The Affordable Care Act (ACA) requires most private health insurance plans to provide coverage for a broad range of preventive services, including most contraceptives for women. This policy was at the center of a Supreme Court case brought forward by for-profit corporations (Hobby Lobby and Conestoga) that successfully claimed that the contraceptive coverage requirement violated their religious rights. Last month, the Supreme Court agreed to hear yet another challenge (Zubik v Burwell) to the contraceptive coverage requirement, this time brought by nonprofit corporations, claiming that the accommodation established by the federal government for religiously affiliated nonprofit employers with objections to contraception violates their religious rights.
- state & global data
- view as grid
- view as list
One in 10 Larger Nonprofits Have Sought an ‘Accommodation’ to the ACA Contraceptive Coverage Rule, Analysis Finds
As the U.S. Supreme Court gears up to hear a new round of legal challenges to the ACA’s contraceptive coverage requirement, finds 10 percent of nonprofits with more than 1,000 employees have requested an “accommodation” to the health law’s birth control requirement. As the U.S. Supreme Court gears up to…
Round 2 on the Legal Challenges to Contraceptive Coverage: Are Nonprofits “Substantially Burdened” by the “Accommodation”?
The Affordable Care Act (ACA) requires most private health insurance plans to provide coverage for a broad range of preventive services including Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved prescription contraceptives and services for women. Since the implementation of the ACA contraceptive coverage requirement in 2012, over 200 corporations have filed lawsuits claiming that including coverage for contraceptives or opting for an “accommodation” from the federal government violates their religious beliefs. This brief explains the legal issues raised by the nonprofit litigation and discusses the impact of the Hobby Lobby decision on the current litigation.
Larry Levitt’s October 2015 post explains the terms of the much-debated Cadillac plan tax, how it is designed to reduce health costs, and how it could end up shifting more costs to workers.
The Affordable Care Act does not require businesses to provide health benefits to their workers, but applicable large employers may face penalties if they don’t make affordable coverage available. The Employer Shared Responsibility Provision of the Affordable Care Act penalizes employers who either do not offer coverage or do not offer coverage which meets minimum value and affordability standards. In 2016, these penalties will apply to firms with 50 or more full-time equivalent employees. This flowchart illustrates how those employer responsibilities work.
Employer Family Health Premiums Rise 4 Percent to $17,545 in 2015, Extending a Decade-Long Trend of Relatively Moderate Increases
Since 2010, Deductibles for All Workers Have Risen Almost Three Times as Fast as Premiums and About Seven Times as Fast as Wages and Inflation Facing New Requirements, Few Employers Make Changes to Workers’ Hours Menlo Park, Calif. – Single and family premiums for employer-sponsored health insurance rose an average of…
This graphing tool allows users to explore trends in workplace-sponsored health insurance premiums and worker contributions over time for different categories of employers based on results from the annual Employer Health Benefits Survey. Breakouts are available by firm size, region and industry, as well as for firms with relatively few or many part-time workers, higher- or lower-wage workers, and older or younger workers.
This annual Employer Health Benefits Survey (EHBS) provides a detailed look at trends in employer-sponsored health coverage, including premiums, employee contributions, cost-sharing provisions, and other relevant information. The 2015 EHBS survey finds average family health premiums rose 4 percent in 2015, relatively modest growth by historical standards.
The Kaiser Family Foundation and the Health Research & Educational Trust (HRET) hosts an annual reporters-only web briefing to release the 2015 Kaiser/HRET Employer Health Benefits Survey. The 17th annual Kaiser/HRET survey provides a detailed look at the current state of employer-based coverage and trends in private health insurance, including premiums, worker and employer contributions, firm offer rates, plan deductibles, and other cost-sharing requirements, with breakouts for small and large firms.
Analysis Estimates 1 in 4 Employers Offering Health Benefits Could Be Affected by the ‘Cadillac Tax’ in 2018 if Current Trends Continue
Share of Potentially-Affected Employers Could Grow to 30% in 2023, 42% in 2028, Analysis Finds New projections from the Kaiser Family Foundation estimate that one in four employers (26%) offering health benefits could be subject to the Affordable Care Act’s tax on high-cost health plans, also known as the “Cadillac…