WASHINGTON — Your medical plan is facing an unexpected expense, so you probably are, too. It’s a new, $63-per-head fee to cushion the cost of covering people with pre-existing conditions under President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul.

The charge, buried in a recent regulation, works out to tens of millions of dollars for the largest companies, employers say. Most of that is likely to be passed on to workers.

Employee benefits lawyer Chantel Sheaks calls it a “sleeper issue” with significant financial consequences, particularly for large employers.

“Especially at a time when we are facing economic uncertainty, (companies will) be hit with a multi-million dollar assessment without getting anything back for it,” said Sheaks, a principal at Buck Consultants, a Xerox subsidiary.

Based on figures provided in the regulation, employer and individual health plans covering an estimated 190 million Americans could owe the per-person fee.

The Obama administration says it is a temporary assessment levied for three years starting in 2014, designed to raise $25 billion. It starts at $63 and then declines.

Most of the money will go into a fund administered by the Health and Human Services Department. It will be used to cushion health insurance companies from the initial hard-to-predict costs of covering uninsured people with medical problems. Under the law, insurers will be forbidden from turning away the sick as of Jan. 1, 2014.

The program “is intended to help millions of Americans purchase affordable health insurance, reduce unreimbursed usage of hospital and other medical facilities by the uninsured and thereby lower medical expenses and premiums for all,” the Obama administration says in the regulation. An accompanying media fact sheet issued Nov. 30 referred to “contributions” without detailing the total cost and scope of the program.

Of the total pot, $5 billion will go directly to the U.S. Treasury, apparently to offset the cost of shoring up employer-sponsored coverage for early retirees.

The $25 billion fee is part of a bigger package of taxes and fees to finance Obama’s expansion of coverage to the uninsured. It all comes to about $700 billion over 10 years, and includes higher Medicare taxes effective this Jan. 1 on individuals making more than $200,000 per year or couples making more than $250,000. People above those threshold amounts also face an additional 3.8 percent tax on their investment income.

But the insurance fee had been overlooked as employers focused on other costs in the law, including fines for medium and large firms that don’t provide coverage.

“This kind of came out of the blue and was a surprisingly large amount,” said Gretchen Young, senior vice president for health policy at the ERISA Industry Committee, a group that represents large employers on benefits issues.

Word started getting out in the spring, said Young, but hard cost estimates surfaced only recently with the new regulation. It set the per capita rate at $5.25 per month, which works out to $63 a year.

America’s Health Insurance Plans, the major industry trade group for health insurers, says the fund is an important program that will help stabilize the market and mitigate cost increases for consumers as the changes in Obama’s law take effect.

But employers already offering coverage to their workers don’t see why they have to pony up for the stabilization fund, which mainly helps the individual insurance market. The redistribution puts the biggest companies on the hook for tens of millions of dollars.

“It just adds on to everything else that is expected to increase health care costs,” said economist Paul Fronstin of the nonprofit Employee Benefit Research Institute.

The fee will be assessed on all “major medical” insurance plans, including those provided by employers and those purchased individually by consumers. Large employers will owe the fee directly. That’s because major companies usually pay upfront for most of the health care costs of their employees. It may not be apparent to workers, but the insurance company they deal with is basically an agent administering the plan for their employer.

The fee will total $12 billion in 2014, $8 billion in 2015 and $5 billion in 2016. That means the per-head assessment would be smaller each year, around $40 in 2015 instead of $63.

It will phase out completely in 2017 — unless Congress, with lawmakers searching everywhere for revenue to reduce federal deficits — decides to extend it.

Join the Conversation

41 Comments

  1. I wonder why the BDN decided to place this article under “The Latest News”? It seems to be more news worthy then say….”Penobscot Theatre’s ‘Annie’ a holiday theatrical delight” or “Maine focus of ‘Saturday Night Live’ sketch” both of which appear on the “Front Page” of the electronic edition.

      1. I just did some quick calculations for my company. It will cost my company $126,000.00+ next year. They will likely pass that cost onto the employees which just experienced a $5.00 per pay period increase in health insurance so add that ($10.00/month) and the $5.25/month and my paycheck just decreased $15.25/month (or it could be as much as $20.50 if the TAX is per head covered).

        So wolf when was the last time you had a pay raise at work? My company froze wages 5 years ago so this is money I will not be able to spend in the local economy and I cut back just a bit more.

        If you want to call that “whining” feel free…I call it speaking the truth.

        1. Your original comment was baseless whining. None of what you said now was in that original comment, not even hinted at.

          1. Wolf my original observation was a statement of FACT. There were articles which the BDN felt were “news worthy” to occupy a prominent spot on the electronic front page. Now the story doesn’t even appear on “The Latest News” section.

            How much you want to bet it will be buried in the print edition too.

          2. No chance of addressing the truth that this was buried and you had to look for the story. Put the bong down and address jd’s point re cost. Likely you will just ignore the truth and what makes you look ignorant

          3. Why are you obsessed with the bong thing? It’s not even funner nor accurate. Are you projecting?

            JD completely changed the subject. His initial comment wasn’t about costs, it was about something else entirely.

