10 post-DOMA tips for benefits managers

Originally posted by Dan Cook on https://www.benefitspro.com

When the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in United States v. Windsor that the federal government is required to recognize same-sex marriages performed in states that allow such marriages, benefits managers started dialing 911.

In an article posted on the Sutherland Asbill & Brennan website, attorneys Vanessa Scott, Carol Weiser, Joanna Myers and Mikka Gee Conway offer considerable guidance on how to amend a benefits plan to meet the implications of Windsor.

Their 10 tips should be read with the understanding that forward-looking plan managers will be anticipating that same-sex marriages will sooner or later be part of the domestic law landscape and will revise their plans accordingly. One major issue currently centers on the state in which a same-sex marriage was performed vs. the state where a same-sex couple resides. But again, assume that residence will eventually prevail for those couples married elsewhere.

Here are their 10 tips:

1. Generally, spousal provisions in an employer’s employee benefit plans, including qualified retirement plans, welfare plans and fringe benefit plans, should apply to same-sex spouses in the same manner as they are applied to opposite-sex spouses.

2. There may be an exception to the general rule above in the case of welfare plans and fringe benefits that define covered “spouses” by reference to the law of a state that does not recognize same-sex spouses or such plans that do not clearly define the term “spouse.” In these cases, plan administrators may still have the authority to interpret the term “spouse” to exclude same-sex spouses. However, it is unclear whether such interpretation might now be considered “arbitrary and capricious” if challenged in litigation following the Windsor decision.

3. Any plan or benefit policy amendment or interpretation that relates to spouses —including prospective verification of spousal status — should be applied to opposite-sex couples in the same manner as same-sex spouses.

4. Plans that do not currently offer spousal benefits at all will not be required to offer spousal benefits as a result of the Windsor decision.

5. For qualified retirement plans, there are implications for application of qualified joint and survivor annuity rules, Internal Revenue Code (Code) section 415 maximums, minimum required distributions, and qualified domestic relations orders. The implications for health plans include the need to offer COBRA to same-sex spouses.

6. Welfare plans that currently offer benefits to same-sex spouses of employees and impute income on the value of the benefit to the employee for federal tax purposes will no longer need to do so. This may require amendments to plan documents and communication materials.

7. Welfare plans that do not impute income on the value of benefits provided to same-sex spouses for state tax purposes in states that allow (or recognize) same-sex marriage will continue this practice. In states that do not allow (nor recognize) same-sex marriage, welfare plans will continue to impute income on the value of benefits provided to same-sex spouses for state tax purposes.

8. It is unclear whether the Windsor decision will have a retroactive impact. Guidance on this issue from federal agencies is anticipated in the coming days and weeks. However, a retroactive application by agencies, such as the Internal Revenue Service (e.g., if the Service reads the Code as if Section 3 of DOMA was never enacted) could be costly, even for plans that currently provide same-sex spousal benefits.

9. Employers will no longer be required to pay FICA taxes on the value of welfare benefits provided to a same-sex spouse. Employers that currently offer same-sex benefits should consider whether they should seek a refund for FICA taxes paid on those benefits during the past three years.

10. The Windsor decision does not require employers to recognize rights granted under “marriage-like” relationships, such as domestic partnerships and civil unions.

 


Eating out may hurt work performance, study shows

Originally posted August 01, 2013 by Stephen Smith on https://www.cbsnews.com

Eating lunch outside the office will relax you - but it may also hinder your job performance, according to new research.

Scientists at Humboldt University in Berlin say that eating at a restaurant with a friend reduces "cognitive control and error monitoring." By contrast, workers who ate alone at their desk had no such adverse effects.

The study, published in the journal PLOS ONE, tracked participants who ate alone at their desk and those who walked to a restaurant to lunch with a friend. Each group consumed the same exact meal but the desk lunchers ate their food under time restrictions.

A mood rating questionnaire showed "a relaxation effect of the restaurant as compared to the plain meal situation," the study said.

Researchers also found that after the meal, those who ate at a restaurant were calmer and sleepier compared to those who ate solo at their desks. The restaurant eaters also demonstrated "reduced cognitive control" compared to the desk eaters.

The study's authors said it was impossible to gauge the impact of each variable in the study, such as the social context (alone vs. with a friend), availability of time (limited vs. plenty) and environment (small office vs. spacious restaurant).

