|
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
Panelists:
Health reform -- the “let’s do lunch” of public policy -- is on everyone’s lips in Washington. But like many long-postponed, obligatory meals, who is going to pick up the check? Capping the tax exclusion of employer-sponsored insurance (ESI) -- an idea loved and loathed by politicians from both parties -- is on the table to pay for subsidies for the uninsured and to moderate companies’ incentives to offer high-end coverage. If a cap is defined by ESI costs, the generosity of coverage will not be the only factor determining whether benefits are taxed as income. Because of geographic differences in health care costs, premiums for the identical benefits package can more than double when an individual crosses state lines. Workers’ age, company size, and category of dependent coverage can also change premiums, even if benefits remain fixed. Can these inequities be avoided? If so, will this be a way to bridge the philosophical divide and move forward on comprehensive health reform? In a forthcoming paper, the Urban Institute’s Stan Dorn explores one way of bringing fairness to capping the tax exclusion: taxing benefits if their actuarial value -- the claims costs that actuaries project if a nationally representative population were enrolled -- exceed specified levels. As a result, only the generosity of covered benefits would determine whether ESI is taxed. Other factors would be irrelevant. Be part of the conversation as a panel of experts considers Resources At the Urban Institute |