          4. My original point was this story was buried. Today you cannot easily find it. THAT was the point of my original post.

          5. That’s fine, but in your reply to me you completely changed your point. So it’s wrong to screech about me using a bong and whatever other nonsense leonem came up with.

          6. wolf first I never “screeched” about a “bong” or anything else. In fact, I never mentioned the word “bong”. If you have an issue with what a poster said I suggest that you take it up with them. I will assume that you are confused about who said what rather than attempting to assign blame where no blame can be placed.

          7. Dude, I DID reply to that other poster and then you replied to that. I DID mention specifically his/her name when I placed the blame.

            Don’t tell me where, what and how to reply if you’re not going to adhere to that same kind of protocol. So you change the point you’re trying to make, I have to point that out, get sideswiped about supposedly using drugs and accused of changing the subject, then you pretend you didn’t change the subject, then I defend myself, then you try and lecture me — it’s ridiculous.

            I did take it up with the other poster and then you interjected yourself. So you can apologize to me for that.

          8. wolf my ORIGINAL point was where the BDN published this story. I still believe it was more important than “Penobscot Theatre’s ‘Annie’ a holiday theatrical delight” or “Maine focus of ‘Saturday Night Live’ sketch”.

            Your response was a “Quit whining. This media bias paranoia routine by the right is tired.” My post was factual. It had nothing to do with “media bias paranoia”.

            You might want to walk the walk and not just talk the talk….”Don’t tell me where, what and how to reply if you’re not going to adhere to that same kind of protocol.”

          9. Can you decide what you want to talk about and stay there for a moment? You are throwing mud and seeing what sticks. I have to refute you and then you ignore it, change the subject, criticize me, then go back to that first subject.

            I never said you were screeching or that it was you that made the bong comment. You can apologize to me for implying such and saying that I’m confused.

          10. wolf I made a comment about where the BDN choose to place a news item about ACA and a hidden tax. You made an outlandish comment about “media bias paranoia” when the post was factual. You have after all NEVER disputed where the BDN put this story.

            I made another post about what this was going to cost ME…not you…not your neighbor….but ME. That’s is MY opinion and I am entitled to it. Side Note: I wonder if people on MaineCare and Medicare will be assessed the $63.00 per year “head” tax?

            There is NOTHING to refute. My increased premiums and the $63.00 “head” tax is going to cost me money out of my pocket. Your happy about that…I’m not. Just out of idle curiosity is this costing you any increase in your monthly premium or are you going to be assessed the “head” tax?

        2. What your fuzzy math fails to address is the amount of money that will be saved by you and your co-workers when you get sick or need health care.

          1. And what pray tell is “fuzzy” about my math?

            Fact – my healthcare payment is going up by a minimum if $5.00 x 26 = $130.00/year.

            Fact – $63.00/covered head (according to the article = $126.00/couple.

            Fact – I have not had a pay increase in 5 years. No merit increase. No COLA.

            Fact – my pay may decrease by $256.00/year.

            Nothing fuzzy about it Bangorian. I just took another hit to the wallet.

          2. You take a hit when people go to the emergency room for primary care. You take a hit and subsidize those who don’t buy insurance.

            You guys were amazing at coming up with reasons (real and imagined) to fight against healthcare reform, but the alternatives and suggestions offered were either non-existent or worse. Correct me if I’m wrong.

          3. I have offered alternatives and I have stated time and time again that we need to do something about health care. My belief (and its starting to play out) is ACA is not the answer.

            It makes no sense that a companies penalty is LESS that the cost to provide health care. That leads to MORE not less people looking for coverage.

            Olive Garden (one example) is attempting to move full time employees to part time to avoid health care coverage. That means employees making LESS money AND looking for health care.

            How is any if that good for workers, their families and the rest of us wolf?

          4. It’s my understanding that ACA looks at what is equivalent to full time workers. So if Olive Garden cuts hours to only 20 a week, for every two workers, they’re still responsible for the healthcare of one fulltime worker.

            I don’t think Obamacare is perfect, but it was what is feasible. I think it’s disgusting what Republicans and some Democrats did during the year long + debate over healthcare — doing anything possible to derail the overhaul. Instead of engaging in the debate, they derailed and muddied the debate. It was wrong and it’s bad for our country.

            Again, Obamacare isn’t perfect, but I’m glad it’s in place. While it does cost money, it is projected to reduce the deficit and lower healthcare costs all around. I’m glad people have and will have better and easier access to care. Olive Garden and other deadbeat employers be damned. I hope they go out of business to new and better businesses, ones that value their employees, take their place.

          5. You are completely ignoring the fact that an employer can opt not to provide health insurance and pay a fine per employee which is LESS than the cost of providing medical insurance.

            That was made crystal clear in another BDN article a week or so ago about the costs and decisions facing Maine employers. One Maine employer was considering doing just that…ending coverage and paying the fine.

          6. wolf, if an employer stops paying for healthcare coverage for an employee because it is less expensive to pay the penalty how is that “better than the alternative”?

            If a company cuts hours to reduce full-time to part-time employees so they do not have to provide health care how is that “better than the alternative”?

