Small employers and health benefits: findings from the 2002 small employer health benefits survey

Overall, 19 percent of small employers offering health benefits made changes to their health plan between 2001 and 2002. Sixty-five percent increased deductibles and co-pays; 35 percent switched insurers; 30 percent increased the employee share of the premium; and 29 percent cut back on the scope of benefits. Twenty-six percent increased the scope of benefits offered. Nearly one-quarter of small employers offering health benefits think their firm would change coverage and 3 percent think it would drop coverage if the cost were to increase an additional 5 percent. Most small employers offer sound business reasons for offering health benefits to workers. Many report that it helps with employee recruitment and retention, and increases productivity. More than three-quarters report that offering health benefits is "the right thing to do." Most small employers that do offer health benefits report that it has a positive impact on various aspects of the business, such as recruitment, retention, employee attitude and performance, employee health status, and the overall success of the business. Most small employers that do not offer health benefits tend to think that not offering them has no negative impact on the above aspects of their business or the overall success of the business. However, those not offering benefits are more likely than those offering them to report that most of their employees are high-turnover and stay on the job only a few months. Small employers that offer health benefits tend to be distinctly different from those not offering them. Worker income in firms not offering health benefits tends to be considerably lower than in firms that do offer them. Employers not offering health benefits are more likely than those offering them to have a smaller proportion of full-time employees, and employers that do not offer health benefits have a larger proportion of females, workers under age 30, and minority employees. Of small employers that offer dependent coverage, more than 40 percent report that workers do not take coverage for their dependents because the dependents have coverage from somewhere else, but 35 percent report that employees decline dependent coverage because they cannot afford the premiums. Many small employers that do not offer health benefits are potential purchasers. Eleven percent are either extremely or very likely to start offering health benefits in the next two years, and 22 percent are somewhat likely to start offering health benefits.     

Health insurance portability: COBRA expansions and job mobility

This Issue Brief discusses continuation-of-coverage mandates under the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (COBRA). It provides background information on health insurance portability and job mobility, data on the cost to employers of providing continuation of coverage to former employees, and a summary of empirical research on COBRA's effect on employee benefits and job mobility. COBRA coverage can be considered advantageous for most workers, as it allows continuation of the health insurance policy they had in place at work when they lose or leave a job. Although employees can be required to pay 102 percent of the premium for COBRA coverage, they can usually realize significant savings compared with the cost of purchasing the equivalent insurance policy in the private market. Many employers consider COBRA to be a costly mandate for three reasons. First, premiums collected from COBRA beneficiaries typically do not cover the costs of the health care services rendered. Second, COBRA imposes an additional administrative cost on employers. Third, many employers view the penalties for noncompliance as excessively large. According to a survey conducted by Charles D. Spencer & Associates, of the 10.2 percent of employees and dependents who were eligible for COBRA coverage in 1996, over 28 percent elected it. In addition, average employer claims costs for COBRA beneficiaries amounted to $5,591, compared with $3,332 for active employees in surveyed plans. According to Employee Benefit Research Institute estimates of the Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP), the COBRA population is much older than the general insured population. COBRA beneficiaries also have higher personal income than the general insured population, with this difference being almost entirely due to differences in retirement income. Any attempt to expand COBRA coverage, either through subsidies or by allowing workers to choose from plans with lower premiums, would likely result in increased employer health care costs. As a result, employers may consider various alternatives to reduce, shift, or eliminate the impact of this increased cost. One alternative would be to continue requiring active employees to share in the increased costs through higher employee contributions. A second alternative would be to reduce or eliminate health care benefits for active employees and/or future retirees and their families. A third alternative would be to reduce the size of the work force eligible for health insurance benefits. Finally, employers may pass additional costs on to workers or consumers.     

Issues in mental health care benefits: the costs of mental health parity

This Issue Brief discusses issues in mental health care benefits. It describes the current state of employment-based mental health benefits and discusses studies and issues regarding full mental health parity. It also includes an analysis of the effect of full mental parity on the uninsured population and the effects of the limited mental health parity provision contained in the VA-HUD appropriations bill. The final section discusses the implications of mental health parity for health plans and health insurers. When employers began to provide health insurance benefits to their employees and their families, they extended coverage to include mental health benefits under the same terms as other health care services. Many employers continued to add mental health benefits through the 1970s and early 1980s until cost pressures required employers to re-examine all health care benefits that were offered. They quickly found that, while only a small proportion of the beneficiaries used mental health care services, the costs associated with this care were very high. As a result, employers placed limits on mental health benefits in an attempt to make the insurance risk more manageable. The general strategies employers have used to manage their health care costs are cost sharing, utilization review, managed care, and the packaging of provider services. Employers' cost management strategies may be restricted, however. Five states have mental health parity laws, but three of the states--Rhode Island, Maine, and New Hampshire--apply these laws only to the seriously mentally ill. In addition, 31 states mandate that mental health benefits be provided. However, state mandates apply only to insured plans, not to self-insured employer plans, which are exempt from state regulation of health plans under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). A number of recent studies have examined the effect of mental health parity on health insurance premiums in a "typical" preferred provider organization and on the uninsured. In general, the studies concluded that mental health parity could increase health insurance premiums, decrease health insurance coverage for non-mental health related illnesses, and increase the number of uninsured individuals. All studies of mental health parity, and mandated benefits in general, assume that there is a strong likelihood that increased health benefit costs would be passed along to workers in the form of higher cost sharing for health insurance, lower wage growth, or lower growth in other employee benefits.     

Medicare on life support: will it survive?

This Issue Brief discusses Medicare reform. The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 reduces spending in the Medicare program by $115 billion between 1998 and 2002. Most of the reduction in spending comes from reducing payments to providers, and most of the savings (36 percent) occur in 2002. By 2007, the Part A trust fund is expected to be insolvent, four years before the baby-boom generation reaches the current Medicare eligibility age of 65. Congress is likely to revisit Medicare reform in the near future. A number of reforms received a significant amount of attention during the Medicare reform debate, but were not included in the final legislation. The Senate-passed legislation would have increased the Medicare eligibility age from 65 to 67, imposed means testing on Medicare Part B, and imposed a Part B home health copayment of $5. While these provisions were not included in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, they may be the focal point of future Medicare reform. Many changes to the Medicare program are likely to significantly affect employment-based health plans for both active and retired workers. Raising the Medicare eligibility age would undoubtedly affect both workers and retirees. Unless workers are willing to work until age 67, their likelihood of becoming uninsured would increase. In 1995, 15.8 percent of retirees ages 55-64 were uninsured, compared with 11.5 percent of workers in the same age group. Early retirees might also find themselves unable to afford health insurance in the private market. An Employee Benefit Research Institute/Gallup poll indicates a direct link between the availability of retiree health benefits and a worker's decision to retire early. In 1993, 61 percent of workers reported that they would not retire before becoming eligible for Medicare if their employer did not provide retiree health benefits. If workers responded to an increase in the retirement age by working longer, employment-based health plans would probably experience an increase in costs, because older workers are the most costly to cover. Some employers might respond to an increase in the Medicare eligibility age by dropping coverage altogether. The message for future beneficiaries is becoming very clear: expect less from Medicare at later ages and higher premiums. As was true prior to the enactment of Medicare in 1965, workers will increasingly need to include retiree health insurance as an expected expense as they plan and save for retirement.     

Trends in health insurance coverage

This Issue Brief presents data on trends in health insurance coverage between 1987-1995. In 1995, 70.7 percent of the nonelderly population had private health insurance coverage, compared with 75.9 percent in 1987. During this period, the percentage of the nonelderly population with employment-based health insurance declined from 69.2 percent to 63.8 percent, while the percentage covered by Medicaid program increased from 8.6 percent to 12.5 percent. The percentage of the nonelderly population without any form of health insurance increased from 14.8 percent in 1987 to 17.4 percent, or 40.3 million individuals, in 1995. The percentage of nonelderly Americans with employment-based coverage fell for both individuals with coverage in their own name and those with coverage as dependents. In 1995, 32.7 percent of the nonelderly population had coverage in their own name, compared with 33.8 percent in 1987. Similarly, 31.1 percent of the nonelderly population had employment-based health insurance as dependents in 1995, compared with 35.4 percent in 1987. One of the most important determinants of health insurance coverage is work status and hours of work. While employment-based health insurance received directly from worker's employer decreased between 1987 and 1995 from 66.2 percent of 63.2 percent among full-time workers, the percentage of part-time workers with employment-based health insurance coverage in their own name increased from 17.2 percent to 20.1 percent. The percentage of workers with dependent coverage fell for both full-time and part-time workers, as did the percentage of nonworkers with dependent coverage. Workers in the manufacturing industry are most likely to have employment-based health insurance; they are also the workers most likely to have experienced a decrease in employment-based coverage between 1987 and 1995. In contrast, workers employed in most of the service sectors, experienced an increase in employment-based health insurance, self-employed workers experienced a decrease, and government workers experienced a slight increase. Cost is one of the primary factors contributing to the decline in employment-based health insurance coverage. While health insurance premium cost increases have slowed during the past three years, many health care analysts are predicting an increase in health insurance premiums during the next few years. Inflationary pressure may come from health care providers, health insurers, consumers, and/or policymakers. If inflationary pressure increases health insurance premiums, we are likely to see a continued decline in employment-based health insurance and a subsequent increase in both Medicaid and uninsured populations.     

The retirement system in transition: the 2007 Retirement Confidence Survey

WORKERS SLOW TO SEE OR ADAPT TO A CHANGING U.S. RETIREMENT SYSTEM: The 17th annual wave of the Retirement Confidence Survey (RCS) suggests that American workers may be slow to recognize how the U.S. retirement system is changing, and those who are aware of these changes may not be adapting to them in ways that are likely to secure them a comfortable retirement. HALF OF WORKERS LESS CONFIDENT ABOUT PENSION BENEFITS: The RCS finds pension-plan changes by employers have left nearly half of workers less confident about the benefits they will receive from a traditional pension plan, but that those experiencing a decline in retirement benefits often fail to react constructively. Moreover, although Americans will rely increasingly on 401(k) retirement savings plans and other personal savings and investments to fund their retirement security, data suggest that many may not follow professional investment advice when it is offered to them. MANY WORKERS COUNTING ON BENEFITS THAT WON'T BE THERE: Many workers are counting on employer-provided benefits in retirement that are increasingly unavailable. Only 41 percent of workers indicate they or their spouse currently have a defined benefit pension plan, yet 62 percent say they are expecting to receive income from such a plan in retirement. Likewise, workers are as likely to expect as retirees are to receive retiree health insurance through an employer, even though the number of employers offering this benefit to future retirees is declining. MANY WORKERS UNLIKELY TO HEED INVESTMENT ADVICE EVEN IF THEY GET IT: More than half of workers indicate they would be likely to take advantage of professional investment advice offered by companies that manage employer-sponsored retirement plans. However, two-thirds of these workers say they would probably implement only some of the recommendations they receive and 1 in 10 think they would implement none of them. AMERICANS OVERESTIMATE LONG-TERM CARE COVERAGE: One-quarter of workers and more than one-third of retirees report they have long-term care insurance (separate from health insurance, Medicare, and Medicaid) to help pay for care they might need in a nursing home, assisted living facility, or at home. But only 10 percent of Americans age 65 and older are estimated to have had private long-term care insurance in 2002, suggesting that many are counting on coverage they do not actually have. MOST SAVINGS LEVELS ARE MODEST: Almost half of workers saving for retirement report total savings and investments (not including the value of their primary residence or any defined benefit plans) of less than $25,000. The majority of workers who have not put money aside for retirement have little in savings at all: Seven in 10 of these workers say their assets total less than $10,000. CONTINUED IGNORANCE ABOUT SOCIAL SECURITY COVERAGE: Despite the longstanding increase in the eligibility age for Social Security, only a small minority of workers are aware of the age at which they can receive full retirement benefits from Social Security without a reduction for early retirement.     

Employment-based health benefits: analysis of the April 1993 Current Population Survey

The April 1993 CPS differs from the March 1993 CPS in a number of respects. The April 1993 CPS supplement surveys only workers, whereas the March CPS examines the noncash benefits received by all Americans. The April CPS asks workers about health coverage in the week in which the questions were fielded, whereas the March CPS asks about coverage in the preceding year. In April 1993, there were 112.5 million civilian American workers between the ages of 18 and 64 with jobs. Eighty-two million (73 percent) of them worked for an employer that sponsored a health insurance plan, and 65 million (58 percent of all workers) participated in their employer's health plan. About one-third of workers at firms with fewer than 10 employees had employers who offer health benefits; about one-quarter of all of the workers in these firms participated in their employer's plan. Conversely, 94 percent of workers at firms with more than 1,000 employees had an employer who sponsored health benefits, and over 77 percent of these workers participated in their employer's plan. There are 16.5 million American workers whose employers sponsored health benefits but who did not participate in these benefits. Over one-half of these workers (8.5 million) chose not to be covered. Another 36 percent of these workers (5.9 million) did not participate because they were ineligible or denied coverage. Over 66 percent of the ineligible workers did not participate because they were part-time, contract, or temporary workers. Another 26 percent had not yet completed a probationary period. Among the reasons that those who chose not to participate in their employer's coverage, the vast majority (75 percent) stated they were covered by another health care plan. Twenty-nine percent stated that they chose not to purchase coverage because it was too costly or that they did not need or want the coverage. In 1993, there were 16.7 million workers with no health insurance coverage. The vast majority of these workers (95 percent) were employed by private employers. Sixty-six percent of the workers with no health insurance coverage were self-employed or worked for firms with fewer than 100 employees.     

Defined contribution health benefits

This Issue Brief discusses the emerging issue of "defined contribution" (DC) health benefits. The term "defined contribution" is used to describe a wide variety of approaches to the provision of health benefits, all of which have in common a shift in the responsibility for payment and selection of health care services from employers to employees. DC health benefits often are mentioned in the context of enabling employers to control their outlay for health benefits by avoiding increases in health care costs. DC health benefits may also shift responsibility for choosing a health plan and the associated risks of choosing a plan from employers to employees. There are three primary reasons why some employers currently are considering some sort of DC approach. First, they are once again looking for ways to keep their health care cost increases in line with overall inflation. Second, some employers are concerned that the public "backlash" against managed care will result in new legislation, regulations, and litigation that will further increase their health care costs if they do not distance themselves from health care decisions. Third, employers have modified not only most employee benefit plans, but labor market practices in general, by giving workers more choice, control, and flexibility. DC-type health benefits have existed as cafeteria plans since the 1980s. A cafeteria plan gives each employee the opportunity to determine the allocation of his or her total compensation (within employer-defined limits) among various employee benefits (primarily retirement or health). Most types of DC health benefits currently being discussed could be provided within the existing employment-based health insurance system, with or without the use of cafeteria plans. They could also allow employees to purchase health insurance directly from insurers, or they could drive new technologies and new forms of risk pooling through which health care services are provided and financed. DC health benefits differ from DC retirement plans. Under a DC health plan, employees may face different premiums based on their personal health risk and perhaps other factors such as age and geographic location. Their ability to afford health insurance may depend on how premiums are regulated by the state and how much money their employer provides. In contrast, under a DC retirement plan, employers' contributions are based on the same percentage of income for all employees, but employees are not subject to paying different prices for the same investment.     

The 1999 Small Employer Retirement Survey: building a better mousetrap is not enough

As of 1995, there were 5.3 million small-employer firms (100 or fewer employees) in the United States. These small firms employed 38.0 million individuals, representing 38 percent of all employment. Therefore, low retirement plan coverage among small employers directly affects a sizeable fraction of the national work force. There are a number of reasons why more small employers do not offer retirement plans. Cost and administration-related issues do matter, but for many small employers these take a back seat to other issues. For some, the main driver is the financial reality of running a small business: Their revenue is too uncertain to commit to a plan. For others, the most important reasons for not sponsoring a plan are employee-related, e.g., the workers do not consider retirement savings to be a priority, or the employer's work force has such high turnover that it does not make sense to sponsor a plan. Many nonsponsors are unfamiliar with the different retirement plan types available to them as potential plan sponsors, especially the options created specifically for small employers. For example, most nonsponsors said they have never heard of (36 percent) or are not too familiar with (20 percent) SIMPLE plans for small businesses. Fifteen percent of small employers report that they are very likely to start a plan in the next two years, while 24 percent say this is somewhat likely. Nonsponsors report that the two items most likely to lead to serious consideration of sponsoring a plan are an increase in profits (69 percent) and business tax credits for starting a retirement plan (67 percent). Major drivers of low retirement plan sponsorship among small employers are who they employ and the uncertainty of revenue flows. While issues of administrative cost and burden matter, they are only part of the puzzle. Therefore, the solution is not simply "build it and they will come," by creating simpler and simpler retirement plans geared to small businesses. Rather, it is build it and they will come once the business reaches a certain level of profitability and stability, and once retirement planning and saving are more of a priority for the small employer's workers.     

Flexible benefits, choice, and work force diversity

This Issue Brief evaluates the prevalence of flexible benefits plans and their ability to achieve cost management goals and to meet the needs of diverse employee groups. In addition, it examines flexible benefits plans' current legislative and regulatory status and typical plan design features. Sec. 125 of the Internal Revenue Code allows employers to provide employees with a choice among benefits, including moving otherwise taxable cash compensation to the pre-tax purchase of benefits, without requiring them to include the value of the noncash benefits in their adjusted gross income unless they choose taxable options. Although the percentage of full-time employees in medium and large private establishments who are eligible for cafeteria plans has not increased appreciably, the percentage of employees eligible for freestanding flexible spending accounts (FSAs) nearly tripled between 1988 and 1991. Generally, the proportion of employers sponsoring cafeteria plans or FSAs increases with employer size. Recent surveys show that 27 percent of employers with 1,000 or more employees offered choice-making plans in 1991, 48 percent of firms offered health care FSAs, and 54 percent offered dependent care FSAs, either in conjunction with cafeteria plans or as a stand-alone option. Ten percent of full-time employees in private firms employing 100 or more workers were eligible to participate in cafeteria plans in 1991. Only 5 percent of full-time employees in state and local governments and 1 percent of similar employees in small private establishments were eligible for cafeteria plans in 1990. Recent Bureau of Labor Statistics' surveys show that, among full-time employees, 27 percent in private establishments with 100 or more employees, 28 percent in state and local governments, and 6 percent in small private establishments were eligible to participate in freestanding FSAs. In 1992, 21 percent of eligible employees contributed to a health care FSA, and only 3 percent of eligible employees contributed to a dependent care FSA. Contributions to health care FSAs averaged $651, and those to dependent care FSAs averaged $2,959. National health reform could have a significant impact on these plans if the tax treatment of health benefits is changed. Taxation of health benefits in excess of a standard benefits package would fundamentally reduce the ability to use FSAs.     

Retirement Confidence Survey 2000 including results from the RCS Minority Survey and the Small Employer Retirement Survey

The year 2000 represents the 10th anniversary of the Retirement Confidence Survey (RCS), and the third year for the Minority RCS and Small Employer Retirement Survey (SERS). Key RCS findings over the past 10 years include: The fraction of workers saving for retirement has trended upward, and today 80 percent of households report that they have begun to save. The fraction of workers who have attempted to calculate how much they need to save for retirement has risen noticeably over the past several years. Today, 56 percent of households report that they have attempted the calculation. One-half of workers who have attempted such a calculation report that it has changed their behavior, such as saving more and/or changing where they invest their retirement savings. Workers who have done the calculation appear to be in better shape regarding their retirement finances. Worker confidence in the ability of Social Security to maintain benefit levels bottomed out in 1994 and 1995. Workers today are just as confident as they were in 1992, although the majority remain not confident in Social Security. Regarding overall retirement confidence, Hispanic-Americans tend to be the least confident among the surveyed minority groups that they will have enough money to live comfortably throughout their retirement years. Key SERS findings include: While cost and administrative issues do matter to small employers, they are not the primary reasons for low plan sponsorship rates. Employee-related reasons are most often cited as the most important factor for not offering a retirement plan. Business-related reasons, such as profitability, are also a main decision-driver. It is important to note what small employers without plans do not know about plan sponsorship. Small employers that do sponsor a retirement plan report that offering a plan has a positive impact on both their ability to attract and retain quality employees and the attitude and performance of their employees. The survey results indicate that many small company nonsponsors may not be aware of such potential business benefits from plan sponsorship. In addition, many nonsponsors are unaware of the plan options available to them, in particular the ones created specifically for small employers, such as SIMPLE and SEP retirement plans. Therefore, some small employers may be making a premature decision not to sponsor a plan based on incomplete information.     

Expanding health insurance for children: examining the alternatives

This Issue Brief examines the issue of uninsured children. The budget reconciliation legislation currently under congressional consideration earmarks $16 billion for new initiatives to provide health insurance coverage to approximately 5 million of the 10 million uninsured children during the next five years. Proposals to expand coverage among children include the use of tax credits, subsidies, vouchers, Medicaid program expansion, and expansion of state programs. However, these proposals do not address the decline in employment-based health insurance coverage--the underlying cause of the lack of coverage, to the extent that a cause can be identified. What is worse, some proposals to expand health insurance among children may discourage employers from offering coverage. Between 1987 and 1995, the percentage of children with employment-based health insurance declined from 66.7 percent to 58.6 percent. Despite this trend, the percentage of children without any form of health insurance coverage barely increased. In 1987, 13.1 percent were uninsured, compared with 13.8 percent in 1995. Medicaid program expansions helped to alleviate the effects of the decline in employment-based health insurance coverage among children and the potential increase in the number of uninsured children. Between 1987 and 1995, the percentage of children enrolled in the Medicaid program increased from 15.5 percent to 23.2 percent. Some questions to consider in assessing approaches to improving children's health insurance coverage include the following: If the government intervenes, should it do so through a compulsory mechanism or a voluntary system? Is the employment-based system "worth saving" for children? In other words, are the market interventions necessary to keep this system functioning for children too regulatory, too intrusive, and too cumbersome to be practical? In addition to reforming the employment-based system, what reforms are necessary in order to reach those families who have no coverage through the work place? Which approaches are both efficient and politically acceptable? Employment-based coverage of children will likely continue. The challenge for lawmakers is to find a way to cover more uninsured children without eroding employment-based coverage. Several current legislative proposals attempt to avoid this problem by excluding children who have access to employment-based coverage. Without such a requirement, the opportunity to purchase coverage at a discount would create incentives for some low-income employees to drop dependent/family coverage, which in turn could lead some employers to drop their health plans.     

Questions and answers on health insurance benefit issues

This Issue Brief addresses eight topics in the areas of health insurance and health care costs. Using a question and answer format, the discussion draws largely on EBRI research and the EBRI Databook on Employee Benefits, third edition. In 1993, U.S. expenditures on health care were $884.2 billion, and they are projected to reach $2,173.7 billion by 2005, increasing at a projected average annual rate of 7.8 percent. Health care spending accounted for 13.9 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in 1993 and is projected to reach 17.9 percent of GDP by 2005. Among the factors contributing to the increase in health care costs are the growth in the number of individuals with traditional reimbursement health insurance coverage, the rapid expansion of technology and treatment options, and demographic factors such as the aging of the population. In 1993, employers, both public and private, spent $235.6 billion on group health insurance, accounting for 6.2 percent of total compensation. Group health insurance is the fastest growing component of total compensation, increasing at an average annual rate of 13.7 percent from 1960 to 1993. An increasing number of employees are required to make a cash contribution to their health insurance plan premium. In 1993, 61 percent of full-time employees in medium and large private establishments who participated in an employee only health insurance plan were required to make a contribution to the premium, up from 27 percent in 1979. In 1993, 185.3 million persons under age 65 had health insurance coverage, while 40.9 million people--or about 18.1 percent of the nonelderly population--received neither private health insurance nor publicly financed health coverage. Of those individuals who had health insurance coverage, 60.8 percent, or 137.4 million persons, received their health insurance through an employment-based plan. In 1993, 15.2 percent of the nonelderly population without health insurance coverage were noncitizens. In six states noncitizens represented a higher proportion of the total uninsured population than individuals in the nation as a whole. An increasing number of employers are self-funding their health insurance plans. In 1994, 74 percent of employers with 500 or more employees self-funded their health insurance plans, up from 63 percent in 1993. An estimated 22 million full-time employees in private industry and state and local governments participated in a self-funded employment-based health insurance plan.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)     

Employment-based health benefits: who is offered coverage vs. who takes it

This Issue Brief provides data on employment-based health insurance, with a discussion of recent trends and how sponsorship rates, offer rates, coverage rates, and take-up rates vary for different workers. Other sections examine reasons why workers do not participate in employment-based health plans, alternative sources of health insurance, and uninsured workers. In 1997, 83 percent of the 108.1 million wage and salary workers in the United States were employed by a firm that sponsored a health plan. Of those workers, 75 percent were offered coverage, and 62 percent (or 67.5 million workers) were covered by that plan. Of those workers who worked for an employer that offered them a health plan, 83 percent participated in the plan. Sponsorship rates have barely changed in the last 11 years. In 1988, 83 percent of wage and salary workers reported that their employer sponsored a health plan. This declined slightly to 82 percent in 1993 but had increased to 83 percent by 1997. Offer rates significantly changed between 1988 and 1997. In 1988, 82 percent of workers reported that they were eligible for health insurance through their employer. By 1993, the percentage of eligible workers declined to 74 percent, and it has only slightly increased since then to 75 percent in 1997. In 1997, 40.6 million American workers did not have health insurance through their own job. Forty-five percent of the workers without coverage were employed at a firm where the employer did not provide health insurance to any workers. Thirty-three percent of the workers without coverage were offered coverage but declined it. Twenty-two percent of the workers without coverage were employed in a firm that offered health insurance to some of its workers, but certain workers were not eligible for the health plan. The 13.7 million workers who were offered coverage but declined it gave a number of reasons for doing so. In the majority of cases (61 percent), the worker was covered by another health plan. Of the remainder, 20 percent reported that health insurance was just too costly. Overall, 41 percent of the 40.6 million workers who were not participating in an employment-based health plan through their own employer had coverage through a spouse. However, 42 percent of the 40.6 million workers who declined their employers' health plan or who were not offered health insurance from their employer were uninsured.     

Sources of health insurance and characteristics of the uninsured. Analysis of the March 1992 Current Population Survey

