Employer payments for employee health insurance are just another form of worker compensation. The more an employer pays for health insurance, the less it will be able to pay its workers in the form of take-home pay and other benefits. From an economic standpoint, there is nothing controversial about these statements. Yet there is a common belief in political circles that government can require employers to pay more for health insurance and that such payments will somehow come out of employers’ coffers without affecting their employees’ disposable income. Alas, it doesn’t work that way. Any way you slice it, it all comes out of the employees’ pockets.
In a 2004 article in Health Affairs, Uwe Reinhardt, Peter Hussey, and Gerard Anderson lay out a scenario of a firm able to pay its workers total yearly compensation of $35,000 each, including $8,800 (25%) for health insurance and the remaining $26,200 (75%) for take-home pay (I’m ignoring taxes and other benefits for the sake of simplicity). They further assume 4% annual compensation increases and 10% health insurance inflation. By the tenth year, a worker will be earning total compensation of nearly $50,000, of which almost $21,000 (42%) will be required for health insurance premiums, leaving $29,000 (58%) for take-home pay. Despite insurance costs taking a progressively bigger bite out of total compensation each year, the worker still sees higher take-home pay, albeit by progressively lower percentages each year. The big problem, however, arises in the eleventh year. That’s when health insurance cost increases will exceed total compensation increases, forcing the employer to choose either to reduce worker’s take-home pay, to lose money as a firm, or to reduce or drop health benefits altogether.
In attempting to fix this problem and to force employers to continue to provide health insurance, the federal government and various states are now proposing or imposing mandates both for employers to contribute a minimum percentage of total worker compensation toward health benefits and for employees to be required to purchase health insurance. Massachusetts is the current poster child for this concept.
An important lesson from Prof. Reinhardt’s employer scenario is that any such mandate is nothing more than an enforced diversion of worker compensation for a government-favored use—in this case, the support of a bloated, inefficient, inflationary health care system that, fully half the time, fails to provide good care. It is a burden placed squarely on the shoulders of workers under the more politically attractive guise of an employer requirement.