ERISA Reform as Health Reform: The Case for an ERISA Preemption Waiver

If federal health reforms continue to rely on employer-sponsored health care coverage, ERISA preemption reform should be part of the next steps. State-level reform has acquired greater urgency, while the justifications for preempting that source of reform has eroded. This article recommends a statutory waiver for ERISA preemption as a feasible way to adapt to these circumstances. It offers proposed statutory text for reformers inclined to pursue ERISA reform as health reform.

U.S. Office of Personnel Management. Federal Employees Health Benefits Program and Federal Employees Dental and Vision Insurance Program: Expiration of Coverage of Children of Same-Sex Domestic Partners; Federal Flexible Benefits Plan: Pre-Tax Payment of Health Benefits Premiums: Conforming Amendments. Final rule

On October 30, 2013, OPM published final regulations in the Federal Register to expand coverage for children of same-sex domestic partners under the Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) Program and the Federal Employees Dental and Vision Insurance Program (FEDVIP). The regulation allowed children of same-sex domestic partners living in states that did not allow same-sex couples to marry to be covered family members under the FEHB and the FEDVIP. Due to a subsequent Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage in all states, OPM published an interim final regulation on December 2, 2016, that created a regulatory exception that only allowed children of same-sex domestic partners living overseas to maintain their FEHB and FEDVIP coverage until September 30, 2018. OPM recognized that there were additional requirements placed on overseas federal employees that did not apply to other civilian employees with duty stations in the United States making it difficult to travel to the United States to marry their same-sex partners. Understanding that we have provided agencies with additional time for compliance given that overseas federal employees may not have been able to marry immediately following the Supreme Court decision, OPM is issuing a final rule removing references to domestic partners and domestic partnerships from the regulations. Based on the Supreme Court decision and the two additional year’s lead time for domestic partners overseas to marry, the current language in the CFR is not needed and may be somewhat confusing. There is no change in coverage for children whose same-sex partners are married.

Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act; HHS Notice of Benefit and Payment Parameters for 2019. Final rule

This final rule sets forth payment parameters and provisions related to the risk adjustment and risk adjustment data validation programs; cost-sharing parameters; and user fees for Federally-facilitated Exchanges and State Exchanges on the Federal platform. It finalizes changes that provide additional flexibility to States to apply the definition of essential health benefits (EHB) to their markets, enhance the role of States regarding the certification of qualified health plans (QHPs); and provide States with additional flexibility in the operation and establishment of Exchanges, including the Small Business Health Options Program (SHOP) Exchanges. It includes changes to standards related to Exchanges; the required functions of the SHOPs; actuarial value for stand-alone dental plans; the rate review program; the medical loss ratio program; eligibility and enrollment; exemptions; and other related topics.

The Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act Evaluation Study: Impact on Mental Health Financial Requirements among Commercial "Carve-In" Plans

OBJECTIVE

Did mental health cost-sharing decrease following implementation of the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act (MHPAEA)?

DATA SOURCE

Specialty mental health copayments, coinsurance, and deductibles, 2008-2013, were obtained from benefits databases for "carve-in" plans from a national commercial managed behavioral health organization.

STUDY DESIGN

Bivariate and regression-adjusted analyses compare the probability of use and (conditional) level of cost-sharing pre- and postparity. An interaction term is added to compare differential levels of pre- and postparity cost-sharing changes for plans that were and were not already at parity pre-MHPAEA.

FINDINGS

Controlling for employer/plan characteristics, MHPAEA is associated with higher intermediate care copayments ($15.9) but lower outpatient ($2.6) copayments among in-network-only plans. Among plans with in- and out-of-network benefits, MHPAEA is associated with lower inpatient ($23.2) and outpatient ($2.5) copayments, but increases in inpatient and intermediate in-network and out-of-network coinsurance (about 1 percentage point). Among the few plans not at parity pre-MHPAEA, changes in use and level of cost-sharing associated with MHPAEA were more dramatic.

CONCLUSION

Mixed evidence that MHPAEA led to more generous mental health benefits may stem from the finding that many plans were already at parity pre-MHPAEA. Future policy focus in mental health may shift to slowing growth in cost-sharing for all health services.

Office of Personnel Management. Federal Employees Health Benefits Program: Removal of Eligible and Ineligible Individuals From Existing Enrollments. Final rule

The United States Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is issuing a final rule amending Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) Program regulations to provide a process for removal of certain identified individuals who are found not to be eligible as family members from FEHB enrollments. This process would apply to individuals for whom there is a failure to provide adequate documentation of eligibility when requested. This action also amends Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) Program regulations to allow certain eligible family members to be removed from existing self and family or self plus one enrollments.

The Tax Exclusion for Employer-Sponsored Insurance Is Not Regressive-But What Is It?

Conventional wisdom says that the tax exclusion for employer-sponsored health insurance (ESI) is "regressive and therefore unfair." Yet, by the standard definition of regressive tax policy, the conventional view is almost certainly false. It confuses the absolute size of the tax exclusion with its proportional effect on income. The error results from paying attention only to the marginal tax rate applied to ESI benefits as a portion of income and ignoring the fact that benefits are normally a much larger share of income for people with lower wages. This article explains the difference and then considers other distributional effects of ESI. It suggests that ESI-for those who receive it-further redistributes toward those with lesser means or greater need. The most evident effect is by need, favoring employees with families over those without. Yet there is good reason to believe there is also a redistribution by income, with the package of wages plus benefits being less unequal than wages alone would be. Therefore reformers should be much more careful before criticizing either ESI or its subsidy through the tax code as "unfair," especially as the likelihood of enacting something better in the United States seems quite low.

Door Is Open for HRAs to Make a Comeback

For four years, businesses that wanted to reimburse employees for their health insurance premiums rather than buying their coverage for them were told that that was no longer allowed under the ACA. But the health reimbursement arrangement (HRA) is back, brought back to life by provisions tucked into last year's 21st Century Cure Act.

Regulatory Disruption and Arbitrage in Health-Care Data Protection

This article explains how the structure of U.S. health-care data protection (specifically its sectoral and downstream properties) has led to a chronically uneven policy environment for different types of health-care data. It examines claims for health-care data protection exceptionalism and competing demands such as data liquidity. In conclusion, the article takes the position that healthcare- data exceptionalism remains a valid imperative and that even current concerns about data liquidity can be accommodated in an exceptional protective model. However, re-calibrating our protection of health-care data residing outside of the traditional health-care domain is challenging, currently even politically impossible. Notwithstanding, a hybrid model is envisioned with downstream HIPAA model remaining the dominant force within the health-care domain, but being supplemented by targeted upstream and point-of-use protections applying to health-care data in disrupted spaces.

A Different Class of Care: the Benefits Crisis and Low-Wage Workers

When compared to other developed nations, the United States fares poorly with regard to benefits for workers. While the situation is grim for most U.S. workers, it is worse for low-wage workers. Data show a significant benefits gap between low-wage and high-wage in terms of flexible work arrangements (FWAs), paid leave, pensions, and employer-sponsored health-care insurance, among other things. This gap exists notwithstanding the fact that FWAs and employment benefits produce positive returns for employees, employers, and society in general. Despite these returns, this Article contends that employers will be loath to extend FWAs and greater employment benefits to low-wage workers due to (1) concerns about costs, (2) a surplus of low-wage workers in the labor market, (3) negative perceptions of the skill of low-wage workers and the value of low-wage work, (4) other class-based stereotypes and biases, and (5) structural impediments in some low-wage jobs. Given the decline of unions and limited legislative action to date, the Article maintains that low-wage workers are in a "different class of care" with little hope for meaningful change on the horizon.

Office of Personnel Management. Access to Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) for Employees of Certain Indian Tribal Employers. Final rule

This final rule makes Federal employee health insurance accessible to employees of certain Indian tribal entities. Section 409 of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act (codified at 25 U.S.C. 1647b) authorizes Indian tribes, tribal organizations, and urban Indian organizations that carry out certain programs to purchase coverage, rights, and benefits under the Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) Program for their employees. Tribal employers and tribal employees will be responsible for the full cost of benefits, plus an administrative fee.

Claims Procedure for Plans Providing Disability Benefits. Final rule

This document contains a final regulation revising the claims procedure regulations under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) for employee benefit plans providing disability benefits. The final rule revises and strengthens the current rules primarily by adopting certain procedural protections and safeguards for disability benefit claims that are currently applicable to claims for group health benefits pursuant to the Affordable Care Act. This rule affects plan administrators and participants and beneficiaries of plans providing disability benefits, and others who assist in the provision of these benefits, such as third-party benefits administrators and other service providers.