Eighty-three percent of nonelderly Americans and 99 percent of elderly Americans (aged 65 and over) were covered by either public or private health insurance in 1991, according to EBRI tabulations of the March 1992 Current Population Survey (CPS). The March 1992 CPS is the most recent data available on the number and characteristics of uninsured Americans. In 1991, 16.6 percent of the nonelderly population--or 36.3 million people--were not covered by private health insurance and did not receive publicly financed health assistance. This number compares with 35.7 million in 1990 (16.6 percent), 34.4 million in 1989 (16.1 percent), and 33.6 million in 1988 (15.9 percent). The most important determinant of health insurance is employment. Nearly two-thirds (64 percent) of the nonelderly have employment-based coverage. Workers were much more likely to be covered by group health plans than nonworkers (71 percent versus 40 percent). Even though workers and members of their families were more likely to be covered by health insurance than nonworkers, 85 percent of the uninsured lived in families headed by workers in 1991, primarily because most people lived in families headed by workers. More than 60 percent of uninsured were in families headed by full-year workers with no unemployment. Nearly all persons who were covered by an employment based-plan received at least some contribution to that plan from their employer. The estimated average annual contribution among those receiving a contribution to employee or family plans was $2,129. Although many individuals in poor families are covered by public health plans, that coverage is far from universal. In 1991, only 52 percent of the nonelderly with income below the poverty line were covered by a public plan--49 percent by Medicaid. The number of children who were uninsured in 1991 was 9.5 million, or 14.7 percent of all children, compared with 9.8 million or 15.3 percent of all children in 1990. Twenty-three percent of children were covered by public health insurance, with 21 percent being covered by Medicaid. In 11 states and the District of Columbia, more than 20 percent of the population was uninsured in 1991. These states and their uninsured rates were the District of Columbia (30.3 percent), Texas (25.3 percent), New Mexico (24.5 percent), Louisiana (23.8 percent), Florida (23.5 percent), Mississippi (22.1 percent), Oklahoma (22.1 percent), Nevada (21.8 percent), California (21.7 percent),Arizona (21.1 percent), Alabama (20.6 percent), and Idaho (20.6 percent).     

Questions and answers on employee benefit issues

This Issue Brief addresses 19 topics in the areas of pensions, health insurance, and other benefits. In addition to the topics listed below, the report includes data on the prevalence of benefits, tax incentives associated with benefits, lump-sum distributions, number of private pension plans, pension coverage rates, 401(k) plans, employer spending on group health insurance, self-insured health plans, employer initiatives to reduce health care costs, and employers' response to the retiree health benefits accounting rule, and flexible benefits plans. In 1992, U.S. employers (public and private) spent $629 billion for noncash benefits, representing nearly 18 percent of total compensation, excluding paid time off. In 1992, 71 percent of the 50.1 million individuals aged 55 and over received retirement benefits, including distributions from private and public pensions, annuities, individual retirement accounts, Keoghs, 401(k)s, and Social Security. Among the 76 percent of all private pension plan participants who participated in a single plan, 30 percent named a defined benefit plan as their pension plan type, 58 percent named a defined contribution plan as their pension plan type, and 12 percent did not know their plan type. Private and public pension funds held more than $4.6 trillion in assets at the end of 1993. The 1993 year-end assets are more than triple the asset level of 1983 (nominal terms). According to the Congressional Budget Office, U.S. expenditures on health care were expected to have reached $898 billion in 1993, up from $751.8 billion in 1991, an increase of 19.4 percent in nominal terms.     

Portability of health insurance: COBRA expansions and small group market reform

Proposals are currently being put forth to change the health care system incrementally. One area of proposed legislation addresses portability, which allows an individual to change insurers without being subjected to a new waiting period for preexisting conditions. These proposals, discussed in this Issue Brief, contain provisions to limit preexisting condition exclusions, guarantee access to health insurance, guarantee renewal of health insurance, allow individuals to contribute to medical savings accounts on a pretax basis, and change the current law under the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (COBRA). The proposals would affect insurers, employers, and insured individuals by potentially increasing the cost of providing and purchasing health insurance. Concern about the portability of health insurance primarily arises in situations where an individual is leaving, or would like to leave, a job. If health insurance is not offered by a prospective employer, if the worker must satisfy a waiting period before becoming eligible for coverage, if the benefits package offered through the prospective employer is less generous, or if the employee (or a dependent) has a medical condition that is considered a preexisting condition and would not be covered by the new plan, the employee may opt to remain with his or her current employer--a situation known as job lock. Expansions of COBRA may not have any effect on portability. Employers can charge up to 102 percent of the premium for COBRA coverage, making it unaffordable for many workers. Because cost is a major factor, if there is no reduction in cost (or health care cost inflation) there could be little or no increase in coverage. According to one survey, in 1994 average COBRA costs were $5,301 per COBRA covered worker, compared with $3,420 for active employees. Any expansion of COBRA would almost certainly increase employer cost for health insurance.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)