My organization might offer a bonus to decline health insurance, and I am not sure if that's a good thing.

31 Comments

1. Courtney ChaffeeMay 18,2022 at 6:41PM UTC

   Personally, I think I would vote against it and for a few reasons.

   1. It encourages people to think "If I don't get hurt then I don't need insurance..." which can encourage people not to seek medical care if they DO get hurt.
   2. It's a benefit - a reason people choose this job over another. I liken it to bonuses for not taking time off (different from paying out PTO) or not contributing to a retirement savings plan.
   3. It feels like the company doesn't have a care for the long-term wellbeing of their employees.
2. Kelly McNerney SchrieberMay 23,2022 at 12:36PM UTC

   I disagree with this comment - mainly because most companies do require you to show proof of insurance in order to opt out. It’s generally not a very large bonus either - for my company it’s on the order of $30 per pay period.

3. Gina HardinMay 23,2022 at 12:42PM UTC

   You can’t usually decline coverage unless you have it elsewhere

4. Julie HumbirdMay 18,2022 at 8:06PM UTC

   I would vote yes for this.
   Its a common benefit for staff who don't need coverage to be given a cash award to make their total compensation more equitable with others. I am married and cover my spouse + kids. My company pays far more for my coverage than for an unmarried colleague's coverage. Also, many organizations required a proof of alternative coverage to opt out of their medical plan.

   Your company is simply trying to recognize that staff who don't need their health coverage are saving them a lot of money. They already know who the "expensive" staff are. Its the married ones with kids who all need coverage.

5. AnonymousMay 18,2022 at 10:31PM UTC

   If you are in the US, could this be part of the current administration's ploy to get us all into government health care???

6. AnonymousMay 19,2022 at 12:21PM UTC

   This has been an option for years, it's not new. It has nothing to do with any president of either party.

7. AnonymousMay 19,2022 at 2:45PM UTC

   What in the world? Politics has NOTHING to do with this. It is not a conspiracy - there are no cannibals living in a pizza parlor. In fact, I negotiated with my old company during the second BUSH administration - well before the attempt to provide healthcare to so many people - to drop their crappy insurance and stay on my husband's because is it was Sooo much better. And We split the difference. That is fair because they are not spending as much - but you should also receive the benefit.

8. Dcre1977May 23,2022 at 12:47PM UTC

   No it is a plan by the employer to save money by getting you on someone elses health insurance.

9. Yichen ZhangMay 18,2022 at 11:00PM UTC

   From my perspective, I don't see an issue either way. I have seen/heard about organizations that provide cash incentives for employees who opt to stay on a family member's health plan (like the one proposed here) and organizations that impose penalties for employees who choose to stay on the org's health plan when their spouse has access to other healthcare coverage.

10. AnonymousMay 19,2022 at 12:27PM UTC

    I don't see a problem, this is fairly common. It saves a company money if you're not using their coverage and they pass it on to you. And if you look at numbers, it usually cost much less for a single employee than paying for a spouse or family (meaning, if employee is $50 deduction per pay check, adding a spouse isn't just $100, it's more like $150 or $200, and even more for children). So without the bonus, the single people actually come out ahead.

11. AnonymousMay 19,2022 at 12:45PM UTC

    Hmm, it might offer more options. I hate being stuck with the crappy plan that the company selects to save money. I always end up paying more in deductibles and copays. If they cover the cost of your choice of insurance coverage, it might be worth it.

12. AnonymousMay 19,2022 at 8:26PM UTC

    I am at an org that allows you to decline if you can prove coverage elsewhere, and you get a monthly bonus added to your check. It's great for marrieds. My org also provides a lot of extra benefits to those with families - extra $$ for childcare, for tutoring, etc. As someone who is single/no kids - I feel like I get paid less for more work. Because I am for sure the one expected to stay late or work weekends (because - no kids!) - but there are no "extras" for me. Almost every new program HR rolls out targets married with kids folks (or homeowners - as they give incentives to install solar panels, car charging stations, etc. - which leaves out all the renters)- and it is making me seriously rethink continuing on here. They have been priding themselves on all the new benefits, but they completely exclude a portion of the workforce, the same portion they want to pick up the slack when things are busy. I hadn't thought of being viewed as a "less expensive" staff should there be layoffs....because my gut says if they were choosing between me and someone with kids - they would keep the person with kids (convincing themselves it was the "right" thing to do). So in my position? I would vote against it - but that is because I am the person who is never the one really benefitting.

