Capping the tax exclusion for employment-based health coverage: implications for employers and workers.

EBRI issue brief Pub Date : 2009-01-01
Paul Fronstin
{"title":"Capping the tax exclusion for employment-based health coverage: implications for employers and workers.","authors":"Paul Fronstin","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>HEALTH CARE TAX CAP: With health reform a major priority of the new 111th Congress and President Barack Obama, this Issue Briefexamines the administrative and implementation issues that arise from one of the major reform proposals: Capping the exclusion of employment-based health coverage from workers' taxable income.</p><p><strong>Current tax treatment: </strong>The amount that employers contribute toward workers' health coverage is generally excluded, without limit, from workers' taxable income. In addition, workers whose employers sponsor flexible spending accounts are able to pay out-of-pocket expenses with pretax dollars. Employers can also make available a premium conversion arrangement, which allows workers to pay their share of the premium for employment-based coverage with pretax dollars.</p><p><strong>Tax cap recommendations: </strong>In 2005, a presidential advisory board concluded that limiting the amount of tax-preferred health coverage could lower overall private-sector health spending. The panel recommended a cap on the amount of employment-based health coverage individuals can exclude from their income tax, as a way to reduce health spending. In his 2008 \"Call to Action\" for health care reform, Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT), chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, states that \"Congress should explore ways to restructure the current tax incentives to encourage more efficient spending on health and to target our tax dollars more effectively and fairly.\"</p><p><strong>Implementing a tax cap: </strong>While a tax cap on health coverage sounds simple, for many employers, it could be difficult to administer and results would vary by employer based on the type of health benefit plan, the size and demographics of their work force, and even where the workers live. The change would be especially difficult for self-insured employers that do not pay insurance premiums, since they would have to set the \"premium equivalent\" for each worker. This would not only be costly for employers, depending upon the requirements set out by law, but could also create fairness and tax issues for many affected workers.</p><p><strong>Administrative costs: </strong>For self-insured employers, calculating insurance premium costs under a tax cap could be done fairly easily using the COBRA premium. However, whether self-insured employers would be able to use the least costly method to determine the value of coverage would have to be determined by law and/or regulations. THE SEC. 89 EXPERIENCE: Sec. 89 of the Tax Reform Act of 1986, which attempted to make employee benefits more standard and fair, became so controversial that it was repealed by Congress in 1989--in part because the regulations created regulatory burdens that were so complicated and costly as to be unworkable. Similarly, valuation calculations under a health coverage tax cap could become overly burdensome if the lessons from Sec. 89 are not heeded.</p>","PeriodicalId":79588,"journal":{"name":"EBRI issue brief","volume":" 325","pages":"1, 3-19"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2009-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"EBRI issue brief","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

HEALTH CARE TAX CAP: With health reform a major priority of the new 111th Congress and President Barack Obama, this Issue Briefexamines the administrative and implementation issues that arise from one of the major reform proposals: Capping the exclusion of employment-based health coverage from workers' taxable income.

Current tax treatment: The amount that employers contribute toward workers' health coverage is generally excluded, without limit, from workers' taxable income. In addition, workers whose employers sponsor flexible spending accounts are able to pay out-of-pocket expenses with pretax dollars. Employers can also make available a premium conversion arrangement, which allows workers to pay their share of the premium for employment-based coverage with pretax dollars.

Tax cap recommendations: In 2005, a presidential advisory board concluded that limiting the amount of tax-preferred health coverage could lower overall private-sector health spending. The panel recommended a cap on the amount of employment-based health coverage individuals can exclude from their income tax, as a way to reduce health spending. In his 2008 "Call to Action" for health care reform, Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT), chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, states that "Congress should explore ways to restructure the current tax incentives to encourage more efficient spending on health and to target our tax dollars more effectively and fairly."

Implementing a tax cap: While a tax cap on health coverage sounds simple, for many employers, it could be difficult to administer and results would vary by employer based on the type of health benefit plan, the size and demographics of their work force, and even where the workers live. The change would be especially difficult for self-insured employers that do not pay insurance premiums, since they would have to set the "premium equivalent" for each worker. This would not only be costly for employers, depending upon the requirements set out by law, but could also create fairness and tax issues for many affected workers.

Administrative costs: For self-insured employers, calculating insurance premium costs under a tax cap could be done fairly easily using the COBRA premium. However, whether self-insured employers would be able to use the least costly method to determine the value of coverage would have to be determined by law and/or regulations. THE SEC. 89 EXPERIENCE: Sec. 89 of the Tax Reform Act of 1986, which attempted to make employee benefits more standard and fair, became so controversial that it was repealed by Congress in 1989--in part because the regulations created regulatory burdens that were so complicated and costly as to be unworkable. Similarly, valuation calculations under a health coverage tax cap could become overly burdensome if the lessons from Sec. 89 are not heeded.

限制以就业为基础的医疗保险的税收减免:对雇主和工人的影响。
医疗保健税上限:随着医疗改革成为新的第111届国会和奥巴马总统的主要优先事项,本期简报探讨了一项主要改革提案所产生的行政和实施问题:限制工人应纳税收入中基于就业的医疗保险的排除。目前的税收待遇:雇主为工人的健康保险支付的金额通常不受限制地从工人的应税收入中扣除。此外,雇主赞助灵活支出账户的员工可以用税前美元支付自付费用。雇主还可以提供保费转换安排,允许工人用税前美元支付他们的保费份额。税收上限建议:2005年,总统顾问委员会得出结论,限制税收优惠医疗保险的数量可能会降低私营部门的总体医疗支出。该小组建议对个人可以从所得税中扣除的基于就业的医疗保险金额设定上限,作为减少医疗支出的一种方式。参议院财政委员会主席、民主党参议员马克斯·鲍卡斯(Max Baucus)在2008年的医疗改革“行动呼吁”中指出,“国会应该探索重组当前税收激励机制的方法,以鼓励更有效的医疗支出,并更有效和公平地利用我们的税收资金。”实施税收上限:虽然健康保险的税收上限听起来很简单,但对许多雇主来说,可能很难管理,而且结果会因雇主的健康福利计划的类型、劳动力的规模和人口结构,甚至工人的居住地而有所不同。这一变化对于那些不支付保险费的自行投保雇主来说尤其困难,因为他们必须为每个员工设定“保费等价物”。这不仅会让雇主付出高昂的代价(取决于法律规定的要求),还会给许多受影响的工人带来公平和税收问题。管理费用:对于自行投保的雇主,在税收上限下计算保险费成本可以使用COBRA保险费相当容易地完成。然而,自行投保的雇主是否能够使用成本最低的方法来确定保险范围的价值,必须由法律和/或法规来确定。经历:1986年《税收改革法案》(Tax Reform Act of 1986)第89条试图使员工福利更加标准和公平,但由于争议太大,于1989年被国会废除——部分原因是该法规造成的监管负担太复杂,成本太高,根本行不通。同样,如果不重视第89条的教训,在医疗保险税上限下的估值计算可能会变得过于繁重。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信