U.S. Office of Personnel Management. Federal Employees Health Benefits and Federal Employees Dental and Vision Insurance Programs' Coverage Exception for Children of Same-Sex Domestic Partners. Interim final rule

This action amends the rule to create a regulatory exception that allows children of same-sex domestic partners living overseas to maintain their Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) and Federal Employees Dental and Vision Program (FEDVIP) coverage until September 30, 2018. Due to a recent Supreme Court decision, as of January 1, 2016, coverage of children of same-sex domestic partners under the FEHB Program and FEDVIP will generally only be allowed if the couple is married, as discussed in Benefits Administration Letter (BAL) 15-207 dated October 5, 2015. OPM recognizes there are additional requirements placed on overseas federal employees that may not apply to other civilian employees with duty stations in the United States making it difficult to travel to the United States to marry same-sex partners.

Civilian Health and Medical Program of the Uniformed Services (CHAMPUS)/TRICARE: Refills of Maintenance Medications Through Military Treatment Facility Pharmacies or National Mail Order Pharmacy Program. Final rule

This final rule implements section 702 (c) of the Carl Levin and Howard P. "Buck" McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 which states that beginning October 1, 2015, the pharmacy benefits program shall require eligible covered beneficiaries generally to refill non-generic prescription maintenance medications through military treatment facility pharmacies or the national mail-order pharmacy program. An interim final rule is in effect. Section 702(c) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 also terminates the TRICARE For Life Pilot Program on September 30, 2015. The TRICARE For Life Pilot Program described in section 716(f) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, was a pilot program which began in March 2014 requiring TRICARE For Life beneficiaries to refill non-generic prescription maintenance medications through military treatment facility pharmacies or the national mail-order pharmacy program. TRICARE for Life beneficiaries are those enrolled in the Medicare wraparound coverage option of the TRICARE program. This rule includes procedures to assist beneficiaries in transferring covered prescriptions to the mail order pharmacy program.

TRICARE; Mental Health and Substance Use Disorder Treatment. Final rule

This final rule modifies the TRICARE regulation to reduce administrative barriers to access to mental health benefit coverage and to improve access to substance use disorder (SUD) treatment for TRICARE beneficiaries, consistent with earlier Department of Defense and Institute of Medicine recommendations, current standards of practice in mental health and addiction medicine, and governing laws. This rule seeks to eliminate unnecessary quantitative and non-quantitative treatment limitations on SUD and mental health benefit coverage and align beneficiary cost-sharing for mental health and SUD benefits with those applicable to medical/surgical benefits, expand covered mental health and SUD treatment under TRICARE to include coverage of intensive outpatient programs and treatment of opioid use disorder and to streamline the requirements for mental health and SUD institutional providers to become TRICARE authorized providers, and to develop TRICARE reimbursement methodologies for newly recognized mental health and SUD intensive outpatient programs and opioid treatment programs.

Wounding the Messenger: The New Economy Makes Occupational Health Indicators Too Good to Be True

The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics and workers' compensation insurers reported dramatic drops in rates of occupational injuries and illnesses during the 1990s. The authors argue that far-reaching changes in the 1980s and 1990s, including the rise of precarious employment, falling wages and opportunities, and the creation of a super-vulnerable population of immigrant workers, probably helped create this apparent trend by preventing employees from reporting some injuries and illnesses. Changes in the health care system, including loss of access to health care for growing numbers of workers and increased obstacles to the use of workers' compensation, compounded these effects by preventing the diagnosis and documentation of some occupational injuries and illnesses. Researchers should examine these forces more closely to better understand trends in occupational health.

Looking Under the Hood of the Cadillac Tax

One effect of the Affordable Care Act's "Cadillac tax" (now delayed until 2020) is to undo part of the existing federal tax preference for employer-sponsored insurance. The specific features of this tax on high-cost health plans--notably, the inclusion of tax-favored savings vehicles such as health savings accounts (HSAs) in the formula for determining who is subject to the tax--are designed primarily to maximize revenue and minimize coverage disruptions, not to reduce health spending. Thus, at least initially, these savings accounts, rather than enrollee cost-sharing or other plan features, are likely to be affected most by the tax as employers act to limit their HSA contributions. Because high earners are the ones benefiting most from tax-preferred accounts, the high-cost plan tax will probably be more progressive than prior analyses have suggested, while having only a modest impact on total health spending.

