The 50-50 Solution

The new Nunez/Perata proposal has both employer and individual requirements, but also has a limit on that requirement.

When the Schwarzenegger plan came out, one of my main critiques on day one was that most stakeholders (employers, providers, counties, etc.) in the Governor’s plan had a limit on how much they had to contribute (4% of payroll, 2% of revenue, etc.), but that the individual contribution was unlimited: if you were unsubsidized, you needed to go get coverage, regardless of what it might cost.

Under the new legislative proposal by Nunez/Perata, employers and consumers have required contributions are both limited to 6.5%. Many spend more now, and will likely choose to continue to do so. But the requirement is capped, and at a similar amount.

When Governor Schwarzenegger was campaigning against Prop 72, and then last year when campaigning for Governor, he stated that he was opposed to SB2/Prop 72 not because he was opposed to any requirements on employers, but he didn’t like the 80-20 split. He said he would prefer something like “50-50.” I believe Jon Myers at KQED has that on tape.

Now he’s got it. He has it in a package that includes a multiplicity of other funding sources beyond employers, including a hospital fee and a tobacco tax. The question is, what will he do with it?

Health Access California promotes quality, affordable health care for all Californians.
VIEW THE FILE Legislation

Leave a Comment

%d bloggers like this: