Benefits Archives - Page 8 of 63

August 7, 2019June 29, 2023

EEOC Settlement Teaches Lesson on Extended Leaves of Absence as ADA Accommodation

An employee tells you that he was recently diagnosed with prostate cancer and needs a few weeks off for treatment, surgery and recovery.

Assume either you’re not an FMLA-covered employer or that the employee is not FMLA eligible.

Do you …

(a) Fire him.

(b) Deny the request and force him to quit to have the surgery.

(c) Grant the request, but ask the employee to provide medical information supporting the disability, the need for time off, and an expected return-to-work date.

I hope you picked “c.”

An Atlanta distributor of industrial supplies chose “a,” and it cost them $75,000 to settle an EEOC lawsuit. From the EEOC’s news release:

“Medical leave is a widely recognized accommodation, and in Mr. Smith’s case, could easily have been granted, preventing the firing of a valuable employee. However, instead of accommodating him, Vallen fired him less than 24 hours before his surgery,” said Antonette Sewell, regional attorney for the EEOC’s Atlanta District Office. …

Darrell Graham, district director of the Atlanta office, said, … “An employee should not be forced to risk termination for seeking leave to treat a medical condition, which can be a perfectly reasonable accommodation under federal law.”

Takeaways?

1. Unpaid time off can, and often does, qualify as a reasonable accommodation under the ADA, whether or not the FMLA applies. Moreover, if you fail to consider it as a reasonable accommodation, you’ve likely violated the statute.

2. Firing someone who asks for a few weeks off for cancer surgery is awful. It’s even more awful if you wait until the day before the surgery to do the firing.

3. Given the egregiousness of the violation, $75,000 seems light (although I don’t know all of the particulars of this employee’s damages).

August 1, 2019February 25, 2022

7 Tips for Managers to Help Employees De-Stress

The CareerCast stress report analyzes 11 factors that represent the most common stressors including deadlines, public scrutiny and physical demands.

In companies both large and small, workers can be heard talking about how they need a break or how they need to have a mental health day.

According to a 2017 report from the American Psychological Association, work stress is the third most common stressor in Americans’ lives. What’s contributing most to that work stress, according to a 2017 Paychex study, is missing out on time spent at home.

Employees are stressed for a multitude of reasons including workload, lack of support, lack of control in decision-making processes, unclear performance expectations, ineffective time management skills, and failure to implement boundaries on time away from work and use vacation time granted to them.

There are many ways managers can help employees cope with such stresses, though. Here are seven tips to get them started:

Look and Listen. As a manager it is important to pay attention to your employees. When you observe your employees in action, do they appear to be overwhelmed? Are they agitated when speaking with you? Do they express concern or anxiety over a project or deadline? What words are they using to describe their workload? Has their demeanor changed?

If you notice that an employee’s mood has changed and he or she appears more stressed than usual, it’s time to initiate a conversation on how you can help.

Provide Clarity. Managers have a broad view of the department’s productivity and goals, as well as what each employee is working on at any given time. Managers can plan projects and set appropriate deadlines for work.

Keep in mind that employees may need guidance on reassessing to-do lists and understanding priorities, direction on how the work is to be completed, and what assistance is available to get work done. Don’t be afraid to get in the trenches with your employees and work side-by-side to complete an important task.

Foster Partnership. Personality conflicts can be a contributor to stress, and managers play a significant role in fostering teamwork and mediating disputes. It is critical that managers address conflicts both timely and effectively to avoid escalation. HR can provide tools and guidance on how to properly investigate, document, and coach employees to resolve their discord.

Acknowledge Humanity. Employees are people. They have responsibilities and stressors outside of their work. It is critical for employees to recharge after the workday and workweek.

Enable employees to have a healthy work-life balance by providing them the opportunity to connect with family and friends and to rest and take care of themselves. Managers should encourage employees to limit checking emails after business hours and to take earned vacation time. Supervisors should also be trained in managing employee leaves of absence, knowing what leaves employees are entitled and supporting employees to take leaves to care for themselves or family members.

Encourage Exercise. Urge employees to take their breaks, stretch and move around for a few minutes several times a day. A change of scenery can help employees gain a fresh perspective on the task at hand and clear their minds for more creative thinking. Physical activity can aid in alleviating tension and increasing blood flow. Even better, have employees take a break together to foster teambuilding and comradery.

