Sep 26, 2019

Employer-based coverage is unaffordable for low-wage workers

Illustration: Sarah Grillo/Axios

Employer-based health insurance isn’t a monolith — the cost and generosity of that coverage varies widely. And that likely affects how open workers would be to “Medicare for All” or a public insurance option.

The big picture: Democrats’ health care plans would offer a better deal to many low-wage workers than to their higher-wage counterparts.

By the numbers: The Kaiser Family Foundation’s annual survey of employer health benefits illustrates this divide.

  • Roughly 36 million American workers earn $25,000 per year or less — retail workers, personal care attendants, warehouse workers and many more.
  • Just 33% of workers at lower-wage firms offering health benefits are covered by their employer’s health benefits, well below the 63% share at other firms offering coverage.
  • These low-wage workers pay an average of $7,000 per year just toward the premium for a family plan.
  • Workers in low-wage firms also face much higher deductibles: a $2,679 annual single deductible, while at other firms, the average is $1,610.

The bottom line: There is no way to gild this lily — that is the definition of unaffordable. And family coverage isn’t even available to these workers much of the time.

  • Whether low-wage workers ultimately support Democrats’ health care plans is still a matter of personal preference — whether resistance to change or distrust in the government outweigh the financial burdens of health insurance.
  • But either “Medicare for All” or a public option would offer much better coverage than these workers have now.

On the other end of the spectrum are workers with very good coverage — including those with union-negotiated contracts and even, at some higher-wage firms, workers who don’t have to make a premium contribution at all.

  • But as study after study documents, these workers also struggle with their out-of-pocket costs, especially when they or their family members become ill.

Go deeper

Health benefits won't change for GM workers

UAW workers have demanded health care costs stay the same. Photo: Jeff Kowalsky/AFP via Getty Images

The tentative deal between General Motors and the United Auto Workers includes an agreement to keep the same health care plans "with no additional costs to members," according to a summary of the deal.

Why it matters: Most employer health plans are getting more expensive and less comprehensive. The UAW is ensuring GM's benefits stay comprehensive for workers — a move that competing automakers Ford and Fiat Chrysler likely will adopt in their negotiations — but the coverage itself remains pricey and chips away at funds that could go toward wages.

Go deeperArrowOct 18, 2019

Employers aren't changing their health benefits

Illustration: Sarah Grillo/Axios

Companies rarely switch the health plans they offer to their workers, and seem to be especially cautious in the 2020 election year.

The big picture: Medical and drug costs are crushing employers and workers alike. But altering benefits — which could require employees to change their doctors — could provoke even more anger.

Go deeperArrowOct 21, 2019

Rich payouts and plant closures in GM labor deal

Photo: United Auto Workers General Motors Training Center in Detroit, Michigan. Photo: Jeff Kowalsky/Contributor/ Getty Images

Factory workers at General Motors will receive big bonuses and keep their lucrative health benefits under a proposed four-year labor contract, but union bargainers were unable to rescue three U.S. factories slated for closure.

Why it matters: The deal ends the longest nationwide strike at GM in a half-century. But relations remain raw as the automaker and its workforce struggle to adjust to disruptive technology changes roiling the industry.

Go deeperArrowOct 17, 2019