Nondiscrimination in Health Programs and Activities. Final rule

This final rule implements Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) (Section 1557). Section 1557 prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, age, or disability in certain health programs and activities. The final rule clarifies and codifies existing nondiscrimination requirements and sets forth new standards to implement Section 1557, particularly with respect to the prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sex in health programs other than those provided by educational institutions and the prohibition of various forms of discrimination in health programs administered by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS or the Department) and entities established under Title I of the ACA. In addition, the Secretary is authorized to prescribe the Department's governance, conduct, and performance of its business, including, here, how HHS will apply the standards of Section 1557 to HHS-administered health programs and activities.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Regulations Under the Americans With Disabilities Act; Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act. Final rule

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) is issuing its final rule to amend the regulations and interpretive guidance implementing Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) to provide guidance on the extent to which employers may use incentives to encourage employees to participate in wellness programs that ask them to respond to disability-related inquiries and/or undergo medical examinations. This rule applies to all wellness programs that include disability-related inquiries and/or medical examinations whether they are offered only to employees enrolled in an employer-sponsored group health plan, offered to all employees regardless of whether they are enrolled in such a plan, or offered as a benefit of employment by employers that do not sponsor a group health plan or group health insurance. Published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register, the EEOC also issued a final rule to amend the regulations implementing Title II of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) that addresses the extent to which employers may offer incentives for an employee's spouse to participate in a wellness program.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act. Final rule

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) is issuing a final rule to amend the regulations implementing Title II of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 as they relate to employer-sponsored wellness programs. This rule addresses the extent to which an employer may offer an inducement to an employee for the employee's spouse to provide information about the spouse's manifestation of disease or disorder as part of a health risk assessment (HRA) administered in connection with an employer-sponsored wellness program. Several technical changes to the existing regulations are included. Published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register, the EEOC also issued a final rule to amend the regulations and interpretive guidance implementing Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) that addresses the extent to which employers may use incentives to encourage employees to participate in wellness programs that ask them to respond to disability-related inquiries and/or undergo medical examinations.

The “Cadillac Tax” on Health Benefits in the United States Will Hit the Middle Class Hardest: Refuting the Myth That Health Benefit Tax Subsidies Are Regressive

U.S. employment-based health benefits are exempt from income and payroll taxes, an exemption that provided tax subsidies of $326.2 billion in 2015. Both liberal and conservative economists have denounced these subsidies as “regressive” and lauded a provision of the Affordable Care Act—the Cadillac Tax—that would curtail them. The claim that the subsidies are regressive rests on estimates showing that the affluent receive the largest subsidies in absolute dollars. But this claim ignores the standard definition of regressivity, which is based on the share of income paid by the wealthy versus the poor, rather than on dollar amounts. In this study, we calculate the value of tax subsidies in 2009 as a share of income for each income quintile and for the wealthiest Americans. In absolute dollars, tax subsidies were highest for families between the 80th and 95th percentiles of family income and lowest for the poorest 20%. However, as shares of income, subsidies were largest for the middle and fourth income quintiles and smallest for the wealthiest 0.5% of Americans. We conclude that the tax subsidy to employment-based insurance is neither markedly regressive, nor progressive. The Cadillac Tax will disproportionately harm families with (2009) incomes between $38,550 and $100,000, while sparing the wealthy.

TRICARE; Revision of Nonparticipating Providers Reimbursement Rate; Removal of Cost Share for Dental Sealants; TRICARE Dental Program. Final rule

This final rule revises the benefit payment provision for nonparticipating providers to more closely mirror industry practices by requiring TDP nonparticipating providers to be reimbursed (minus the appropriate cost-share) at the lesser of billed charges or the network maximum allowable charge for similar services in that same locality (region) or state. This rule also updates the regulatory provisions regarding dental sealants to clearly categorize them as a preventive service and, consequently, eliminate the current 20 percent cost-share applicable to sealants to conform with the language in the regulation to the statute.

