Public Subsidies for Employees' Contributions to Employer-Sponsored Insurance

Merlis, Mark

doi:10.5034/inquiryjrnl_38.2.121

Cited by 4 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In the few states that do not allow age rating, such as New York, credit amounts would not vary by age. Ⅺ Where lesser credits were available for the employee share of employer-sponsored coverage, as suggested by Merlis (2001), employees of small firms should be eligible for such credits only when their coverage is purchased through purchasing pools. The pools would implement special requirements for these populations.…”

Section: Amount and Structure Of Subsidymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For firms with heterogeneous workforces, nondiscrimination and health plan participation requirements should be sufficient to discourage employers from reducing their contributions. Merlis (2001) proposes that workers eligible for an employer contribution toward health insurance (of at least 70% for worker-only coverage and 50% for family coverage) should not be eligible for the (nongroup) individual tax credit. Instead, they would be eligible (at the same income levels) for a smaller credit keyed to the employee share of coverage.…”

Section: Crowd-outmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Private Purchasing Pools to Harness Individual Tax Credits for Consumers

Curtis¹,

Neuschler²,

Forland³

2001

INQUIRY

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Amount and Structure Of Subsidymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Crowd-outmentioning

confidence: 99%

Private Purchasing Pools to Harness Individual Tax Credits for Consumers

Curtis¹,

Neuschler²,

Forland³

2001

INQUIRY

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…See Fuchs and Merlis 1990. 3 See Merlis (2001) for a discussion of credits to employees for premium shares. 4 Economic and Social Research Institute, unpublished data from a September and October 1998 national survey of 1,200 employers offering health insurance coverage.…”

Section: Strengths and Weaknessesmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Federal Tax Credit to Encourage Employers to Offer Health Coverage

Meyer¹,

Wicks²

2001

INQUIRY

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many firms that employ low-wage workers cannot afford to offer an employee health plan, and many of the uninsured work for such firms. This article makes the case for an employer tax credit, administered by the Internal Revenue Service, as a way to extend health coverage to uninsured workers and their families. The permanent, fixed-dollar, refundable credit would be available to all low-wage employers (those with average wages of $10 per hour and less), including those already offering coverage. The credit would be graduated depending on average wage: the maximum credit would equal 50% of the cost of a standard benefit package; the minimum would equal 30% of the package. It also would vary by family size and could be used to cover part-time and temporary workers. Participating employers would be required to pay at least 50% of the health insurance premium, proof of which would be shown on firms' tax returns. The paper provides justification for this approach. It closes with a discussion of strengths and weaknesses of this approach and alternative design features.

show abstract

The Current State of Employment-Based Health Coverage

Glied¹,

Borzi²

2004

J. Law. Med. Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

merican policymakers and health policy analysts have a lovehate relationship with job-based health insurance. The policy A ress routinely runs articles about the demise of the current system of voluntary employer-sponsored health insurance coverage.' Conservatives argue that it ought to be replaced with individuallypurchased insurance, such as tax-favored spending accounts (see Mark Pauly's article this issue). Liberals assert that government insurance ought to supplant it. Meanwhile, as the debate rages on about the future of employer coverage, states and the federal government pass legislation buttressing and building on the existing employment-based system. Most recently, California has passed an employer mandate requiring employers to cover their workers (and many other states have contemplated similar legislation) and Maine has adopted a universal coverage initiative that includes avoluntary small employer insurance program offered through a state agency (Dirigo Health Care). Congress, in its recent Medicare reform legislation, not only extended publicly-financed prescription drug benefits to elderly Americans but also offered employers tax incentives to keep providing the prescription drug benefits they offer to their retirees2 There is nothing new about this debate, nor the conflict in views it represents. Since its origins in the 1930s, employment-based coverage has been viewed with skepticism. Nonetheless, nearly three-quarters of a century later, the vast majority of Americans under 65 who have health insurance, and about 38 percent of those 65 and older who continue to hold private health insurance coverage supplemental to Medicare, obtain it through their current jobs (or in the case of retired workers, former jobs)? The model of privately-sponsored and voluntary employment-based coverage is hardly anyone's ideal of health system design, but it is a nearly unanimous second choice. Origins and Rationale of Job-Based Coverage Private health insurance in the United States has always been jobbased. In other words, it is an employee benefit thatif offeredis part of the overall compensation package that employees receive along with their wages. Health insurance in the United States began on a large scale during the Great Depression, when hospitals developed Blue Cross prepayment plans to ensure that patients could pay their bills. Early Blue Cross plans were sold exclusively to employment-based groupseven dependents were initially excluded. Insurance coverage received a substantial boost during and after World War 11, when the federal government imposed price and wage controls and employers seeking to attract workers offered health insurance as a substitute for wage increase^.^ Employer-sponsored coverage as a component of employee compensation was further encouraged through provisions of the tax code that were formally codified in 1954. Employer payments for coverage are, like wage payments, exempt from corporate taxation. Unlike wages, however, employer insurance payments are also exempt from payroll and ...

show abstract

Public Subsidies for Employees' Contributions to Employer-Sponsored Insurance

Cited by 4 publications

References 2 publications

Private Purchasing Pools to Harness Individual Tax Credits for Consumers

Private Purchasing Pools to Harness Individual Tax Credits for Consumers

A Federal Tax Credit to Encourage Employers to Offer Health Coverage

The Current State of Employment-Based Health Coverage

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About