Also read: Consider Fresh Air and Relaxed Hikes to Combat Work Stress

Provide Training. Empower your employees with access to resources that enable resiliency. Employees themselves can be trained on stress management, time management and conflict resolution to hopefully minimize the incidence of anxiety and depression.

Promote Benefits. Managers should be the raving fans of the company’s benefits programs, especially those related to mental and physical well-being.

An employee assistance program is a useful tool for employees experiencing stress or needing to cope with difficult situations. Managers are not professional counselors and should not act as such.

Additionally, ensure that the medical plans provided to employees include access to outpatient and inpatient mental health treatment, medication and counseling. Many medical insurance companies are now offering teledoctors for individuals who have difficulty seeing a physician face-to-face, as well as perks and discounts to gyms and fitness-related services that employees may not be aware of.

Trust — The Biggest Workplace Benefit?

Employers are a trusted source of information. Trust could even be the most important unnoticed benefit in any workplace. For years I have strongly believed that trust is a key ingredient to any successful workplace, and two recent studies confirm it in ways that surprised even me.

First, the Edelman Trust Barometer has followed trust around the world for 19 years. The 2019 survey included more than 33,000 people around the globe, and it shows some significant changes from previous years. The summary report says “Trust has changed profoundly in the past year — people have shifted their trust to the relationships within their control, most notably their employers.”

Around the world, 75 percent of people say they trust “my employer” to do what is right. Compare that with the percentage who say the same about NGOs (57 percent), business (56 percent), and the media (47 percent). But that’s not the most interesting finding.

People want leadership from their employers, too. Seventy-one percent of employees say it is “critically important for my CEO to respond to challenging times.” The general population agrees — 76 percent say they want CEOs to take the lead on change instead of waiting for government to impose it.

Edelman’s final conclusion? Employee trust is incredibly valuable to the organization. “Employees who have trust in their employer are far more likely to engage in beneficial actions on their behalf — they will advocate for the organization (a 39-point trust advantage), are more engaged (33 points), and remain far more loyal (38 points) and committed (31 points) than their more skeptical counterparts.”

Also read: Building Trust Through Storytelling

That conclusion mirrors MetLife’s 2019 “U.S. Employee Benefit Trends Study.” This survey, in its 17th year, follows workplace and benefits trends. This year MetLife concludes: “Our research reveals that trust — primarily in an employer’s leadership and their commitment to employees’ success — is the most significant driver of employee happiness at work.”

Why does employees’ happiness matter to the business? The survey shows happy employees are more satisfied with their job, and are loyal, engaged, productive, impactful and successful.

Trust and happiness seem like abstract concepts, but building them is entirely within our control. MetLife identifies these five drivers of happiness at work:

Employee trust in their company’s leadership.
Employers’ commitment to employees and their success.
Culture where employees are encouraged to share ideas and individual opinions.
Workplace where co-workers feel like family or friends.
Benefits customized to meet employee needs.

People trust their employers more than they trust nearly any other organization or entity. Trust is also the biggest driver of happiness at work, and when they trust you, employees are more committed to your success and will work harder. Let’s use this moment to do great things!

Every organization should be taking specific steps to foster even more trust. This could mean:
Making your leadership more accessible and transparent.
Taking a more vocal stand on current issues and events, including their impact on your local communities.
Showing how your organization is committed to employees and their success and taking specific action to give them more of a voice.
Fostering a greater sense of community and connection at work.
Helping your people unite around your organization’s mission.
Focusing on helping individuals to understand their sense of purpose and how they fit in your organization.
Showing your commitment to your employees’ health and financial security by making it easier for them to understand and take advantage of their benefits.

And if you can, do it all. The results will be great for your people and your organization.

Also in Benefits Beat:

Communicating Your Benefits Vision to Your Executive Team

How HR Benefits By Getting Political

Benefits Offerings Shouldn’t Be a Puzzle to Assemble

July 25, 2019June 29, 2023

Which Mental Health Service Does the FMLA Not Cover?

Recently I discussed our national mental health crisis, and the important role employers play in removing barriers to employees receiving the help they need.

Then, I came across this post on LinkedIn, discussing a massive barrier that the FMLA institutionally imposes.

An individual suffering with a mental health issue has various treatment and therapy options available to them. For medication, one can see a psychiatrist, a primary care physician or a nurse practitioner. For assessment and therapy, one can see a psychologist, a clinical social worker or a licensed professional counselor.

