BadgerCare Insures More than 8,800 Workers and Dependents in Eight Fast Food Chains

Fast food workers were back in the news early this month because they staged a brief strike in many communities to make the case for higher wages.  Their efforts to educate the public prompted me to do a little research of my own by tapping an unusual source of data – the Department of Health Services (DHS) database on the number of employees and dependents who are on BadgerCare, by employer.

The fast food workers protesting their low wages have begun over the last year or two to counter the misconception that teenagers comprise the vast majority of the fast food workforce.  In fact, many fast food workers are parents, and the state’s BadgerCare data confirm that.

The portion of the DHS data that is publicly accessible shows the 50 corporations with the largest number of employees and dependents of employees who are participating in BadgerCare.  Because the information isn’t available for all employers, it isn’t possible to calculate the total number of fast workers and their dependents who are enrolled in BadgerCare, especially since the data for some of the fast food chains is split among two or more subsidiaries, and not all of the subsidiaries necessarily make it onto the “top 50” list.  Nevertheless, the accessible DHS database includes very interesting information about the reliance of the fast food industry on public insurance for their workers and the children of their workers.

Before getting into the details, I should note that I don’t have a problem with making fast food workers and their dependents eligible for BadgerCare (or for Affordable Care Act subsidies) when they don’t have access to affordable employer-sponsored coverage.  Those workers and their children deserve to have quality, affordable health care coverage.  However, I think it’s important to be aware that these highly profitable corporations are providing meager wages and benefits to their workers, many of whom are struggling to raise families, and also to think about how the state’s policy choices have compounded their challenges.

My analysis of the DHS data for the second quarter of 2014 reveals the following:

• There are eight fast food chains on the list of 50 employers.  (I’m lumping together “McDonalds Nonaffiliated” and “McDonalds MacPyles,” and I’m not counting two other restaurant chains that are among the top 50 – Perkins and Olive Garden.)
• Those eight chains had 8,821 employees and dependents who were covered by BadgerCare.
• The 8,821 BadgerCare participants include 3,484 adults and 5,337 children.
• McDonald’s, which is second only to Walmart on the top 50 list, had 3,590 employees or dependents participating in BadgerCare.  (Again I’m combining McDonalds Nonaffiliated and McDonalds MacPyles.)

Unfortunately, the figures from employer reports on the DHS webpage don’t distinguish between coverage of parents and childless adults, so we can’t see how coverage of parents employed in the fast food industry has changed this year.  That said, here are a few key facts that help illuminate the effects of the state’s policy choices:

• The current BadgerCare income limit for a single parent with one child is $15,730 per year, which amounts to just $7.56 per hour for someone working 40 hours per week.
• That would increase to $21,707 per year and $10.44 per hour if the state expanded BadgerCare eligibility for adults to 138% of the federal poverty level (FPL).
• For a family of three the current BadgerCare income limit for adults is $19,790 per year, or $9.51 per hour.
• For a single childless adult the income ceiling is just $11,670 or $5.61 for full-time work, and that would increase to $7.74 per hour if the state expanded eligibility to 138% of FPL.

I think those figures illustrate that many parents in the fast food industry have lost their BadgerCare eligibility and now have to struggle with the much higher cost of buying private health insurance in the Marketplace.  Many of the parents who lost their BadgerCare coverage are now uninsured. (Read more on that subject here.)

Using the available federal funds to expand coverage of adults would help 85,000 low-wage workers, but that is only part of the solution.  We also need to raise the minimum wage and undo cuts to the state earned income tax credit. Parents working hard to support their families shouldn’t be trapped in poverty.

Jon Peacock