When it comes to financing the state’s health care reform law, the Patrick administration suddenly wants to change the rules of the game at halftime. Naturally employers are on the losing team.
Anticipating a shortfall in paying for health care reform, the administration has settled on a solution that presents a serious threat to the coalition that enabled the initiative to become law in the first place.
No, Deval Patrick wasn’t governor when the law finally passed - but somebody should have shown him the news clips. Reform was nearly strangled in the cradle when the House proposed a payroll tax on companies with more than 10 employees - what amounted to a backdoor employer mandate.
Instead, after months of negotiations, all parties agreed that businesses would pay a $295 penalty per worker only if they did not make a “fair and reasonable” contribution to their employees’ health insurance.
After another tough fight it was determined that “fair and reasonable” meant at least 25 percent of the work force is enrolled in the company’s plan - or at least a third of an employee’s premium is covered by the employer. Revenue from the penalties would subsidize care for those who remained without insurance.
But now the administration wants to require businesses to meet both standards - within 90 days of hire! - to avoid the per-worker penalty. Patrick estimates it would mean $33 million in new revenue this year.
Also contained in Patrick’s big Sunday surprise (he announced the proposal during his weekend budget-signing ceremony) is a plan to tax the reserves held by health care providers and insurers to the tune of $61 million. Again, someone might have thought to give the governor a packet of old news clips. Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, for example, was fighting for its life and ordered into receivership barely eight years ago and now, after a miraculous comeback, he wants to raid its reserves?
We chuckle remembering that those who fought for the per-worker “assessment” suggested it would actually go down over time, as fewer people drew from the free care pool. What were they thinking!
Yes, those footsteps you hear at the State House represent a retreat from the original deal - and a serious threat to its long-term success.
Anticipating a shortfall in paying for health care reform, the administration has settled on a solution that presents a serious threat to the coalition that enabled the initiative to become law in the first place.
No, Deval Patrick wasn’t governor when the law finally passed - but somebody should have shown him the news clips. Reform was nearly strangled in the cradle when the House proposed a payroll tax on companies with more than 10 employees - what amounted to a backdoor employer mandate.
Instead, after months of negotiations, all parties agreed that businesses would pay a $295 penalty per worker only if they did not make a “fair and reasonable” contribution to their employees’ health insurance.
After another tough fight it was determined that “fair and reasonable” meant at least 25 percent of the work force is enrolled in the company’s plan - or at least a third of an employee’s premium is covered by the employer. Revenue from the penalties would subsidize care for those who remained without insurance.
But now the administration wants to require businesses to meet both standards - within 90 days of hire! - to avoid the per-worker penalty. Patrick estimates it would mean $33 million in new revenue this year.
Also contained in Patrick’s big Sunday surprise (he announced the proposal during his weekend budget-signing ceremony) is a plan to tax the reserves held by health care providers and insurers to the tune of $61 million. Again, someone might have thought to give the governor a packet of old news clips. Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, for example, was fighting for its life and ordered into receivership barely eight years ago and now, after a miraculous comeback, he wants to raid its reserves?
We chuckle remembering that those who fought for the per-worker “assessment” suggested it would actually go down over time, as fewer people drew from the free care pool. What were they thinking!
Yes, those footsteps you hear at the State House represent a retreat from the original deal - and a serious threat to its long-term success.