Annette Guarisco Fildes is president and CEO of the ERISA Industry Committee in Washington. Ms. Fildes joined ERIC, which represents the nation's largest employers on a broad array of employee benefit issues, this year. She previously was executive vice president for the Retail Industry Leaders Association in Arlington, Virginia. Before that, Ms. Fildes held senior executive positions in the public policy and government affairs departments of General Motors Co. and Honeywell International Inc. where she was involved in health care and pension issues. In an interview with Editor-at-Large Jerry Geisel, Ms. Fildes discussed a broad array of issues related to the health care reform law from an employer's perspective. Edited excerpts follow.

Q: A little more than five years ago, President Barack Obama signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act into law. We know what the positive aspects of the ACA have been: millions of previously uninsured Americans have gotten health insurance coverage. From a large-employer perspective, what have been the law's achievements?

A: Certainly, the extension of coverage to many of the previously uninsured is an important achievement of the law. But from a large-employer perspective, the law caused a diversion of resources to unnecessary and very costly compliance burdens, mandates and taxes that are not really doing anything to improve the quality of care or, frankly, address health care cost issues.

Q: Given that, what provisions of the law would you like to see changed?

A: As you know, large employers, especially the members of our trade association, ERIC, provided coverage for employees and their families long before the Affordable Care Act was even conceived. We did it without an employer mandate, reporting requirements and the 40% excise tax (that has come to be known as the Cadillac tax). Those are really the three provisions that we are working with Congress to repeal.

Q: What is the likelihood of those changes becoming law?

A: Change is always difficult to achieve. We are hopeful. We see bipartisan support for some of these measures. We are working hard to ensure that all members of Congress appreciate that these do not help provide coverage to anybody, nor do they help to improve the quality of care or lower the cost of health coverage.

Q: Is there a No. 1 ACA provision that should go?

A: Certainly: the Cadillac tax. That is the one that is most onerous on employers, as well as the health care plan coverage reporting requirements. The regulatory burdens far outweigh the benefit of reporting this information to the Internal Revenue Service.

Q: Group health care coverage is very expensive. Why shouldn't a portion of that cost be subject to a federal excise tax? (Starting in 2018, a 40% tax will be levied on that part of group health insurance premiums that exceed $10,200 for single coverage and $27,500 for family coverage.)

A: If Congress wanted to devise an excise tax, we ought to look at what they are trying to achieve by imposing it. If it was, like in the case of the 40% excise tax, designed to discourage generous plans, then they should address generous plans. But the way the provision was enacted and is being interpreted, it impacts employers simply because of where their employees happen to be located. Employers can't change where they are located. While perhaps the tax was well-intentioned, the results are really quite damaging. Employers now have to spend time trying to figure out how to avoid paying the taxes.

Q: What is your agenda for regulators?

A: We are working with regulators on changing the reporting requirements that employers have to meet to prove they are providing coverage to employees under the ACA's employer mandate. (Employers with 50 or more full-time employees must report 2015 health care plan enrollment information early next year to the IRS.) Since employers have been providing coverage long before the employer mandate, we think the reporting requirements could be much more straightforward: Simply allow us to check the box that we provide coverage to at least 95% of our full-time employees. But don't require us to collect information — sensitive private information like Social Security numbers of employees' dependents — and have us keep that information and send it to the Internal Revenue Service.

Q: Should employers be optimistic that regulators will come out with flexible rules?

A: We are very hopeful that regulators will take a more reasoned approach, for example, on the coverage reporting requirement. We are pleased that the Treasury Department is taking a thoughtful approach with respect to the ACA's health plan excise tax. They are asking for comments first … We have provided substantial comments to them to help ensure that if the excise tax is not repealed, that the regulations are targeted enough that they don't sweep in some good things employers are doing, such as providing on-site health clinics or wellness programs. We don't want those costs to be included in the calculation of the excise tax.

Q: Of course, employers could terminate their plans and give employees money to offset premiums to buy coverage in public insurance exchanges. So far, though, few employers have shown much interest in this approach. Why not?

A: There are a lot of different reasons. First of all, the cash you would give employees in lieu of coverage would be taxable. That is a big discouragement. Secondly, employers play a very important role in designing plans that work and allow them to attract and retain employees. I think employees like it. They consider employer health plans a valuable benefit. So employers don’t want to take away a benefit they are providing to employees.