Skip to content

Workforce

Category: Benefits

Posted on September 20, 2012August 6, 2018

Obesity-Related Conditions Could Add $66 Billion Annually to Medical Costs by 2030: Study

Medical costs associated with treating obesity-related diseases in the United States could increase by as much as $66 billion annually by the year 2030, based on current trends, according to a new study released by the health policy group Trust for America’s Health.

The state-by-state analysis of obesity-linked disease rates and associated medical spending, released Sept. 18 by the Washington-based organization, also projects that obese individuals could account for 44 percent of all American adults by 2030 if obesity rates nationwide continue to grow at their current pace.

According to the study, “F as in Fat: How Obesity Threatens America’s Future 2012,” that rate of growth would likely lead to more than 6 million new cases of type 2 diabetes, 5 million cases of coronary heart disease and stroke, and more than 400,000 cancer diagnoses in the next 20 years.

Those new cases will add between $48 billion and $66 billion per year to the nation’s spending on direct costs for obesity-related medical care by 2030 under current projections, according to the study.

An unchanged growth rate of the percentage of obese Americans also would significantly inflate indirect costs over the same 18-year period, the report says. The associated loss in economic productivity, the study predicts, could be between $390 billion and $580 billion annually.

The study also notes that workers’ compensation claims costs generated by obese employees are typically much higher than those generated by “healthy weight” workers, though it did not provide a year-over-year prediction for cost growth under current conditions.

Risa Lavizzo-Mourey, president and CEO of the Princeton, New Jersey-based Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, which co-sponsored the study, said in a statement on Sept. 18 that the study “shows us two futures for America’s health.”

The projected growth rate of obesity and its attendant health and financial impacts over the next 20 years could be lowered significantly if individual states can reduce the average body mass index of their residents by 5 percent by 2030, Lavizzo-Mourey said.

“At every level of government, we must pursue policies that preserve health, prevent disease and reduce health care costs. Nothing less is acceptable,” she said.

As dire as the study’s predictions are for the nation as a whole, they are even more so for certain states. Under current growth projections, obesity rates in 13 states — including Kansas, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri and Oklahoma — likely would rise above 60 percent by 2030. Nine states — including Alaska, Colorado, New Hampshire and New Jersey — would see annual medical costs associated with obesity-related treatments increase between 20 percent and 34.5 percent by 2030.

Conversely, a reduction of their residents’ average BMI by 5 percent over those same 20 years would shave as much as 7.8 percent off projected medical cost growth in every state but Florida, which would likely see a 2.1 percent reduction in obesity-related costs due largely to the relatively high average age of its population, the study said.

“We know a lot more about how to prevent obesity than we did 10 years ago,” said Jeff Levi, executive director of Trust for America’s Health. “This report outlines how policies like increasing physical activity time in schools and making fresh fruits and vegetables more affordable can help make healthier choices easier. Small changes can add up to a big difference. Policy changes can help make healthier choices easier for Americans in their daily lives.”

Matt Dunning writes for Business Insurance, a sister publication of Workforce Management. To comment, email editors@workforce.com.

Stay informed and connected. Get human resources news and HR features via Workforce Management’s Twitter feed or RSS feeds for mobile devices and news readers.

Posted on September 6, 2012August 6, 2018

Employers Should Ignore the Rhetoric and Focus on the Reality of Health Care Reform, Experts Say

Few recent political issues have absorbed as much of the national spotlight as health care reform, which took center stage at the Democratic National Convention and has become a rallying cry among Republicans who vow to kill it if their candidate wins the November presidential election. But employers need to ignore the rhetoric and focus on the realities of complying with the law, known as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, experts say.

They must be “smart political consumers and educate themselves to know the difference between political power grabs and reality,” says attorney Tami Simon, a legislative expert at Buck Consultants in Washington. “Democracy is messy. What’s fascinating for us in the benefits industry is that the curtain has been pulled back because we care about what’s going on. We are all watching the sausage being made much more closely.”

She says that for many observers, like her mother, a baby boomer who grew up watching the civil rights movement unfold, few issues since the Vietnam War have captured the national interest like health care reform. “Health care is essential to every human being. What I do for a living is on the front page every day. It’s a fascinating time in history right now.”

With the presidency and 33 Senate seats up for grabs in 2012, how the battle over health care reform will play out is anyone’s guess, but employers are watching the tussle closer than most.

While Democrats are busy touting the benefits of the 2010 law, Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney has said that repealing it will be his first order of business if he is elected in November. The Republican Party also promises to overhaul Medicare and Medicaid and introduce broad tax code changes that could cut incentives for employer-based benefit programs if Romney and his vice presidential running mate, Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wisconsin, are elected.

