Despite a few well-publicized cases of employers droppingcoverage, insurance policy cancellations or even the roaring debateover what President Obama did or did not promise, it's unlikely thePatient Protection and Affordable Care Act will force or promptvery many large employers to end their insurance coverage and dumpworkers onto exchanges.

That is the dispassionate assessment offered by non-partisanpolicy wonks, academics, government watchdogs, surveys of employersand others without a stake in the game.

“The bottom line is that most workers' firms will be dominatedby workers who receive better benefits and, through the tax system,better subsidies through employer-provided coverage than through(the) newly created insurance exchanges,” according to thenon-partisan Urban Institute's report, “Why Employers Will Continueto Provide Health Insurance. The Impact of the Affordable Care Act.”

The reason for this has mostly to do with competitivepressures.

“Over time, coverage reductions inevitably would make theworkers that employers most want to keep worse off, and if thoseworkers sought employment elsewhere as a result, then the firmwould be worse off as well,” the think tank said in a recentreport.

About 45% of American workers get health care throughan employer. PPACA wasn't intended to displace employer-provided healthcare, of course, though critics and others have suggested itwill.

They point to such highly-publicized cases as the announcementby Sweden-based Securitas, a global security company, todiscontinue it mini-med plans for workers in Ohio. DardenRestaurants, Home Depot and Trader Joe's also have announced thatthey would shift employees to Obamacare exchanges.

But those moves all involved part-timers. Also,mini-meds aren't the sort of bare-bonesplans provided by most employers, and they'renot typically seen in fields where compensation is betterthan in, say, the securityor restaurant industries.

Next Page: Five Years From Now

“Five years from now we are going have a functioning healthinsurance exchange system,” predicted Helen Levy, a researchassociate professor with the University of Michigan Institute forSocial Research, Ford School of Public Policy and School of PublicHealth. “I think it is going to be a valuable option for people andI think we are going to say, 'I can't believe it was ever not thisway.'”

But that's all it will be, she said, one of several optionspeople will be able to turn to obtain health insurance.

Echoes of that sentiment can be found in research by theCongressional Budget Office, the Rand Corp. and others.

In fact, the number of employers that plan to continue providingemployees with health insurance has increased, according to anInternational Foundation of Employee Benefit Plans survey.

Its “2013 Employer-Sponsored Health Care: ACA's Impact” surveyaddressed how employers are responding to changes unleashed by thelaw.

Nearly all (94%) of the 966 benefits and human resourceprofessionals, general and financial managers, and other companyofficials who responded to the March survey said they “definitely”or “very likely” will continue providing health insurance coveragewhen many of the PPACA's provisions take effect in 2014, up from86% who responded similarly in 2012.

A large majority (69%) responded they'd definitely continueproviding coverage, up from the 46% who made the same claim in2012.

In another survey, The Midwest Business Group on Health found90% of employers had no plans to move workers to either public orprivate exchanges in the “immediate future.” Its survey, withresponses from mostly large companies with more than 5,000 workers,did include a small number of employers with fewer than 500workers. Just 4% of those respondents “anticipate moving eithertheir part-time or retiree populations over to the publicmarketplace,” the organization said.

Bryce Williams, managing director of global benefits companyTowers Watson Exchange Solutions, said most large companies madeany big PPACA-related changes to their health insurance plan twoyears ago.

He told USA Today that only about one in 10 of the majorcompanies Towers represents are making major changes to theirhealth plans this year. Towers Watson represents about 80% of thecompanies on the Fortune 500, he said.

Of course, conflicting statements and predictions by manycontinue to dominate the headlines of mainstream media outlets andwater-cooler conversations across the country.

Last month, for instance, Towers Watson shared a survey in which98% of employers reported they will keep “active medical plans” for2014 and 2015. In turn, the conservative Heritage Foundation tookissue with that particular finding and stressed the same studyfound that 92% of employers said they'd likely change their healthinsurance options by 2018, the year the law's “Cadillac” tax onhigh-cost plans takes effect.

Changing options, however, isn't anywhere close to droppingcoverage altogether.

Next Page: Massachusetts Surprise

And then there's the report from PricewaterhouseCoopers, whichfound that in Massachusetts, where the model for the federal plantook effect seven years ago, employer-sponsored coverage hasactually increased.

“The number of people covered by insurance through the workplaceincreased by about 1 percentage point, running counter to the restof the nation, which saw employer-based insurance decline by 5.7percentage points,” according to the report.

PricewaterhouseCoopers found that Massachusetts's individualmandate had two unanticipated effects.

First, it led to a lot of employees signing up foremployer-based coverage they'd previously rejected. Second, it ledsome workers to ask their employers for insurance. The study notesthat “the percentage of small employers offering coverage inMassachusetts rose from 45% to 59% between 2005–2011,” even thoughinsurance premiums actually rose for small employers.

According to a survey by the National Business Group on Health,many companies are, in fact, mulling over the idea of forcingretirees and part-time workers onto the exchanges after the PPACAtakes hold.

For part-timers with insurance coverage – a very small share ofthe population – it's no doubt possible the federal subsidiesavailable via the exchange will pencil out in their favor.

That might be true for some small-business owners, too, whomLevy pointed out have generally experienced a slight disadvantagewhen it comes to providing competitive benefits.

But, again, the consensus among nonpartisan observers is thatlarger employers aren't likely to drop coverage for their employeesany time soon.

Beyond the recruitment and retention issues, large firms willface a penalty in 2015 if they don't offer insurance. There's alsoa penalty if they offer insurance but it's not consideredaffordable.

The Small Business Majority, an advocacy group, especially likesthe law's health exchanges and tax credits for smallbusinesses.

“The benefits far outweigh the costs,” John Arensmeyer, thegroup's founder and CEO, told Politico. “There's been a lot ofconfusion. … There's been more heat than light on the subject.”

One prominent economics instructor penned an op-ed in theWashington Post in hopes of adding more light.

David Cutler, a Harvard University economics professor, notedthat PPACA has helped slow the annual increases seen in whatMedicare pays to hospitals, home health agencies and privateinsurance plans.

“Many Americans are rightly upset with the Obamaadministration's rocky rollout of the insurance exchange,” Cutlerwrote. “Failing at such a major project is inexcusable. But if theearly indications are any guide, we should be pleased with how thenew health law is affecting what we pay for care. If the Web siteis fixed and enrollment can catch up to expectations, [PPACA] couldyet become a major policy success.”