title: Making a case for employer-enforced individual mandates.
abstract: An employer-enforced individual mandate has some substantial advantages over the mixed employer and individual mandate embodied in the Clinton administration's proposed health plan. Economic reasoning strongly suggests that almost all of the cost of an employer mandate will fall on workers and that in any case the incidence of an individual mandate is the same as that of an employer mandate. However, an individual mandate is easier for voters to understand, avoids administrative complexities and inequities, and eliminates the chance of adverse employment effects of mandated employer coverage.
authors.affiliation: Health Care Systems Department, University of Pennsylvania.
authors.forename: M V
authors.initials: MV
authors.lastname: Pauly
mesh_terms: D003256:Community Participation / Q000191:economics / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D017047:Cost Sharing / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence; D017049:Employer Health Costs; D005382:Financing, Personal; D006264:Health Benefit Plans, Employee / Q000191:economics / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D018166:Health Care Reform / Q000191:economics / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D006801:Humans; D014481:United States