Home Employer-Sponsored Health Insurance Tags

Employer-Sponsored Health Insurance

KFF has conducted this annual survey of private and non-federal public employers with three or more workers since 1999. The survey tracks trends in employer health insurance coverage, the cost of that coverage, and other topical health insurance issues. Findings are based on a nationally representative survey of public and private employers with three or more employees, including those who respond to the full survey and those who indicate only whether or not they provide health coverage. Browse the reports

View the Latest: Employer-Sponsored Health Insurance

Filter

List Grid

221 - 230 of 439 Results

  • Contraceptive-Only Plans: Questions and Answers

    Perspective

    In this post on The Huffington Post, Alina Salganicoff and Laurie Sobel offer a Q&A on “contraceptive-only” plans, an approach mentioned during oral arguments in the U.S. Supreme Court case Zubik v. Burwell. In the Zubik case, a group of religiously affiliated nonprofits with religious objections to providing birth control coverage seek an exemption from the Affordable Care Act's provision requiring most plans to offer such coverage without cost-sharing.

  • Trends in Employer-Sponsored Insurance Offer and Coverage Rates, 1999-2014

    Issue Brief

    This issue brief uses data from the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) to examine trends in employer-sponsored health insurance (ESI) for different of individuals and households in the United States. While ESI remains the leading source of coverage for nonelderly people, the percentage covered by an employer plan has declined over the past 15 years. A similar pattern exists with firm offer rates; fewer workers were offered health insurance from their employer in 2014 than in 1999. Families with low and modest incomes have been most affected by these declines.

  • Web Briefing for Media – The Supreme Court, Birth Control, and Religious Freedom: Implications of Zubik v. Burwell

    Event Date:
    Event

    On March 23, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear Zubik v. Burwell, legal challenges brought by nonprofit corporations challenging the Affordable Care Act's contraceptive coverage requirement. The 2014 Hobby Lobby decision established that certain firms with religious beliefs should be relieved of the requirement of paying for contraceptive coverage. In this case, religious nonprofits are objecting to the regulations that the Obama Administration has developed to accommodate their religious objections to birth control, claiming it still burdens their religious beliefs. After the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, this already complicated case has taken on yet an additional question. Given that the Court will be operating with only 8 Justices, what would be the impact of a tie (4-4) decision? To address the legal and policy questions raised by the case, the Kaiser Family Foundation will hold an interactive web briefing exclusively for journalists.

  • Data Note: Are Nonprofits Requesting an Accommodation for Contraceptive Coverage?

    Issue Brief

    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.