“It would really take Romney winning for repeal to happen,” says Steven Wojcik, vice president of public policy for the National Business Group on Health, a trade group based in Washington. “Employers are watching closely over the next two months who will win the White House and in Congress, especially the Senate. It’s possible that if the Democrats take control of the Senate and Romney wins, there could be a repeal of some of the law. But they [Republicans] would need both the White House and the Senate for a total repeal.”

In any case, employers are going forward with their compliance efforts, despite a lack of regulatory guidance on various provisions of the law, Wojcik says.

“Regardless of the outcome of the election, the main issue for employers still remains,” he says. “Whether it’s Obama or Romney, they will have to tackle health care cost control. I wish the candidates would focus on that issue and blow away the rhetoric.”

Since it was passed in 2010, the Affordable Care Act has survived 31 Republican attempts to repeal it in the House Rules Committee—the most recent in July—and a U.S. Supreme Court challenge of its constitutionality. The political bandying has been distracting for employers, says Neil Trautwein, vice president of employee benefits at the National Retail Federation, an international trade association based in Washington.

“It’s been a tough haul between passage, implementation, the debates in Congress, the Supreme Court and now with an election coming,” he says. “There’s been a tendency to wait for Congress, wait for the Supreme Court or wait for the elections. This isn’t the kind of reform we wanted. We still support efforts to overturn the law, but our focus now is on helping our members survive it.”

Rita Pyrillis is Workforce’s senior writer. Comment below or email editors@workforce.com.

Workforce Management, October 2012, p. 3 — Subscribe Now!

Posted on September 1, 2012June 29, 2023

The Last Word: ‘Papa John,’ Can You Spare a Dime for Health Care?

Say what you will about the hype surrounding “Papa John” Schnatter’s claim that health care reform will force him to hike the cost of a pizza by more than a dime.

Whether or not you like his pies, it appears he’s right. And though the full financial effects are still hazy, research suggests health care reform will increase costs for most firms.

In early August, Schnatter, the international pizza chain’s CEO and TV pitchman, told shareholders, “Our best estimate is that Obamacare will cost 11 to 14 cents per pizza” once health care reform fully takes hold in 2014. Obamacare, of course, is the term often used when referring to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, which was upheld with the U.S. Supreme Court’s 5-4 verdict earlier this summer.

The company’s strategy, Schnatter added, would be to pass the cost onto consumers to protect the best interests of its shareholders. The current nationwide drought and spiking gas prices are cost-boosting justifications for price hikes that we’ve heard before. But this is the first time since the ruling that a big company has publicly cried cause-and-effect regarding health care reform on its operations and profits.

Politics apparently has joined the menu — at least through November — alongside carmelized onions and fennel as new pizza toppings. Schnatter, a well-known conservative who has hosted fundraisers for Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney, is taking dead aim at President Barack Obama’s health care reform plan. Yet, whatever the political ploy, Schnatter’s proposed price hike is baked in fact.

The day before Schnatter’s pie-pricing plan was announced, consultancy Mercer released a study that retailers and hospitality employers are facing big cost increases in 2014 because of health care reform. Companies in those particular industries — Papa John’s falls somewhere between — rely on low wages and high volume to prop up profit margins.

More importantly though, companies like Papa John’s will be compelled to change their health plans come New Year’s Day 2014.

According to Mercer’s survey of 1,203 retail and hospitality industry employers, 46 percent said they’ll have to upgrade their plans to meet federal standards extending coverage to employees working at least 30 hours a week. Employers that choose not to offer qualified coverage will be charged $2,000 per full-time employee — those working at least 30 hours a week — starting in 2014.

That would be in the neighborhood of a 3 percent hike in health care cost increases because of the law’s requirements, the Mercer study notes.

While hospitality companies and retailers may be grumbling about the future under their breath, there’s probably a silent cheer among them for Papa John’s defiant stand. Since offshoring pizzas are an unlikely option, Papa John’s will have to pony up one way or another. If Schnatter follows through with his vow to hike a $7.99 pie to $8.12, then so will you, pizza-eater.

But then again, there could be alternatives. And I’m not talking about a GOP win in November. If health care reform has accomplished nothing else, it puts one of business’ biggest, fattest elephants square in the middle of the room. How will you manage health care for your employees?

Several recent studies validate that the vast majority of employers will continue to offer employee health care beyond 2014. Simply put, employer-provided health care is entrenched in the American way of doing business. What that looks like and who pays what portion remains to be seen.

