% to 46% among registered voters—differences that fall within the margin of error.
Forbesnoted Thursday that "Democrats are far more enthusiastic about Harris than they were Biden, the Times/Siena survey found, with nearly 80% of voters who lean Democrat saying they would like Harris to be the nominee, compared to 48% of Democrats who said the same about Biden three weeks ago."
The outlet also pointed to two other polls conducted by Morning Consult and Reuters/Ipsos since Biden dropped out, which both show Harris with a narrow lead over Trump.
"You have an opportunity to win the youth vote by turning the page and differentiating yourself from Biden policies that are deeply unpopular with us, such as approving new oil and gas projects, denying people their right to seek refuge and asylum, and funding the Israeli government's killing of civilians in Gaza," the youth coalition highlighted Thursday. "You must speak to the economic pain young people are facing from crushing student debt and skyrocketing housing and food prices."
Looking beyond November, the groups told Harris—who could be the first Black woman and person of Asian descent elected to the country's highest office—that "you could be a historic president. Not just because of who you are, but what you can accomplish."
"Young people are energized and ready to organize against fascism and for the future we deserve," they concluded. "This is your chance to energize young people and our communities to vote, mount one of the greatest political comebacks in decades, and deliver a resounding defeat to the far-right agenda of Trump and Vance."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Video Game Actors Strike for AI Protections
"The video game industry generates billions of dollars in profit annually," said one union leader. "The driving force behind that success is the creative people who design and create those games."
Jul 25, 2024
After nearly two years of negotiations with video game giants and no deal that would protect performers from artificial intelligence, unionized voice and motion capture actors who work in video game development announced Thursday that they will go on strike starting at 12:01 am on Friday, July 26.
The performers are represented by Screen Actors Guild-American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (SAG-AFTRA), which last year won a contract for TV and film actors that included "unprecedented provisions for consent and compensation that will protect members from the threat of AI," after the union went on strike for four months.
The union has been negotiating on behalf of video game actors with major production companies including Disney Character Voices Inc., Activision Productions Inc., and WB Games Inc., and has won concessions over wages and job safety—but "AI protections remain the sticking point," said SAG-AFTRA on Thursday as the impending strike was announced.
Unionized actors want protections that would stop video game companies from training AI to replicate actors' voices or likeness without their consent and without compensating them.
"The video game industry generates billions of dollars in profit annually," said Duncan Crabtree-Ireland, national executive director and chief negotiator for SAG-AFTRA. "The driving force behind that success is the creative people who design and create those games. That includes the SAG-AFTRA members who bring memorable and beloved game characters to life, and they deserve and demand the same fundamental protections as performers in film, television, streaming, and music: fair compensation and the right of informed consent for the AI use of their faces, voices, and bodies."
"Frankly, it's stunning that these video game studios haven't learned anything from the lessons of last year—that our members can and will stand up and demand fair and equitable treatment with respect to AI, and the public supports us in that," he added.
Sarah Elmaleh, negotiating committee chair for the union's interactive media agreement, said the negotiations have shown the companies "are not interested in fair, reasonable AI protections, but rather flagrant exploitation."
"We look forward to collaborating with teams on our interim and independent contracts, which provide AI transparency, consent, and compensation to all performers, and to continuing to negotiate in good faith with this bargaining group when they are ready to join us in the world we all deserve," said Elmaleh.
The unionized actors voted in favor of the strike authorization with a 98.32% yes vote, said SAG-AFTRA.
The strike was announced as more than 500 workers who help develop the popular World of Warcraft video game franchise voted to join the Communications Workers of America (CWA), with the games publisher, Blizzard Entertainment, recognizing the bargaining unit.
CWA noted that the workers' journey to union representation began with a walkout in 2021 at Activision Blizzard, which was later bought by Microsoft, over sexual harassment and discrimination.
"What we've accomplished at World of Warcraft is just the beginning," Eric Lanham, a World of Warcraft test analyst, said in a statement. "We know that when workers have a protected voice, it's a win-win for employee standards, the studio, and World of Warcraft fans looking for the best gaming experience."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular