When the "employer mandate" under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) becomes effective on January 1, 2015, employers who have 50 or more employees will be required to offer health insurance coverage to their workers, or pay a penalty if they do not do so. Some employers have been quietly considering the potential use of plans covering only limited benefits to comply with the employer mandate.
It is not universally recognized that in the ACA, the definition
of "minimum essential coverage" ("MEC"), which
large employers must provide to their employees, does not align
with the definition of "essential health benefits" which
individuals' plans must cover. Under the law and regulations as
currently written, MEC need not be as comprehensive as the array of
"essential benefits" that will be required in plans sold
directly to small businesses and individuals. While it is clear
that the definition of MEC does not include coverage providing only
non-medical benefits, such as coverage only for vision care or
dental care, all "employer-sponsored coverage" (including
COBRA coverage and retiree coverage) that provides broad health
benefits will generally meet the MEC requirement.
This creates the possibility that an employer might be able to
comply with the employer mandate by offering a "skinny"
health plan that covers only preventive care. Since it is
anticipated that many employees in that scenario would want
additional basic coverage, a low-cost limited medical benefit plan
that is not intended to comply with the ACA could be offered as a
supplement. An employer that implements this strategy would not be
subject to the penalty for not providing insurance to its
employees; however, another type of per-employee penalty could be
imposed on the employer if its low-earning employees were to opt
out of the employer-provided coverage and seek subsidized, more
comprehensive policies in the state healthcare
"marketplaces," or exchanges.
It should be noted, however, that the potential use of "skinny
plans" to meet MEC is a fairly new concept, and it remains
possible that the use of such plans will draw regulatory scrutiny
or be determined to violate other legal requirements. Additionally,
it is possible that the MEC definition may be revised in the future
to line up more precisely with the definition of "essential
health benefits," thereby requiring employers to offer more
robust coverage (or pay the per-employee penalty for not doing
so).
Originally published on the Employer's Law Blog
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.