The researchers suggested that accountants and scientists who eat out may see their work performance decline - but artists may actually see benefits.

"Reduced cognitive control is a disadvantage when close self-monitoring of performance and detailed attention to errors is required, such as in laboratory and factory work or numerical processing," they wrote. "In other situations, an attenuation of cognitive control may be advantageous, such as when social harmony or creativity is desired."

 


Should exchanges be part of your company's plan?

Originally posted August 06, 2013 by Justyn Harkin on https://ebn.benefitnews.com

Although considering the new health care exchanges may have seemed radical a few weeks ago, now that everybody gets to drop ten and punton the employer mandate penalty in 2014, the idea may not be so strange.

Sure, migrating employees to the exchanges isn’t right for every organization. If the move would upset your workforce, then keeping your current group plan is probably best. But if employees would view exchange offerings as equal or better than what they current have, then there could be plenty of upsides.

If you think the exchanges would be better than what you have now for both your company and your employees, or even if you just want to get a leg up on communications (and believe me, that’s never a bad idea), then you and your employees have three options — public exchanges, private exchanges (fully insured), private exchanges (self-insured).

Which one might be best for your organization? Let's see.

Public exchanges

One of the most attractive ideas about moving to a public exchange has to be handing over the considerable financial and administrative burdens for running your company’s health benefits.

For some organizations, the move might be cheaper than what they are doing now. Even when you factor in the likely, eventual activation of the $2,000-per-employee fine for not providing insurance, you could still be paying less than what you would if you were covering premiums.

Of course, sending employees to public exchanges isn’t necessarily a slam-dunk move. Your workforce could straight-up riot if you tell them you’re cutting health benefits, and even if you raise salaries (oh, hello there, higher payroll taxes) to help them cover the costs of buying their own insurance, your recruiting efforts could take a hit if your competitors keep their health benefits.

Private exchanges with fully insured plans

Perhaps the biggest advantage of using a private exchange is the ability to shift some of the rising costs of health care to employees and give them the ability to control their spending.

In a private exchange, employees get an allowance from their employer that can be used to buy insurance. The idea is that giving employees control of the purchasing decision takes some of the heat off of your company. After all, if the cost of health care rises, that’s not your fault?

So what’s the downside to this type of exchange? Well, in the worse-case scenario it’s a less healthy, less productive workforce. Because employees will be making purchasing decisions, they may choose lower premiums over better coverage, and that can contribute to poorer health and higher rates of absenteeism.

Private exchanges with self-insured plans

The last of your exchange options are private exchanges with self-insured plans. Compared with the types of plans offered on public exchanges and private exchanges with fully insured plans, the plans available on private exchanges with self-insured plans can seem very attractive employees — generally lower premiums, more generous plan features, and more in-network doctors — but they will be more expensive.

The self-insured private exchange option might be slightly more expensive than what you could do with a fully insured private exchange, that’s true, but the available plans would be more oriented toward long-term health.

Still, using self-insured plans means you’ll have to assume all the risk and pay for all your employees’ claims. Also your employees will become customers of the private exchange insurance companies, and that means you won’t have the same influence (over the companies or choices) that you would otherwise have.

How will you spend the bonus year?

Assistant Secretary for Tax Policy Mark J. Mazur’s July 3 announcement might have seemed like the best health care reform–related thing to happen to employers all year.

If you take the “transition year” at face value, meaning the mandatory employer and insurer reporting requirements are being postponed, then you have the perfect chance to carefully consider your company’s next moves.

Maybe you’ll decide to take the plunge. Perhaps you’ll rule out the exchanges altogether. You might even decide to let other companies test the waters first so you can be prepared later on.

No matter what path you chose, though, the most important thing is taking the time to make the best decision for your company and your employees. And then communicate that decision in a clear and engaging way. Good luck!


House-passed bill would bar IRS enforcement of health care reform law

Originally posted August 2, 2013 by Jerry Geisel by https://www.businessinsurance.com

The House of Representatives approved legislation Friday that would bar the U.S. Treasury Department and Internal Revenue Service from enforcing the health care reform law.

The Republican-backed measure cleared the House on a 232-185 vote.

Under the bill, H.R. 2009, regulators would be unable to enforce key health care reform law provisions such as the requirement — delayed last month by the Treasury Department to 2015 — that employers with at least 50 full-time employees offer coverage or pay a fee and a 2014 requirement that individuals enroll in a health plan or pay a fine.

