The Labor Market Impact of Employer Health Benefit Mandates: Evidence from San Francisco's Health Care Security Ordinance

Examines the impact of a policy requiring employers to provide employee health benefits or contribute to a public option health plan on employment, earnings, and customer surcharges by industry and county

How Do Employers React to A Pay-or-Play Mandate? Early Evidence from San Francisco

In 2006 San Francisco adopted major health reform, becoming the first city to implement a pay-or-play employer health spending mandate. It also created Healthy San Francisco, a “public option” to promote affordable universal access to care. Using the 2008 Bay Area Employer Health Benefits Survey, we find that most employers (75%) had to increase health spending to comply with the law, yet most (64%) are supportive of the law. There is substantial employer demand for the public option, with 21% of firms using Healthy San Francisco for at least some employees, yet there is little evidence of firms dropping existing insurance offerings in the first year after implementation.

Assessing Differences between Early and Later Adopters of Accountable Care Organizations Using Taxonomic Analysis

Objective. To compare early and later adopters of the accountable care organization (ACO) model, using the taxonomy of larger, integrated system; smaller, physician-led; and hybrid ACOs. Data sources. The National Survey of ACOs, Waves 1 and 2. Studydesign. Clusteranalysisusingthetwo-stepclusteringapproach,validatedusing discriminant analysis. Wave 2 data analyzed separately to assess differences from Wave 1 and then data pooled across waves. Findings. Compared to early ACOs, later adopter ACOs included a greater breadth of provider group types and a greater proportion self-reported as integrated delivery systems. When data from the two time periods were combined, a three-cluster solution similar to the original cluster solution emerged. Of the 251 ACOs, 31.1 percent were larger, integrated system ACOs; 45.0 percent were smaller physician-led ACOs; and 23.9 percent were hybrid ACOs—compared to 40.1 percent, 34.0 percent, and 25.9 percent from Wave 1 clusters, respectively. Conclusions. While there are some differences between ACOs formed prior to August 2012 and those formed in the following year, the three-cluster taxonomy appears to best describe the types of ACOs in existence as of July 2013. The updated taxonomy can be used by researchers, policy makers, and health care organizations to support evaluation and continued development of ACOs

How Do Employers React to a Pay-or-Play Mandate? Early Evidence from San Francisco

In 2006 San Francisco adopted major health reform, becoming the first city to implement a pay-or-play employer-health spending mandate. It also created Healthy San Francisco, a public option to promote affordable universal access to care. Using the 2008 Bay Area Employer Health Benefits Survey, we find that most employers (75%) had to increase health spending to comply with the law, yet most (64%) are supportive of the law. There is substantial employer demand for the public option, with 21% of firms using Healthy San Francisco for at least some employees, yet there is little evidence of firms dropping existing insurance offerings in the first year after implementation

How Do Employers React to a Pay-or-Play Mandate? Early Evidence from San Francisco

In 2008 San Francisco implemented major health reform, becoming the first city to adopt a pay-or-play employer health spending mandate. It also created Healthy San Francisco, a new “public option” low-cost health access plan for the uninsured. This study evaluates employer-level health benefit offering responses to the pay-or-play mandate in the first year of implementation using the 2008 Bay Area Employer Health Benefits Survey and a difference-in-difference estimator. Although 92% of firms subject to the mandate already offered insurance prior to enactment, we find that 76% of firms had to expand benefits to comply with the minimum hourly spending requirement for each worker. Nevertheless, most surveyed San Francisco employers (61%) were supportive of the law. There is substantial employer demand for the public option, with 18% of firms using Healthy San Francisco for at least some employees, yet there is little evidence of firms dropping or restricting existing insurance offerings in the first year after implementation. A non-trivial portion of firms chose to meet the mandate by paying into health reimbursement accounts (14%). These results confirm that employer mandate details can have crucial effects on employer behavior. While there are important geographic and political characteristics of San Francisco that are important to bear in mind, San Francisco’s early experience suggests that implementation of a strong pay-or-play mandate is indeed feasible.