Skip to content

Workforce

Category: Benefits

Posted on June 4, 2010August 9, 2018

National Health Data Initiative Unveiled

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and Harvey Fineberg, president of the Institute of Medicine, unveiled the Community Health Data Initiative, a national effort to promote the use of community health data to spur innovation and development of new applications.


In taking steps to improve quality of care and build a health care system “that meets the needs of every American,” HHS wants to leverage new health information technology tools to achieve those goals, Sebelius said during a community health data forum in Washington sponsored by the Institute of Medicine.


The department has a huge store of health care data on the regional, state and national scales, including the use of health care services and hospital data. In making such data available to various developers and technology pioneers, innovators “have identified at least 20 areas to improve health,” putting together numerous new applications to track health care trends in their respective communities, HHS Deputy Secretary Bill Corr said.


Most of these sample applications have been developed or refined in the three months since HHS and IOM hosted a meeting on March 11 to explore the feasibility of a health data initiative, according to a statement from HHS.


As part of these efforts to promote community health data, HHS officials stated that a new health indicators “warehouse” would be deployed online at the end of this year, providing data on national, state, regional and county health performance on rates of smoking, diabetes, obesity and other health indicators.


Filed by Jennifer Lubell of Modern Healthcare, a sister publication of Workforce Management. To comment, e-mail 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 June 1, 2010August 9, 2018

House OKs Increase in Manager Tax, Defined-Benefit Funding Relief

The House on Friday, May 28, voted 215-204 to approve a major tax and jobs bill that includes funding relief for defined-benefit plans, enhances fee disclosure for defined-contribution plans and increases taxes that investment partners must pay on carried interest.


The legislation, The American Jobs and Closing Tax Loopholes Act of 2010, now goes to the Senate, which has adjourned for the Memorial Day recess but returns June 7.


The funding relief provision would allow DB plans to stretch out amortization periods for investment losses for two of the years between 2008 and 2011 over a period of either 15 years or nine years, at the option of the plan sponsor. Current law requires plans to amortize their investment losses over seven years.


The legislation would require partnerships to treat 75 percent of carried interest that is not due to a return on capital as ordinary income, at a rate of up to 35 percent. Carried interest currently is taxed as a capital gain at 15 percent.


In a statement, Rep. George Miller, D-California, said the DC plan disclosure provisions would expose hidden fees that could be eating into participant retirement savings.


“It is beyond time that Americans have basic, clear and timely information on the costs and the choices contained in their 401(k) plans,” Miller, chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee, said in the statement.


“We think the passage of defined-benefit pension plan funding relief will help save jobs and businesses across America,” said Jason Hammersla, a spokesman for the American Benefits Council. “We remain concerned with the many conditions and restrictions placed on the relief, but we believe the measure is critical to America’s continued economic recovery.”


Filed by Doug Halonen of Pensions & Investments, a sister publication of Workforce Management. To comment, e-mail 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 May 28, 2010August 9, 2018

Weighing the Benefits of Tapping a Health Advocacy Service

Since 2006, a California-based school insurance pool has contracted with Health Advocate Inc. to assist its employees and their families with insurance-related difficulties.


But in the last year or so, as tight budgets have stripped back human resources departments, the advocacy service has become even more vital, says Ellen Alcala, business development manager for the Southern California Schools Employee Benefits Association. The nonprofit insurance pool provides medical coverage for 29 school districts totaling about 26,000 enrollees, including dependents.


Alcala hasn’t yet conducted a return-on-investment analysis. “But I can say that administratively, it saves a lot of money,” she says. Plus, there’s the employee satisfaction payoff, she adds. “The whole benefit of having the advocacy program is, it’s a nonbiased third party that intervenes on your behalf.”


Where employees are concerned, time is money—and that includes wrangling with health insurance companies, according to enthusiasts of health advocacy services. They cite the increasing complexity of health insurance, including the newest entrant: high-deductible health plans and their linked accounts.


Outsourcing such headaches, they say, can assist employees and also ease the burden on stretched-thin human resources departments. It also can shield staffers from inadvertently violating some provision of the federal privacy law HIPAA as they sort through an employee’s insurance-related dispute.


One recent survey indicates an uptick in usage. In 2009, 53 percent of large employers—those with 500 or more employees—offered health advocacy as part of their benefits, compared with 47 percent in 2008, according to Mercer’s annual survey of employer-sponsored health plans.


