The Senate Finance Committee approved its version of healthcare reform legislation on Tuesday. Its proposal would require some employers who don't provide health insurance to pay. However, any healthcare reform proposal remains a long way from becoming law, and the American Staffing Association and others are pressing to make sure employers' needs are taken into account.

Under the Finance Committee's proposal, employers who have more than 50 employees and don't offer health coverage would be required to pay some kind of fee for each employee who receives a tax credit for obtaining health insurance for themselves, according to a description of the bill from the Finance Committee. The assessment would be capped at $400 per employee times the company's total number of employees.

The description refers to a full-time employee as one who works more than 30 hours a week.

Ed Lenz, senior VP of public affairs and general counsel of the ASA, said a key issue will be how full-time employees are defined. The ASA has focused on getting a requirement in place in the Finance Committee bill that would prevent such fees from kicking in until after an employee has worked at least 390 hours in a calendar quarter and that any fee be capped at a maximum of $100 per quarter.

Chairman of the Finance Committee, Max Baucus (D, MT), agreed in principal to the limits, Lenz said. But the limits must still be put in the legislative language and/or in the committee report. Lenz said it's hoped that the limits will at least make it into the committee report, which will become a guidepost for regulation writers.

"Obviously there is a long road yet to go down," Lenz said. "The process now is one of trying to merge the bill that came out of the [Senate] health committee with the one that the Finance Committee wrote."

The Finance Committee's fee requirements appear more favorable than those approved in the Senate's health committee, which would require a fee of $750 per employee per year for firms that don't offer healthcare coverage. It would also be an improvement over the House bill that would require 8% of payroll.

Lenz said his best guess is that a merged bill in the Senate would include the fee provisions from the Finance Committee and not the more onerous provisions from the health committee. However, a merged bill could still be amended on the Senate floor, he said.

ASA and other employer groups don't support employer mandates, Lenz said, but they are also working to ensure that any employer mandate that does come forward be the least burdensome possible.

Some food and retail business groups are also promoting a 90-day wait period before fees take affect in addition to supporting ASA's proposal, Lenz said.