Easy E wrote:
Whembly, I agree with your thoughts that it is a combination of things, ACA is part of the larger economic picture and is driving changes.

Last year, my employer cut their PPO out entirely, but maintained the HRA and HSA plans. They say it was to prepare for ACA but I have a feeling that was the plan anyway since they had been pimping the HRA/HSA for a few years before.

I like HRA/HSA plans for most workers but if you or someone in your family is already sick then they are horrible plans. Plus, the concept is a bit flawed for HRA/HSA since insurance companies and the providers can't tell you what the "lowest" cost is since their contracted "allowed amounts" are secret. So you really can't shop around for the best price.

 Ouze wrote:
I haven't had any insurance changes, and my yearly merit raise was the largest it's ever been since starting with the company. So, I guess changes, but unrelated and positive.

 ironicsilence wrote:
I also wonder if some of the negative changes are due to obamacare or is it just employers taking advantage of the timing. When the economy is bad it generally gives employers the freedom to cut back on things without looking bad, gives them a away to justify it. Cant help but wonder how many companies are using obamacare for similar cut backs

By Yasmeen Abutaleb

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Hit by years of budget cuts, some U.S. public school boards are looking to avoid providing health benefits to substitute teachers and supporting staff under President Barack Obama's reform law, education officials say.

According to the law, employers will have to offer health coverage to all full-time employees, defined as those who work an average of 30 or more hours per week each month, or else pay a fine starting in 2015.

School boards, already struggling to manage after years of state budget cuts, are trying to get ahead of the potential costs of Obamacare for the current academic year, education and labor officials say. The need to find creative solutions, or risk cutting back staff hours further, will increase as they finalize their budgets, they say.

In Pennsylvania's Penn Manor School District, Superintendent Mike Leichliter said there is no room in its constrained budget to provide additional employee insurance. Instead of cutting hours, the district used a substitute-teacher contracting service to pay part of the salaries for 95 employees. Money for such a service does not count against the school's budget.

"When we looked at our costs, (healthcare) was one area that really had the potential to skyrocket," Leichliter said. "This is absolutely the worst time for school districts to be faced with mandated increases."

The National School Board Association said many states and school districts have at least explored reducing hours, according to Linda Embrey, a communications officer. Several school officials contacted by Reuters said they could not find a way around cuts.

In Indiana's Fort Wayne Community Schools district, one of the state's largest, administrators reduced hours for 610 of its 4,050 employees, including substitute teachers and support staff, who were working 30 or more hours a week. Providing them with health insurance would have cost $10 million annually, said Krista Stockman, public information officer for Fort Wayne.

"You get to a point where there's a danger that you're cutting too much and that the quality of education you're providing isn't as great," Stockman said. "We're just going to have to do the same amount or more with less."

Most of the employees affected are substitute teachers, classroom aides, cafeteria workers, bus drivers or similar support staff, according to school officials and labor representatives. They had not been receiving healthcare coverage from their employers in the past. Now, instead of getting such employer-sponsored benefits under the reform law, they may be eligible for government-subsidized coverage that will be offered by new state insurance exchanges starting on October 1.

SEQUESTER TAKES A SECOND TOLL

During the 2012-2013 school year, 26 states provided less money to local school districts than the prior year, and 35 states provided less funding than in 2008 (a better year), according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

This year they are also grappling with across-the-board "sequester" spending cuts introduced after Congress deadlocked over how to fix the deficit. An Obama administration official said those cuts plus the states', and not healthcare reform, are the main reasons for staff losing work-time at schools.

"We are seeing no systematic evidence that the Affordable Care Act is leading to a shift to part-time work," the official said. "There are a variety of factors impacting schools, including sequestration, which is cutting budgets and is a completely separate issue."

The National Education Association is working with union leaders across the country to figure out how to encourage employers to avoid cutting hours as a result of healthcare reform, said Joel Solomon, NEA senior policy analyst. The effort has included a training session for dozens of labor representatives in June, and more sessions are planned for this year.

Solomon said one popular solution offered by the NEA is to help schools get a more precise accounting of employee hours to see whether staff are truly working an average of 30 hours a week each month when holidays and other time off are included. That has helped some schools make less drastic cuts in employee hours, he said.

Many school employees are expected to qualify for Obamacare's tax subsidies, which are available starting in January to people who make within 400 percent of the federal poverty level ($45,960 for an individual and $94,200 for a family of four in 2013).

