LinkedInXFacebook
Subscribe
Orthopedics This Week
  • My Feed
  • |Posts
  • |Events
  • |MSK Innovations
  • |Power Rankings
  • |Masterclasses
  • |Technology Awards
  • Press Releases
  • |Advertising
  • |Job Board
  • Spine
  • ◆Joints
  • ◆Upper Extremities
  • ◆Foot & Ankle
  • ◆Sports Medicine
  • ◆Pain Mgmt
  • ◆Trauma
  • ◆Biologics
  • ◆Technology
  • ◆People
  • ◆Company News
  • ◆Legal & Regulatory
Home/Legal & Regulatory and Reimbursement/Economists Jump to “Cadillac Tax” Defense
Legal & Regulatory and Reimbursement

Economists Jump to “Cadillac Tax” Defense

October 5, 2015 1 min read Premium comments

Advertisement

Economists Jump to “Cadillac Tax” Defense
Wikimedia Commons and Veertje
Secondary

Obamacare’s so-called Cadillac Tax is under fire from both the left and the right but not from a large number of economists and academicians.

In a letter sent to committee leaders in the House and Senate, 101 economists from such think tanks as the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute argued that the tax should be retained and not, as an increasing number of both Republicans and Democrats are recommending, repealed.

“The Cadillac Tax will help curtail the growth of private health insurance premiums by encouraging employers to limit the costs of plans to the tax-free amount”, said the letter. Furthermore, it went on to say: “As employers redesign health insurance plans to hold costs within the tax-free amount, cash wages or other fringe benefits will increase.”

The so-called Cadillac Tax refers to Obamacare’s annual 40% excise tax on expensive health care plans—which are defined as plans starting in 2018 with annual premiums exceeding $10, 200 for individuals or $27, 500. This tax is meant to be paid by insurers and is not imposed on the total cost of the plan.

Republicans, in particular, have targeted the “Cadillac Tax” for repeal and recently both Democratic presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders have jumped on the Cadillac Tax repeal bandwagon.

React:

Discussion

14
DS
Dr. Sarah MitchellOrthopedic Surgeon · Mayo Clinic

This is a fascinating development. In my practice we've seen similar outcomes with the revised protocol. The key differentiator seems to be patient selection criteria. Has anyone else noticed the correlation with BMI thresholds?

8
JT
James Thornton, MDSpine Fellow · HSS

Great point. I'd push back slightly on the conclusion, the sample size in the cited study is too small to draw population-level inferences. That said, the directional signal is compelling and worth a larger RCT.

5
RP
R. PatelSports Medicine · Stanford

We implemented a similar approach last year. Early results are promising but we're still gathering 12-month follow-up data. Happy to share our protocol if anyone is interested.

Join the conversation

Orthopedic professionals are discussing this. Sign in and upgrade to read every comment and add your voice.

Subscribe

Get Full Access

Read every OTW article and join member discussions for $24.99/month.

Get Full Access

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement

Orthopedics This Week

The most trusted source in orthopedic industry news since 2005. Covering spine, joints, trauma, biologics, and the business of orthopedics.

A publication of RRY Publications, LLC

LinkedInXFacebook

Categories

  • Spine
  • Joints
  • Upper Extremities
  • Foot & Ankle
  • Sports Medicine
  • Pain Mgmt
  • Trauma
  • Biologics
  • Technology
  • People
  • Company News
  • Legal & Regulatory

Resources

  • Subscribe
  • Community Posts
  • Job Board
  • Press Release Opportunities
  • Power Rankings
  • About OTW
  • Advertise
  • Contact Us

Get Full Access

Unlimited articles, community posts, and Power Rankings.

Get Full Access

Plans start at $24.99/mo · Annual saves 20%

© 2026 Orthopedics This Week · RRY Publications, LLC

Privacy PolicyTerms of ServiceCookie Policy