The bill — as has been the case with other measures approved by the House to repeal all or part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act — is unlikely to be taken up by the Senate, where Democrats hold the majority.

Even if the Senate were to pass the House measure, President Barack Obama would veto it.

The legislation “would raise health insurance premiums and increase the number of uninsured Americans and represents another attempt to repeal the Affordable Care Act, with no plan to replace it or policy to improve it,” the administration said in a statement by the Office of Management and Budget earlier this week.

Instead of attempting to repeal the reform law, lawmakers should work with the administration on an agenda to provide greater economic security to the middle class, the administration said in the statement.

Rep. Tom Price, R-Ga., who introduced the latest House measure to repeal the law, said earlier that “we ought to take this common sense step to take the IRS out of health care.”

 


The Perfect Workspace According to Science

Originally posted by Christian Jarrett on https://99u.com

The spaces we occupy shape who we are and how we behave. This has serious consequences for our psychological well-being and creative performance. Given that many of us spend years working in the same room, or even at the same desk, it makes sense to organize and optimize that space in the most beneficial ways possible.

When it comes to building your workspace you can aim for the trendy look and flick through some interior design mags, or you can let science guide the way. Based on recent psychology and neuroscience findings, here are some simple and effective steps you can take once to improve your productivity for years:

 Take ownership of your workspace 

The simple act of making your own decisions about how to organize your workspace has an empowering effect and has been linked with improved productivity.

Craig Knight, Director of the Identity Realization workplace consultancy, showed this in a 2010 study with Alex Haslam involving 47 office workers in London. Those workers given the opportunity to arrange a small office with as many or few plants and pictures as they wanted were up to 32 percent more productive than others not given this control. They also identified more with their employer, a sign of increased commitment to the team effort and increased efficiency.

If you are an office manager this suggests you should give your staff as much input into the design of their office and immediate workspace as possible. Many companies even give their employees a small amount of money to furnish their space. Alternatively, if you’re a creative in an open-plan office, try to find ways to make your mark on your immediate environment. Even the simple use of a pin-board to post your own pictures and messages could help you feel that the space is yours with consequent benefits for your work.

Choose rounded furniture and arrange it wisely

If you have the luxury of designing your own workspace, consider choosing a layout and furniture that is curved and rounded rather than sharp and straight-edged. Creating this environment has been linked with positive emotions, which is known to be beneficial for creativity and productivity (added bonus: there’s also less chance of knocking an elbow or knee on a sharp corner).

In a 2011 study, hundreds of undergrads looked at computer-generated pictures of room interiors and rated those filled with curvilinear (rounded), as opposed to rectilinear, furniture as more pleasing and inviting. Another study out this year found that people rated curvy, rounded environments as more beautiful than straight-edged rectilinear environments and that the rounded spaces triggered more activity in brain regions associated with reward and aesthetic appreciation.

This contrast between straight edges and curves also extends to the way we arrange our furniture. Apparently, King Arthur was on to something: sitting in circles provokes a collective mindset, whereas sitting in straight lines triggers feelings of individuality – something worth thinking about at your next meeting if you want to encourage team cohesion.

Apparently, King Arthur was on to something: sitting in circles provokes a collective mindset.

Take advantage of color, light and space

Choosing the right color and lighting scheme for your office is one of the simplest ways your environment can enhance your performance. Different colors and light levels have different psychological effects, so the ideal situation is to install a lighting system that allows you to alter the hue and brightness of your room to suit the kind of work that you’re engaged in.

For instance, exposure to both blue and green has been shown to enhance performance on tasks that require generating new ideas. However, the color redhas been linked with superior performance on tasks involving attention to detail. Another study out this year showed that a dimmer environment fostered superior creativity in terms of idea generation, probably because it encourages a feeling of freedom. On the other hand, brighter light levels were more conducive to analytical and evaluative thinking.

Not as easy to modify, but ceiling height has also been shown to have psychological effects. A 2007 study found that a higher ceiling was associated with feelings of freedom, together with a more abstract and relational thinking style that helped participants see the commonalities between objects and concepts.

Make use of plants and windows

If you only do one thing to optimize your workspace, invest in a green plant or two.Research has repeatedly shown that the presence of office plants has a range of benefits including helping workers recover from demanding activities and lowering stress levels. As a bonus, there’s also evidence that plants can reduce office pollution levels.

