The Cost of Offering Nothing: What Happens to Small Employers Who Do Not Provide Coverage

The ACA employer mandate does not apply to employers below 50 full-time equivalents. There is no federal penalty for a 30-person employer who offers no health coverage. Many offer nothing. The KFF 2024 EHBS reports that among all small firms (defined as 3 to 199 employees), 54 percent offered health benefits. The rate for firms below 50 employees is lower. Among firms with 200 or more employees, the offer rate is 98 percent. The gap reflects the ACA’s mandate structure: large employers face penalties for non-offering, small employers do not. The coverage gap is deliberate regulatory architecture, not oversight.

The argument for examining the cost of not offering is not that every small employer should offer coverage regardless of economics. For many service economy employers, the cost-benefit analysis genuinely does not support coverage, as LFP-04.07 argues. The argument is narrower: many employers who could afford meaningful coverage have not examined the costs of not offering with the same rigor they apply to other operational decisions. The decision to offer nothing is often a default rather than an analysis. Defaults carry costs.

The Scale of Non-Offering

#

The 2024 KFF EHBS data documents the offer rate gap concisely. Among firms with 10 to 24 employees, the offer rate is substantially lower than among firms with 25 to 49 employees, which is lower than among firms approaching 50. The gradient is consistent and driven by two overlapping factors: smaller firms have less administrative capacity to manage coverage, and smaller firm margins are more sensitive to the contribution cost. But the data also shows that a significant share of firms that could offer do not, particularly in specific industries.

The offer rate varies sharply by industry. Professional and technical services firms offer at rates approaching large employer norms. Construction, retail trade, and accommodation and food services offer at far lower rates. For construction, the trades labor shortage documented in LFP-04.06 creates strong economic arguments for offering that many smaller contractors ignore. For retail and food service, the margin constraints documented in LFP-04.07 are binding. The industry variation in offer rates tracks closely with industry variation in margins and workforce characteristics.

The 2024 KFF section on health benefits offer rates identifies the primary reasons small firms do not offer: cost is the leading barrier, followed by workforce characteristics (part-time or seasonal workforce), administrative complexity, and employee preference for wages over benefits. The cost barrier is real. It is not always the full explanation. A meaningful share of non-offering employers cite cost without having compared the cost of offering against the measurable costs of not offering.

The Costs to the Employer

#

The costs of not offering are indirect but calculable. They arrive through three channels: talent attraction, retention, and workforce health.

Talent attraction costs appear in any labor market where competing employers offer coverage. A 20-person professional services firm that does not offer health coverage is presenting a compensation package that is incomplete relative to competitors who do. The candidate comparing two offers at similar base salaries, where one includes comprehensive health coverage and one does not, is evaluating total compensation. The SHRM 2024 Employee Benefits Survey data consistently shows health insurance ranking as one of the most highly valued employee benefits, alongside retirement plans. Employers who do not offer are not simply declining to pay for a commodity; they are accepting reduced ability to attract the candidates who value total compensation rather than base salary alone.

Retention costs are the most directly calculable of the three. SHRM’s benchmarking data finds that replacing a salaried employee typically costs six to nine months of that employee’s annual salary. Gallup’s research on employee replacement places the cost range between 50 and 200 percent of annual salary depending on role complexity and seniority level. For an employer with a $65,000-per-year skilled technical employee, the lower bound of the SHRM estimate puts replacement cost at approximately $32,500. The employer contributing $500 per month in health coverage for that employee spends $6,000 per year. If the coverage prevents the loss of that employee even once every five years, the coverage pays for itself in retention savings alone, before accounting for the productivity loss during vacancy, the onboarding cost of the replacement, and the ramp-up time before the new hire reaches full productivity.

The retention math changes substantially by role and by industry. A licensed electrician or HVAC technician, where the AGC’s 2024 Workforce Survey documents that 94 percent of construction firms with open craft positions reported difficulty filling them, represents a replacement cost that is proportionally higher than the wage suggests, because the scarcity of qualified candidates extends the time-to-fill and increases the total vacancy cost. A fast food line worker at $18 per hour, where competing employers also frequently do not offer coverage, represents a replacement cost that SHRM estimates at roughly $1,500 for hourly entry-level positions.

