• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

McDonald's could drop health coverage for 30k employees

McDonald's Corp. has warned federal regulators that it could drop its health insurance plan for nearly 30,000 hourly restaurant workers unless regulators waive a new requirement of the U.S. health overhaul.

McDonald's warned federal regulators that it could drop its health insurance plan for nearly 30,000 workers unless regulators waive a new requirement of the U.S. health overhaul. Janet Adamy discusses. Also, Neal Lipschutz discusses the exit plan that the U.S. has agreed on to exit the governments interest in AIG.
Audio

The move is one of the clearest indications that new rules may disrupt workers' health plans as the law ripples through the real world.

Trade groups representing restaurants and retailers say low-wage employers might halt their coverage if the government doesn't loosen a requirement for "mini-med" plans, which offer limited benefits to some 1.4 million Americans.

The requirement concerns the percentage of premiums that must be spent on benefits.

While many restaurants don't offer health coverage, McDonald's provides mini-med plans for workers at 10,500 U.S. locations, most of them franchised. A single worker can pay $14 a week for a plan that caps annual benefits at $2,000, or about $32 a week to get coverage up to $10,000 a year.

Last week, a senior McDonald's official informed the Department of Health and Human Services that the restaurant chain's insurer won't meet a 2011 requirement to spend at least 80% to 85% of its premium revenue on medical care.

McDonald's and trade groups say the percentage, called a medical loss ratio, is unrealistic for mini-med plans because of high administrative costs owing to frequent worker turnover, combined with relatively low spending on claims.

Democrats who drafted the health law wanted the requirement to prevent insurers from spending too much on executive salaries, marketing and other costs that they said don't directly help patients.


McDonald's move is the latest indication of possible unintended consequences from the health overhaul. Dozens of companies have taken charges against earnings—totaling more than $1 billion—over a tax change in prescription-drug benefits for retirees.

More recently, insurers have proposed a round of double-digit premium increases and said new coverage mandates in the law are partly to blame. HHS has criticized the proposed increases as unwarranted.

Democrats, looking toward midterm elections in which the health overhaul is an issue, say it already has stopped insurance practices they call abusive, has given rebates to seniors with high out-of-pocket prescription costs and has allowed parents to keep children on their insurance plans until they turn 26.


McDonald's, in a memo to federal officials, said "it would be economically prohibitive for our carrier to continue offering" the mini-med plan unless it got an exemption from the requirement to spend 80% to 85% of premiums on benefits. Officials said McDonald's would probably have to hit the 85% figure, which applies to larger group plans. Its insurer, BCS Insurance Group of Oak Brook Terrace, Ill., declined to comment.

McDonald's didn't disclose what the plan's current medical loss ratio was.

The issue of limited-benefit plans has also hit colleges, which face the same 80-to-85% requirement beginning next year.

"Having to drop our current mini-med offering would represent a huge disruption to our 29,500 participants," said McDonald's memo, which was reviewed by The Wall Street Journal. "It would deny our people this current benefit that positively impacts their lives and protects their health—and would leave many without an affordable, comparably designed alternative until 2014."

The health law expands Medicaid and offers large subsidies to lower-income people to buy coverage, but those provisions don't kick in until 2014.

Federal officials say there's no guarantee they can grant mini-med carriers a waiver. They say the answer may not come by November, when many employers require employees to sign up for the coming year's benefits.

The government is waiting for the association of state insurance commissioners to draft recommendations. The head of the association's health-insurance committee, Kansas Insurance Commissioner Sandy Praeger, said she doesn't think these types of mini-med plans deserve an exemption.

"If they are sold as comprehensive coverage, we expect them to meet the same [medical-loss ratio] standards as other health plans," she said.
Without Coverage

Some options for low-wage workers if they don't get health insurance on the job

Steven Larsen, the HHS official who received McDonald's email memo, said the department doesn't want employers to drop coverage over the law. The agency says it has already given the carrier for McDonald's and others the chance to seek exemption from new annual limits on benefit payouts.

Insurers say dozens of other employers could find themselves in the same situation as McDonald's. Aetna Inc., one of the largest sellers of mini-med plans, provides the plans to Home Depot Inc., Disney Worldwide Services, CVS Caremark Corp., Staples Inc. and Blockbuster Inc., among others, according to an Aetna client list obtained by the Journal. Aetna also covers AmeriCorps teaching-program sponsors, who are required by law to make health coverage available.

Aetna declined to comment; it has previously indicated that the requirement could hurt its limited benefit plans.

"There is not any issuer of limited benefit coverage that could meet the enhanced MLR standards," said Neil Trautwein, a vice president at the National Retail Federation, using the abbreviation for medical loss ratio.

A spokeswoman for McDonald's said it would look for other insurance options if it couldn't get the waiver. The company's chief people officer for the U.S., Steve Russell, said, "McDonald's will continue to be committed to providing competitive pay and benefits."

The chain has offered a limited benefits plan for more than 10 years. The current version provides outpatient, inpatient, preventive-care and prescription-drug coverage. McDonald's says 85% of participants have less than $5,000 in medical expenses a year.

The new rules at issue apply only to fully insured health plans and not those where the employer absorbs the risk and directly pays out medical claims. The rules wouldn't affect Wal-Mart Stores Inc., for instance, because it is self-insured.

Benefit consultants anticipate that, by 2014, most employers will stop offering mini-med plans. Such plans likely wouldn't meet the definition of adequate coverage for full-time workers. Under the law, midsize and large employers that fail to offer such coverage will have to pay a fine.

Until 2014, workers on mini-med plans would have few affordable alternatives for coverage. According to a survey by the Restaurant Opportunities Centers United, workers without health insurance were three times as likely to visit the emergency room without being able to pay as their counterparts with health insurance.

"The packages maybe could be better, but for a start, they're quite good," said Jerry Newman, a professor at State University of New York at Buffalo, who worked under cover at McDonald's to write "My Secret Life on the McJob." He added: "For those who didn't have health insurance through their spouse, it was a life saver."

first i've ever heard of mini-med plans. sounds like reasonable coverage for the money, as most employees are probably younger folks that don't require more comprehensive coverage.
 
This was the goal of the healthcare law all along. Force employers to drop coverage, force private insurance to be incredibly expensive to get to their holy grail universal government run healthcare.
 
I still don't understand the McD's outrage exactly.

The bill states that of the premiums paid, 80% has to go to claims. So they are collecting X amount of money from Y amount of employees over Z amount of time. There is going to be a collective total of cash available for when one of these employees needs healthcare. The bill is stipulating that of all that cash collected thus far, at least 80% most be used for medical claims. This leaves 20% for overhead and profit.

The numbers of how much is collected and annual caps do not matter. The formula of whether each person is paying $14, $32, or even $2000 a year does not matter. Unless there is something I am completely missing, I see no reason why the mini-meds insurance would be more affected than any other insurance plan currently in existence. This speaks to me of McD's getting pissed they are losing a lot of profit on insuring 16 year olds who rarely if ever make claims and like collecting way more than 20% profit.
 
Yep as HumblePie has noticed, they are mad they will not make as much money off its employees.

A easy fix is to reduce the rates. That way they hit the 80%.

But again that would cut into them making money off their own employees.
 
I still don't understand the McD's outrage exactly.

The bill states that of the premiums paid, 80% has to go to claims. So they are collecting X amount of money from Y amount of employees over Z amount of time. There is going to be a collective total of cash available for when one of these employees needs healthcare. The bill is stipulating that of all that cash collected thus far, at least 80% most be used for medical claims. This leaves 20% for overhead and profit.

The numbers of how much is collected and annual caps do not matter. The formula of whether each person is paying $14, $32, or even $2000 a year does not matter. Unless there is something I am completely missing, I see no reason why the mini-meds insurance would be more affected than any other insurance plan currently in existence. This speaks to me of McD's getting pissed they are losing a lot of profit on insuring 16 year olds who rarely if ever make claims and like collecting way more than 20% profit.

McDonalds isn't making the money...
 
Because maybe they want to offer a decent benefit to their part-time employees to attract and retain them?

Nah, they're an evil corporation being all corporationy.

How is taking more than 20% of the total collected premiums offering a decent benefit? How is their "mini-meds" version of health insurance any different than any other insurance plan in existence here in the states? Except for the lower annual payout caps relative to the premiums of course.
 
McDonalds sucks donkey balls, they aren't an employer they enslave the underprivileged for profit, like Walmart only worse everyone knows this.
 
I'm still waiting for spidey or someone else to tell me exactly how their "mini-meds" version of health insurance is different from other health insurance in that it needs to be excluded from the 80% law. I have yet to read anything remotely justifying this outrage. To me this screams of "Well if we can't have it then no one can" type of mentality. I expect this kind of behavior from a toddler and not a multi-billion corporation.

Then again this is the company that acts like immature children when they are sued and lose.
 
