<p>By denying coverage to spouses, employers not only save the annual premiums, but also the new fees that went into effect as part of the Affordable Care Act. This year, companies have to pay $1 or $2 per life covered on their plans, a sum that jumps to $65 in 2014. And health law guidelines proposed recently mandate coverage of employees dependent children (up to age 26), but husbands and wives are optional. The question about whether its obligatory to cover the family of the employee is being thought through more than ever before, says Helen Darling, president of the National Business Group on Health.</p>
<p>It will be interesting to see what the effects of this will be. It looks like the percentages that do this now are pretty low - mid-single digits. It appears that spouses are not protected like kids up to age 26. We live in interesting times.</p>
<p>Glad that H is retired federal employee and we have lifetime medical coverage, as do our kids until they turn 26. Sad to hear that spouses may and are being dropped. We’d all have trouble buying individual policies as we all have pre-existing conditions. Fortunately S has a jab that will provide him health insurance. Hopefully we can get D an affordable policy when she turns 26 in 2.5 years. Scary times!</p>
<p>Many companies already had policies where an employee who wanted to cover other family members had to take a (larger) payroll deduction than if the employee who just wanted employee coverage.</p>
<p>This is nothing new. Companies have been kicking spouses off if the spouse could gets coverage from his/her own employer, for years. . This happened to two persons that I know and it was several years ago. They only do it if the spouse can get coverage at their employer.</p>
<p>Yes it would really have hurt me as I have not had medical insurance from any oft employers since 1990 shortly after S was born. Would hurt many older adults who are more prone to cutbacks and difficulty getting hired later in life.</p>
<p>Dropping spouses is nothing. Not many will be dropped. The big change will be that people who used to work 40 hours per week without health insurance will be cut down to 30 hours per week so that the employer does not have to pay insurance. The working poor will be hurt the hardest.</p>
<p>Please read the article, they will only be kicked off if that person can get health insurance at their own employer. So if you are a sahm, you will not be kicked off, but your spouse my be charged more.</p>
<p>In our state, employers are obligated to provide health insurance if you work 20 hours per week so most employers make employees only work 17 hours per week, make them short term emergency hires or call them independent contractors, all of which hurt employees. Our S is one of the few young people among our friends who qualify for employer subsidized health insurance, sadly. So many employers stick with part timers to avoid having to pay benefits.</p>
<p>Partyof5, while the article is as clear as mud…it says that by penalizing employers for covering spouses, the law will lead to more spouses NOT being covered. </p>
<p>I don’t get it. The employers are offering coverage to spouses and being assessed an addtional fee for doing it in the ACA. Makes no sense whatsoever.</p>
<p>I don’t see this as relating to the ACA at all. It’s been going on for a while because the cost of insurance has been going up so fast, particularly for family coverages. So stories like this come out that make a pretend connection as though this is new.</p>
<p>It’s a $2 per person per YEAR fee that can increase (I don’t see how it gets anywhere near $65), is used to fund specific research, and it is only charged from 2012 thru 2019.</p>
<p>I found several pages that explain this fee. Annoying, but it doesn’t seem like a huge financial incentive to drop a spouse from coverage. </p>
<p>I am retired (early medical) and my husband will be dumped as will all spouses next year from health insurance. It does not matter if you have insurance or not. We have seen this coming. Our kids will remain covered. Sign of the times.</p>
<p>However, the consequences of losing group coverage will not be as big next year, with the ability to buy guaranteed-issue individual insurance policies at the exchanges. (Indeed, shouldn’t people who favor markets favor the movement to individual insurance policies, decoupling medical insurance from employment and making both markets more efficient?)</p>
<p>Well Empire BC/BS in NY has petitioned NYSDI for a 24% rate increase for individual plan buyers, they were not granted 24% however did receive I believe I heard 18% so there goes the thought of lower prices.</p>
<p>There will be massive changes, pricing employers out of even offering benefits for any employees. I saw it coming.
Some plans offering riders to cover up to age 29. </p>
<p>Should be very interesting to see how this all plays out</p>
<p>The employer requirements don’t go into effect until next year. So employers who drop/reduce coverage this year, citing ACA, are counting on their employees not knowing what’s really in the law. They also conveniently don’t tell their employees about the benefits that employers are getting under the law, such as medical loss ratio rebates and tax credits for small business. Any employer who drops coverage this year is using ACA as an excuse.</p>
<p>Universal Orlando is dropping health insurance for it’s part time employees. The plan they have now is a mini med that does not meet ACA requirements. Takes effect at the end of the year.</p>
<p>My employer has been my family’s source of health insurance for 30+yrs.
I still have about 9 yrs till retirement, if my body/health holds out.</p>
<p>Coverage for employee used to be free, a few years ago they instituted a small contribution for employee only coverage. This has increase modestly each year.
Coverage for husbands/wives and children was ALWAYS an additional cost to employee.
Still, the best value for our family.
And spouse coverage was always more expensive than children, based on use of medical services I’m sure.</p>