Connect with us

Published

on

About a quarter of large U.S. employers heavily restrict coverage of legal abortions or dont cover them at all under health plans for their workers, according to the latest employer health benefits survey by KFF. Use Our Content

It can be republished for free.

The findings demonstrate another realm, beyond state laws, in which access to abortion care varies widely across America since the Supreme Court overturned the constitutional right to abortion last year in Dobbs v. Jackson Womens Health Organization.

More than ever, where someone works and the constraints of their health insurance can determine whether an abortion is possible. Workers without coverage are left to pay out-of-pocket for abortion care and related costs.

In 2021, the median costs for people paying out-of-pocket in the first trimester were $568 for a medication abortion and $625 for an abortion procedure, according to a report from Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health at the University of California-San Francisco. By the second trimester, the cost increased to $775 for abortion procedures.

KFFs 2023 annual survey found that 10% of large employers defined as those with at least 200 workers dont cover legal abortion care under their largest job-based health plan. An additional 18% said legal abortions are covered only in limited circumstances, such as when a pregnancy is the result of rape or incest, or endangers a persons life or health.

The share of employers that said they dont cover abortion under any circumstances is bigger than I would have expected, said Matthew Rae, an associate director at KFF who helped conduct the survey.

So far, 14 states, mostly in the South and Midwest, have enacted near-total abortion bans, and an additional seven states have instituted gestational limits between six and 18 weeks. Abortion is legal in 24 states and the District of Columbia. Email Sign-Up

Subscribe to KFF Health News' free Morning Briefing. Your Email Address Sign Up

Sharply divergent state abortion laws solidified in the aftermath of the Dobbs decision compound the complexity for employers with workers across multiple states, Rae said. Many large companies employ people in places with vastly different abortion policies, and their health benefits are more likely to cover dependents who may live elsewhere.

Those dependents can be college kids and college kids can be anywhere or any other type of dependent who could just spread out over an area much larger than where you just have actual physical establishments, Rae said.

The KFF survey found that about a third of large companies said they cover legal abortions in most or all circumstances; the largest companies, with at least 5,000 employees, were more likely to offer the benefit compared with smaller firms. An additional 40% said they were unsure of their coverage perhaps because employer policies are in flux, Rae said.

Employer health plans treatment of abortion has changed little since the Dobbs decision, the survey found. Among companies that said they did not cover legally provided abortion services or covered them in limited circumstances, 3% reduced or eliminated abortion coverage. By contrast, of the large companies that generally covered abortion, 12% added or significantly expanded coverage.

Thats in sharp contrast to the rapidly changing laws governing abortion access in the states. Its unclear whether workers at companies that dont cover abortion or heavily restrict coverage are located primarily in states that have outlawed the procedure.

The KFF survey includes information from more than 2,100 large and small companies on their health benefits and the related costs for workers. Annual premiums for family coverage rose 7% on average this year, to $23,968, with employees on average contributing $6,575 toward that cost. The jump in premiums represents a notable increase compared with that of the previous year, when there was virtually no growth in those costs. Average yearly deductibles for workers were $1,735 for single coverage, a cost that was relatively unchanged.

One tactic employers use is to provide separate benefits for abortion-related expenses. In response to increasingly restrictive state abortion laws and the Supreme Courts decision, large companies such as Amazon, Starbucks, Disney, Meta, and JPMorgan Chase, among others announced they would pay for employees abortion-related travel expenses.

However, the KFF survey found that a small share of large employers said they provide or plan to provide workers with financial help to cover abortion-related travel expenses. Companies with at least 5,000 workers are the most likely to provide that assistance. Overall, 7% of large employers said they provide or plan to provide financial assistance to employees who must travel out of state for abortion care.

According to the Brigid Alliance, a New York-based nonprofit that helps people with logistics and defrays abortion-related costs, average travel costs now exceed $2,300. As restrictive laws proliferate, distances traveled have also increased since the Dobbs ruling, with each person on average traveling roughly 1,300 miles round trip in the first half of 2023.

Recent research published by job-search firm Indeed, the Institute of Labor Economics, and academics from the University of Southern California and the University of Maryland found that employers that announced abortion-related travel benefits saw an 8% increase in clicks on their job postings compared with similar jobs at comparable employers that did not announce such a policy.

However, job satisfaction among existing employees also dropped at those companies, with ratings of senior management dropping 8%, driven by workers in typically male-dominated jobs, they wrote, illustrating both the potential perks and pitfalls for companies that choose to wade into contentious political waters.

Rachana Pradhan: rpradhan@kff.org, @rachanadpradhan Related Topics Insurance States Abortion KFF Polls Women's Health Contact Us Submit a Story Tip

Continue Reading

Business

Post Office scandal: Victims say government’s control of redress schemes should be taken away

Published

on

By

Post Office scandal: Victims say government's control of redress schemes should be taken away

Post Office scandal victims are calling for redress schemes to be taken away from the government completely, ahead of the public inquiry publishing its first findings.