How is taking more than 20% of the total collected premiums offering a decent benefit? How is their "mini-meds" version of health insurance any different than any other insurance plan in existence here in the states? Except for the lower annual payout caps relative to the premiums of course.


The answer is in the article. The cost of tracking all the employees at McDonalds is higher per employee than most companies because of the high turnover rate. At the same time, the employees each spend less than the average companies employees do on healthcare. Whether the lower spending is due to income or demographic, I don't know. But, if an average company can make it to an 80% ratio, how do you expect a company that has higher costs, and lower benefit expenditures to reach the same ratio of costs to benefit expenditures?
 
The answer is in the article. The cost of tracking all the employees at McDonalds is higher per employee than most companies because of the high turnover rate. At the same time, the employees each spend less than the average companies employees do on healthcare. Whether the lower spending is due to income or demographic, I don't know. But, if an average company can make it to an 80% ratio, how do you expect a company that has higher costs, and lower benefit expenditures to reach the same ratio of costs to benefit expenditures?

Exactly how is the cost more expensive even with higher turn over? I mean if they were doing everything by hand I could certainly see the problem with costs. Then again, it isn't like they aren't tracking who is employeed and who is not in the first place. Any company that doesn't isn't going to make it very far in the first place. This is a very weak argument. I seriously doubt that their "tracking" costs are any higher than any other company and this is just a lame excuse.
 
McDonalds sucks donkey balls, they aren't an employer they enslave the underprivileged for profit, like Walmart only worse everyone knows this.
Well hell, let's just kill off all these corporations and we can all work for the government. Why do we need these stepping stone jobs anyway? Let the government pay for a Masters degree for everyone, and employ everyone at the exact same wage. Now that's fairness.
 
Exactly how is the cost more expensive even with higher turn over? I mean if they were doing everything by hand I could certainly see the problem with costs. Then again, it isn't like they aren't tracking who is employeed and who is not in the first place. Any company that doesn't isn't going to make it very far in the first place. This is a very weak argument. I seriously doubt that their "tracking" costs are any higher than any other company and this is just a lame excuse.

It's not a lame excuse. They might be paying $100 to add a new person to the insurance system, $20 for every claim, and $2 a month for every person in the system. That's just the overhead costs of having a health insurer. If you have high turnover and a plan with low max benefits, it wouldn't be easy to maintain an 80% medical cost payout.
 
It's not a lame excuse. They might be paying $100 to add a new person to the insurance system, $20 for every claim, and $2 a month for every person in the system. That's just the overhead costs of having a health insurer. If you have high turnover and a plan with low max benefits, it wouldn't be easy to maintain an 80% medical cost payout.

It is lame because of the following. Either the situation is the health insurance being provided is coming from McD's (ie they are actually providing the insurance and not some third party company) and they are in complete control of the costs of overhead. Or they are using a third party company that has been enjoying the ride of pretending to have higher overhead costs and passing that on to McD's because of the "tracking complications" they are having.

The scenario is either one or the other. If the case is the second scenario, McD's needs to find an insurance company that will adhere to the new laws and either learn to be more efficient with tracking or not be raking more off the top in profit than what they are claiming.

If the scenario is the first, then McD is being a lame excuse because they are already tracking who is working and who is not for them for payroll and there would be no additional costs incurred for this reason when providing health insurance.

Now that is why I call the excuse lame.
 
It's not a lame excuse. They might be paying $100 to add a new person to the insurance system, $20 for every claim, and $2 a month for every person in the system. That's just the overhead costs of having a health insurer. If you have high turnover and a plan with low max benefits, it wouldn't be easy to maintain an 80% medical cost payout.


Most places make you work 30 to 90days before you can sign up for benifits, at least it was when i worked the private sector. So quick tunrover should not be a major issue. And if it cost $100 just to enter soemoen in a system then they need to be reworked.


And to the person saying McDonalds only slave HS kids. The McDonalds here have no kids I ever see. They are all adults in the late 20's and up to I guess 50ish for some. I don;t go to fast food that often so maybe its just the 3 I can think of I have been to in the last couple year.
 
And to the person saying McDonalds only slave HS kids. The McDonalds here have no kids I ever see. They are all adults in the late 20's and up to I guess 50ish for some. I don;t go to fast food that often so maybe its just the 3 I can think of I have been to in the last couple year.

This I can agree with. Even during the summer there were never any employees I'd peg as HS kids. All of them were well past that age.
 
Back
Top