Minimum Value of Eligible Employer-Sponsored Plans and Other Rules Regarding the Health Insurance Premium Tax Credit. Final regulations

This document contains final regulations on the health insurance premium tax credit enacted by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, as amended by the Medicare and Medicaid Extenders Act of 2010, the Comprehensive 1099 Taxpayer Protection and Repayment of Exchange Subsidy Overpayments Act of 2011, and the Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011. These final regulations affect individuals who enroll in qualified health plans through Affordable Insurance Exchanges (Exchanges, sometimes called Marketplaces) and claim the health insurance premium tax credit, and Exchanges that make qualified health plans available to individuals and employers.

Rethinking the Affordable Care Act's "Cadillac tax": A More Equitable Way to Encourage "Chevy" Consumption

The Affordable Care Act's "Cadillac tax" will apply a 40 percent excise tax on total employer health insurance premiums in excess of $10,200 for single coverage and $27,500 for family coverage, starting in 2018. Employer spending on premiums is currently excluded from income and payroll taxes. Economists argue that this encourages overconsumption of health care, favors high-income workers, and reduces federal revenue. This issue brief suggests that the Cadillac tax is a "blunt instrument" for addressing these concerns because it will affect workers on a rolling timetable, does relatively little to address the regressive nature of the current exclusion, and may penalize firms and workers for cost variation that is outside their control. Replacing the current exclusion with tax credits for employer coverage that scale inversely with income might allow for regional adjustments in health care costs and eliminate aspects of the tax exclusion that favor high-income over low-income workers.

Office of Personnel Management. Federal Employees Health Benefits Program: Enrollment Options Following the Termination of a Plan or Plan Option. Final rule

The U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is issuing a final rule to amend the Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) Program regulations regarding enrollment options following the termination of a plan or plan option.

Civilian Health and Medical Program of the Uniformed Services (CHAMPUS); TRICARE Reserve Select; TRICARE Dental Program; Early Eligibility for TRICARE for Certain Reserve Component Members. Final rule

TRICARE Reserve Select (TRS) is a premium-based TRICARE health plan available for purchase worldwide by qualified members of the Ready Reserve and by qualified survivors of TRS members. TRICARE Dental Program (TDP) is a premium-based TRICARE dental plan available for purchase worldwide by qualified Service members. This final rule revises requirements and procedures for the TRS program to specify the appropriate actuarial basis for calculating premiums in addition to making other minor clarifying administrative changes. For a member who is involuntarily separated from the Selected Reserve under other than adverse conditions this final rule provides a time-limited exception that allows TRS coverage in effect to continue for up to 180 days after the date on which the member is separated from the Selected Reserve and TDP coverage in effect to continue for no less than 180 days after the separation date. It also expands early TRICARE eligibility for certain Reserve Component members from a maximum of 90 days to a maximum of 180 days prior to activation in support of a contingency operation for more than 30 days.

Heterogeneity and the effect of mental health parity mandates on the labor market

Health insurance benefit mandates are believed to have adverse effects on the labor market, but efforts to document such effects for mental health parity mandates have had limited success. I show that one reason for this failure is that the association between parity mandates and labor market outcomes vary with mental distress. Accounting for this heterogeneity, I find adverse labor market effects for non-distressed individuals, but favorable effects for moderately distressed individuals and individuals with a moderately distressed family member. On net, I conclude that the mandates are welfare increasing for moderately distressed workers and their families, but may be welfare decreasing for non-distressed individuals.

Civilian Health and Medical Program of the Uniformed Services (CHAMPUS)/TRICARE: Refills of Maintenance Medications Through Military Treatment Facility Pharmacies or National Mail Order Pharmacy Program. Interim final rule

This interim final rule implements Section 702 (c) of the Carl Levin and Howard P. "Buck" McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 which states that beginning October 1, 2015, the pharmacy benefits program shall require eligible covered beneficiaries generally to refill non-generic prescription maintenance medications through military treatment facility pharmacies or the national mail-order pharmacy program. Section 702(c) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 also terminates the TRICARE For Life Pilot Program on September 30, 2015. The TRICARE For Life Pilot Program described in Section 716 (f) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, was a pilot program which began in March 2014 requiring TRICARE For Life beneficiaries to refill non-generic prescription maintenance medications through military treatment facility pharmacies or the national mail-order pharmacy program. TRICARE for Life beneficiaries are those enrolled in the Medicare wraparound coverage option of the TRICARE program. This interim rule includes procedures to assist beneficiaries in transferring covered prescriptions to the mail order pharmacy program. This regulation is being issued as an interim final rule in order to comply with the express statutory intent that the program begin October 1, 2015. Public comments, however, are invited and will be considered for possible revisions to this rule for the second year of the program.

