So much for pay to play. That's what I've been calling thecontroversial strategy some employers considered as the Oct. 1 datefor open enrollment creeps closer.

Mid-sized employers have few options before the mandate penaltyreturns a year or so from now: Cut workers, cut hours or offerbenefits.

The fourth option—handing employees a check to go buy their owncoverage out on the exchanges—is now history.

Labor issued one of their byzantine technical releases inmid-September banning the use of the more popular consumer-drivenproducts as financing vehicles for individual coverage. In short,employers can't fund an HSA, for example, so the employee can takethat money to the exchange and buy an individual policy.

I think it's fair. I'm sure employers will cry and gnash theirteeth, but paying employees to go play on their own seemed theworst of both worlds. Besides, I'd hardly think the tax benefits(not too mention the free cash) would compare to the subsidiesthey'd surrender in the bargain.

While I'm sure there are throngs of employees who would take themoney, thinking something's better than nothing, I've no doubt manywould find themselves without a clue in the exchange market and outof money before the year was half over.

And I think this benefits brokers (no pun intended). Employerson this particular fence will probably lean back toward offeringcoverage. And how many more surveys do we need to see before we alladmit most employees have no idea what they're doing when it comesto buying—or managing— health insurance? They're a reason we sayCDHC stands for “consumers don't have a clue” only half-jokingly.And don't think reform's made it any easier.

Employers need brokers to offer the best bang for their buck.And employees need brokers to help them navigate some pretty murkywaters.

And make no mistake, there's still a bright future ahead forconsumer-driven health care, but this isn't it.