Boca Benefits Consulting Group Inc.

In doing some research for a LinkedIn member relative to COBRA eligibility it seems an inconsistency has been detected between (1) long-standing COBRA regulations pertaining to early termination rules and (2) the regulations requiring early termination of the the present 65% federal subsidy. 

Although this inconsistency may be nothing more than an oversight on the part of DOL, it would appear to be more fundamental relative to its overall intent going forward. The newer intent seems to be much more business friendly (i.e., no expense associated with a non-productive former employee). It may not be so much altruistic as the real politic of what has been required to get health reform issues through a divided Congress.

In the specific case, the 65% federal subsidy will be terminated if a former employee is so much as eligible for a new employer plan. No enrollment in the new plan is required for the previous employer to require the full 102% premium to be paid (i.e., as opposed to 35%) to remain in COBRA.  It is purely a matter of eligibility. Unquestionablly, the net result will be less people on COBRA and more people enrolled in their new employer plans. Employers with a sizeable number of COBRA participants should see substantial savings if they monitor this provision closely (i.e., some form of periodic written statement from the COBRA participant that they have never been eligibile for another group plan from the inception of their COBRA participation, either personally or via spouse).

Note that this is not an allowable early termination event as previously defined by DOL where actual enrollment has been required before a former employer can terminate a former employee’s COBRA participation. In this case COBRA termination would be a voluntary former/new employee act based on the relative economics. 

The subsidy regulation above appears to be in line with the “To Age 26” provisions of PPACA 2010 as we understand them. In that case, the parent’s employer can also terminate an adult dependent’s eligibility for its healthplan based solely on eligibility for a new employer’s plan. Again, no enrollment is required for this action. The pure eligibility is the key.

Both the subsidy and the adult dependent regulations seem to reflect the true purpose of all these healthcare delivery mechanisms. The underlying intent has been to ensure that there is a mandatory safety net for those who would lose employer based coverage and have absolutely no other alternative. If there is an alternative, than there is no reason for that safety net (n.b., and the associated non-productive costs) to exist.  None of these devices have been put in place to allow for “plan shopping” on the part of an employee who might otherwise have mutliple eligibilities.

DOL needs to address the COBRA inconsistency and re-write the regulations going forward to allow for early termination of COBRA based solely on eligibility. Rarely, if ever, will there be a negative economic impact on an employee who will revert from 102% of premium to somewhere in the area of 75% of premium (i.e., assuming here a 25% employer contribution). This may require large employers to leverage local politicians if the various applicable federal statutes require amendment.


[Note: to share only this single post, click title of this post above prior to clicking on Share icon.]