            In both cases employees are left looking for health care on their own using a state or federal health insurance “exchange” and now have to pay the full cost of health insurance on reduced wages. How is that “better than the alternative”?

          7. They pay a penalty and that goes to helping out those who have deadbeat employers/can’t afford insurance on their own. The alternative was no action. The alternative was no health insurance for you, tough cookies.

            The alternative was nothing. No solutions. Not looking out for the people, but looking out for donors and insurance companies. Now everyone will have access and help if need in getting coverage. That’s how it’s better than the alternative.

          8. wolf I sincerely hope you enjoy ACA. I hope it is everything you say it is and far more. But so far what I am seeing is added cost to businesses. Increased fees.

            The IRS released there “rule” on what constitutes a “medical device” that will be subject to the 2.3% tax starting 1/1/13. “surgical sutures to knee replacement implants”, “The tax applies mostly to devices used and implanted by medical professionals, including items as complex as pacemakers or as simple as tongue depressors”, “it remains “an open question” when latex gloves come under the tax”.

            Sutures are “Medical Devices”….Really?
            Tongue depressors are “Medical Devices”….Really?
            Latex gloves could be classified as a “Medical Device”….Really?

            I know wolf it’s all for the greater good and we all should be happy that we will pay more because someone has to pay the new “Medical Device” tax and it’s not going to be the feds.

            Edit for Source of IRS Medical Devices rule – http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/05/us-usa-tax-irs-idUSBRE8B41GW20121205

          9. Of course it is going to add cost to business. That’s because business has been skirting its responsibility to its workers for far too long.

          10. And who do you think is going to pay those increased cost in the end?

            The feds? Nope

            The state? Nope

            The business? Nope

            The insurance carrier? Nope

            The consumer? Yup. In the end you and I will pay those increased cost through increased insurance premiums.

          11. Who was paying the cost before hand? Who paid for those expensive emergency room visits for the uninsured? We were already paying those things. And now there is a cap on how much of premiums can go to administrative costs and profits — I like that quite a bit.

            Either way though — this is what we voted for. One campaigned on his record including Obamacare and the other campaigned on repealing it and vague promises of a replacement. 332 to 206 we chose what we have now.

          12. Actually that is a fallacy that “we” vote on anything.

            In national elections we vote for electors that are based on population and they elect the President. Remember the election of John Quincy Adams and George W. Bush. Both lost the popular vote but were elected President.

            We elect national representatives in the form of Senator and Representative. They vote on bills and are “supposed” to represent those that elect them but in many cases that is not the case.

            Even on a state level we elect our representatives in the same manner.

            The only time we vote on anything laws, etc…is when the state legislature or a citizens initiative places it on the ballot for us to vote on.

            We are a Constitutional Republic and not a Democracy.

          13. They talk about what they will do and what they have done. That’s what they campaign on. Is that not how you determined who you’d vote for? If the country was so displeased with what Obama has done and what he said he plans to do, then they wouldn’t have voted for him. Period. You’re dishonest if you say otherwise.

            You’re trying to correct things I never said in the first place, so keep your condescension to yourself.

            Your talk about popular vote vs. EC is a very irrelevant tangent. I obviously know about how things work in this country given the fact that I cited the EC count.

          14. Wolf you take yourself way to seriously.

            The truth in our arguments lies somewhere in the middle.

            History will be the judge on President Obama and his policies.

            Like I said earlier the cost of ACA is beginning to mount and people will decide for themselves if it was the right decision or not.

          15. You’re doing it again — throwing mud at the wall and seeing what sticks. I have to refute what you say and then you ignore it and change the subject. I addressed your points and you can’t even answer a simple question of mine. What a joke.

            People vote for candidates based largely upon their records and their proposals — that’s not a fallacy.

          1. JD
            You are taking advantage.

            When having a battle of minds,it is always more of a fun challenge if your opponent is armed.

  2. And Romney said he’d repeal Obamacare, but keep parts of the law that were good, like not being able to deny those with pre-existing conditions. So if you voted for Obama or if you voted for Romney, you voted for this essentially. Romney wouldn’t have magically been able to make this cost-free.

    1. From the above article….”The charge, buried in a recent regulation, works out to tens of millions of dollars for the largest companies, employers say. Most of that is likely to be passed on to workers.”

      Seems that this wasn’t generally know OR talked about prior to the election.

      1. I read the article, thank you. That detail is irrelevant to my point. Romney said he’d keep the same element of healthcare reform. You can’t try and argue that somehow Romney would make this cost-free.

  3. The Affordable Care Act is not perfect. Single payer would have been much better but 47 million Americans will have a chance to be insured in a little over a year.
    It’s a whole lot better than the Republican plan.

  4. Another of many tax increases given to you by the Dumocrats and liberals. Someone has to pay the freight to buy all the votes. Has anyone seen any savings yet? LOL

  5. You will take obamacare..Obama and the socialist/marxists say it’s good for you. But not good for them . It is so good for you that it has to be mandated and forced upon you yet all the lovers of it wanted waivers from it. Wait! The rich will pay for this, businesses will pay for this…everyone but YOU will pay for this. Oh little sheep…YOU WILL PAY but you will have OBAMACARE!

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *