Part-Time Workers Want Health Coverage Too

(CBS)  Sixty percent of businesses in this country currently provide health benefits for their employees. But only half that number cover part-time workers. CBS News correspondent Michelle Miller has more as part of CBS News' series "Prescriptions for Change."

Lauren Roth is not your typical starving artist. She says she just does what she loves. What she does is draw enticing signs for a Whole Foods supermarket in New Jersey. But her heart is in painting.

"I was able to part time here, keep my health benefits, and still be a full-time artist," Roth said recently while at work at Whole Foods.

She's able to do that, even working fewer than 30 hours a week, because Whole Foods is an atypical company - providing access to full health benefits for its part time workers.

"Before I started working here, I was paying almost $400 a month, and that was just medical - not vision or dental or anything," Roth said.

Now she pays around $200 a month for everything.

Of Whole Foods' 51,000 employees, 10,000 are part time, and one in five of them opt in to the plan.

"We hear from our part-timers that they really want the benefits," said Christina Minardi, regional president for Whole Foods. "Since it is benefits at a reduced rate, it just makes sense. It's a win-win for them and for us."

Fewer than a third of American companies offer part-time employees health care benefits. Large companies like Whole Foods are twice as likely to offer coverage than the nation's smallest businesses.

In fact, 60 percent of companies with 5,000 or more employees offer health benefits to part-timers, while only 27 percent of firms with 200 or fewer employees do so, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.

Most small businesses say if health care were more affordable, they would provide it. But, for now, it's usually a choice between providing benefits or a pay raise.

"The premiums are through the roof," said Todd McCracken, president of the National Small Business Association. "There are a lot of part-time workers who aren't demanding health insurance so much as they're demanding more cash."

One of the rare small businesses that does provide the coverage is San Francisco-based Support.com. Its 400 techies work part-time from home giving the general public computer help over the phone.

Support.com's president Josh Pickus says even if the benefits cost more, they're worth it.

"You can't overestimate the importance of health benefits and the related things to getting a really talented workforce," he said. "We think this makes good business sense in the long run."

As for Roth, if she weren't making signs for Whole Foods, "I probably wouldn't have health insurance," she said - or nearly as much peace of mind.

[r_mcdonald1]

the states are the key to insuring the part-timers pool of employees. each state has a DOI (Dept of Insurance) that regualtes the insurers who are licensed in their states.

given the authority, the states can form their own insurance company to handle this segment of the community - caught in between, and are without primary insurance coverage. coverage plans can be designed to provide primary health care coverage with a policy limit of $ 50K, where the worker must have their own Major Medical policy, or be required to arrange for payment of catastrophic care by some other means for those illnesses or accidents that require the higher limits.

each policy can carry a number of copays, as well as the med benefits coverage that specifies that generic drugs with one copay, name brand drugs with another copay. this would require doctors to specify generic's over name brand, but where the generic is not available, at least the insured would have coverage for the name brand at a higher copay.

making health care affordable starts with prevention, and early intervention. by creating state managed insurance, you have accomplished the goal of providing coverage, and can do so at an affordable rate.

as an example - if there are 500,000 part time workers, each paying a premium of $ 25 per week, that provides the state with $ 650 Million to operate a basic health plan with. taking an average of 20% out of the fund for expense (adjusters, clerical, policy generation, legal, etc) this leaves $ 520,000,000 to service the insured for that state.
that premium is not a back breaker for most people - and a simple, weekly adjustment in spending can create the available revenue to pay the policy premium. this is just an example, but one that clearly demonstrates that the FEDS are not always the answer, and states can do it better when given the opportunity.

[isanyonefair]

Nice thesis. The few states that have taken on Health care (at least trying) are suffering and looking bleak financial forcasts due to the rising costs. I think we are at the point of realization that the current approach isn't going to control costs.

On the flip side, Home, Auto, etc insurance are regulated by the state. Are you happy with the price & quality controls there? I'm not.
Most states governments are less trustworthy than the Feds. And thats saying something.

I would argue that our current system has been left with the States. And yet here we are. Got to try something new.

[vernique]

The only fair solution is a public option for all Americans.

[anti-global3]

here is the catch. Say we end up with a public option and the average cost per family for coverage drops from $600 per month to $400.00 per month. If people are out of work or have had their wages scaled back many still will not be able to afford the $400.00 per month. Since it will be mandated that everyone has to buy coverage they will then be fined a few thousand per year.
My questions are how will this help families in these situations, and if they cannot afford coverage do you think it is right to place the burden of paying for thier coverage on other middle class Americans?
The bottom line is the insurance co's and drug makers are not going to afree to making less money, so the only other possibility is further burdening those of us in the middle class who have been lucky enough to keep our jobs and wages.

[Hosheen]

This is why companies like Bank of America, when they take over another bank, fire most of the branch employees and hire them back as part-time workers. They they don't have to pay benefits including health care.

Often, the only full-time employee in a branch will be the branch manager. BoA is one of the worst banks and places to work in the USA.

This is also why you may see the same teller working in two different banks. 36 hours in one, and 36 hours in another just to pay for independent health care. But the USA has the best health care in the world! Riiiiggghhhhtt!

[avigil2]

We may have the best health care (not!) but it's definitely the most expensive. It's considered a business here in comparison to other countries. Why wouldn't we want to take care of our young, our sick and our elderly? Insurance companies doesn't care about the well-being of American citizens... they care about profits. And I'm afraid to say the same goes for many hospitals.