The Court’s decision is likely to increase costs and compliance burdens on employer-sponsored health insurance
Washington, DC – The following statement should be attributed to Annette Guarisco Fildes, President and CEO, The ERISA Industry Committee (ERIC):
ERIC’s case was a chance for the Ninth Circuit to reconsider its ruling in Golden Gate Restaurant Association v. San Francisco, which conflicts with rulings from both the First and Fourth Circuits and whose negative consequences for employers have, over time, become even more acute as states and localities have begun pursuing aggressive measures to substitute for the Affordable Care Act. A number of cities and counties urged the Ninth Circuit not to take up the ERIC case, signaling their intent to follow Seattle with mandates on specific industries or employers in general. If a patchwork of state and local health coverage mandates proliferates, it is likely to create significant additional costs and compliance burdens upon employers seeking to provide quality, affordable health coverage to employees and their families.
ERIC will take time to consider potential next steps. We remain committed to protecting our large employer member companies’ ability to provide uniform health care benefits to their workforce, no matter where they live or work.”