Mayor Ed Lee won't rule out trying to remove a central underpinning of San Francisco's groundbreaking universal health care law - the requirement that most employers contribute toward their workers' medical care - as the city tries to harmonize its rules with President Obama's national health care overhaul. The privately run reimbursement accounts, however, won't qualify as insurance under federal law starting next year, and a central question about the use of the city-run plan remains unanswered: whether the federal government will allow the city to purchase insurance for workers with the money businesses hand over. Businesses won't be required to provide coverage until 2015, but individuals will have to secure health insurance by next year or face a fine. Eliminating the city requirement could ultimately leave taxpayers on the hook for those employees' health costs, say labor leaders and some of the city's more liberal elected officials, because those mostly low-wage workers will probably forgo paying for their own insurance and end up back in emergency rooms and city clinics. Lee's administration maintains the situation is nuanced, insisting that even without a spending requirement, employers would still face competitive pressures to provide health insurance. [...] most of the businesses have pocketed that money for themselves. In May, at least 19 restaurant owners accused of charging customers more in health care surcharges than they put aside for workers agreed to pay $844,644 in restitution to 1,500 employees as part of a consumer-fraud investigation by City Attorney Dennis Herrera. "What's on the table is a money grab by the least-responsible employers in San Francisco at the expense of workers and taxpayers," said Paul Kumar, a health policy consultant with close labor ties who helped draft the original Health Care Security Ordinance.
Reported by SFGate 3 days ago.
↧