This is where Schnatter and other employers — retail, hospitality or otherwise — can play a crucial role in shaping a truly vital employee benefit.

The September issue of Workforce Management explores several health care delivery methods with the potential to curb employer costs and still provide quality coverage. Some, like value-based insurance design and direct primary care, could be the wave of the future. Workplace clinics, which have existed for decades, are undergoing a huge renovation.

If politics is Papa John’s newest pizza ingredient, then working to provide better health care should be baked into the recipe.

Rick Bell is Workforce’s managing editor. Comment below or email editors@workforce.com.

Workforce Management, September 2012, p. 34 — Subscribe Now!

Posted on August 30, 2012August 6, 2018

Health Care: A Real Fixer-Upper

In 1929 when Baylor University Hospital began offering prepaid hospital visits for 50 cents a month to a small group of public school teachers in Dallas—a program that would morph into iconic insurance giant Blue Cross—few could have predicted that decades later most Americans would get their health care coverage through their employers. What soon became known as a “fringe benefit” is now an expected part of any competitive compensation package.

But with health care reform unfolding and no end in sight to soaring medical costs, the future of employer-based health plans is unclear. Dramatic changes are under way, and employers are playing a key role in transforming health care delivery. Some are reluctant innovators and others are eager trailblazers, but most have little choice but to roll up their sleeves and look for solutions to a crisis that is threatening their bottom lines and the country’s economy. With national health care spending at $2.6 trillion annually and growing, employers are seeing a greater portion of their labor costs eaten up by medical expenses. In 2010, health care costs represented 12.8 percent of payroll, up from 8.9 percent in 1999, according to a 2012 Kaiser Family Foundation report. Between 1999 and 2009, the average annual premium for employer-sponsored family health insurance coverage rose from $5,800 to $13,400.

While politicians and pundits debate the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, often referred to as the ACA, a growing number of employers are forging their own version of reform one workplace at a time. It’s a movement that some call “DIY,” or “do-it-yourself,” health care reform. “Employers are now in the business of population health management, so, yes, they have a sense of urgency,” says Andy Webber, president and CEO of the National Business Coalition on Health. It’s a two-pronged effort to improve employee health and productivity and to get more value for the money, he says. “This challenge has been ongoing for many years and is independent of the ACA and any other legislation.”

Employers are turning to an array of approaches from disease management programs to on-site clinics, direct primary care, value-based medicine and predictive modeling—and many are seeing dramatic reductions in costs and other improvements. Viking Range Corp. in rural Mississippi, where obesity and diabetes are rampant, saw a decline in health care spending two years after redesigning its wellness program to target those conditions. The company analyzed claims data to make predictions about certain behaviors and health outcomes, a process known as “predictive modeling.”

This approach also helped Pitney Bowes Inc., the Stamford, Connecticut-based manufacturer of mail and document management systems, to develop a benefit plan based on the principles of value-based insurance design. Value-based design aims to reduce or eliminate the cost of essential medical care, such as cancer screenings and blood-pressure drugs. Companies such as Caterpillar Inc., Dell Inc., Dow Chemical Corp. and Gulfstream Aerospace Corp. have followed suit, offering medications for chronic diseases at low or no cost to employees.

“I’ve been in the benefits business for 30 years, and for the first time I see change among all stakeholders at the same time: carriers, hospitals, employers are experimenting with all different approaches,” says benefits consultant Jerry Frye, president of the Benefits Services Group Inc. in Milwaukee. “I see an opportunity to manage costs more so than for a long, long time. Some is due to reform, but most is being driven by employers.”

The philosophy behind many of these employer innovations is to shift the focus from cost savings to quality improvement, from access to affordability, and, according to physician Mark Fendrick, “from one-size-fits-all solutions to clinically nuanced benefit design.” Fendrick is the director of the University of Michigan Center for Value-Based Insurance Design, a think tank that promotes benefit plan innovation. The idea is to make essential health care services, such as immunizations, cancer screenings and drugs to manage chronic conditions, more affordable or free, while increasing out-of-pocket costs for services that provide less value, like MRIs for simple lower back pain or electrocardiograms, or EKGs, for low-risk patients, Fendrick says. In other words, getting more bang for your buck. Value-based insurance design is embraced in a provision of the 2010 health care reform law that eliminates copayments for certain preventive-care services.