Phase 1, which is due back on Tuesday, will report on the human impact of what happened as well as compensation schemes.

“Take (them) off the government completely,” says Jo Hamilton OBE, a high-profile campaigner and former sub-postmistress, who was convicted of stealing from her branch in 2008.

“It’s like the fox in charge of the hen house,” she adds, “because they were the only shareholders of Post Office“.

“So they’re in it up to their necks… So why should they be in charge of giving us financial redress?”

Jo Hamilton OBE, a high-profile campaigner and former sub-postmistress
Image:
Nearly a third of Ms Hamilton’s life has been dominated by the scandal

Jo and others are hoping Sir Wyn Williams, chairman of the public statutory inquiry, will make recommendations for an independent body to take control of redress schemes.

The inquiry has been examining the Post Office scandal which saw more than 700 people wrongfully convicted between 1999 and 2015.

More on Post Office Scandal

Sub-postmasters were forced to pay back false accounting shortfalls because of the faulty IT system, Horizon.

At the moment, the Department for Business and Trade administers most of the redress schemes including the Horizon Conviction Redress Scheme and the Group Litigation Order (GLO) Scheme.

The Post Office is still responsible for the Horizon Shortfall scheme.

Lee Castleton OBE, a victim of the Post Office Horizon scandal
Image:
Lee Castleton OBE

Lee Castleton OBE, another victim of the scandal, was bankrupted in 2007 when he lost his case in the civil courts representing himself against the Post Office.

The civil judgment against him, however, still stands.

“It’s the oddest thing in the world to be an OBE, fighting for justice, while still having the original case standing against me,” he tells Sky News.

While he has received an interim payment he has not applied to a redress scheme.

“The GLO scheme – that’s there on the table for me to do,” he says, “but I know that they would use my original case, still standing against me, in any form of redress.

“So they would still tell me repeatedly that the court found me to be liable and therefore they only acted on the court’s outcome.”

He agrees with other victims who want the inquiry this week to recommend “taking the bad piece out” of redress schemes.

“The bad piece is the company – Post Office Limited,” he continues, “and the government – they need to be outside.

“When somebody goes to court, even if it’s a case against the Department for Business and Trade (DBT), when they go to court DBT do not decide what the outcome is.

“A judge decides, a third party decides, a right-minded individual a fair individual, that’s what needs to happen.”

Pic: AP
Image:
Pic: AP

Mr Castleton is also taking legal action against the Post Office and Fujitsu – the first individual victim to sue the organisations for compensation and “vindication” in court.

“I want to hear why it happened, to hear what I believe to be the truth, to hear what they believe to be the truth and let the judge decide.”

Neil Hudgell, a lawyer for victims, said he expects the first inquiry report this week may be “really rather damning” of the redress claim process describing “inconsistencies”, “bureaucracy” and “delays”.

“The over-lawyeringness of it,” he adds, “the minute analysis, micro-analysis of detail, the inability to give people fully the benefit of doubt.

“All those things I think are going to be part and parcel of what Sir Wynn says about compensation.

“And we would hope, not going to say expect because history’s not great, we would hope it’s a springboard to an acceleration, a meaningful acceleration of that process.”

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

June: Post Office knew about faulty IT system

A Department for Business and Trade spokesperson said they were “grateful” for the inquiry’s work describing “the immeasurable suffering” victims endured.

Their statement continued: “This government has quadrupled the total amount paid to affected postmasters to provide them with full and fair redress, with more than £1bn having now been paid to thousands of claimants.

“We will also continue to work with the Post Office, who have already written to over 24,000 postmasters, to ensure that everyone who may be eligible for redress is given the opportunity to apply for it.”

Continue Reading

Politics

MP recalls childhood abuse as he calls for law change to make domestic abuse a specific criminal offence

Published

on

By

MP recalls childhood abuse as he calls for law change to make domestic abuse a specific criminal offence

An MP who decided until recently to “never speak” about the abuse he suffered as a child has shared his harrowing story so that “no kid has to go through” what he did.

Josh Babarinde describes being physically abused by his mother’s former partner from the age of four, and remembers crying himself to sleep under the covers “hearing shouts, hearing screams and things smash”.

He says he became hypervigilant growing up and felt safe at school but “like he was treading on eggshells” in his own home.

The Eastbourne MP, who is also the Liberal Democrats’ justice spokesperson, says his experience has driven his politics. He is calling on the government to stop abusers “slipping through the net” and being released from prison early.

Opening up about his story in his twenties was “difficult” but looking back, Mr Babarinde says, he is “so proud of the resilience of that kid”.