The implication is that the retention argument for coverage is strongest where the employee is hardest to replace, which corresponds closely with skill level and labor market conditions. The professional services employer, the skilled trades contractor, and the healthcare employer competing for clinical staff have the most compelling retention-based case for offering coverage. The service economy employer competing in a labor market where neither they nor most competitors offer coverage has the weakest retention argument.

Workforce health consequences are real but harder to attribute causally. Employees without coverage defer care. Preventive screenings go unscheduled. Chronic conditions go unmedicated. Dental problems progress. Mental health conditions go untreated. The health consequences of uninsurance are well documented in the academic literature, from Currie and Madrian’s foundational 1999 chapter in the Handbook of Labor Economics to more recent analyses. The productivity consequences of a workforce with deferred care are less clean to estimate, but include absenteeism from untreated conditions, presenteeism from chronic pain or mental health burden, and in extreme cases, workers’ compensation claims or disability claims from conditions that medical management could have prevented or delayed.

The argument that workforce health outcomes affect employer economics is well-supported as a general proposition. The specific attribution to any individual employer’s decision not to offer coverage is more difficult. The honest presentation acknowledges the causal uncertainty while noting that the direction of the effect is not in dispute.

Where the Workforce Goes

#

When employers offer nothing, employees do not simply go without coverage. They access whatever options their income and family situation make available.

Medicaid covers employees below 138 percent of the federal poverty level in the 40 states that have expanded Medicaid under the ACA. A full-time worker earning $20,000 annually in an expansion state qualifies. Medicaid provides comprehensive coverage without premiums for most enrollees, though with provider network constraints and occasional access challenges. For the service economy workforce described in LFP-04.07, Medicaid serves a meaningful share of employees when the employer offers nothing.

ACA marketplace subsidies cover employees above Medicaid thresholds who are not offered affordable employer coverage. Enhanced premium tax credits available through 2025 significantly reduced net premiums for workers in the 100 to 400 percent federal poverty level range. An employee earning $35,000 annually without an employer offer in 2025 qualified for credits that could reduce their silver plan monthly premium to $100 or less in many markets. If those enhanced credits expire without Congressional extension and the standard credit structure returns, the net premium cost rises substantially for workers in this income range.

Spousal coverage shifts the cost to another employer. An employee without their own employer offer who is covered through a working spouse’s plan has coverage, but the cost is absorbed by the spouse’s employer. At the market level, this transfers the coverage obligation rather than reducing it. The employer who offers nothing is partially externalizing coverage cost to other employers in the economy.

Uninsured status is the outcome for employees who exceed Medicaid eligibility but cannot afford marketplace premiums without subsidies or whose income situation creates gaps in eligibility. The consequences of being uninsured are not theoretical: delayed care until conditions are acute, medical debt, reduced access to preventive services, and worse long-term health outcomes. The share of employees at small non-offering firms who end up uninsured is difficult to measure precisely, but the KFF Uninsured Rate tracker consistently shows higher uninsured rates among workers at smaller firms and in lower-wage industries.

The Analytical Framework

#

The employer considering whether to offer should apply the same framework to this decision they apply to other significant operational decisions: compare the cost of the alternative against the measurable benefits.

Cost of offering: employer premium contribution, administrative cost, and the employer’s share of plan setup and ongoing management. These are calculable with a broker’s assistance.

Cost of not offering: the retention differential, quantified by estimating the turnover rate reduction that coverage might produce and multiplying by the replacement cost per departing employee; the talent attraction differential, quantified by assessing how often the employer loses candidates to coverage-offering competitors; and the workforce health effects, which are directionally negative but harder to assign a dollar amount.

For a professional services firm where one retained employee at $100,000 per year avoids a $50,000 replacement cost, spending $12,000 per year on coverage for that employee is positive expected value. The math is favorable before considering the value of the coverage to the employee as a benefit.

For a restaurant where turnover is driven primarily by scheduling and wages rather than benefits, and where no competitors offer coverage, the retention argument for coverage is weaker. The restaurant may still choose to offer for employee welfare reasons. The economic case is employer-specific and often genuinely unfavorable.

The decision belongs to the employer. The broker’s role is to ensure the decision is made with full visibility into both sides of the ledger, not as an unconsidered default.