13. AnonymousMay 23,2022 at 12:40PM UTC

    I had this option to me 20 years ago.
    Cafeteria plan where you had x amount of money to spend and got some of it back in cash. I got more because I was single and young so the reverse of your argument. As as married person now I use my husbands insurance so I am paying for it, just not via my current employer. I think it’s the opposite of this argument , I should get some remuneration. My employer assumed I’d cost a certain amount and I’m cheaper , why shouldn’t I get some of that back. It’s not just my cost but the cost to the plan if I get sick. Insurance is a very complex calculus.

14. AnonymousMay 23,2022 at 1:16PM UTC

    You are lucky, so many companies are refusing to insure the spouse if they can receive coverage under their employer. In my company your husband would not be allowed to carry you on his policy since you are offered and can receive coverage at your place of employment. Just understand your coverage vs what you have on your husband's policy. Understand the rules about how you can pick it up when not in open enrollment.

15. CJB62May 23,2022 at 1:27PM UTC

    Not a fan of this. It discriminates against single folks that wouldn’t have the ability to get health insurance elsewhere other than a usually high priced state plan if available and single income families . A strategy where the company picks up the total cost of just the employee would be more equitable and incentivize those with spouses who have insurance through their employers to go that route.

16. AnonymousMay 23,2022 at 1:47PM UTC

    So many questions…

    Does the cost of the plan then go up because fewer people are participating? That would be discriminating against single people.

    Are you easily able to enroll if your husband’s coverage was lost?

    Is it really a bonus or are you just getting back the employee’s portion of the cost? I would expect a portion of the employer’s share to make it a true bonus.

    Why are they pursuing this now? Is it indicative of a “bad year” for the company. Not a reason to vote no, but a reason to start looking.

    Can you still participate in a flex spending plan?

17. Lauren FraleyMay 23,2022 at 2:08PM UTC

    How is your company structuring this? The fact you're jumping to "expensive" staff for budget cuts and layoffs makes me think you already don't trust your employer that much.

    My company provides a similar plan, except it's a flat rate benefit for all employees - which actually helps D&I efforts (everyone costs the same). If your plan costs less than the amount provided, your insurance is free to you; if not, you only pay the remainder OR you get the expected amount as a "bonus" in your paycheck.

    A lot of times, companies will do a percentage of the benefits premium, which actually ends up increasing total compensation for employees that have larger families on the family plan. This might actually be your employers effort to right-size their current contributions.

18. Me!May 23,2022 at 2:18PM UTC

    In my opinion it sends the wrong message to employees (would they do this for 401k, probably not). It’s rather exclusionary, what about those that do not have a partner or option to be on someone else’s plan?

19. Joanna PoeMay 23,2022 at 8:18PM UTC

    They're getting more in the way of compensation from the employer (health plan); they're not being excluded from anything.

20. Claire McCabeMay 23,2022 at 2:25PM UTC

    I've always felt that it was biased that some people (married) got to be on their spouse's insurance, and that therefore opened up many career opportunities that were not available to single/unmarried people. For example, as a woman who was single for many years, I had to only take jobs that offered full benefits. There were some jobs that sounded interesting but didn't have health insurance available. IMHO, it's always been an unfair system and health insurance availability shouldn't be tied to either employment or marital status. This is just the tip of the iceberg!

21. Joanna PoeMay 23,2022 at 8:28PM UTC

    Our system is cripplingly flawed; we should absolutely have nationalized healthcare, but in the meantime, let's not pit single people against couples and families. We all face challenges.

    Employers with over 50 employees are required to offer healthcare to employees and their dependents. The spouse who is a dependent on someone else's insurance isn't getting free healthcare: the spouse and their employer are paying more to cover them.

    These bonuses are the dependent spouse's employer's way of saying "we acknowledge that your coverage is coming from someplace else, here's some money to offset that to make your total compensation more in line with your coworkers who we do insure."

22. Joanna PoeMay 23,2022 at 2:25PM UTC

    This is offered at my workplace thanks to some language in the union contract (available even if you're unrepresented, luckily).