Many employers have adopted this approach to include office visits, diagnostic tests and treatments for common chronic conditions such as asthma, diabetes and heart disease. According to a 2012 Towers Watson & Co./Midwest Business Group on Health survey, 34 percent of companies could adopt this approach by 2013, compared with just 15 percent today. While an accurate number of employers using value-based design is hard to determine, Fendrick says, there are 350 employers in the University of Michigan Center for Value-Based Insurance Design registry.

Value-based design may be generating interest of late, but it’s not a new concept. In 1996, the city of Asheville, North Carolina, launched the movement when it began offering free medication and health care counseling to diabetic employees to reduce costs. At the time about 8 percent of the city’s workforce suffered from the disease. By 2003, the city was saving between $1,200 and about $1,900 per patient per year, according to a study in the Journal of the American Pharmaceutical Association.

Pitney Bowes was one of the first private employers to adopt this approach when it began waiving copayments for drugs to treat diabetes and heart disease in 2001. By 2006 medication adherence rates improved from 38 percent to 54 percent, according to a study in the Journal of Managed Care Pharmacy. When compared with other firms of similar size during that period, Pitney Bowes’ health care costs were about 20 percent lower, which translated into about $40 million in avoided costs.

“The focus on health care costs has to shift from how much you’re spending to how well you are spending it,” Fendrick says. “I want to give credit to the employers because this cost-to-value shift is being driven by market-based reformers. The Congress and Obama saw what they were doing and embraced that. The fact that we don’t buy the services that get the most health for the money is the fundamental problem.”

Workplace clinics have been around since the post-war manufacturing boom, but employers are retooling this model to meet the needs of today’s workforce. These clinics dispense far more than bandages and aspirin and are just as likely to be found at a high-tech Silicon Valley startup as they are on a manufacturing floor. Many offer full-service health care with primary-care doctors and specialists such as cardiologists, endocrinologists and dermatologists.

Interest in on-site clinics has surged in recent years, according to Grand Rapids, Michigan-based health care consultant Mike La Penna. One reason is that employers have become increasingly concerned about improving access to health care, not just lowering costs, he says.

“This was a new idea we hadn’t picked up on before,” La Penna says. “Employers are becoming more and more concerned that they are paying for benefit programs, but employees are facing access problems in the community, like not being able to get an appointment for weeks.” And the inability to get in to see the doctor can mean more sick days and lower productivity, which is costly.

Few companies have taken the concept of comprehensive care to the level of QuadGraphics Inc., a Sussex, Wisconsin-based printer and pioneer in the development of workplace clinics.

The company runs five health centers—three near Milwaukee that offer primary care, dental and vision care, and specialties such as cardiology, dermatology, obstetrics and gynecology, pediatrics and orthopedic surgery. There is also a pharmacy, laboratory, X-ray, rehabilitation clinic and fitness center. The other clinics, which are in Saratoga Springs, New York, and Martinsburg, West Virginia, have similar offerings, minus dental or vision care.

At the West Allis, Wisconsin, plant, the clinic is a short hallway walk from the production floor where forklifts shuttle giant paper rolls to the printing presses. On a recent visit, the large waiting room is quiet except for a woman and her toddler there to see the pediatrician. “Summer is always slow,” says QuadMed’s chief medical officer, Raymond Zastrow. QuadMed is a subsidiary of QuadGraphics that was formed in 1990 to run the company’s health centers.

The clinics’ focus is on preventive care and chronic disease management and avoiding costly hospitalizations, expensive brand-name drugs and unnecessary medical tests. “We consider an ER visit or a hospital visit as a failure of our system,” Zastrow says.

While the company spends more on primary care per patient than the average employer, it pays less for hospitalizations, according to Zastrow. The company offers a point-of-service health plan that covers specialty and emergency care not available at the clinics. This has slowed the rate of health care cost increases. Since 1999, costs at QuadGraphics have risen at an average annual rate of 6 percent compared with 8.3 percent at other Midwest companies, according to a 2010 Mercer study. In 2008, the company’s health care costs per employee were $2,500 lower than those of other regional employers. About 85 percent of the company’s 9,000 employees get their medical care at one of the in-house facilities.

QuadMed’s success in lowering costs and improving health outcomes has led other companies to seek their help in developing similar clinics. The company has established clinics for local employers Briggs & Stratton Corp., MillerCoors and Northwestern Mutual.

A newer development, and one that is likely to get more attention in the next two years, is direct primary care. Starting in 2014 direct primary-care providers will start competing for employers on the insurance exchanges established by the health care reform law.

It’s a twist on “concierge medicine” where wealthy patients pay a doctor a steep annual fee or retainer for unlimited access to medical attention. Direct primary care is the populist version with a more affordable monthly membership fee, usually less than $100. Typically, an employer picks up part of the cost. Doctors have lighter patient loads, and that means they are more accessible, including nights and weekends and through email and telephone consultations.