Coverage of Certain Preventive Services Under the Affordable Care Act. Final rules

This document contains final regulations regarding coverage of certain preventive services under section 2713 of the Public Health Service Act (PHS Act), added by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended, and incorporated into the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 and the Internal Revenue Code. Section 2713 of the PHS Act requires coverage without cost sharing of certain preventive health services by non-grandfathered group health plans and health insurance coverage. These regulations finalize provisions from three rulemaking actions: Interim final regulations issued in July 2010 related to coverage of preventive services, interim final regulations issued in August 2014 related to the process an eligible organization uses to provide notice of its religious objection to the coverage of contraceptive services, and proposed regulations issued in August 2014 related to the definition of "eligible organization,'' which would expand the set of entities that may avail themselves of an accommodation with respect to the coverage of contraceptive services.

Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act; HHS notice of benefit and payment parameters for 2016. Final rule

This final rule sets forth payment parameters and provisions related to the risk adjustment, reinsurance, and risk corridors programs; cost sharing parameters and cost-sharing reductions; and user fees for Federally-facilitated Exchanges. It also finalizes additional standards for the individual market annual open enrollment period for the 2016 benefit year, essential health benefits, qualified health plans, network adequacy, quality improvement strategies, the Small Business Health Options Program, guaranteed availability, guaranteed renewability, minimum essential coverage, the rate review program, the medical loss ratio program, and other related topics.

How does religious affiliation affect women's attitudes toward reproductive health policy? Implications for the Affordable Care Act

BACKGROUND

Supreme Court cases challenging the Affordable Care Act (ACA) mandate for employer-provided reproductive health care have focused on religiously based opposition to coverage. Little is known about women's perspectives on such reproductive health policies.

STUDY DESIGN

Data were drawn from the Women's Health Care Experiences and Preferences survey, a randomly selected, nationally representative sample of 1078 US women aged 18-55 years. We examined associations between religious affiliation and attitudes toward employer-provided insurance coverage of contraception and abortion services as well as the exclusion of religious institutions from this coverage. We used chi-square and multivariable logistic regression for analysis.

RESULTS

Respondents self-identified as Baptist (18%), Protestant (Other Mainline, 17%), Catholic (17%), Other Christian (20%), Religious, Non-Christian (7%) or No Affiliation (21%). Religious affiliation was associated with proportions of agreement for contraception (p=.03), abortion (p<.01) and religious exclusion (p<.01) policies. In multivariable models, differences in the odds of agreement varied across religious affiliations and frequency of service attendance. For example, compared to non-affiliated women, Baptists and Other Nondenominational Christians (but not Catholics) had lower odds of agreement with employer coverage of contraception (OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.4-0.1 and OR 0.57, CI 0.4-0.9, respectively); women who attended services weekly or more than weekly had lower odds of agreement (OR 0.53, 95% CI 0.3-0.8 and OR 0.33, CI 0.2-0.6, respectively), compared to less frequent attenders.

CONCLUSIONS

Recent religiously motivated legal challenges to employer-provided reproductive health care coverage may not represent the attitudes of many religious women.

IMPLICATIONS

Recent challenges to the ACA contraceptive mandate appear to equate religious belief with opposition to employer-sponsored reproductive health coverage, but women's views are more complex.

State trends in the cost of employer health insurance coverage, 2003-2013

From 2010 to 2013--the years following the implementation of the Affordable Care Act--there has been a marked slowdown in premium growth in 31 states and the District of Columbia. Yet, the costs employees and their families pay out-of-pocket for deductibles and their share of premiums continued to rise, consuming a greater share of incomes across the country. In all but a handful of states, average deductibles more than doubled over the past decade for employees working in large and small firms. Workers are paying more but getting less protective benefits. Costs are particularly high, compared with median income, in Southern and South Central states, where incomes are below the national average. Based on recent forecasts that predict an uptick in private insurance growth rates starting in 2015, securing slow cost growth for workers, families, and employers will likely require action to address rising costs of medical care services.