WASHINGTON -- Your medical plan is facing an unexpected expense, so you probably are, too. It's a new, $63-per-head fee to cushion the cost of covering people with pre-existing conditions under President Barack Obama's health care overhaul.
The charge, buried in a recent regulation, works out to tens of millions of dollars for the largest companies, employers say. Most of that is likely to be passed on to workers.
Employee benefits lawyer Chantel Sheaks calls it a "sleeper issue" with significant financial consequences, particularly for large employers.
"Especially at a time when we are facing economic uncertainty, (companies will) be hit with a multi-million dollar assessment without getting anything back for it," said Sheaks, a principal at Buck Consultants, a Xerox subsidiary.
Based on figures provided in the regulation, employer and individual health plans covering an estimated 190 million Americans could owe the per-person fee.
The Obama administration says it is a temporary assessment levied for three years starting in 2014, designed to raise $25 billion. It starts at $63 and then declines.
Most of the money will go into a fund administered by the Health and Human Services Department. It will be used to cushion health insurance companies from the initial hard-to-predict costs of covering uninsured people with medical problems. Under the law, insurers will be forbidden from turning away the sick as of Jan. 1, 2014.
The program "is intended to help millions of Americans purchase affordable health insurance, reduce unreimbursed usage of hospital and other medical facilities by the uninsured and thereby lower medical expenses and premiums for all," the Obama administration says in the regulation. An accompanying media fact sheet issued Nov. 30 referred to "contributions" without detailing the total cost and scope of the program.
Of the total pot, $5 billion will go directly to the U.S. Treasury, apparently to offset the cost of shoring up employer-sponsored coverage for early retirees.
The $25 billion fee is part of a bigger package of taxes and fees to finance Obama's expansion of coverage to the uninsured. It all comes to about $700 billion over 10 years, and includes higher Medicare taxes effective this Jan. 1 on individuals making more than $200,000 per year or couples making more than $250,000. People above those threshold amounts also face an additional 3.8 percent tax on their investment income.
But the insurance fee had been overlooked as employers focused on other costs in the law, including fines for medium and large firms that don't provide coverage.
"This kind of came out of the blue and was a surprisingly large amount," said Gretchen Young, senior vice president for health policy at the ERISA Industry Committee, a group that represents large employers on benefits issues.
Word started getting out in the spring, said Young, but hard cost estimates surfaced only recently with the new regulation. It set the per capita rate at $5.25 per month, which works out to $63 a year.
America's Health Insurance Plans, the major industry trade group for health insurers, says the fund is an important program that will help stabilize the market and mitigate cost increases for consumers as the changes in Obama's law take effect.
But employers already offering coverage to their workers don't see why they have to pony up for the stabilization fund, which mainly helps the individual insurance market. The redistribution puts the biggest companies on the hook for tens of millions of dollars.
"It just adds on to everything else that is expected to increase health care costs," said economist Paul Fronstin of the nonprofit Employee Benefit Research Institute.
The fee will be assessed on all "major medical" insurance plans, including those provided by employers and those purchased individually by consumers. Large employers will owe the fee directly. That's because major companies usually pay upfront for most of the health care costs of their employees. It may not be apparent to workers, but the insurance company they deal with is basically an agent administering the plan for their employer.
The fee will total $12 billion in 2014, $8 billion in 2015 and $5 billion in 2016. That means the per-head assessment would be smaller each year, around $40 in 2015 instead of $63.
It will phase out completely in 2017 – unless Congress, with lawmakers searching everywhere for revenue to reduce federal deficits – decides to extend it.
Also on HuffPost:
Prosecution For Financial Fraud Hit A 20-Year Low During The Obama Administration
Despite Obama's <a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/05/06/why-can-t-obama-bring-wall-street-to-justice.html" target="_hplink">promises to crack down</a> on Wall Street, federal prosecutions of financial fraud hit a 20-year low last year, according to a <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/15/financial-fraud-prosecution_n_1095933.html" target="_hplink">November study from a watchdog group</a>. The number of these types of prosecutions has been falling every year since 1999 -- in other words, there were more prosecutions during every year of George W. Bush's presidency than during every year of Obama's.
Income Inequality Is Worse Under Obama Than Under Bush
The rich took home a <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/11/income-inequality-obama-bush_n_1419008.html" target="_hplink">greater share of America's income pie</a> from 2009 to 2010 than they did between 2002 and 2007, according to an April analysis from Emmanuel Saez, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley. That means the gap between the rich and the poor was more pronounced under Obama's presidency than under George W. Bush's.
Obama Wants To Lower The Corporate Tax Rate
Some of America's most profitable companies used a variety of loopholes to pay <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/03/major-corporations-tax-subsidies_n_1073548.html" target="_hplink">less than zero in taxes</a> between 2008 and 2010, according to a November 2011 report by the Citizens for Tax Justice. But the Obama administration wants to make it even easier for corporations to have a smaller tax bill; Obama proposed a tax overhaul that would <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/22/barack-obama-proposing-to_n_1292939.html" target="_hplink">cut the corporate tax rate</a> from 35 percent to 28 percent.
