I think it depends on your state's insurance market as well as the priorities of your employer. If your state has a plethora of plans available, your employer is tempted to shop around more often. In that case, it depends on the priorities of your employer, weighing the cost savings versus the cost (financial, employee morale, time) were they to switch to a cheaper plan.
I've worked for employers of varied sizes and profitability (self-employed, small nonprofit, very large health system [including its own insurance plans], midsize for-profit), and I haven't noticed a consistent pattern that would differentiate them in terms of health plan stability. In all cases, the goal is to minimize cost while providing an acceptable level of coverage.
Of course, job hopping and employer-provided coverage are a painful combination. My family had to reach our deductible twice last year, which wasn't fun (the increased salary and other benefits of the new job made it worth it).
I'd love to see health coverage detached from employment. If traditional Medicare-for-all isn't feasible, then let's go with Medicare-Advantage-for-all instead.
I've worked for employers of varied sizes and profitability (self-employed, small nonprofit, very large health system [including its own insurance plans], midsize for-profit), and I haven't noticed a consistent pattern that would differentiate them in terms of health plan stability. In all cases, the goal is to minimize cost while providing an acceptable level of coverage.
Of course, job hopping and employer-provided coverage are a painful combination. My family had to reach our deductible twice last year, which wasn't fun (the increased salary and other benefits of the new job made it worth it).
I'd love to see health coverage detached from employment. If traditional Medicare-for-all isn't feasible, then let's go with Medicare-Advantage-for-all instead.