In their ongoing bid to cut the cost of benefits, a growing number of employers are levying a surcharge on the spouses of employees who sign up for health care coverage if they are eligible for them in their own workplace.
A Towers Watson survey this year of more than 600 companies found that 20 percent charge an average of $100 a month for spouses in that situation to be added to health care benefits. A Mercer study in 2012 found a smaller cohort of companies with more than 500 employees (18 percent) reported similar figures.
The change in spousal benefits is part of a broader effort by employers to look for ways to cut the cost of benefits. The average cost of providing health care for a family was $16,351 this year, a 4 percent rise from 2012, according to a survey by Kaiser Health. Employees, on average, paid $4,565 of that total.
Recommended For You
"Most employers are looking at funding dependents differently," said Sunit Patel, a senior vice president at Fidelity.
Also read:
The number of companies charging extra for spouses' health care show signs of accelerating: Another 13 percent of the companies surveyed by Towers Watson said they planned to do so next year. Not only that, but the surcharge is rising. It was about $50 per month just a couple of years ago.
"It's not something intended to hurt employees," said Patel. "It's 'why should I take the burden of all employers?'"
How quickly this trend spread may depend on the economy, he said.
A stronger economy would likely ease the pressure on companies to look for places to cost cuts and mean fewer would make it harder for spouses to join health care plans. A slower economy would have the opposite effect.
Some employers, according to the Towers Watson survey, take their treatment of employee spouses a bit farther. Four percent don't allow spouses to join their plans if they have their own employee-sponsored health care benefits. Another 8 percent of companies said they'd follow suit next year.
Among the companies no longer offering health care to spouses who have other workplace coverage is UPS. The package delivery giant told its white-collar employees of the move in August. UPS said about half of the 32,000 spouses it covers would be affected. UPS said it expected the change, which goes into effect on Jan. 1, would save the company $60 million per year.
UPS and other companies say the moves are necessary to avoid costs associated with the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. UPS, and other large employers, including the University of Virginia, has cited the law's mandate to cover dependent children until they are 25 as one reason for the need to cut costs.
McGregor McCance, a spokesman for the University of Virginia, said that the university "wants to take steps today that can help it provide good benefits in the future but also contain the rising costs caused by a variety of sources."
Helen Darling, president and CEO of the Washington-based NBGH, casts it as a fairness issue.
"If the other employer provides coverage," said Darling, "it seems only fair that the employee takes that coverage, rather than add to the costs of the one who employs the other spouse or partner."
Moreover, virtually every spouse will have access to coverage elsewhere once the PPACA is fully implemented come Jan. 1. That's why some companies have considered not offering coverage to spouses at all.
On the flip side, experts say that certain types of employers, such as banks, insurance companies, hospitals and companies with large numbers of female workers might find that a spousal surcharge hurts their ability to recruit and retain talent.
Companies have to consider spousal exclusions carefully before taking such a step, said Randall Abbott, a senior health care consultant with Towers Watson.
"You can't just do what everybody else does," he said. "You have to step back and say, 'What would this mean to my employee population?' It's a pretty complicated decision."
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
