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.     

EBRI research highlights: health benefits

The Employee Benefit Research Institute (EBRI) is a nonpartisan, nonprofit public policy research organization based in Washington, DC, that has been researching economic security issues for almost 25 years. Founded in 1978, its mission is to contribute to, encourage, and enhance the development of sound employee benefit programs and sound public policy through objective research and education. EBRI does not lobby and does not take positions on legislative proposals. EBRI receives funding from individuals, employers of all types, unions, foundations, and government. EBRI's research work has focused on retirement- and health-related issues, particularly involving pension/retirement plan coverage and health insurance coverage in the employment-based benefits system. EBRI is a major source of unbiased data on the uninsured and current trends involving 401(k), IRA, and traditional pension-type retirement plans. EBRI research programs also include economic modeling of Social Security reform proposals and development of the EBRI/ICI 401(k) database, the largest and most detailed of its kind. This EBRI Special Report/Issue Brief (May 2003) synthesizes highlights of recent EBRI research on health issues. The next Issue Brief (June 2003) will present recent EBRI research on retirement benefits. It should be stressed that this document contains only highlights of EBRI's collection of research and analysis; for greater detail and information, visit EBRI's Web site (www.ebri.org) or contact EBRI directly.     

Economic change and health benefits: structural trends in employer-based health insurance

Drawing on structural theories of economic outcomes, we investigated how economic change affects the distribution of health benefits, the main source of health insurance for American workers. Through an aggregate level analysis, we show how the effects of industry level characteristics on the level of health benefits change between 1988 and 1997. Due to the increased reliance on women, nonwhite workers, and part-time labor, we expect declines in the effect sizes of gender and race composition and proportion full-time. In contrast, we predict increases in the effects of proportion small firm employment, proportion union, and industry sector due to rising health care costs, the competitive economic environment, and greater union effectiveness. We analyze data from the March Current Population Surveys for 1987 to 1997 using generalized least-squares regression. The positive effect of proportion white increases over time, while the positive effect of level of full-time work declines. The negative effects of small firm employment and being a retail or nonprofessional service industry increase in magnitude. Both union activity and gender composition have stable effects over the period. The results challenge views of a declining significance of race and gender in the labor market.     

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.     

Organizational and health promotion benefits of diaper bank and community-based organization partnerships

The Diaper Bank of North Carolina provides a supplemental supply of free disposable diapers, baby wipes, and diaper rash cream to low-income families. Rather than providing the diapers directly to families in need, the diaper bank formed partnerships with service-providing community-based organizations (CBOs) that distribute the diapers to their own clients. During a multi-phase mixed methods evaluation, we conducted qualitative key informant interviews with staff members (n = 9) of CBOs that distribute diapers. Analysis of the interviews informed development of an electronic survey distributed to CBO staff members (n = 42) who did not participate in key informant interviews. Key findings demonstrate the provision of diaper bank diapers allowed CBOs to assist families in meeting a basic need while: (1) positively impacting their organization and program budgets, (2) enhancing communication with clients, (3) improving program retention, (4) teaching problem solving and critical thinking skills, and (5) connecting families with other services.     

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.