Portable Benefits and Multi-Employer Contribution: The Legislative History and What Solving It Would Require

The fractional worker needs a benefits account that persists across employer relationships. Multiple clients or platforms contribute proportional to the work performed. The worker owns and controls the account and uses the accumulated contributions to purchase health coverage, fund retirement savings, or pay for other work-related benefits. Coverage does not terminate when any single engagement ends. The concept is clear. The product does not exist at scale in any legally settled, operationally proven form.

That gap is not for lack of political interest. Portable benefits for independent and gig workers has moved from a niche policy idea to active bipartisan legislative work at both federal and state levels. The policy trajectory is clearer than it was five years ago. The legislative path is longer than advocates prefer. The regulatory barriers are structural, not merely political. Understanding them matters for any TPA or benefits operator evaluating the fractional worker market.

The Population

#

As of 2024, approximately 27 million Americans work independently as their primary income source, representing 16.7 percent of the American workforce, according to MBO Partners’ State of Independence study. That figure excludes the larger population of workers who combine traditional employment with independent work. The Bureau of Labor Statistics’ November 2024 Contingent and Alternative Employment Arrangements report documents the scale of alternative work arrangements more broadly. Of independent workers surveyed in multiple studies, 80 percent report preferring their current work arrangement over traditional employment. Fewer than 9 percent say they would rather be a traditional employee. The independence is chosen. The benefits gap is not.

The Senate HELP Committee white paper issued in May 2025 under Chair Bill Cassidy documents the problem directly: existing federal labor and employment laws prevent independent workers from accessing common workplace benefits without the risk of reclassification as employees. The legal analysis driving this constraint is ERISA’s definition of an employer as a plan sponsor: ERISA-covered benefit plans must be sponsored by an employer, and independent contractors are not employees. A platform that provides benefits to independent workers risks triggering employee reclassification, which would void the independent contractor status that both the worker and the platform value.

The Legislative History

#

The Portable Benefits for Independent Workers Pilot Program Act, introduced in the 118th Congress as H.R. 3482, would have allocated $20 million to the Department of Labor to fund grants for testing and developing portable benefits models. The grants could fund evaluation of existing approaches or design of new ones. The bill did not reach a floor vote. Versions of bipartisan portable benefits legislation have been introduced in multiple Congresses without passage. Senators Mark Warner and Todd Young reintroduced comparable legislation in May 2023. All pilot-program versions share the same political characteristic: they propose studying the problem rather than solving it, reflecting genuine legislative uncertainty about what a federal solution should look like.

The 2025 legislative environment shifted the debate. Senators Tim Scott, Bill Cassidy, and Rand Paul released a package of bills in July 2025 including Cassidy’s Unlocking Benefits for Independent Workers Act, which establishes a safe harbor under federal law for companies that voluntarily provide benefits to independent contractors without triggering employee reclassification. Representative Kevin Kiley introduced the Modern Worker Security Act in February 2025, creating a federal safe harbor for portable benefits accounts. The House version passed a committee vote in 2025. At the state level, Utah passed the first portable benefits legislation in 2023, allowing any entity to offer portable disability, unemployment, or health benefits to independent contractors without triggering employment status. Wisconsin, Tennessee, and Alabama passed similar reforms in 2025. Governors in Pennsylvania, Georgia, and Maryland approved DoorDash-facilitated pilot programs using the benefits company Stride as the platform administrator.

The gap between a pilot program, a safe harbor for voluntary contributions, and a federal framework that solves the structural health coverage problem is substantial. Safe harbors that allow contributions without reclassification risk address one legal barrier. They do not resolve the questions of who is the plan sponsor under ERISA, how stop loss underwriting works when covered individuals have multiple contributing employers, how the affordability determination operates for ACA employer mandate purposes when no single employer bears the full contribution, or how contribution levels are set and enforced when the work relationship is variable.

The Structural Barriers

#

The reclassification risk is the most visible barrier, and the one current legislation targets most directly. But resolving reclassification risk does not resolve the coverage design problem.

ERISA requires a plan to have a plan sponsor. The plan sponsor is the employer or employee organization that establishes or maintains the plan. In a multi-employer arrangement where multiple independent clients each contribute a share of a fractional worker’s benefits account, no single entity is the plan sponsor in the traditional sense. The worker themselves might theoretically be the plan sponsor of their own plan funded by multiple employers, but this structure is not well supported under ERISA’s current framework. Individual plan sponsorship exists in some forms, including individual HSAs and IRAs, but extending it to group-quality health coverage with employer stop loss requires regulatory development that has not occurred.

Stop loss underwriting is designed for groups of employees covered under a single employer’s plan. The stop loss carrier underwrites the employer, assessing the demographics, health history, and industry of the employer’s covered population. A fractional worker whose coverage is funded by contributions from multiple unrelated clients presents a novel underwriting unit: the worker as an individual, with their own health risk profile, rather than the worker as a member of an employer group with pooled actuarial characteristics. Stop loss priced for individual coverage exists (it is what the individual insurance market provides), but it does not function the same way or at the same economics as group stop loss.

The ACA employer mandate complicates multi-employer contribution further. The mandate applies to applicable large employers with 50 or more full-time equivalents. It requires those employers to offer minimum value, affordable coverage to substantially all full-time employees or face penalties. If a gig platform making contributions to a portable benefits account is treated as an applicable large employer, the coverage test applies. If the platform’s contributions are not sufficient to meet the affordability standard (9.96 percent of household income in 2026), the platform may face shared responsibility payments when the worker accesses marketplace subsidies. Platforms making voluntary, partial contributions across large numbers of independent contractors cannot easily satisfy an ACA affordability determination that was designed for a single employer providing coverage to a defined set of employees.

What Approximations Currently Exist

#

Short of a legislative solution, several existing mechanisms can approximate portable benefits for specific populations, none perfectly.

ICHRA allows an employer to fund individual market coverage for a defined employee class. If multiple employers each established separate ICHRAs for the same fractional worker, each would technically provide the worker with funds toward individual coverage. The practical barriers are prohibitive: each ICHRA requires a separate plan document, separate affordability determination, separate notice requirements, and separate verification of individual market enrollment. No single platform manages multi-employer ICHRA coordination. The worker’s affordability determination becomes unworkable when multiple employers each make partial contributions to separate ICHRAs with separate affordability calculations.

HSA contributions from multiple employers to a worker’s own health savings account are legally permissible. Multiple parties can contribute to a single HSA. The worker must be enrolled in an HSA-eligible high-deductible health plan, which they must purchase in the individual market. HSA contributions from employers are tax-advantaged. But the HSA is designed for tax-advantaged savings and cost-sharing, not as a primary coverage mechanism. It does not solve the underlying insurance coverage problem; it supplements coverage the worker must already have.

Pilot programs like DoorDash’s Pennsylvania arrangement use general savings accounts administered by a financial technology company. The accounts are not ERISA plans. The contributions are not ERISA employer contributions. The funds can be used for any purpose, including healthcare expenses, but they do not constitute health insurance or ERISA-covered health benefit coverage. The average monthly contribution in DoorDash’s Pennsylvania pilot was approximately $31 to $33 per participant in mid-2024, which does not approach the individual market premium for meaningful health coverage in most markets.

The Opportunity and Its Timing

#

The TPA that serves fractional workers through an existing mechanism while the legislative path develops occupies a valuable market position. The fractional worker population is large, growing, and genuinely underserved. The employer-side demand for a benefits solution that allows platforms and clients to contribute without triggering reclassification risk is real and increasing.

The practical product today is a multi-employer ICHRA administration platform that can manage separate ICHRAs from multiple employers for the same worker with consolidated reporting and simplified employee-facing navigation. No TPA currently offers this at scale. The barriers are administrative and systems-level rather than legal. An ICHRA platform that solves the multi-employer coordination problem, manages separate affordability determinations for each contributing employer, consolidates verification of individual market enrollment, and provides the worker with a unified view of their combined ICHRA funds across employers would serve the fractional worker market with existing legal tools. The product does not yet exist. The technical requirements are within reach.