The Supreme Court is expected to reach a decision by the end of June, 2014 on the cases brought forth by Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties, two for profit corporations challenging the ACA’s contraceptive coverage requirement. The plaintiffs contend that the requirement that they include coverage for certain contraceptive services (emergency contraceptive pills and intrauterine devices) in the insurance plans “substantially burdens” both the corporation’s and the owners’ religious rights. During the arguments, several of the justices discussed the extent to which the corporations did or not did not have a choice in offering coverage to their workers. In this brief, we explore some of the factors influencing coverage decisions and possible consequences for women and employers given possible Supreme Court decision options: either upholding the contraceptive coverage requirement, or in favor of Hobby Lobby.
- view as grid
- view as list
Data Note: Differences In Public Opinion On The ACA’s Contraceptive Coverage Requirement, By Gender, Religion, And Political Party
One of the most politically polarizing elements of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is the law’s requirement that new private health insurance plans cover prescription contraceptives and services, including all methods approved by the Food and Drug Administration. The rule currently provides an exemption for houses of worship and an…
Issue Brief Explores Consequences of Potential Supreme Court Decisions on the ACA Contraceptive Coverage Requirement
A new Kaiser Family Foundation issue brief explores some of the factors influencing employers’ coverage decisions and possible consequences for employers and workers that could arise from possible Supreme Court decisions in the cases brought by Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties, for-profit corporations challenging the Affordable Care Act’s requirement…
As many employers begin to expand their wellness programs under new guidelines set forth by the Affordable Care Act (ACA), the latest Kaiser Health Tracking Poll finds workers oppose programs that make them pay higher premiums if they fail to participate or meet specific health goals. Overall public opinion of the ACA remains about the same as it has for the last several months, with a somewhat higher share of the public continuing to express an unfavorable view of the law (45%) than a favorable one (39%).
In his latest column for The Wall Street Journal’s Think Tank, Drew Altman looks at the sharply slower growth in premiums for employer health benefits and what it might mean for the future of employer-sponsored coverage.
In his latest column for The Wall Street Journal’s Think Tank, Drew Altman looks at the sharply slower growth in premiums for employer health benefits and what it might mean for the future of employer-sponsored coverage. All previous columns by Drew Altman are available online.
This report examines the private health exchange market and its emerging trends and implications as private exchanges gain popularity among employers and health plans. With the potential to reshape the employer-sponsored health insurance landscape, the quickly emerging private exchange market carries important implications for both employers and consumers.
In this column for The Wall Street Journal’s Think Tank, Drew Altman explores how low-wage firms and their workers are faring in the employer-based health insurance market and how the Affordable Care Act may influence future trends.
Average Annual Family Premiums Stand at $16,834, With Workers Contributing $4,823 Workers Now Face Deductibles Averaging $1,217, Up 47 Percent Since 2009 Menlo Park, Calif. – Average annual premiums for employer-sponsored family health coverage reached $16,834 this year, up 3 percent from last year, continuing a recent trend of modest increases,…