Direct primary-care providers receive a salary, unlike most physicians who are paid per service, which allows for more time with patients. Appointments typically last up to an hour. There are no insurance claim forms to fill out or deductibles to meet. Everything is covered by the monthly fee.

While direct primary care is not an insurance product, when paired with a “wrap around” insurance policy to cover specialized and emergency care, direct primary-care clinics will be allowed to compete on the exchanges. Such a product has yet to be developed, according to providers who envision a policy customized for direct primary-care practices that would cover services not offered by the practice.

Proponents, like Dave Chase, CEO of Avado, a health care technology startup, compare the direct primary-care model to auto insurance.

“Do you pull out your auto insurance card when you go to Jiffy Lube? Of course not,” he says. “So why do you do it for health care? You shouldn’t use insurance for the predictable day-to-day stuff, like changing your tire or getting a flu shot. Insurance is for the unexpected, catastrophic events.”

The concept is new enough that many in the insurance industry haven’t heard of direct primary care. A spokesman for America’s Health Insurance Plans, a health insurance industry trade association, says he has no information on the trend. “I haven’t seen the data.”

But in Washington state, the birthplace of direct primary care—the first clinic opened there in 2007—some insurers are wary of the concept, says Erika Bliss, a physician who is president and CEO of Qliance in Seattle. Qliance was the first direct primary-care network to set up shop in the state.

“We’ve said from the beginning that we’re not anti-insurance, but primary care is a routine and predictable event,” she says. “So, why not divide it up and let us handle the routine care and let insurance cover what they need to? We reduce risk for insurance companies, and that’s appealing.”

She says that Qliance has been meeting with insurance companies to develop a wrap-around policy and that interest is growing among insurers and employers.

Starting this fall, Qliance, which has five clinics in Washington state, will have some competition when Monterey, California-based MedLion Direct Primary Care sets up shop in the Tri-Cities area of Washington. It’s the company’s first foray outside of California where it has five clinics, including one in Fresno that caters to a large population of migrant farm workers. It also plans to open clinics in Miami, Las Vegas and Portland, Oregon, among other locations, within the year, according to Samir Qamar, a physician who is the company’s president and CEO.

MedLion is pushing hard to sign up employers in Washington. Robert Anderson, a benefits consultant in Kennewick, Washington says that interest is high but some employers are skeptical. Anderson is working with MedLion to sell to regional companies. They “see that they can save a lot of money with a DPC structure, but no one believes anyone can do it for the monthly fee or that by not billing insurance we can save them a lot of money and time. They also want to know the employees can actually get in to use the clinic and that there won’t be this bottleneck with employees having to go somewhere else.”

Anderson points out that a doctor typically has a patient base of about 2,500, but at MedLion each doctor handles about 1,000 to 1,500 patients allowing for greater access. “Everyone is taken aback at first because we’re taking the medical-care model and setting it on its ear,” Anderson says. “It’s a hard concept for everybody. Things are changing dramatically, and it’s going to take time for everyone to figure it out.”

The coming changes to health care delivery will likely be challenging for all stakeholders. What the system will look like in the future is anyone’s guess, but Larry Becker, director of plan administration for Xerox Corp. expects tremendous innovation ahead. Becker is a frequent speaker on the role of employers in shaping health care delivery.

“We will learn a great deal from data derived from electronic medical records and that will drive much of the changes to come,” he says. “With data and the applications of some very smart people will come innovations that we can’t even imagine today. Look at Apple. People weren’t looking for an iPhone or a tablet but [Steve] Jobs said that this is what their latent needs are and look what happened. The same will come with health care.”

Rita Pyrillis is Workforce’s senior writer. Comment below or email editors@workforce.com.

Workforce Management, September 2012, pgs. 22-27 — Subscribe Now!

Posted on August 29, 2012August 6, 2018

GOP Platform Includes Repeal of Health Care Reform Law

Delegates at the 2012 Republican National Convention released the party’s official platform, which includes repealing the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, while restoring Medicare payment cuts that the 2010 law authorized.

As expected, the Republican Party promises massive changes to the Medicare and Medicaid programs if former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wisconsin) are elected president and vice president.

For Medicare, the platform calls for giving patients a choice between the current fee-for-service option in Medicare and a premium-support model with an income-adjusted contribution toward a health plan that the enrollee chooses. And while the platform did not specify an age, it did suggest changing that eligibility requirement for Medicare beneficiaries. “Without disadvantaging retirees or those nearing retirement, the age eligibility for Medicare must be made more realistic in terms of today’s longer life span.”