Another feature of an optimized office is a window with a view, preferably of a natural landscape. This is because a glance at the hills or a lake recharges your mind. Obviously a view of nature isn’t possible for many people who work in cities, but even in an urban situation, a view of trees or intricate architecture have both been linked with restorative benefits. If you can’t negotiate a desk with a view, another plan is to choose an office in your building that’s the shortest stroll from an urban park. A visit here will revitalize your mind and compensate for your lack of a view.

If you only do one thing to optimize your workspace, invest in a green plant or two.

The benefits of a messy desk

There’s a lot of pressure these days to be organized. How are you supposed to get your work done if you can’t even find a clear space on your desk to roll a mouse or place a plant? But new research suggests Einstein may have been onto something when he opined: “If a cluttered desk is a sign of a cluttered mind, of what, then, is an empty desk a sign?”

Kathleen Vohs and her colleagues at the University of Minnesota found that participants tested in a messy room at a desk covered with paper came up with more imaginative uses for a ping pong ball than participants tested in a tidy room. This matches the views of consultant Craig Knight who has argued against the modern trend for “lean” workspaces. “We don’t understand psychologically why putting someone in an impoverished space should work, when it doesn’t work for any other animal on the planet,” he said recently.

It also fits with the advice from Eric Abrahamson – co-author of A Perfect Mess: The Hidden Benefits of Disorder – who says people with highly ordered desks oftenstruggle to find things because their filing systems are so complicated. He also points out a key advantage to a mess – you can find things in it that you didn’t expect. Discovering that ground-breaking idea you scribbled on a piece of paper two years ago could be just the spark to get your next project off the ground.

***

It’s easy to neglect the importance of your workspace, especially if you’re under pressure of deadlines and not so into interior design. But hopefully this review has convinced you that the spaces we occupy really can affect us psychologically. It’s vital that you choose an office space that you feel happy and comfortable in. If your freedom is restricted, shape the space as much as you can to make it your own. Get your surroundings in order and the rest is sure to follow.


Why B Corps Matter

Original content published on https://www.bcorporation.net

Certified B Corporations are leading a global movement to redefine success in business.

By voluntarily meeting higher standards of transparency, accountability, and performance, Certified B Corps are distinguishing themselves in a cluttered marketplace by offering a positive vision of a better way to do business.

We hope that you are inspired, not just by our vision, but by the movement's ability to translate ideas into action.

B Corps create higher quality jobs and improve the quality of life in our communities. And, as the movement grows, it has become an increasingly powerful agent of change. We are passing laws. We are driving capital.

Government and the nonprofit sector are necessary but insufficient to address society's greatest challenges. Business, the most powerful man-made force on the planet, must create value for society, not just shareholders. Systemic challenges require systemic solutions and the B Corp movement offers a concrete, market-based and scalable solution.

Over 600 businesses have already joined our community, encouraging all companies to compete not just to be the best in the world, but to be the best for the world. As a result of our collective success, individuals and communities will enjoy greater economic opportunity, society will address its most challenging environmental problems, and more people will find fulfillment by bringing their whole selves to work.

Measure What Matters: Using the B Impact Assessment - A free tool to assess, compare and improve your company’s impact. Join us August 22 for our Next Saxon University and learn how to help redefine success for  your business so that you can not only to be the best in the world, but the best for the world.


Satisfaction with health plan costs improving

Originally posted July 23, 2013 by Andrea Davis on https://ebn.benefitnews.com

Employer satisfaction with health plan costs is going up, according to the J.D. Power 2013 Employer Health Plan Study, yet health plans may risk losing group business unless they improve satisfaction in other areas.

The study, now in its fourth year, measures six factors that affect employer satisfaction with health plans: employee plan service experience, account servicing, program offerings, benefit design, problem resolution and cost. Satisfaction with cost is improving as more consumer-driven health plans are offered to employees, which 82% of employers indicate are controlling costs.

Employer satisfaction with costs “went up significantly in all the attributes we measure. Significantly more employers are offering CDHP products to their employees and so that has been a cost shifting measure that they are satisfied with,” says Scott Hawkins, director, health care, J.D. “But one of the things we see on the member side is that when employees are put on those products and they don’t really understand them, their satisfaction is lower. So I think it’s really important that employers work with the health plans to help their members understand how to manage those costs once they’re on those products or they’re going to have dissatisfied employees.”

