PRINT
EMAIL
COMMENT
DEL.ICIO.US
DIGG
OUR PREMIUM CONTENT
The Kiplinger Agriculture Letter
The Kiplinger California Letter
Kiplinger's Biofuels Market Alert
Kiplinger's Retirement Report
SUBSCRIBER HELP
CURRENT LETTER
No Quick Easing
Of Food Prices
PREVIOUS ISSUES
Edward I. Leeds is counsel in the Employee Benefits and Executive Compensation Group and a member of the Health Care Group at Ballard Spahr Andrews & Ingersoll, LLP. Leeds represents employers in the negotiation and drafting of insurance, administrative services and other contracts; in documenting and communicating welfare benefit plans; and in complying with applicable state and federal laws. Ballard Spahr Andrews & Ingersoll, LLP has more than 500 lawyers in 10 offices in the Mid-Atlantic and the western United States. It has one of the largest employee benefits and executive compensation practices in the country.Starting July 1, employers with 11 or more workers in Massachusetts have to pay the state $295 a year per employee unless the employer provides a least a quarter of its employees with subsidized health insurance or meets other tests. But the significance of the law and its "fair share" burden go far beyond the Bay State. Businesses, unions, health care professionals and interest groups from the left and right are increasing pressure on state legislatures and Congress to tackle the dual problems of soaring health care costs and the growing ranks of the uninsured. The Massachusetts law could be a leading model of reform.
The state's law is unique because it requires every individual in Massachusetts to have coverage -- much like drivers are required to have auto insurance. The financing of subsidies for those who can't afford insurance and do not get it through their employers is supposed to come at least in part from companies that do not provide health coverage. Businesses have been watching closely to see just how tough a line the state would draw. So far, according to Edward Leeds of Ballard Spahr Andrews & Ingersoll, the rules are relatively lenient. "We expect that most employers will be able to ... avoid paying the fair share contribution," he writes. In an analysis updated since it was first featured here in late June, Leeds lays out other details of the plan, but warns that some changes may still be on the way despite passage of the July 1 deadline.
While the law is attracting attention because of its specifics, it is also regarded as a potential model for another key reason: the way it was drafted. In an era of bitter ideological divide, the law was a bipartisan compromise written by a GOP governor and both parties, with considerable input and support from the business community. In other words, it was seen as proof that there was political will to develop consensus over an issue that had been political poison for a dozen years. That could be as important to success as any particular policy.
E-Mail Article
Print Article
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
