Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Advocates tell committee Vermont efers to a voluntary, insurer-led model that has so far reached only a fraction of private workers
Loading...
Summary
Advocates and a witness with lived experience told the House Committee on General and Housing that the voluntary, employer-purchase approach to paid family and medical leave has produced limited private-sector uptake (tens of employers and 67 individual purchasers) and can leave low-income workers without usable benefits.
Advocates for universal paid leave told the House Committee on General and Housing on April 16 that Vermont pproached paid family and medical leave as a voluntary, insurer-sold product and the results so far leave many workers unprotected.
Gretchen Elias of the Vermont Paid Leave Coalition told lawmakers the voluntary model has had limited private-sector impact: she cited committee testimony and her submitted materials showing only about 63 private employers offering paid leave out of roughly 17,000 private-sector employers, and she highlighted that Hartford reported 283 employer quotes with about 28% of those quotes purchased. Elias said only 67 individual Vermonters purchased the individual plan in the program—irst enrollment period and argued that the structure leaves gaps in access and affordability.
Elias outlined specific concerns with the voluntary, private-market approach: employers can set eligibility windows, waiting periods and elimination periods; plans can limit coverage to bonding leave or exclude caregiving; and employers decide whether the benefit stacks with other paid time off or qualifies for job-protection laws. "A voluntary approach doesn't and won't meet the needs of Vermonters," Elias said, arguing that small numbers of participating employers and individuals cannot create the broad, affordable risk pool that a universal program would provide.
Committee members pressed about comparisons with neighboring states. Elias cited New Hampshire's similar voluntary approach and said uptake there was low: less than 3% of the workforce had access through that private-insurer model after several years, and most of the covered workers were state employees. She argued that universal, state-administered programs in other states produced broader access and more standardized benefits.
The committee also heard first-person testimony about the human impact of coverage gaps. Emily Krasnow described taking unpaid leave and family members leaving or reducing work to provide care, saying the current voluntary designs force households to "make difficult choices between saving for their retirement, funding education or living expenses for their children, or paying for the health care and caretaking needs of aging parents." Krasnow urged lawmakers to pursue an equitable program that expands access for those least likely to have paid leave.
Advocates requested data and policy comparisons; several committee members agreed that a chart comparing state approaches (wage replacement rates, premium shares, enrollment windows and program administrators) would help the committee assess next steps. Witnesses and members agreed to provide follow-up materials for further committee consideration.
