Temporary employment and Health Insurance in Mass.: spin off of a Finance and Frugality thread

[CathMac]

This is a spin off of a Finance and Frugality thread.  I have posted the link to that further below.

Are there any Massachusetts laws requiring an employer to offer a temporary employee (12 or 13 weeks) Health Insurance?

I am interested in a temporary position for the experience, the opportunity to put something current on my resume, and the remote possibility that the employee going out on maternity leave doesn't come back, but I can't afford to lose the COBRA subsidy I get through my current unemployment claim.  

I do have an unemployment office near me but frankly I'm afraid of getting the wrong information; and I'm also afraid they'll steer me towards taking a job that may not be in my long term best interest ... or that of my Dependents.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

How would a temporary job affect Unemployment benefits and COBRA assistance?

http://www.mothering.com/community/forum/thread/1304698/how-would-a-temporary-job-affect-unemployment-benefits-and-cobra-assistance

TIA

~Cath

[witchygrrl]

It depends. Is the position full time or part time? We had COBRA subsidies while my DH was partially employed. The only effect is that it subtracts how much your unemployment check is. As for the position itself offering benefits, that's highly unlikely.

[Ldavis24]

No a part time position will not give you any benefits...A bummer indeed..

Also depending on the company I believe if it is under 50 people the company is not obligated to provide insurance at all. So yeah that stinks too.

I honestly don't know about the COBRA benefits being affected. I think you would have to speak to your COBRA rep? I do know that you can work a certain number of hours and still collect benefits. I have had terrible issues with the MA unemployment offices I have dealt with (screaming matches on the phone etc...) so I can really appreciate your desire to avoid that hell hole!

[crunchy_mommy]

Is it through a temp agency? My DH took a contract position through a temp agency in MA and they did offer him group health insurance. It was horrible... Expensive & would cover practically nothing... but I suppose would satisfy the MA mandatory health insurance laws (we don't live in MA so I'm not positive). One of my family members works part-time (30 hours/week I think?? But a permanent position...) for a local chain and he ended up applying for MassHealth because the employee-sponsored plan (that he paid for all year, minimal coverage) didn't even satisfy the legal requirements!! That's the thing, even if they are required to provide insurance, it won't necessarily cover enough to make it a good option for your family, whether from a legal standpoint or a financial/health standpoint.

OH and you could at least call and ask... My DH called Unemployment because he was worried he was going to get a job offer for a very low salary and refusing would affect his benefits. They said that if he couldn't live on what they offered, he would not be required to take the position, and he could continue receiving unemployment. So they aren't all bad & out to get you & I don't think they'd try to convince you to take a job if it would otherwise put your family in a bad position!!

[laohaire]

There is no law that requires an employer to offer a FULL time employee health benefits. Most do, but the onus is ENTIRELY on the citizen to procure insurance for themselves. Companies have NO responsibility to help out.

I think the main reason so many companies do offer health benefits is not even so much because they want to be competitive, but because they can't only offer health insurance to some and not others. So the execs want insurance, that means everybody (that meets certain requirements, including being full time) has to have a chance to sign up.

But indeed, a company is not required to offer a part time employee or a temporary employee any health benefits even if their full time employees are on the policy. Also, companies can institute a trial period (I don't know the max but our company uses 3 months) so even full time employees have to get through the trial period before they are offered any insurance.

[Ldavis24]

I'm pretty sure a company with more than 50 employees IS required to at least offer some kind of insurance plan...it doesn't have to be good or even decent but I swear I read and have experienced that in my own work history...

Originally Posted by laohaire 

There is no law that requires an employer to offer a FULL time employee health benefits. Most do, but the onus is ENTIRELY on the citizen to procure insurance for themselves. Companies have NO responsibility to help out.

I think the main reason so many companies do offer health benefits is not even so much because they want to be competitive, but because they can't only offer health insurance to some and not others. So the execs want insurance, that means everybody (that meets certain requirements, including being full time) has to have a chance to sign up.

But indeed, a company is not required to offer a part time employee or a temporary employee any health benefits even if their full time employees are on the policy. Also, companies can institute a trial period (I don't know the max but our company uses 3 months) so even full time employees have to get through the trial period before they are offered any insurance.

[crunchy_mommy]

Originally Posted by Ldavis24 

I'm pretty sure a company with more than 50 employees IS required to at least offer some kind of insurance plan...it doesn't have to be good or even decent but I swear I read and have experienced that in my own work history...

Yeah it looks like you are right on that:

https://www.mahealthconnector.org/portal/site/connector/menuitem.50596a4574af0ace505da95c0ce08041/?fiShown=default

Although, like I said above, my brother's company did offer health insurance but the insurance didn't meet MA requirements for minimum insurance (which makes no sense to me -- what's the point of a law if companies can get around it like that???)

[laohaire]

I remember now, employers of a certain size must either offer "fair and reasonable" coverage or pay a small annual penalty.

The annual penalty was at least initially (it may have changed) $295. Since it's so small, a company could easily choose to pay it rather than offer a health plan, and save money.

The definition of "fair and reasonable" is not so hot either. If 25% of the employer's full time employees are enrolled, apparently that's fair.

The penalty for an uninsured individual is higher (my neighbor says $500, I didn't look it up though). Hence my recollection that the onus is on the individual. People like my neighbors (who juggle 4 or 5 jobs between them trying to stay ahead) just about break trying to pay that penalty every year. I also just read that the effect of the reform was that the rate of uninsured went from 5.7% to 4%. Whoopee.

Sorry, will get off my soapbox.

[Ldavis24]

Insurance in this country/state is a mess anyway. I thought having masshealth was a god-send because we could NEVER afford to pay the premiums of other insurance...Until I tried to make a dentist appointment and even the provider's who supposedly take masshealth said no way..Their reimbursement rates 1/3 of what they can get from other insurance companies. Also, I have been bounced from 3 different PCPs because masshealth signs me up with them, I call to make an appointment and I am told they are accepting new patients just NOT masshealth patients. It is killing me.