The MP recently found his childhood diary containing Star Wars drawings alongside an entry he wrote from the bathroom. The diary, he recalls, wrote: “I’m really going to try to go (to the toilet) but I can’t. Oh my goodness, I’m gonna be in so much trouble, I’m going to get smacked so hard.”

Then an entry five minutes later: “I still haven’t done anything, I’m going to be in so much trouble.”

More from Politics

He says reading the entry reminded him of how “helpless” he felt.

“It was mortifying,” he says. “An abuser takes away your sense of self-worth.”

Josh Babarinde speaking to Sky's Ali Fortescue.
Image:
Mr Babarinde says he wants the government to ‘properly recognise domestic abuse crimes in the law’

The 32-year-old is calling on the government to change the law to make domestic abuse a specific criminal offence. The change would mean, he argues, abusers can no longer effectively disguise their history under other offences like assault.

He says the Ministry of Justice’s early release scheme, which has seen thousands of prisoners released early to ease overcrowding, has failed to exclude domestic abusers despite government promises because there is no formal categorisation for offenders.

It is impossible, he argues, to know exactly how many domestic abusers are in prison currently so perpetrators are “slipping through the net” on early release.

Read more from Sky News:
Remembering the bravery of 7/7 victims and responders 20 years on
Met Police chief calls for ‘mega’ forces in push for shake-up

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

January: Rising violence against women and girls

Mr Babarinde says the uncertainty means victims and survivors are not able to prepare for their abuser’s release.

He said: “They might need to move house or move their kids to a new school, shop in different places. All of these kind of things are so important, and so that’s why that commitment the government made was so important.”

A spokesperson for the Ministry of Justice said: “Our thoughts are with all victims of domestic abuse – it takes immense courage to speak out.

“We are building a justice system that puts victims first – strengthening support, increasing transparency, and giving people the confidence to come forward and be heard.”

Continue Reading

Environment

CNBC Daily Open: Most people don’t start a political party after separation

Published

on

By

CNBC Daily Open: Most people don't start a political party after separation

US President Donald Trump, right, and Elon Musk, chief executive officer of Tesla Inc., during a news conference in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, DC, US, on Friday, May 30, 2025.

Francis Chung | Bloomberg | Getty Images

When they find themselves without a significant other, most men finally start living: They pay attention to their personal grooming, hit the gym and discover new hobbies.

What does the world’s richest man do? He starts a political party.

Last weekend, as the United States celebrated its independence from the British in 1776, Elon Musk enshrined his sovereignty from U.S. President Donald Trump by establishing the creatively named “American Party.”

Few details have been revealed, but Musk said the party will focus on “just 2 or 3 Senate seats and 8 to 10 House districts,” and will have legislative discussions “with both parties” — referring to the U.S. Democratic and Republican Parties.

It might be easier to realize Musk’s dream of colonizing Mars than to bridge the political aisle in the U.S. government today.

To be fair, some thought appeared to be behind the move. Musk decided to form the party after holding a poll on X in which 65.4% of respondents voted in favor.

Folks, here’s direct democracy — and the powerful post-separation motivation — in action.

 — CNBC’s Erin Doherty contributed to this report.

What you need to know today

Trump confirms tariffs will kick in Aug. 1. That postpones the deadline by a month, but tariffs could “boomerang” back to April levels for countries without deals. Trump on Friday said letters with “take it or leave it” offers will go out to 12 countries Monday.

U.S. stock futures slipped Sunday. Despite the White House pushing back the return of “reciprocal” tariffs, some investors could be worried trade negotiations would result in higher-than-expected duties. Europe’s Stoxx 600 index dropped 0.48% Friday.

OPEC+ members to increase oil output. Eight members of the alliance agreed on Saturday to hike their collective crude production by 548,000 barrels per day, around 100,000 more than expected.

Elon Musk forms a new political party. On Saturday, the world’s richest man said he has formed a new U.S. political party named the “American Party,” which he claims will give Americans “back your freedom.”

[PRO] Wall Street is growing cautious on European equities. As investors seek shelter from tumult in U.S., the Stoxx 600 index has risen 6.6% year to date. Analysts, however, think the foundations of that growth could be shaky.

And finally…

Ayrton Senna driving the Marlboro McLaren during the Belgian Grand Prix in 1992.

Pascal Rondeau | Hulton Archive | Getty Images

The CEO mindset is shifting. It’s no longer all about winning

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/07/06/the-ceo-mindset-is-shifting-its-no-longer-all-about-winning.html

CEOs today aren’t just steering companies — they’re navigating a minefield. From geopolitical shocks and economic volatility to rapid shifts in tech and consumer behavior, the playbook for leadership is being rewritten in real time.

In an exclusive interview with CNBC earlier this week, McLaren Racing CEO Zak Brown outlined a leadership approach centered on urgency, momentum and learning from failure. 

— Spriha Srivastava

Continue Reading

Trending