Amy B. Monahan
University of Minnesota
Network
Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.
Publication
Featured researches published by Amy B. Monahan.
Education Finance and Policy | 2010
Amy B. Monahan
There is significant interest in reforming retirement plans for public school employees, particularly in light of current market conditions. This article presents an overview of the various types of state regulation of public pension plans that affect possibilities for reform. Nearly all of the various approaches to public pension plan protection taken by the states have significant flaws. These flaws include a lack of clarity regarding what plan changes the relevant legal standard will allow, combined with either too much or too little protection for plan participants. This article argues that states would be well served to adopt a contractual approach to public pension benefits but to limit that contractual protection to accrued benefits. This approach is clear, protects legitimate participant interests, and preserves an employers ability to respond to changing economic conditions.
University of Kansas Law Review | 2007
Amy B. Monahan
Many states are seeking to involve employers in health care reform efforts through the use of pay or play laws. Under such laws, employers can either play by providing health insurance to their employees in accordance with state standards, or pay a monetary fee to the state. As part of its comprehensive health reform, Massachusetts became the first state to implement such a law. This article examines whether the two Massachusetts pay or play laws are likely to be preempted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. The article argues that the fair share contribution, which imposes a maximum annual
Inquiry | 2010
Mark A. Hall; Amy B. Monahan
295 per employee fee on employers that do not make a fair and reasonable contribution to employee health care should survive a preemption challenge, on the basis that the fee functions as an indirect economic incentive that is not significant enough to create a Hobsons choice for employers. The article also examines the Massachusetts free rider surcharge, which imposes a fee on employers whose employees access free state health care above a given threshold and who do not offer employees the ability to pay health insurance premiums on a pre-tax basis through a cafeteria plan. The article concludes that the free rider surcharge is also likely to survive an ERISA preemption challenge, on the basis that the required cafeteria plan is not, by itself, an ERISA plan, and need not involve any plan governed by ERISA. Given the conclusion that these two Massachusetts pay or play laws are likely to survive ERISA preemption, the article considers what contribution the Massachusetts employer provisions are likely to make to fundamental health care reform.
Risk management and insurance review | 2013
Amy B. Monahan; Daniel Schwarcz
When employees without group health insurance buy individual coverage, they do so using after-tax income—costing them from 20% to 50% more than others pay for equivalent coverage. Prior to the passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), several states promoted a potential solution that would allow employees to buy individual insurance through tax-sheltered payroll deduction. This technical but creative approach would allow insurers to combine what is known as “list-billing” with a Section 125 “cafeteria plan.” However, these state-level reform attempts have failed to gain significant traction because state small-group reform laws and federal restrictions on medical underwriting cloud the legality of tax-sheltered list-billing. Several authorities have taken the position that insurance paid for through a cafeteria plan must meet the nondiscrimination requirements of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act with respect to eligibility, premiums, and benefits. The recently enacted Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act addresses some of the legal uncertainty in this area, but much remains. For health reform to have its greatest effect, federal regulators must clarify whether individual health insurance can be purchased on a pre-tax basis through a cafeteria plan.
Virginia Law Review | 2010
Amy B. Monahan; Daniel Schwarcz
We identify three threats to small group health insurance markets that may result from the 2014 implementation of certain provisions in the Affordable Care Act (ACA). First, small employers with predominantly low‐income employees may tend to opt out of small group markets because their employees will be better off with subsidized individual coverage. Second, small employers with employees of heterogeneous income levels will have strong incentives to offer coverage that is either “unaffordable” or fails to provide “minimum value” in order to preserve the availability of government subsidies for their low‐income employees. Finally, small employers that continue to offer group plans will face increased incentives to self‐insure those plans, further contracting small group markets and subjecting them to adverse selection. Collectively, these forces may destabilize small group markets and increase the ACAs fiscal cost. We therefore conclude by offering various reforms aimed at offsetting these risks and preserving the viability of small group markets.
Iowa Law Review | 2011
Amy B. Monahan
Archive | 2014
Amy B. Monahan
Iowa Law Review | 2012
Amy B. Monahan; Daniel Schwarcz
The Journal of Corporation Law | 2011
Amy B. Monahan
University of Colorado Law Review | 2008
Amy B. Monahan