    It's a nice option that should not be considered inequitable, because if your spouse covers you elsewhere, then you are technically receiving less compensation from your employer. They're evening the playing field; oversimplified, but if your compensation is $50k salary and they pay $15k of your insurance, your total compensation from the company is $65k. So if we make the same base level salary, but I decline the insurance, my total compensation is lower. This is to help offset that.

    Single folks, yes, you're paying the monthly premium, but the share paid by the employer is much greater. So by declining the insurance because we're covered elsewhere, we're saving the employer money - we absolutely should get a taste of that back to help pay the premiums our spouse is paying from their paycheck.

    There are a lot of comments about how single people feel like they're not offered as much as families with children. I'm married without children, and I feel that a touch, but that's nothing to do with this conversation.

23. AnonymousMay 23,2022 at 3:33PM UTC

    We have this available at my company. I'm married but the only one who has employment with health insurance offered and never once have I thought this would be unfair. As at least one other put it, it's a way to balance out compensation packages. Whether or not you receive a stipend for not taking the offered insurance the company would know since you would be on the plan or not. I wouldn't look at it from a negative perspective but as a way your company is trying to offer more benefits to all.

24. Leader135412May 23,2022 at 6:06PM UTC

    Keep the coverage, because you never know.

25. April MinerMay 23,2022 at 6:34PM UTC

    Good point; it's definitely a problem for inclusion and diversity!
    It completely weeds out the more "expensive" staff, hence making them first picks for layoffs. On the other hand, the bonus would be nice.

26. AnonymousMay 23,2022 at 7:45PM UTC

    Is it an actual bonus or like a monthly payment?

    A lot of employers offer some sort of "reward" for either declining altogether (my husband gets a little extra money from his employer monthly because he is insured through Tricare (army vet)). I've seen many employers require that if an employee's spouse has coverage available close to what we pay, they need to go to that - and in at least one case the employer would charge the employee more if they spouse didn't do that).

    I honestly don't think this is an issue. May be just labeling it as a bonus if that is what they are truly calling it, but that's it.

27. Debra WhiteMay 24,2022 at 5:55AM UTC

    I think "bonus" is an issue. My previous employer paid people the premium directly if insurance was declined; however, the employee had to show they were covered under another plan before they could decline. I thought this was nice since 100% insurance coverage was listed as a benefit for all employees.

28. Becky NurnbergMay 24,2022 at 2:42PM UTC

    I manage a fairly good sized nonprofit that does not have enough employees to provide decent health insurance for employees and that's been a major problem in recruiting. (Our unemployment rate in our county is 1.8% and our nonprofit has doubled in assets since I started 5 years ago.) When they hired me , they bonused me (on which I paid taxes) and I kept my covereage through COBRA and which ended the same month that I qualified for Medicare, but they kept paying the bonus. This last year they rolled the bonus into my salary. The other employee in the office gets excellent coverage through her husband's company; however, if we were to offer health insurance, then she would have to drop the coverage with her husband's company and go with ours or she would have to pay a "fine" of a couple hundred dollars per month. This past year our nonprofit got a QSHERA plan and that's excellent for out of pocket costs. Health plans are expensive and the rules vary from employer to employer. Although for some companies, it may be a way to pick out the "expensive" employees, if someone is really good and the company is doing due diligence, that wouldn't be the case and they're not going to get rid of a really good employee just because there's an extra expense for health coverage. My vote is it's not due to "inclusion and diversity" either (which is way over used these days), but your company is trying to solve a very difficult problem of attracting and keeping good employees that many companies are facing these days.

29. Cynthia Jones 1128May 24,2022 at 5:16PM UTC

    My company does something similar but to get the "bonus" money you must show proof of insurance somewhere else. The bonus is also less than what the company would pay if you took their insurance. We have great insurance so most spouses prefer to be on our insurance so it's not actually used often.

30. Robyn McCabria KelsoMay 25,2022 at 5:24PM UTC

    I was told that this was something that couldn't be done. You either use your defined benefit for healthcare or you lose it. I threw away 300 every month for almost 20 years as I was on my spouse's insurance.

31. Francine A McGrathMay 25,2022 at 10:59PM UTC

    We receive $60.00 per month if we do not need the health insurance. I have great health insurance through my spouse and don't need it through my job. I would not recommend declining health insurance just for the bonus, unless you have it from another source.