Many independent agents—and a number of Americans, according to polls—are dissatisfied with the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and the complexity of employer and individual mandates.

For independent insurance agencies that provide retirement-related services through broker dealers or are registered investment advisors (RIAs), the focus has centered on the Department of Labor’s (DOL) ongoing “suitability” regulatory initiative. The question is whether the current environment of the “suitability” standard for registered reps and the “fiduciary” standard for RIAs will evolve into a single standard for investment providers. In 2016, the DOL intends to issue its final rule on the fiduciary requirements for financial advisors to help  eliminate conflicts of interest.

But regardless of how that endeavor turns out, perhaps a larger threat to investment managers, 401(k) plan consultants and investment advisors exists: state-run retirement plans for private-sector employers.

President Obama’s “myRA” may have spurred the impetus for state involvement in private-sector retirement savings. According to the U.S. Treasury’s website, “This investment is backed by the United States Treasury and the account carries no risk of losing money. myRA can help people without access to a retirement savings plan get started saving, but it is not intended to be the only way they save for retirement. myRA is not a replacement for 401(k)s or other types of employer-sponsored retirement savings plans. People can have a maximum account balance of $15,000, or a lower balance for up to 30 years. When either of those limits is reached, savings will be transferred or rolled over into a private-sector Roth IRA where people can continue to grow their savings.”

Essentially, the U.S. Treasury presents myRA as a “starter kit”—a way to provide an opportunity to save for people whose employers do not offer a retirement program. Since the maximum account balance is low, it has not received much attention or concern from investment advisors.

Next, several states decided to offer payroll-deducted IRAs as a vehicle for individuals in their state to save for retirement. Now, the scope has expanded as these state initiatives range from individual retirement accounts (IRAs) to 401(k) types of plans to even a defined benefit retirement plan. Since employer-provided retirement plans—with a few exceptions—are subject to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), a federal law that preempts state laws, it did not appear feasible for states to offer employer retirement plans.

However, this fall, the DOL issued Interpretive Bulletin 2015-02, which sets forth its current view concerning the application of ERISA to “certain state laws designed to expand the retirement savings options available to private sector workers through ERISA-covered retirement plans.” Separately, the DOL released a proposed regulation describing safe-harbor conditions it would like to set up for states and employers to avoid creation of ERISA-covered plans as a result of state laws that require private-sector employers to implement state-administered payroll deduction IRA programs, commonly referred to as auto-IRAs. In other words, the Interpretive Bulletin does not address such state auto-IRA laws directly, but the efforts are intimately related to the ongoing effort to eliminate the retirement plan coverage gap.

The DOL’s Interpretive Bulletin would also allow states to provide “open” multiple-employer retirement plans (MEPs), making it easier for states to run these types of plans. A MEP is a single retirement program subject to ERISA that allows like employers (such as architects, auto-dealers and even Big “I” members through Big “I” Retirement Services) to take advantage of economies of scale while retaining their own provisions for eligibility, vesting, contributions and more.

The DOL’s long-standing position has been that closed MEPs like that of the Big “I” are permissible, while open MEPs are not. Essentially, the DOL’s Interpretive Bulletin creates an uneven playing field to the favor of state-run retirement plans—begging the question of whether state activity is a precursor to mandated employer contributions. Not subject to ERISA, states could then require employers to make a contribution.

Increasing the number of Americans who are saving for retirement is a laudable goal. But a variety of retirement programs are already available: regular, Roth, SIMPLE and after-tax IRAs; simplified employee pension (SEP) plans for self-employed and small businesses; SIMPLE 401 (k) plans; Safe Harbor 401(k) plans; regular profit sharing plans, ESOPs, defined benefit plans and more. Individuals can set up a plan and contribute to it with automatic deductions from a checking account.

So is it really necessary for states to create redundant programs and enjoy an uneven playing field in their favor? What’s next? Under this philosophy, couldn’t states purchase tractors for farmers as a co-op, provide auto insurance directly to consumers and become Internet providers? What effect will this type of philosophy have on the economy? The Big “I” will continue monitoring the state and national scope of this effort and advocating for private-sector solutions—which already exist.

Dave Evans is a certified financial planner and an IA contributor.