Paying twice? 
Mercer is one of the newest entrants on the health advocacy block, joining other long-standing providers. Health Advocate, which began operating in 2002, now has roughly 5,400 clients nationwide, primarily employers. Hewitt Associates launched its service in 1999; it now assists more than 4.2 million employees, plus dependents.


Mercer introduced its service in fall 2009 after noticing more interest from employers who were interested in outsourcing their health and benefits administration, says Rich VanThournout, Mercer’s total benefits outsourcing business leader. About 70 percent of the requests for proposals asked if Mercer provided any health advocacy component, he says.


Employers were reporting that some employees had a tough time navigating insurance issues. “And they would get frustrated,” VanThournout says. “Many of these things then bubble up to our human resource counterparts.”


But Helen Darling, president of the National Business Group on Health, is a bit dubious. She questions why large employers would hire a third-party service to help adjudicate claims when they’re already paying administrative fees to their insurance providers to handle such scenarios.


Corporate benefits departments regularly track performance issues, such as the insurance provider’s responsiveness to claims concerns, she says. If an employee has a problem, she says, “They will be all over the plan to straighten it out. You shouldn’t hire somebody to fix something that the plan should already be doing for you.”


Saving time
At Mercer, the advocacy service doesn’t immediately get involved, VanThournout says. Instead, the employee is asked to first try to resolve the issue with the insurance provider. To date, just 2 to 2.5 percent of employees end up tapping the help of Mercer’s advocacy service, he says.


Sometimes employees just prefer the reassurance of an outside set of eyes, he says. “It’s really trying to educate the participant and also to make sure the process worked correctly and that the [insurance] claim was paid correctly,” he says.


Sorting out claims issues can be time-consuming. According to Hewitt’s data, each claim takes an average of 17 phone calls and 4.5 hours to resolve.


At Health Advocate, it’s not uncommon for a complex claims dispute to consume 20-plus hours to compile and sort through the relevant information, says Marty Rosen, Health Advocate’s co-founder and executive vice president. “You are wading through piles of paper,” he says. “You are going back and forth. You are tracking down paper from the hospital, from the insurance company.”


Typically these calls have to be made during business hours, he points out. “Would you rather have your employee spending time at the workplace dealing with these types of issues?”


Privacy and other logistics
Even if employers hire an outside service, they should carefully vet it to make sure it’s complying with HIPAA, says Callan Carter, a partner and member of the employee benefits practice group at Fisher & Phillips.


Employers should ask about how the service trains its own employees on HIPAA provisions, as well as how they report the information they collect, she says. “If there is a breach of someone’s information, it’s going to be the employer who is going to hear about it,” Carter says.


As employers monitor the effectiveness of a third-party advocacy service, they also should make sure that information is provided in summary form, to guard against violating HIPAA, which is designed to prevent any unauthorized disclosure of an individual’s health information. One approach might be to provide a summary of the types of claims pursued by category, such as nonpayment issues, so they can’t be traced to any particular employee, Carter says.


In some cases, the underlying insurance problem is not an improperly paid claim, but rather that the employee misunderstood the insurance plan’s design, Rosen says. That’s particularly true if the employer recently switched to a high-deductible plan, he says. Despite employer efforts to educate employees in advance, he says, “for some people, the world changed pretty dramatically from Friday to Monday with the effective date of the new coverage.”


Alcala of the Southern California Schools Employee Benefits Association agrees. The insurance pool will offer a high-deductible plan option for the first time this year. “As we move into more consumer-driven health plans, I see advocacy services taking on a bigger role,” she says.


Before moving forward, though, Darling advises human resources leaders to run a cost-benefit analysis of their own corporate circumstances. Hiring an outside advocacy service might sometimes make sense, such as if the benefits department has become too short- staffed, she says.


But Darling remains lukewarm. “I think frankly most people wouldn’t want to call a strange organization at all,” she says. “I think employees correctly trust their HR people.”


Workforce Management Online, May 2010 — Register Now!

Posted on May 27, 2010August 9, 2018

Fork in Road for Truckers Fund; PBGC Splits Plan

The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. has split the Chicago Truck Drivers, Helpers and Warehouse Workers Union (Independent) Pension Fund into plans for employees of bankrupt and nonbankrupt companies, agency spokesman Marc Hopkins confirmed.


The PBGC will provide about $4 million annually to the bankrupt companies’ multiemployer plan; the plan for the nonbankrupt companies will not receive any PBGC funding.


Neither the size of the original plan nor the sizes of the new plans were immediately available.


The decision aims to extend solvency of the original plan and preserve full benefits for roughly 3,700 workers and retirees of nonbankrupt trucking firms. About 1,500 current and former workers are in the bankrupt companies’ plan.


“The PBGC approved the move because without partition, the Chicago plan may have become insolvent in 2013, and federal benefit limits would have applied to all its retirees,” the PBGC stated in a news release. “Partition of the plan may delay insolvency to 2019 or later.”


Fifty-two employers in the original plan filed for bankruptcy protection or withdrew from the plan between 1982 and 2004. The plan currently has 57 contributing employers.


Filed by Timothy Inklebarger of Pensions & Investments, a sister publication of Workforce Management. To comment, e-mail 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 May 27, 2010August 9, 2018

High-Risk Pool for Uninsured Could Exceed Budget, Analysis Says

A forthcoming temporary high-risk pool for the uninsured with pre-existing health conditions could quickly go over budget, according to a new analysis.


The $5 billion program, expected to launch as soon as July, is part of the new health reform law. Its purpose is to extend temporary coverage to the uninsured until 2014, when health plan reforms, subsidies and insurance exchanges become operational.


Between 5.6 million and 7 million people could qualify for coverage through these high-risk pools, according to the National Institute for Health Care Reform, a not-for-profit health research group created by the United Auto Workers, Chrysler Group, Ford Motor Co. and General Motors Co. The institute is affiliated with the Center for Studying Health System Change.


But the $5 billion allocated to the program through 2013 would cover as few as 200,000 people annually, according to the report.


Twenty-nine states and the District of Columbia have agreed to run the programs, while 19 states declined, meaning the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services will administer high-risk pools in those states. Two states are undecided.


“How much leeway they have to modify the outlines of the program is uncertain,” the report concludes.


Filed by Rebecca Vesely of Modern Healthcare, a sister publication of Workforce Management. To comment, e-mail 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 May 27, 2010August 9, 2018

Proposed COBRA Subsidy Extension Cut by One Month

House Democratic leaders Wednesday night, May 26, agreed to pare back by one month an extension of federal COBRA health insurance premium subsidies to the unemployed as part of a broader effort to win support for the broader tax bill to which the COBRA provisions are attached.


With the change, the 15-month, 65 percent COBRA subsidy would be provided to employees who are involuntarily terminated through November 30.


Under the original bill, H.R. 4213, the subsidy would have been extended to employees laid off through December 31. The bill’s backers made the change in hopes of winning over fiscally conservative Democrats concerned about the bill’s overall cost.


Without an extension, employees laid off beginning June 1 would not be eligible for the subsidy. If the bill passes, observers say it is likely that lawmakers later in the year would extend the premium subsidy through at least December 31.


“Although the subsidy was pared back, I don’t think Congress would let it expire just prior to the holiday season,” said Frank McArdle, a principal in the Washington office of Hewitt Associates Inc.


The measure, which also contains provisions to give employers more time to fund their pension obligations, could be considered by the House on Thursday. The Senate has not acted on the measure.

Filed by Jerry Geisel of Business Insurance, a sister publication of Workforce Management. To comment, e-mail 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 May 26, 2010August 9, 2018

More New Salaried Workers at Big Firms Get Defined-Contribution Plans

The largest public companies continue to steadily replace defined-benefit plans with defined-contribution or hybrid plans for new salaried employees, according to a 25-year analysis of Fortune 100 companies by Towers Watson.


Fifty-eight of the Fortune 100 companies offered only DC plans to new salaried employees this year through May 12, according to a news release from the firm. This tally includes “changes made this year and announcements of future plan changes,” the release said.


Five years ago, 37 offered only DC plans to new workers, while in 1985, 10 companies offered only DC plans to new employees.


Also, the total number of Fortune 100 companies offering DB plans (traditional or hybrid) to new salaried employees dropped to 42 this year from 90 in 1985, the news release said.


