Lower-Paid Workers Are Declining Employer Health Insurance, Workplace Benefits

Separately published research finds significant disparities in employer medical coverage and that employees’ participation in workplace benefits is based on income.

Employee income is correlated to greater use of workplace benefits, with lower-paid workers using fewer because the cost is prohibitive, according to new Alight Solutions research on insurance and benefits enrollment’s connection to income and age.  

Although the overall rate for employee medical enrollment decreased slightly to 73% in 2023, down from 76% in 2021, employer-provided medical enrollment has declined by larger margins year-over-year for employees earning less than $60,000, according to the benefits and enrollment trends research.

For more stories like this, sign up for the PLANSPONSOR NEWSDash daily newsletter.

“When we look at medical enrollment rates by salary, we see a pronounced decline in medical enrollment year-over-year for employees earning less than $60,000,” the Alight white paper stated.

Workers with salaries less than $40,000 have the lowest medical enrollment rate at 56%, compared to 84% for individuals who earn more than $100,000. Overall, 45% of the employees that said they declined employer medical coverage indicated it was because the benefit was unaffordable, research showed.

“Income, combined with increasing costs of medical coverage, other financial challenges and expanded marketplace premium subsidies, may account for the overall decline in medical enrollment year-over-year,” stated the report section on medical coverage enrollment. “Employees simply may not be able to afford medical coverage from their employer.”

Employees who decline the employer medical plan are either going without medical coverage, or are covered under a spouse’s or parent’s plan; Medicare or Medicaid; or a health insurance marketplace, the research stated.

While lower-income employees decline medical coverage at higher rates than higher earners, research from health savings account platform provider Lively found that 84% of HR leaders expect to plot increased benefits to attract employees in 2023.

The research also found 58% of employers reported enhancements to health coverage, 60% of HR leader respondents rated health care as a top-three employee benefit and 36% of HR leaders reported that employees asked for better health coverage from their employer.  

Medical Enrollment

Alight found employee medical enrollment highest among individuals 65 and older, at 66%, and lowest for the 21 to 25 age group cohort at 39% research showed.

For employees earning $20,000 to $39,999, enrollment in employer-provided medical insurance decreased to 56% in 2023, from 60% last year and 65% in 2021; for employees earning $40,000 to $59,999, enrollment decreased to 78%, from 80% last year and 82% in 2021; and for employees earning $60,000 or more, enrollment remained static between 83% and 85%.  

The average total annual cost of medical coverage in 2023 is $5,330 for single coverage and $13,998 for family coverage—an increase of 2.3% and 3.2%, respectively, compared to 2022 costs, stated the Alight research.

“Employees are carrying a larger share of the medical cost increases, with an average increase of 3% for single coverage and 4.6% for family coverage,” the research found. “Overall, employers are contributing 72% toward the cost of single coverage and 70% for family coverage.”

The average annual medical cost to employers of single coverage increased to $3,757 in 2023, from $3,684 in 2022, and increased for employees in 2023 to $1,573, from $1,527 in 2022. The average annual medical cost to employers for family coverage increased to $9,904 in 2023, from $9,645 in 2022, and for employees increased to $4,094 in 2023, compared to $3,914 in 2022, Alight found.

Preferred provider organization, health maintenance organization and high-deductible health plans were the medical plan types, Alight research examined.

In addition to Alight’s findings, research published separately by financial technology and business services company HealthEquity found that among workers with yearly earnings less than $100,000, 45% said several workplace benefits are unaffordable.  

HealthEquity found that 57% of workers earning less than $100,000 do not participate in the employer-provided health savings account, while 50% of workers who earn more than $100,000 do participate.

While the data showed worker participation rates in health savings accounts that are different from Alight Solutions, the reason is unclear.

According to Alight, employer high-deductible health plans paired with health savings accounts are “more attractive to older employees with higher earnings,” the paper stated.

Overall, 80% of employees participate in an HSA in 2023, compared to 79% last year and 78% in 2021, according to Alight. HSA participation by salary showed discrepancies based on income.

  • For workers earning more than $100,000, 91% participate in an HSA;
  • For workers earning $80,000 to $99,999, 87% participate in an HSA;
  • For workers earning $60,000 to $79,999, 82% participate in an HSA;
  • For workers earning $40,000 to $59,999, 74% of workers participate in an HSA; and
  • For works earning $20,000 to $39,999, 61% participate in an HSA.


“The perceived risk of HDHPs—that is, the need to pay a large amount up-front for medical services (the deductible or more) along with the variable nature of those costs—may make these plans less attractive to some employees even if the fixed annual premium cost of these plans is lower than other plan types,” the Alight research paper stated.

Alight Solutions gathered data for the research from October through December 2022, a spokesperson said. The report included data from more than 450 organizations, totaling more than 9.5 million employees.

The HealthEquity research, Employees: Perspectives on Benefits and DEI, was published in January. The data was gathered by HealthEquity through an online survey conducted from November to December 2022. The total sample size comprised 1,387 respondents: 1,003 marketplace responses and 384 HealthEquity participating members.  

The Lively Employee Benefits Pulse Check report partnered with CITE Research Inc. for the report and surveyed 250 HR leaders across the United States in multiple industries, according to a spokesperson.

ERISA Complaint Against DISH Network Dismissed

A federal judge found the plaintiffs had not established an adequate peer for the funds’ fees and performance in question.

A federal judge in Colorado upheld this week a recommendation from a magistrate judge to dismiss a lawsuit brought against DISH Network alleging that it failed to uphold its fiduciary duties in administrating its workplace retirement plan.

The plaintiffs in Jones et al. v. DISH Network, represented by the Miller Shah law firm, had alleged that DISH failed to monitor the fees charged to the plan, as well as the performance of the Fidelity Freedom Funds TDF suite and other actively managed funds in the plan, therefore hurting participant outcomes. DISH should have used its size to negotiate lower fees and better monitored the performance of funds in the investment menu, they alleged.

Never miss a story — sign up for PLANSPONSOR newsletters to keep up on the latest retirement plan benefits news.

In January, Magistrate Judge Scott Varholak recommended the case be dismissed because plaintiffs had failed to propose proper peer funds to which the fees and performance of the existing funds could be compared. He also noted that the plaintiffs compared the average fees for the plan across five years to a single year for one comparator, which was not a legitimate comparison.

Varholak also wrote in his recommendation that the plaintiffs did not have standing to challenge the Royce Total Return Fund, an actively managed fund, because none of the plaintiffs had actually invested in it and therefore were not harmed by it.

The plaintiffs objected to the recommendation in February. They argued that they were damaged by the TDF suite which they did invest in and that the TDF series was evidence of a flawed process. That flawed process also led to the selection of the Royce Fund, and therefore they could challenge it on that basis, they argued. They reiterated that the fees were too high for these funds and that the plan fiduciaries have a duty to continuously monitor the plan.

On Monday, U.S. District Judge Christine Arguello, presiding in the District of Colorado, accepted Varholak’s recommendation and dismissed the complaint. She accepted that the plaintiffs had no standing to challenge the Royce Fund because they could not prove that it was selected along with the Fidelity TDFs as part of the same decisionmaking process and because none of the plaintiffs had, in fact, invested in it. The plaintiffs must show a common practice that injured both them and other investors who did invest in the Royce Fund, the judge ruled.

Arguello also concurred with Varholak by saying the fee comparisons were not apples-to-apples and that fiduciaries can offer a range of prudent options. They are not required to scour the market for the lowest fees on the lowest-risk and highest-return funds, she wrote.

The Miller Shah firm did not return a request for comment.

«