SHRM – Leaning Backwards or Forwards?
The Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM)has approximately 250,000 members representing the varied disciplines and commercial interests within the human resource profession. As a benefits professional with expanded human resource responsibilities, I recently joined SHRM.
No one there {Photo by JLM}
So I was disappointed to learn that SHRM does not support the recently passed House health care reform bill, HR 3962, The Affordable Health Care for America Act.
My readers will know I consistently argue that relying on employment as the primary gateway to the health care system is outmoded and ultimately harmful to the American economy. Part of that argument is because employer sponsored health care limits the flexibility of employer human resource policies and the mobility of the workforce.
Does SHRM share those views?
Apparently not.
What does SHRM say?
In some areas, the legislation does not go far enough, especially in the area of containing costs. In other ways, the legislation would create new impediments for employers and employees. For example, the House bill:
- Does not include provisions to create greater availability to wellness programs for employees and employers.
- Mandates that employers provide and pay for “qualified” health care coverage for their employees. If employers do not provide coverage – or do not provide the specific “qualified” coverage at an “affordable” price, as determined by the federal government, they must pay an 8 percent payroll tax.
- Erodes the effectiveness of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) by applying state law to employer- purchased coverage in a health insurance exchange; prohibits post-retirement reductions of retiree health benefits by group health plans, unless reductions are also made to active employees’ health benefits; and requires employer-sponsored plans to meet detailed federal requirements. These changes would likely result in additional costs and burdens on multi-state employers who could face different rules in different states.
- Establishes a public insurance plan option that, as currently drafted in the House bill, could result in cost-shifting to private plans, potentially increasing costs for both employers and employees.
The Maze’s response
I. Their first point is preposterous. Employers don’t need federal legislation to promote wellness. For people without health insurance, their pathway to wellness is health insurance. And wellness alone is no substitute for health insurance. What more evidence do you need than the story of the shooting in the health club in Bridgeville, PA this past August? One of the victims had no health insurance. Her health club membership did not protect her from the bullets of a crazy man.
In addition, workplace wellness is a growing phenomenon around the world and is not dependent on employer sponsored health insurance.
II. It continually mystifies me why the business community opposes employer mandates. Apparently the ideology of a “free” market trumps the common sense of a competitive market. In a competitive market, everyone plays by the same rules. In a free market, the winners make the rules.
III. I am a bit more sympathetic to some of the arguments about ERISA. As typical of any legislation, especially proposals that are as hotly debated as this one, legislators make decisions that reflect a poor understanding of the complexities of the issue. If the choice were between this proposal and a single payer system, I would agree this solution is a poor one and should be rejected. That is not SHRM’s viewpoint.
IV. If SHRM were truly concerned about cost shifting, they should support a single payer system or at least an employer mandate. They could support an all-payer methodology that the state across the river from their headquarters has. Their opposition to the public plan option reveals their true loyalty to the insurance companies.
An alternative perspective
Why not promote policies that enable employer flexibility for all employers, large and small, and facilitate workforce mobility and development?
Ken Dychtwald was the keynote speaker at the recent annual conference of the International Foundation of Employee Benefit Plans (IFEBP). He described how Americans are living longer and the impact thus is having on workplaces and employment practices. Workers want to extend their working careers with educational breaks, career shifts, part time and part year work. He did not address specifically the issue of universal access to health care. But it is obvious that current employment based health insurance practices are a significant hurdle to adoption of the kind of workforce flexibility envisioned by Dr. Dychtwald.
SHRM should be looking to enable the future and not protect the past.