Towers Watson found that the number of Fortune 100 companies offering traditional pension plans to new salaried employees dropped sharply—to 17 this year from 89 in 1985, the news release said. However, the hybrids reached their peak at 34 in 2002 and in 2004; this year, 25 were hybrids, including cash-balance plans.


“The movement toward account-based plans appears to be steady and strong as companies shift away from traditional pensions,” Kevin Wagner, senior retirement consultant at Towers Watson, said in the release. “And while most of the shifting has been toward 401(k) plans, we are seeing employer interest in cash-balance plans, too, as the provisions of the Pension Protection Act, which creates a more friendly environment for these plans, begin to take effect.”


Towers Watson used internal surveys and information as well as public information sources—including proxies, 10-K filings and annual reports—to analyze corporate retirement plan trends from 1985 through May 12, Ed Emerman, a spokesman for Towers Watson, wrote in an e-mail response to questions.


Filed by Robert Steyer of Pensions & Investments, a sister publication of Workforce Management. To comment, e-mail 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 May 25, 2010August 9, 2018

Paid Sick Days, Vacations Proposed for Maids, Nannies

The Domestic Workers Bill of Rights—which stalled last year with the New York Senate coup—has re-emerged and will be brought to a vote in the state Senate on June 1.


The bill, which would provide domestic workers such as nannies and maids with paid sick days, holidays and vacation days, and require advance notice of their termination, has 26 co-sponsors, including Frank Padavan, a Republican from Queens. Proponents say 10 additional “yes” votes have been promised, including several other Republicans. There is no organized opposition to the bill.


“We’re not asking for special rights, just a set of standards that will bring domestic workers in line with every other worker that has the right of collective bargaining,” says Priscilla Gonzalez, director of Domestic Workers United, a nonprofit advocacy group.


Employers who don’t comply would be subject to civil and criminal penalties. Both the labor commissioner and attorney general could bring legal action against the employer.


Following four years of efforts by domestic workers and their advocates, the bill appeared headed to passage last year, but it was derailed by the Senate coup. A less comprehensive version of the bill passed in the Assembly. If the Senate approves the measure next week, the two versions would then be brought together via reconciliation.


Busloads of domestic workers are expected to travel from New York City to Albany to be present for the vote. The bill would be the first legislation in the nation to recognize domestic workers as a workforce and give them rights.


Filed by Daniel Massey of Crain’s New York Business, a sister publication of Workforce Management. To comment, e-mail 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 May 25, 2010August 9, 2018

Most Firms to Seek Early Retiree Care Subsidy

Just more than three-quarters of large employers with early retiree health care plans intend to seek partial reimbursement of claims’ costs under a program established by the federal health care reform law, according to a survey released Tuesday, May 25.


Under the Early Retiree Reinsurance Program, the government will reimburse employers for a portion of health care claims incurred by retirees who are at least age 55 but not eligible for Medicare, as well as claims incurred for retirees’ covered dependents regardless of age.


Following a plan sponsor’s application and filing of claim information, reimbursements would begin after a participant in an early retiree plan incurs $15,000 in health care claims in a plan year. After that, the government will reimburse plan sponsors for 80 percent of a participant’s claims up to $90,000 during a plan year.


In a survey of 245 large employers released Tuesday, Hewitt Associates found that 76 percent with early retiree health care plans intend to seek reimbursement under the program.


Hewitt estimates that the reimbursement could amount to between $2,000 and $3,000 per pre-65 adult enrolled in their plans, or about 25 to 35 percent of total plan costs. Whether employers will collect that much remains to be seen.


That’s because only $5 billion has been authorized for the program and the money could run out fast. Reimbursement will be provided on a first-come, first-serve basis.


“Because so many companies plan to apply for the ERRP, employers will need to act quickly to secure a share of the proceeds, since the federal funds earmarked for this program are limited,” Milind Desai, a senior consulting actuary in Hewitt’s Waltham, Massachusetts, office, said in a statement.


Sixty-six percent of employers said they have not decided how they would use the proceeds, as they await regulatory guidance.


“Most employers are still looking for more details about how these funds can and cannot be used,” John Grosso, a senior consulting actuary in Hewitt’s Norwalk, Connecticut, office, said in a statement.


In general, the reimbursement must be used to reduce employers’ and/or retirees’ health care costs.