Fifteen percent of employers say they “definitely will not” or “probably will not” continue sponsoring coverage in five years.

Perhaps not surprisingly, cost satisfaction among employers that indicate they intend to continue sponsoring coverage in the future is 106 points higher (on a 1,000-point scale) than among those that intend to drop coverage (696 vs. 590, respectively.)

“You can minimize the impact on satisfaction with the members and employees if you offer value-added benefits. And one of the things we’re seeing in our data and the employer data is that while health plans are offering a lot of the primary and secondary services that the employees are asking for, a lot of the employers aren’t taking advantage of those things; they’re not offering them to their employees,” says Hawkins.

Simple things like gym memberships, health risk assessments, drug compliance plans for employees with chronic conditions, for example, “will help satisfy the members and help them feel they’re getting value for what they’re paying,” says Hawkins. “But what we see now is that a lot of plans are offering them to employers, but not many of them are taking them up on it.” He suspects cost is the main reason employers may be reluctant to offer these programs to employees.

In both the fully insured and self-funded groups, employer satisfaction with program offerings, such as preventive health programs, disease management or wellness initiatives, is a key area of differentiation between employers that intend to offer coverage in the future and those that intend to drop coverage. In the program offerings factor, the gap in satisfaction scores between fully insured employers that intend to offer coverage in the future and those that intend to drop coverage is 104 points — 705 among employers that intend to offer coverage, compared with 601 among those that intend to drop coverage. Among self-funded employers, the gap in satisfaction scores between those that intend to offer coverage in the future and those that intend to drop coverage is also 105 points — 689 among employers that intend to offer coverage, compared with 584 among those that intend to drop coverage.

The 2013 Employer Health Plan Study is based on responses from 5,857 employers.

 


Feds add exchange employer site

Originally posted August 2, 2013 by Allison Bell on https://www.benefitspro.com

Three federal agencies have joined to set up a Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act website for small businesses.

Business.USA.gov/healthcare offers a "wizard," or interactive tool, that offers to help business owners understand what they need to know about the new PPACA insurance options in a few quick steps.

The Small Business Administration worked with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the U.S. Treasury Department to set up the site.

The wizard starts by asking visitors about their companies' location and size.

On the size menu, for example, the wizard asks whether the user is self-employed with no employees, has fewer than 25 employees, has up to 50 employees, or has 50 or more employees.

The site includes an explanation of how an employer can determine whether it has 50 or more full-time or full-time equivalent employees.

Users who, say, might want to set up group health plans will see information about the new PPACA Small Business Health Options Program small-group exchange program.

In most states, in the pages of information for employers interested in setting up health plans, the SBA gives an answer to the question, "Can I use an agent or broker to buy health insurance in the marketplace?"

"You will be able to use a licensed agent or broker to provide help or handle your SHOP business," the SBA says. "You won't pay more if you use a SHOP agent or broker."

For users in Vermont, a state that is trying to eliminate small-group market broker commissions, the SBA makes no mention of agents and brokers.

 


Using the B Impact Assessment - Firms With Benefits

Originally posted on https://www.economist.com

HE likes to do things differently. Yvon Chouinard changed his favourite sport, mountaineering, by introducing reusable pitons (the metal spikes you bang into the rock face and attach a rope to). Climbers often used to leave pitons in the cliff, which is environmentally messy, another of Mr Chouinard's peeves.

In business, Mr Chouinard, the founder of Patagonia, an outdoor-clothing firm, says he believes that well-treated employees perform better. (He wrote a book called: “Let My People Go Surfing”.) Before it was fashionable, Mr Chouinard preached a philosophy of sustainability and long-term profitability that he calls “the slow company”.

On January 3rd Patagonia was anything but slow in becoming the first firm to take advantage of a new California law designed to give businesses greater freedom to pursue strategies which they believe benefit society as a whole rather than having to concentrate on maximising profits for the next financial quarter.

According to Mr Chouinard, the new “benefit corporation”—usually referred to as a B Corp—creates the legal framework for firms like his to remain true to their social goals. To qualify as a B Corp, a firm must have an explicit social or environmental mission, and a legally binding fiduciary responsibility to take into account the interests of workers, the community and the environment as well as its shareholders. It must also publish independently verified reports on its social and environmental impact alongside its financial results. Other than that, it can go about business as usual.

