Small Businesses → Big Healthcare Opportunity
This blog post is adapted from an independent study I advised this past semester with my MBA student, Jill Damaris (CBS ‘24).
When Jill and I began exploring healthcare topics for her independent study, we connected over our families working at small businesses. We shared similar takeaways on the healthcare experience for these individuals, and that this demographic is often overlooked and underserved. We wanted to hone in on this topic over the course of the semester and capture firsthand experiences from small business owners and their employees to paint a more complete picture of this market and ultimately identify opportunities for innovation.
In this article, we’ll cover Jill’s findings from this research, including background on employee-sponsored health benefits in the US and why it is the most common type of insurance, why covering healthcare is challenging for small business owners, and potential opportunities we’re excited about to more adequately serve this unique market.
Why small businesses matter
Small businesses are really anything but small in the US, making up 99.9% of companies. Protecting and supporting this demographic’s healthcare needs is critical for a prosperous, growing economy.
Job creation
Small businesses play a significant role in job creation in the US. Over the last 25 years, small businesses have created two out of every three jobs added to the US economy, which accounts for 12.9 million net new jobs. Additionally, small businesses have rebounded since the challenges of job losses during the pandemic, recovering ~60% of lost jobs since the first two quarters of 2020.
Middle class financial security
Small businesses help support the middle class by creating opportunities for ownership and employment. In the past four decades, 60% of new businesses have been created by the middle class. These middle class owners have autonomy over hiring employees and supporting local communities that benefit from new business creation.
Economic prosperity for marginalized populations
Small businesses in the US are an important economic engine. In terms of addressing gender inequality, small businesses are more likely to be owned by females (~36% have one or more female owner(s)), compared to Fortune 500 companies (10.4% of Fortune 500 companies have a female CEO). Small businesses are also an important part of the economy for immigrants, with 21.7% of small businesses owned by immigrants, which in turn employ ~8 million immigrants in the US. The ethos surrounding owning a small business as a personal goal and means to economic mobility is notable, as well. According to research by the Pew Research Center, 36% of Black Americans say owning a small business is important to their personal definition of financial success, and an additional 22% say it is essential.
Playing such an integral role in the US economy, it's clear that small businesses warrant our attention in healthcare. But providing that vital support is easier said than done. The current healthcare landscape creates unique challenges for this sector, stemming directly from the way insurance is structured in the US.
Why is healthcare coverage tied to employment?
Healthcare in the US is wrought with numerous challenges and idiosyncrasies that are nonexistent in peer nations. One of these US-specific policies is that healthcare coverage is inextricably tied to your employment status.
Healthcare in the US used to be entirely unregulated. The onset of scientific discovery in bacteriology and anesthesiology in the early 1900s shifted hospitals from a public entity to house the sick to a place for high quality care and treatment. At the same time, medicine was becoming a more highly regarded profession with stricter standards and qualifications required to practice. As care became safer and higher quality, both the demand and the associated cost of care began to rise.
In this unregulated system, there were several efforts from various private organizations, including the American Medical Association (AMA) and the Committee on the Costs of Medical Care (CCMC), towards nationalizing health coverage to support individuals and families in covering medical expenses. It wasn’t until World War II, however, that a federal policy on health insurance took hold. In 1943, the War Labor Board ruled that employer contributions to health insurance and pensions did not count as wages. Since wage controls were introduced a year prior, employers used health insurance benefits as a way to compete in the labor market.
Another important policy that came a little over a decade later was when the Internal Revenue Code declared that health benefits were tax deductible as a business expense and therefore were excluded from employees’ taxable income.
With these two policies in place, employer-sponsored health benefits quickly became the norm. By 1958, approximately 75% of the 123 million Americans with private health insurance coverage received this coverage from their employer.
Consequences of an employer-based health insurance model
More Americans are covered by employer-sponsored health insurance than any other type of insurance. But it’s not without its flaws, especially for low-income individuals:
Disrupted coverage for the unemployed: A more obvious flaw in this system is that jobless individuals are excluded. While there are other ways to seek coverage depending on age (Medicare) and income (Medicaid or marketplace plans), relying on an employer-based benefits system can cause disruption in coverage in between jobs.
Lack of continuity in coverage: According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, individuals hold ~12.7 jobs in their lifetime, each with its own unique health plan. This can mean different coverage and a new network of providers anytime someone gets a new job. This also means that health plans are incentivized to promote short-term health, but have little incentive to invest in longer-term preventive health interventions for which they will not reap the benefit.
Hinders job mobility: Having health benefits tied to employment can inhibit job mobility, some estimates say by at least 25%. Employees that are dissatisfied with their current roles or wish to seek new opportunities may be reluctant to leave a job that has health benefits, particularly if their partner does not receive health benefits from their employer.
Tax subsidies benefit higher income workers more: Perhaps the most significant consequence is the impact of tax subsidies on low-income workers. Workers with higher income benefit the most from tax subsidies because they are in a higher tax bracket.
A recent longitudinal study found that workers in the 95th percentile of income spent 3.9% of their compensation on healthcare premiums, compared to workers that earn in the 20th percentile of income, who spent 28.5% of their compensation on healthcare premiums.
This study also suggests that racial disparities in income inequality permeate employer-sponsored benefits. In 2019, as a percentage of total compensation, Black (19.2%), Hispanic (19.8%), and Asian (18.5%) workers contributed a higher proportion to healthcare coverage than White (13.8%) workers.
While not perfect in addressing the consequences of an employer-based health benefits system, the Affordable Care Act (ACA) was instrumental in re-shaping some of the employer-sponsored benefits we see today as well as increasing the number of people insured in the US by reforming the market for health insurance. One of these reforms included requiring companies that employ 50 or more employees to offer healthcare benefits. Since the ACA went into effect in January 2014, the rate of uninsured has dropped to ~10% or below.