Spouse has no access to medical coverage

[raven44]

I live and work in Ohio. I have medical and dental benefits for my family through my employer. My husband is self-employed and does not have access to medical coverage except through my work.
Last week I received a packet from my employer stating that if our spouses had access to other medical coverage they should take it, if they were unemployed or had no access to other medical coverage then I would be charged an extra $26 per month.
Is this legal? I already pay for the family coverage, an extra $26 a month surcharge because my husband is self employed seems shady to me.

 

[cbg]

Yes, it is legal, and no, it is not remotely shady. The costs of providing insurance coverage to families are enormous and an additional $26 a month is actually a very small increase all things considered. I'm sure most places saw larger increases than that for family coverage.

 

[pattytx]

I just want to be clear. Are you saying that your cost for family coverage is going to be $26 more than for other employees (whose spouse is unemployed) with family coverage?

 

[raven44]

Nope, if it was just going up by $26 for everyone I wouldn't have a problem. They are singling those of us with spouses that have no medical insurance from their jobs, for whatever reason, and are making us pay an additional $26.

 

[pattytx]

So, you WOULD pay $26 more for family coverage than for another employee with family coverage whose spouse DID have access to insurance. Yes?

Not that I'm questioning what you've said, but are you sure you read it correctly? Have you confirmed with HR? Reason I say this is that it is becoming more and more common for employers to charge a surcharge for covering dependents who DO have access to other insurance; I have NEVER seen it the other way around.

 

[cbg]

It is not unusual for there to be several tiers of coverage; for example, one rate for employee plus spouse, one rate for employee plus children, one rate for employee plus both spouse and children.

In any case, this is not illegal. "People whose spouses do not have access to insurance" is not a protected class.