issues with providing health insurance benefits in small companies

[Guest smomarket]

Advice please: we have a 10pp company and are in the process of offering health insurance benefits for the first time. We plan to pay 70% across the board for all full time employees and their families with two options of health plans. One employee (single status) claims that offering 70% across the board would be discrimination to those without familes and is requesting equal compensation. Ideas, comments, suggestions? Many Thanks

[oriecat]

Wow, some people are just never happy! I think it's fairly common practice to do as you said, and it's not discrimination in any legal sense. The employee is certainly welcome to have a family and all of the additional expense that goes with it, if s/he wants to get the additional insurance paid by the company. Maybe you should tell the employee, you're right, I guess we won't pay anything for anyone, and see how they like that idea!

[Guest Ryell]

Ask this person to give you specific regulatory guidance as to discriminatory practice. This usually nips this type of complaining in the bud.

[KoolLady4]

In my company (9 employees), the employer pays 100% of the cost for a single. If someone wants family coverage, they pay it through our 125 plan.

[mbozek]

I dont see any detriment to a single ee because he is receiving the same amount of er paid coverage (70%) that the married ee receives. The fact that the er pays more $ to the ins co for the family of a married ee does not create any detriment to the single ee.

[four01kman]

I think the issue is equity in terms of dollars. Many employers will pay 100% of the single employee's health care cost. That then sets the floor for the married employees in many cases. Of course,employers are free to do what they want so long as it is non-discrimanatory. But considering the cost of a family's coverage can be as much as 3-4 times a single, revisiting the issue for employee morale may make sense.

[Guest rubindj]

Couple of thoughts come to mind.

At least with some insurers, you will have to have 100% participation to write a group that size. By paying 100% of employee premiums you insure this is the case.

At least in my area, the norm is that the employee's insurance is completely paid, and family is either not paid at all, or paid at varying amounts. Keep in mind that POP's are available (probably for free from your insurer) to pay for premiums.

[jsb]

This is not about pay otherwise you would be trying to be "equal" (I hope). This is about providing health INSURANCE because you believe that it is important for employees and their families to have access to comprehensive, affordable coverage, and to be protected against catastrophic financial loss due to injuries or illness.

Paying 70% is a good number. It provides a significant incentive for people who don't need your coverage to not take it, but it also provides a substantial contribution toward the coverage of people who do need and want the coverage. If you pay 100% for individuals, all should take your coverage even if they have other coverage available and don't really need yours. People will act in their own financial best interests. Sharing costs helps keep your and their interests aligned.

Is this issue your employee's only foible? I suspect not. Maybe it's time to suggest that this person move on if your company philosophies and policies are not to their liking.