Even if they don't, the new plans are preferable to what they currently have to buy on the individual market because insurers cannot deny coverage based on prior illness.

In Nebraska, the Plattsmouth Community School District is limiting the hours of permanent substitute teachers, who typically work every day, said Marlene Wehrbein, a labor union official who advocates for employees in the state's public school districts.

"It creates a lot of inconsistency in staffing, and I can't see how that would be good for students," Wehrbein said. "How could you have a teacher teaching English four days a week and then on the fifth day you have someone else?"

 Kanluwen wrote:
Schools tried to screw substitute teachers over even before the ACA.

This is not news.

 whembly wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
Whembly, I agree with your thoughts that it is a combination of things, ACA is part of the larger economic picture and is driving changes.

Last year, my employer cut their PPO out entirely, but maintained the HRA and HSA plans. They say it was to prepare for ACA but I have a feeling that was the plan anyway since they had been pimping the HRA/HSA for a few years before.

I like HRA/HSA plans for most workers but if you or someone in your family is already sick then they are horrible plans. Plus, the concept is a bit flawed for HRA/HSA since insurance companies and the providers can't tell you what the "lowest" cost is since their contracted "allowed amounts" are secret. So you really can't shop around for the best price.

Yeah... I agree that the HRA/HSA can be crummy for certain folks. I just wished that they've taken the opportunity within the ACA to shine a big spotlight on the insurance AND healthcare providers... we need some cost visability really bad. It looks like the insurance lobbying group did their job (you reading this dogma?).

A new survey of 2,500 federal employees and retirees found that 92.3 percent believe federal workers should keep their current health insurance and not be forced into ObamaCare. Only 2.9 percent say they should become part of the new health insurance exchanges.

I suspect a similar percentage of private sector employees would also like to keep their coverage, but most won’t get that option. What I’d like to know is how many of those federal employees so eager to avoid ObamaCare themselves supported forcing everyone else in it.

There’s more. The survey, conducted byFedSmith.com, “an information portal for sources of information impacting the federal community and those interested in the Federal Government’s activities,” found that 96.1 percent think federal retirees should be able to stay with their retirement health insurance. Only 3.9 percent think they should get “Medicare in lieu of their current option.”

To put it simply: Federal employees and retires almost unanimously prefer to stay in their generous taxpayer-funded health insurance program, known as the Federal Employees Health Benefit Plan (FEHBP), rather than being dumped into liberalism’s two greatest monuments to government-run health insurance, ObamaCare and Medicare.

 whembly wrote:
ahem... another group doesn't want the public exchange:
http://www.fedsmith.com/2013/08/08/fedsmith-com-users-overwhelmingly-reject-inclusion-in-new-health-care-program/

A new survey of 2,500 federal employees and retirees found that 92.3 percent believe federal workers should keep their current health insurance and not be forced into ObamaCare. Only 2.9 percent say they should become part of the new health insurance exchanges.

I suspect a similar percentage of private sector employees would also like to keep their coverage, but most won’t get that option. What I’d like to know is how many of those federal employees so eager to avoid ObamaCare themselves supported forcing everyone else in it.

There’s more. The survey, conducted byFedSmith.com, “an information portal for sources of information impacting the federal community and those interested in the Federal Government’s activities,” found that 96.1 percent think federal retirees should be able to stay with their retirement health insurance. Only 3.9 percent think they should get “Medicare in lieu of their current option.”

To put it simply: Federal employees and retires almost unanimously prefer to stay in their generous taxpayer-funded health insurance program, known as the Federal Employees Health Benefit Plan (FEHBP), rather than being dumped into liberalism’s two greatest monuments to government-run health insurance, ObamaCare and Medicare.

Speaks volumes, doesn’t it?

edit: fixed linky...edit#2 dammit, link won't stick.

Employers around the country, from fast-food franchises to colleges, have told NBC News that they will be cutting workers’ hours below 30 a week because they can’t afford to offer the health insurance mandated by the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare.
“To tell somebody that you’ve got to decrease their hours because of a law passed in Washington is very frustrating to me,” said Loren Goodridge, who owns 21 Subway franchises, including a restaurant in Kennebunk. “I know the impact I’m having on some of my employees.”

Luke Perfect, who has worked at Goodridge’s Kennebunk Subway for more than a decade, said it was “horrible” to learn he was among the employees whose hours would be limited, and that it would be a financial hardship. “I’m barely scraping by with overtime,” he said.
The White House dismisses such examples as "anecdotal." Jason Furman, chairman of the president’s Council of Economic Advisors, said, “We are seeing no systematic evidence that the Affordable Care Act is having an adverse impact on job growth or the number of hours employees are working. … [S]ince the ACA became law, nearly 90 percent of the gain in employment has been in full-time positions.”
But the president of an influential union that supports Obamacare said the White House is wrong.
"It IS happening," insisted Joseph Hansen, president of the United Food and Commercial Workers union, which has 1.2 million members. "Wait a year. You'll see tremendous impact as workers have their hours reduced and their incomes reduced. The facts are already starting to show up. Their statistics, I think, are a little behind the time."
In a letter to Democratic leaders on Capitol Hill, Hansen joined other labor chieftains in warning that the ACA as presently written could “destroy the foundation of the 40-hour work week that is the backbone of the middle class.”
NBC News spoke with almost 20 small businesses and other entities from Maine to California, and almost all said that because of the new law they’d be cutting back hours for some employees – an unintended consequence of the new law.
At St. Petersburg College, a public university in Florida where most of the faculty is part-time, 250 have had their hours reduced for the fall term because the college said it can’t afford to offer them health insurance.
St Petersburg’s president, Dr. Bill Law, said providing health care for the 250 adjunct professors would cost more than $777,000 dollars a year. "The cost associated with making a part-timer benefits-eligible really is not available to us as a public college,” said Law.
"I don't think anyone [passed the law] so they could make our life worse,” said Law. “They did it because people need access to health care."
Part-time math professor Tracey Sullivan said she will lose half her income because of the cuts.
"I never thought it would impact me directly,” said Sullivan. “I was stunned when I got the email...I love teaching at St. Pete College but that is a significant cut."
Many businesses are reluctant to talk about cutting hours for fear the public will view them as stingy or uncaring about their workers. But Goodridge said that many small businesses have very small profit margins and that while he already provides health insurance to senior employees, offering health insurance to many more workers would require him to pass a significant price increase on to his customers.
"The consumer only has so much money in their pocket," he said. "I just don't feel, knowing my customers and knowing my business, now is the time to be raising prices."
In July, the administration announced that it had delayed implementation of the “employer mandate,” which was supposed to take effect on Jan. 1. Now businesses with more than 50 workers will not be penalized for failing to offer insurance to full-time employees until Jan. 1, 2015.
Advertise | AdChoices


Goodridge has given his Subway employees a reprieve until he hears more from the administration, but still plans to make cutbacks before the mandate kicks in. And other businesses that had already planned cuts have not necessarily delayed them. St. Petersburg college officials said they don’t want to undo the cuts they’ve already made only to revisit them next year.
While the small businesses and the union agree there's a problem, they disagree about the appropriate solution.
Some businesses want to raise the threshold to 40 hours. But Hansen said 40 hours would be a “gift to employers” that would simply allow them to continue to skirt the law by cutting workers off at 39 hours. Instead, Hansen and other union leaders have proposed lowering the threshold to 20 hours. They have also objected publicly to a tax provision of the ACA that impacts the health plans they already offer to some union members.
“We still support the act,” said Hansen. “It does an awful lot of good things. We just want the administration and Congress, if they can, to fix it.”

 Frazzled wrote:
It seems like a lot of that could be fixed by properly defining full time as 40 hours.

rdemings wrote:i work part time at a subway (it's a second job), and after obamacare passed, they limited us to 27 hrs a week, and no health care. hooray democracy...

ironicsilence wrote:I also wonder if some of the negative changes are due to obamacare or is it just employers taking advantage of the timing. When the economy is bad it generally gives employers the freedom to cut back on things without looking bad, gives them a away to justify it. Cant help but wonder how many companies are using obamacare for similar cut backs

Dreadclaw69 wrote:I think I got lucky. My employer is a university that considers full time to be 30 hours, provides us with healthy choices for lunch, and has a great benefits package. But all that is driven by the ethos of the university rather than any reaction to the ACA.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
I work for a city council in Mass, we already had Romneycare, so no change whatsoever.

Thanks Mitt!