urban institute nonprofit social and economic policy research

It's No Contest: The ACA's Employer Mandate Has Far Less Effect on Coverage and Costs Than the Individual Mandate

Read complete document: PDF


PrintPrint this page
Share:
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on LinkedIn Share on Digg Share on Reddit
| Email this pageE-mail
Document date: July 15, 2013
Released online: July 15, 2013

The Obama administration announced a 1-year delay in imposition of penalties for large employers who do not offer affordable coverage to their full-time workers under the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The announcement led to some suggesting that the employer penalties amounted to a key component of the ACA, and others stating that it was "unfair" to delay employer penalties but to leave the penalty on individuals in place. However, our analysis shows that the ACA can achieve all its major objectives without the employer mandate. Conversely, the individual mandate is a central component of the law and its coverage expansion.

Research Brief
Blog Post



Topics/Tags: | Health/Healthcare


Usage and reprints: Most publications may be downloaded free of charge from the web site and may be used and copies made for research, academic, policy or other non-commercial purposes. Proper attribution is required. Posting UI research papers on other websites is permitted subject to prior approval from the Urban Institute—contact publicaffairs@urban.org.

If you are unable to access or print the PDF document please contact us or call the Publications Office at (202) 261-5687.

Disclaimer: The nonpartisan Urban Institute publishes studies, reports, and books on timely topics worthy of public consideration. The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders. Copyright of the written materials contained within the Urban Institute website is owned or controlled by the Urban Institute.

Email this Page