Crowd-sourcing legislative interpretation: Norcross money making scheme or benign change?

by: the_promised_land

Fri Jun 17, 2011 at 05:49:05 PM EDT

Section 52 of the bill states that local governments "shall establish such a plan for medical or dental expenses not covered by a health benefits plan." It then goes on to say "The plan SHALL (changing the wording of current law which is "may") provide for a reduction in an employee's salary, through payroll deductions or otherwise, in exchange for payment by the employer of medical or dental expenses not covered by a health benefits plan" and then adds "and may provide for a reduction in an employee's salary, through payroll deductions or otherwise, in exchange for payment by the employer of dependent care expenses."

Scintillating, huh? More below the fold....

Is this making all state and local workers join a Health Savings Account on a mandatory basis?

Another new provision (within section 47, subsection J) requires a new "high deductible health plan" as an option, and an appropriation every year to fund such health plans for employees or retirees.

These two concepts are related - an alternate (and seemingly crappy) model of health care in which you put $ into a tax-advantaged fund to pay your normal expenses, and then insurance covers catastrophic costs only.

And there's a little employee benefits business in South Jersey called Conner Strong that has info about this area of business on their website.

All a coincidence? Standard practice for health care nowadays? Or could this be something to watch?

I don't know enough to say - so please discuss.