The GOP agenda also proposes block grant Medicaid payments to the states; supports technology enhancements for medical records and data systems; and encourages the promotion of health savings accounts and health reimbursement accounts.

Meanwhile, the party platform says Republicans would reform the Food and Drug Administration to ensure that drug and medical device jobs stay in the U.S. And the platform calls for tort reform as a way to discourage the practice of defensive medicine.

Filed by Jessica Zigmond of Modern Healthcare, a sister publication of Workforce Management. To comment, email editors@workforce.com.

 

Stay informed and connected. Get human resources news and HR features via Workforce Management’s Twitter feed or RSS feeds for mobile devices and news readers.

Posted on August 27, 2012August 6, 2018

Self-Funded Employers Will Pay Billions for High-Cost Coverage

Self-funded employers will have to fork over billions of dollars to help fund an obscure health care reform law-created program that will partially reimburse commercial insurers writing policies for high-cost individuals.

The first-year assessment paid by very large employers—those with at least 100,000 employees—will run into millions of dollars, for which employers will receive no direct benefit.

“It is going to a big number, a lot bigger than some people may have thought,” said Anne Waidmann, a director in Washington for PricewaterhouseCoopers L.L.P.

Insurers also will be hit with the assessments, but they, unlike self-funded employers, will receive much of the $25 billion in assessments authorized by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to be collected from 2014 through 2016.

For self-funded employers, “It is hard to identify a direct benefit, as they are already providing health insurance benefits,” said Gretchen Young, senior vice president of health policy for the ERISA Industry Committee in Washington.

“Employers will get no financial benefit from this at all,” said Rich Stover, a principal with Buck Consultants L.L.C. in Secaucus, New Jersey.

Many crucial details about the transitional reinsurance program have yet to be provided by federal regulators, including the exact amount of the assessment, which will be calculated on a per-participant basis.

Benefit consultants have made preliminary projections. Aon Hewitt, for example, estimates that the 2014 assessment will be in the range of $60 to $80 per health care plan participant, while Towers Watson & Co. puts the first-year assessment range at between $70 and $90 per plan participant.

Consultants don’t expect official guidance on the amount of the fee per participant until at least this fall.

“Regulators are expected to issue a notice this fall that spells out exactly how the per-capita fee will be imposed on plan participants,” Mercer L.L.C. said in a report last week. The guidance will come from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services which, under the health care reform law, was given such regulatory authority.

And there are plenty of other unknowns. For example, guidance is needed on the methodology to be used in counting the number of plan participants. Such guidance is critical, since the number of people enrolled in an employer’s health care plan could vary considerably during a year.

“Employers need to know as soon as possible how much this is going to cost them,” Young said.

Other details are clear. For example, the fee will be assessed for every health care plan participant, regardless of employer size.

“There is no small-employer exemption in this part of the law,” said Amy Bergner, a Mercer partner in Washington.

In the case of fully insured plans, the fee will be paid by insurers. For self-funded plans, third-party administrators are to remit the fee on behalf of their clients. Fees are to be paid quarterly, with the first payment due January 15, 2014.

Certain health care-related plans are exempt from the fee, including stand-alone dental, vision and flexible spending accounts, as well as Medicare Advantage and Medicare Part D prescription drug plans.

Benefit experts say the fee also will apply to retiree health care plans, as well as to health reimbursement arrangements. But it is unclear how the fee would be assessed when HRAs are involved.

Guidance provided by the IRS this year might serve as a model for how HRAs are treated under the transitional reinsurance program. That guidance involved another health care reform law provision that imposes a small fee on health care plans to fund research on medical outcomes.

Under those proposed rules, an employer with an HRA linked to a self-funded high-deductible health care plan would be liable for the fee only for participants in its health care plan. It would not pay a second fee for participants in the HRA.

On the other hand, the fee would be imposed on HRAs if the arrangement were linked to an insured health care plan. In that situation, the employer would be liable for the fee covering participants in the HRA, while the insurer would be liable for the fee on the insured plan.

Despite the big fees employers face under the reinsurance program, few even know about the program, let alone their potential costs. “It has been a big sleeper issue,” Buck Consultants’ Stover said.

“This has not garnered as much attention as other provisions” in the health care reform law, Mercer’s Bergner said.

But employer awareness is increasing as word of its effect is spreading in the benefits community amid efforts of some trade groups to publicize the provision.

The American Benefits Council, for example, held a webinar this month for its members about the program.

Jerry Geisel writes for Business Insurance, a sister publication of Workforce Management. To comment, email editors@workforce.com.

Stay informed and connected. Get human resources news and HR features via Workforce Management’s Twitter feed or RSS feeds for mobile devices and news readers.

Posted on August 15, 2012August 6, 2018

Former Wells Fargo Employee Says Company Fired Him Over Daughter’s Cancer Costs

A former Wells Fargo & Co. mortgage consultant has accused the San Francisco-based bank of firing him in order to avoid paying for his daughter’s cancer treatment.

According to a lawsuit filed Aug. 2 in a Florida Fifteenth Judicial Circuit Court in Palm Beach, Wells Fargo fired Yovany Gonzalez in August 2010—three days before his daughter Mackenzie was scheduled for surgery to remove a cancerous tumor—based on allegations that he had falsified his time records. In his lawsuit, Gonzalez contends that the bank manufactured the fraud allegations as a means of ducking premium costs that would have resulted from his daughter’s treatment.

Mackenzie Gonzalez’s surgery was delayed for several months due to a lack of insurance coverage after Gonzalez’s termination, according to the lawsuit. Mackenzie died of cancer-related complications in March 2011 at age 6.

“Wells Fargo terminated Mr. Gonzalez to avoid the need to further accommodate him in light of his daughter’s illness and to avoid incurring additional expenses associated with her treatment,” the lawsuit claims, adding that the company’s accusation that he had tried to defraud the company’s payroll system “was a mere pretext.”

According to the suit, his daughter’s treatment needs forced Gonzalez to work irregular hours, often away from his office at the company’s Palm Beach branch. Between 2009 and 2010, Wells Fargo made several changes to its time records management system, including a new rule prohibiting employees from logging time previously worked.

Gonzalez said in his lawsuit that he was forced to ask a supervisor to input some of his hours for him, an action he claims the bank used as the basis for its fraud allegations.

Additionally, Gonzalez alleges that the bank purposefully delayed sending him information on extending health and life insurance benefits after his termination until after the extension opportunities had expired.

Gonzalez’s lawsuit accuses the bank of disability discrimination under Florida civil rights laws, as well as defamation and breach of fiduciary duty. He is seeking punitive and compensatory damages, back pay and reinstatement of the life insurance policies held in Mackenzie’s name prior to his termination.

A spokeswoman for Wells Fargo said the company offers health care coverage to more than 500,000 employees, and that “use of those benefits does not affect their employment at Wells Fargo.”

“Mr. Gonzalez’s termination was completely unrelated to his family’s health care needs,” the spokeswoman said. “The passing of Mr. Gonzalez’s daughter was tragic. Our deepest sympathies go out to him and his family.”

Prior to filing the suit, Gonzalez submitted his complaint against Wells Fargo to the state’s Commission on Human Relations. According to court documents, the concluded that “reasonable cause exists to believe that an unlawful employment practice occurred.”

Matt Dunning writes for Business Insurance, a sister publication of Workforce Management. To comment, email editors@workforce.com.

Stay informed and connected. Get human resources news and HR features via Workforce Management’s Twitter feed or RSS feeds for mobile devices and news readers.

Posted on August 3, 2012June 29, 2023

How Late Is Too Late for an FMLA Medical Certification?

Jon Hyman The Practical Employer

Under the FMLA, an employee requesting leave for a serious health condition must provide a medical certification for the leave upon request by the employer.

The employee has 15 days to return the requested certification, unless it is not practicable to do so under the particular circumstances. If an employee fails to provide certification, the employer may deny the FMLA leave.

What happens, however, if an employee returns the requested medical certification late—after the expiration of the 15-day time limit? According to the Northern District of Ohio, in Kinds v. Ohio Bell Telephone Co. (7/30/12) [pdf], an employer can lawfully deny FMLA benefits when an employee submits the medical certification beyond the 15-day deadline, even if the employee only misses it by a short amount of time.

Ohio Bell’s decision to deny Kinds FMLA coverage due to untimely certification is justified …. In spite of ample notification by Ohio Bell, Kinds did not submit certification by the 13th …. Ohio Bell would have been justified in denying coverage for this failure alone, but the company nonetheless granted Kinds an extension. Kinds failed to submit certification by the January 27, 2010, deadline as well. Finally, on February 16, 2010, Kinds submitted the medical certification, but it failed to provide an explanation—a request made by FMLA Operations as a condition for giving Kinds a third extension—as to why she failed to submit certification earlier. As a matter of law, it cannot be said that Ohio Bell’s refusal to accept Kinds’s twice late and still inadequate certification—submitted one month past the FMLA required 15-day period—constituted interference with Kinds’s FMLA rights.

To sum up:

  • How late is too late for an employee to submit a medical certification to support a request for FMLA leave? One day.
  • Can you extend the 15-day period and accept a late certification? Yes.
  • Do you have to? No.

Written by Jon Hyman, a partner in the Labor & Employment group of Kohrman Jackson & Krantz. For more information, contact Jon at (216) 736-7226 or jth@kjk.com.

Posted on July 30, 2012August 7, 2018

NFL Creates Wellness Program for Current, Former Players

The National Football League has created a wellness initiative that it says will provide mental health support and other assistance for current and former NFL players—thousands of whom are suing the league over concussion-related injuries.

In a statement July 26, the league said that the NFL Total Wellness program “will help empower players to make positive health decisions; promote support-seeking behaviors in connection with behavioral and mental health issues; and provide health and safety education for players and all members of their support network. … “

The program includes NFL Life Line, a 24/7 service that allows players to connect with mental health professionals by phone or online.

“There is no higher priority for the National Football League than the health and wellness of our players,” NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell said Thursday in a statement to 11,000 current and former NFL players.

The NFL is being sued by thousands of former professional football players who say the league misled them about the dangers of concussions. The athletes say they suffer from various neurological and cognitive problems related to head injuries they received while playing football for the league.

Defendants in the suit include the NFL, football helmet manufacturer Riddell Inc. and affiliated entities of those two businesses.

The multidistrict litigation, being heard in U.S. District Court in Philadelphia, has grown to include complaints from more than 2,400 former players, according to recent media reports.

Former Atlanta Falcons player Ray Easterling, a lead plaintiff in one of the numerous lawsuits consolidated into the Philadelphia case, committed suicide in April.

The NFL is expected to use a workers’ compensation exclusive remedy defense in the liability lawsuits. The league contends that it did not mislead players about the risks associated with playing football.

Sheena Harrison writes for Business Insurance, a sister publication of Workforce Management. To comment, email editors@workforce.com.

Stay informed and connected. Get human resources news and HR features via Workforce Management’s Twitter feed or RSS feeds for mobile devices and news readers.

Posted on July 19, 2012August 7, 2018

Prudential Group Insurance to Wind Down Group Long-Term Care Business

Prudential Group Insurance, a division of Prudential Financial Inc., announced on Wednesday that it plans to stop selling group long-term care policies in most states, effective Aug. 1, 2012.

The Newark, New Jersey-based insurer will continue writing new policies in Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana and South Dakota for varying periods of time dictated by state laws, according to a statement from the company.

Existing policies will remain in effect and renewable, provided an employer’s premiums are paid on time and its policy limits are not exhausted.

However, Prudential said it will cease accepting new enrollments to those plans after June 30, 2013.

“Prudential is committed to ensuring that current group long-term care insurance clients and plan participants will continue to receive quality service,” the company said in its statement.

Prudential said its decision to wind down the group long-term care products was a reflection of depressed interest rates, which have negatively impacted the bond investments the insurer relies on to fund its claim payouts.

The company’s exit from the group long-term care marketplace comes after its announcement in March that it would stop accepting new accounts in the individual long-term care market.

Matt Dunning writes for Business Insurance, a sister publication of Workforce Management. To comment, email editors@workforce.com.

Stay informed and connected. Get human resources news and HR features via Workforce Management’s Twitter feed or RSS feeds for mobile devices and news readers.

Posts navigation

Previous page Page 1 … Page 35 Page 36 Page 37 … Page 63 Next page

 

Webinars

 

White Papers

 

 
  • Topics

    • Benefits
    • Compensation
    • HR Administration
    • Legal
    • Recruitment
    • Staffing Management
    • Training
    • Technology
    • Workplace Culture
  • Resources

    • Subscribe
    • Current Issue
    • Email Sign Up
    • Contribute
    • Research
    • Awards
    • White Papers
  • Events

    • Upcoming Events
    • Webinars
    • Spotlight Webinars
    • Speakers Bureau
    • Custom Events
  • Follow Us

    • LinkedIn
    • Twitter
    • Facebook
    • YouTube
    • RSS
  • Advertise

    • Editorial Calendar
    • Media Kit
    • Contact a Strategy Consultant
    • Vendor Directory
  • About Us

    • Our Company
    • Our Team
    • Press
    • Contact Us
    • Privacy Policy
    • Terms Of Use
Proudly powered by WordPress