Though employers nationwide have begun crunching the numbers to determine whether to “pay” or “play” and comply with the coverage mandate under the U.S. Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, most have decided to play, at least for now.

Instead, the focus of cost modeling has shifted to determine just how much that decision to play ultimately will cost, benefits experts say.

Fortunately, many large brokers and benefit consulting firms have developed sophisticated modeling tools that are enabling employers to perform that cost-benefit analysis. But the outcomes vary widely, depending on the type of workforce an employer has.

For example, an employer with a large proportion of part-time seasonal workers might learn it would be better off financially to reduce employee hours to avoid enrolling those employees in its health plan, while another employer with a more stable workforce may decide it would be better off continuing coverage but scaling it back somewhat to temper any added costs it might incur when more employees become eligible to enroll.

“We're seeing a fair number of employers who, even though they don't anticipate exiting, want to see the financial implications to their organization. Employers are saying, 'I'm going to play; what are my risks? Is my plan affordable?'” said Karen Vines, vice president of benefits at IMA Inc. in Wichita, Kan. “The focus is on understanding the basics and the true cost of offering coverage.”

Dropping coverage may not be the best option for most employers when they take into consideration their increased tax liability and the cost of higher employee turnover, according to Nancy Thompson, Columbia, Md.-based national vice president of sales for CBIZ Inc.'s employee benefits division.

%%BREAK%%

“It is absolutely mind-boggling as we continue to consult with our clients and prospects, the employers that have not even looked under the hood of the Affordable Care Act to understand the potential financial impacts to their organizations,” she said. “Many don't realize the penalties and the risk. If any employer with over 50 lives doesn't meet the affordability minimums, the penalty right out of the gate is $3,000 per employee.”

“What happens if a company drops its plan? There is a lack of understanding of PPACA in totality, but especially in the tax area. That's a CFO conversation, not a human resources conversation,” Ms. Thompson said. “We have a proprietary interactive tool that we use,” she said. “It enables CBIZ to holistically consult employers. We run various scenarios from stay-as-you-are-today to modifying compensation.”

In many cases, employers are not tracking the kind of data needed to determine what proportion of their workforce is likely to become eligible for benefits after 2014, the year that PPACA requires employers to offer coverage to employees who work 30 or more hours per week on average.

Brian Rochette, director of products and services development, employee benefits, at Marsh & McLennan Agency L.L.C. in Boston, said his firm started doing health care reform modeling for clients six to eight months ago. For many employers, the need for such information had gained greater urgency because “most organizations have only one renewal left before 2014,” he said.

The decisions employers are making based on the outcome of the modeling exercises vary, benefits experts report.

%%BREAK%%

For example, while some employers, like Silver Spring, Md.-based Janjer Enterprises Inc., have decided to scale back their primary benefit plan offerings to meet PPACA rules, many other fast-food industry employers are considering reducing the number of hours employees work to minimize the number who would potentially become eligible for benefits.

Janjer, which operates 29 Popeye's Louisiana Kitchen franchises in the Washington, D.C., area, will see its benefits-eligible employee headcount grow from 120 to nearly 900 beginning in 2014 under health care reform rules requiring employers to offer coverage to employees who work an average of 30 hours or more per week.

“Our company's position is not to adjust hours to minimize costs. If you reduce staff, it affects customer service. Our philosophy is to out-operate our competitors,” said Mike Burke, Janjer's director of operations. “Because of the richness of the plans we have offered historically, we're in a much better position than a lot of our competitors are,” he said.

By contrast, “we've got one group that has an hourly workforce that is going to implement time clock technology that prevents folks from clocking in if they are approaching 30 hours,” said MMA's Mr. Rochette, declining to identify the employer. “The employer can't absorb some of these potential costs.”

Mr. Rochette said he has another client whose eligibility pool will triple from 750 to 2,200 under PPACA rules.

“Even if only 50% of that population enrolled, it would almost triple that employer's expense for medical coverage. They are considering having some people work overtime and cutting back the hours of others,” he said. “They are also looking at alternative plan designs.”