Employers

In this Medium post, Alina Salganicoff outlines the legal arguments in the U.S. Supreme Court case Zubik v. Burwell and discusses what the case could mean for contraceptive coverage.

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.

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.

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.

Small and large firms vary substantially on health insurance offer rates and costs. This brief expands on information presented in the 2015 Kaiser/HRET Survey of Employer-Sponsored Health Benefits to look exclusively at differences in offer rates, plan costs, and cost sharing between small firms and large firms.

This Visualizing Health Policy infographic charts recent trends in employer-sponsored health insurance premiums. Between 1999 and 2015, premiums increased by 203 percent, outpacing both inflation and workers’ earnings. However, growth of premiums for family coverage slowed toward the end of that time period, from an average of 11 percent a…

This Visualizing Health Policy infographic charts recent trends in employer-sponsored health insurance premiums. Between 1999 and 2015, premiums increased by 203 percent, outpacing both inflation and workers’ earnings. However, growth of premiums for family coverage slowed toward the end of that time period, from an average of 11 percent a…

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.