Filed by Jerry Geisel of Business Insurance, a sister publication of Workforce Management. To comment, e-mail 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 May 24, 2010August 9, 2018

Michigan Employers Try Various Strategies to Slow Health Cost Rise

Employers in Southeast Michigan expect medical benefit expenses to increase 7 percent this year, despite taking steps to shift costs to employees, using wellness programs as a cost-containment device and offering more high-deductible health insurance plans, according to Troy, Michigan-based McGraw Wentworth’s seventh annual 2010 Southeast Michigan Mid-Market Group Benefits Survey.


“We saw big changes this year in benefit plans that surpassed national averages in some respects,” said Rebecca McLaughlan, McGraw Wentworth’s managing director.


McLaughlan said the survey showed that Michigan employers continue to cut back on historically rich benefits to come in line with national trends.


With Michigan’s economy in recovery, McLaughlan said some companies made tough choices to reduce costs in 2009 by changing benefit plans, but other companies are “catching up” this year.


“Employers are under real pressure nationally to cut costs” because the poor economy is still putting a damper on revenue growth, said Karen Alter, account director with McGraw Wentworth and the survey leader.


The expected 7 percent increase in costs is up from a 5 percent increase in 2009.


Nationally, total health benefit costs are projected to increase in 2010 by 9 percent, but cost-cutting is expected to trim that to 6 percent, according to Mercer, a New York-based employee benefits company.


Jerry Konal, a principal in the health and benefits group at Mercer’s Detroit office, said Southeast Michigan companies have taken important steps to reduce benefit costs.


“We are not yet at par with the nation but [are] closer to the norm because more organizations have put in payroll contribution requirements,” in which companies charge employees an increasing percentage of health benefit costs, Konal said. “There also is an understanding between management and labor that the status quo could not continue.”


In 2010, workers are paying an average of 43 percent of total health benefit costs for a median PPO plan, up from 33 percent in 2004, the survey said. In 2009, employees paid an average of 41 percent of total health benefit costs.


For the median HMO plan, employees paid an average 31 percent of total benefit costs this year, compared with 28 percent in 2009.


McGraw Wentworth surveyed 414 Southeast Michigan-based companies. Of the companies, 56 percent employed 100 to 499 workers, 15 percent employed fewer than 100, and 13 percent employed 500 to 999.


In 2010, 92 percent of companies are offering PPO plans and 43 percent are offering HMOs, slightly lower percentages than last year.


While the percentage of PPO and HMO plans offered by employers have declined, there was a 4 percentage point increase in companies using consumer-driven health plans in 2010, to 23 percent of all companies.


But in a major shift of philosophy, employers have decided to increase employee contributions to consumer-driven health plans to an average of $75 per month for a single employee, from $41 in 2009, Alter said.


Consumer-driven health plans combine a high deductible of $2,500 to $5,000 with a tax-exempt health savings account when the funds are used for qualified medical expenses.


“Companies are changing how they structure plans and want to get more of the cost to enroll. Early on, to encourage employees to participate, they offered lower costs. Now employers want employees to contribute more to the costs,” Alter said.


McLaughlan said that after payroll deductions, employers now are paying slightly higher costs for consumer-driven plans, at an average $6,984 per year for single coverage, compared with $6,960 for PPOs.


“Michigan is an anomaly in this respect” with higher consumer-driven health plan costs, McLaughlan said. “Nationally, consumer-driven health plans are the lowest-cost plans.”


Konal said Mercer’s 2009 data show that consumer-driven health plans lower total benefit costs.


For example, total per capita costs for consumer-driven health plans with health savings accounts were $6,393, compared with PPO per capita costs of $8,223.


On the other hand, PPO enrollment increased to 65 percent this year, from 59 percent in 2009. HMO enrollment remained the same at 22 percent.


“The increase in PPO plans is most likely due to the elimination of point-of-service or indemnity plans and migration from these plans to the PPO,” Alter said.


Despite the poor economy, employers continue to invest in wellness programs, with more employers tying achievement of health goals to incentives.


In 2010, 17 percent of employers offered a full wellness program, up from 14 percent last year. An additional 16 percent in 2010 offered a wellness program through a health plan.


Filed by Jay Greene of Crain’s Detroit Business, a sister publication of Workforce Management. To comment, e-mail 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 49 Page 50 Page 51 … 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