Mandating Health Insurance Participation for Employees

[Guest Rich Jochum]

Considering mandating employee participation in health insurance benefits as a condition to continued employment. Benefit plan is contributory, with employer paying 75% of premium/benefit costs. Employee contributions made via payroll deduction.

Have not found anything that would prohibit requiring employees to participate in health insurance benefits. Employees would have the option of purchasing benefits through the company or relieved of that obligation by providing evidence of coverage through another plan with comparable or better benefits.

Am I missing something in my analysis?

[Joe Priselac]

We had a similar question about mandating health insurance as a condition of employment. Our situation involved prospective employees who without proof of coverage elsewhere would have to enroll in the contributory company sponsored medical plan. The New York State depatment of labor replied that they do not regulate conduct regarding nonemoplyees.I think taking a "paternalistic" approach and forcing people who might otherwise act irresponsibly to take coverage is not a bad idea.

[Brigid Anderson]

Seems okay to me from a legal point of view. Morale, public relations--well that's another story maybe. But don't do any payroll deductions without employee's consent. It'll probably violate state law, and I think a lot of judges would say those sort of state laws aren't preempted.

------------------

[Guest nb]

We also mandate that all employees have a medical plan. However, the employer portion would cover at least the employee only premium for any plan and most or all of the cost of dependent coverage.

I think the question is, is it your intention to make sure that your employees have a medical plan or is it your intention to use the mandated coverage for all employees to negotiate a lower premium. If you're trying to make sure your employees are covered, why are you only paying 75% of the premium?