The B Corp is a deliberate effort to change the nature of business by changing corporate law, led by B Lab, a non-profit outfit based in Pennsylvania. California is the sixth state to allow B Corps; the first was Maryland, in April 2010. Patagonia was followed immediately by another 11 Californian firms, including Give Something Back Office Supplies, Green Retirement Plans and DopeHut, a clothing retailer. Across America, there are now several hundred B Corps. Before Patagonia, the best-known was probably Seventh Generation, a maker of green detergents, paper towels and other household products.

California's B Corp legislation took effect alongside a new law creating the “flexible purpose company” (FlexC), which allows a firm to adopt a specific social or environmental goal, rather than the broader obligations of a B Corp. Another option in America is the low-profit limited-liability (LC3) company, which can raise money for socially beneficial purposes while making little or no profit.

The idea of a legal framework for firms that put profits second is not confined to America. Britain, for example, has since 2005 allowed people to form “community interest companies”. Similar laws are brewing in several European countries.

The impetus for all this comes from people like Mr Chouinard, who believe that existing laws governing corporations and charities are too restrictive. For-profit firms, they argue, often face pressure to abandon social goals in favour of increasing profits. Non-profit firms and charities are needlessly restricted in their ability to raise capital when they need to grow.

This prevents socially minded organisations from pursuing their goals as efficiently as possible. Existing laws for co-operatives and mutual companies are inadequate. Hence the need for B Corps and other novel structures, goes the argument. There is no tax advantage to being a B Corp, but there is to some of the new legal structures.

Whether these new legal forms will change business that much remains to be seen. Supporters of existing corporate law say it does not prevent firms, if they so wish, from setting social and environmental goals or rigorously reporting on their performance in delivering them—and that pursuing profit is often the best way to benefit society. Nor is it clear how much difference in practice will be made by the obligation of a B Corp to weigh interests other than profits. How does one measure such things? What counts for more: a clean lake or a happy neighbour?

Mr Chouinard argues that making a firm's social mission explicit in its legal structure makes it harder for a new boss or owner to abandon it. Perhaps so. B Corps will be tested in the market. Anyone who feels inspired by a B Corp's mission is free to invest in its shares, or work for it.

Sign up for our Next Saxon University - Measure What Matters: Using the B Impact Assessment 

A free tool to assess, compare and improve your company’s impact


NAHU: Employer mandate delay 'necessary' despite $12 billion cost

Originally posted July 30, 2013 by Alex Wayne (Bloomberg) and EBA staff on https://eba.benefitnews.com

A National Association of Health Underwriters spokeswoman says that while there are "short-term financial repercussions" to the employer mandate delay, "we believe this delay was necessary to continue the economic upturn we have seen in the past few months and ensure that American businesses will be able to provide their employees with the health insurance they want and need in the long term.”

President Barack Obama’s decision to give employers a year before they’re required to provide health insurance for workers will cost taxpayers $12 billion, the Congressional Budget Office says in a letter to members of Congress.

The health law will now cost $1.375 trillion through 2023, an increase of $12 billion since May, the CBO says. The government will lose $10 billion in penalties that companies would have paid next year for not providing employee health plans, and taxpayers will spend $3 billion more on subsidies for workers who instead will buy coverage on the exchanges.

The White House announced the delay on July 2, in response to a lobbying effort from business groups. The Affordable Care Act requires companies with 50 or more workers to offer health insurance to their workers or pay fines of as much as $3,000 per employee if they don’t. Now, companies don’t have to provide coverage until 2015.

“Some large employers that would have offered health insurance coverage to their employees in 2014 will no longer do so as a result of the one-year delay of penalties for those that do not offer affordable coverage,” Douglas Elmendorf, the director of the CBO, wrote in the letter.

The costs of the delay were offset by about $1 billion because of “small changes,” CBO said, including an increase in income tax collections from people who don’t get coverage at work. The value of employer-provided health insurance isn’t taxed, while workers who get higher pay to buy insurance on their own would have to pay income tax on that compensation. CBO also reports that “one million fewer people are expected to be enrolled in employment-based coverage in 2014” than the group predicted in May, also due to the employer mandate delay.

Even with the mandate’s delay, the health law is projected to reduce the deficit, the CBO says, because of lower Medicare spending and other provisions that offset the cost of new coverage. The CBO said May 15 that repealing the law would cost the federal government $109 billion, a figure it didn’t update today.