Health Care Reform Won't Make Health Care Cheaper For Most Americans
Once the health care law takes effect, insurance companies will be footing the bill for millions of previously uninsured Americans and for those who were denied coverage for pre-existing conditions. And health insurance companies will <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/20/health-care-costs-rise_n_1440584.html" target="_hplink">likely pass on to consumers the cost</a> of insuring the new patients. After Massachusetts enacted a similar health care plan in 2006, premiums for an individual plan in the state <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/28/health-insurance-ruling-supreme-court-costs_n_1634555.html" target="_hplink">rose 18 percent</a> over three years.
Obama's Housing Programs Have Largely Been A Failure
In 2009, Obama announced the Home Affordable Mortgage Program, promising to help 3 to 4 million borrowers, but as of January -- more than three years into the program -- HAMP had <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/27/hamp-loan-modification-expands_n_1237169.html" target="_hplink">only reached 1 million borrowers</a>. In an aim to give the program legs, administration <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/27/hamp-loan-modification-expands_n_1237169.html" target="_hplink">officials changed the rules</a> in January to make more borrowers eligible. Still, the fixes were likely too little too late, experts said at the time.
Homeowners Haven't Seen Much Out Of That Huge Mortgage Deal
The Obama Administration touted the $25 billion mortgage deal it reached with 49 states and the big banks to settle allegations that banks mishandled mortgages. As part of the settlement, banks said they would <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/12/national-mortgage-settlement-_n_1589499.html" target="_hplink">offer at least $10 billion</a> in loan forgiveness to homeowners. But months after the deal was inked, <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/29/debt-relief-mortgage-settlement_n_1839923.html" target="_hplink">banks have been slow</a> to hand out the money.
Democrats Have Received Lots Of Campaign Cash From Bain Employees
The Democratic National Convention will feature <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/03/bain-capital_n_1852302.html" target="_hplink">employees of firms run by Bain Capital</a> -- the private equity firm where Mitt Romney was formerly CEO -- likely in an aim to raise questions about Romney's tenure at the now-controversial company. But Democratic candidates and committees had <a href="http://articles.boston.com/2012-05-23/nation/31814221_1_obama-campaign-mitt-romney-romney-claims" target="_hplink">actually netted double the amount of campaign cash from Bain workers</a> as of May than their Republican counterparts since 2008, according to the <em>Boston Globe</em>. Now, Republicans are beating their Democratic colleagues in Bain cash, with <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/overview/topcontribs.php" target="_hplink">58 percent of donations from Bain</a> employees going to Republican candidates and parties, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. <strong>CORRECTION:</strong><em> An earlier version of this slide misstated that Democrats were receiving more donations from Bain employees than Republicans. That was the case in May. As of September Republicans are receiving more donations from Bain employees.</em>
Goldman And Other Wall St. Firms Have Largely Escaped Punishment For Their Role In The Financial Crisis
The announcement last month that the Justice Department wouldn't be prosecuting Goldman Sachs over allegations surrounding the financial crisis was <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/15/matt-taibbi-eric-holder_n_1784167.html" target="_hplink">a reminder for many</a> that the Obama Administration has largely let banks off the hook for their role in the meltdown. And regulators and officials may be running out of time; <a href="http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/08/09/goldman-says-sec-has-ended-mortgage-investigation/?ref=business" target="_hplink">the statute of limitations</a> for crimes related to the financial crisis is fast approaching, according to <em>The New York Times</em>.
The Revolving Door Is Alive And Well In Obama Administration
Many current and former members of the Obama Administration have ties to Wall Street. The <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/30/wall-street-washington_n_1842517.html" target="_hplink">list includes</a> the president's current and former chiefs of staff -- Jacob Lew and Bill Daley, respectively -- as well as his former budget director, Peter Orszag, and others.
Too Big To Fail Banks Have Grown Under Obama
At the end of 2011, five big banks, including Bank of America and JPMorgan Chase, held <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-04-16/obama-bid-to-end-too-big-to-fail-undercut-as-banks-grow.html" target="_hplink">56 percent of the U.S. economy</a>, according to Bloomberg, compared to 43 percent five years earlier. That's right, the too-big-to-fail banks have actually gotten bigger.
The U.S. Has Gained A Lot Of Low-Wage Jobs During The Recovery
Welcome to the U.S. of Low-Wage America. Most of the jobs lost during the recession paid middle wages, while most of those <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/31/low-wage-jobs_n_1846733.html" target="_hplink">gained during the recovery were low-wage jobs</a>, according to a recent study from the National Employment Law Project.
Incomes Declined More During The Recovery Than The Recession
Median <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/10/us/recession-officially-over-us-incomes-kept-falling.html" target="_hplink">household income fell 6.7 percent</a> between June 2009, when the recession technically ended, and June 2011, according to a Census Bureau study cited by <em>The New York Times</em>. That's more than the 3.2 percent incomes fell during the recession, between 2007 and 2009.
Payroll Tax Cut May Expire On Obama's Watch
Last December, congressional Democrats managed to save the payroll tax cut for one more year, giving 122 million workers a few extra bucks each paycheck, but now that <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444130304577561410867407728.html" target="_hplink">boost may quietly disappear</a>, according to the <em>Wall Street Journal</em>. That's because the White House won't be pushing for another payroll tax cut extension this year.
Many Top Obama Donors Are Employees Of Major Corporations
Of the top 10 companies with employees donating money to Obama's campaign, three are big banks: JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup and Goldman Sachs, according to <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cid=N00009638" target="_hplink">the Center for Responsive Politics</a>. Some of Obama's other major contributors include employees from big companies such as Microsoft and Google.