Amazingly, however, the FMLA does not recognize one of these licensed mental health professionals as a “health care provider.”

I won’t leave you in suspense. The answer is licensed professional counselors (unless an employer’s group health plan covers licensed professional counselors). The FMLA’s regulations specifically itemize all of the other categories of mental health professionals as “health care providers,” and specifically omits licensed professional counselors from its list. This omission is important, because an employee’s mental condition cannot qualify for FMLA leave as a “serious health condition” if, for outpatient treatment, the employee is not under “continuing treatment by a health care provider.”

As a matter of policy, however, the FMLA absolutely should cover licensed professional counselors as health care providers. According to a recent study by the National Council for Behavioral Health, the leading cause of our country’s mental health crisis is a lack of access to mental health services. We should not be erecting any barriers to mental health services, let alone one ingrained in the federal law that protects employees’ jobs when they take time off for health reasons, including their mental health. By refusing to recognize licensed professional counselors as FMLA-covered health care providers, the FMLA is deterring employees from seeking critical mental health treatment, or at least forcing them to choose between treatment and their jobs if a licensed professional counselor is the only available help. Many who can’t afford to live without their jobs will choose their paycheck over their health, exacerbating their mental health issues.

Gene Scalia has been nominated to replace Alex Acosta as Secretary of Labor. I implore him to close this dangerous loophole by amending the FMLA’s regulations to make it clear and explicit that licensed professional counselors qualify as health care providers in all cases, and not just those in which an employer has made the choice that its group health plan covers their services.

July 24, 2019October 18, 2024

Employee Suicide Is the Next Big Workplace Safety Crisis

A recent headline at businessinsurance.com caught my eye:

Suicide seen as “next frontier” in workplace safety risks. It’s a pretty dramatic headline, but when you drill down into the statistics, it has a lot of weight.

Suicide is the 10th leading cause of death in the U.S.
Between the ages of 10 and 34, however, suicide is the second leading cause of death, and the fourth leading cause of death between the ages of 35 and 54.
In 2017, 47,173 Americans died from suicide (more than double the number of homicide victims), and another 1.4 million attempted suicide.
Between 2000 and 2016, the U.S. suicide rate among adults ages 16 to 64 rose 34 percent, from 12.9 deaths for every 100,000 people to 17.3 per 100,000.
In 2016, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics hit a record in its 25-year tally of workplace suicides at 291, with the number gradually climbing over the prior decade.
The highest suicide rate among men was for workers in construction and mining jobs, with 53.2 deaths per 100,000 in 2015, up from 43.6 in 2012.
The highest suicide rate among women was for workers in arts, design, entertainment, sports and media, with 15.6 deaths per 100,000 in 2015, up from 11.7 in 2012.

The numbers are stark and scary and show a nation in the midst of a mental health crisis. What can employers do to recognize and mitigate this risk, and provide a safe workplace for employees in crisis?

For starters, educate yourself. There are a lot of free resources available online.

Suicide Prevention Resource Center (workplace specific resources)
National Suicide Prevention Lifeline
Centers for Disease Control
OSHA (focused on the construction industry, but still of general use for all employers)

Next, employers need to increase awareness and reduce the stigma that surround mental health issues. Stigma and silence are the two biggest reasons why those that need help don’t receive it. What can employers do to recognize and help an at-risk employee?

1. Be aware of individual risk factors for suicide. You cannot always prevent suicide, but you can understand some of the risk factors so that can recognize when an employee might be in crisis and in need of help.

Mental disorders, particularly mood disorders, schizophrenia, anxiety disorders, and certain personality disorders.
Alcohol and other substance use disorders.
Hopelessness.
Impulsive and/or aggressive tendencies.
History of trauma or abuse.
Major physical illnesses.
Previous suicide attempt(s).
Family history of suicide.
Job or financial loss.
Loss of relationship(s).
Easy access to lethal means.
Local clusters of suicide.
Lack of social support and sense of isolation.
Being victimized by discrimination, harassment, or bullying.
Stigma associated with asking for help.
Lack of healthcare, especially mental health and substance abuse treatment.
Cultural and religious beliefs, such as the belief that suicide is a noble resolution of a personal dilemma.
Exposure to others who have died by suicide (in real life or via the media and Internet).

2. Provide mental-health awareness training to managers and supervisors. They spend the most time observing their employees, and are often in the best position to observe behavioral changes and risk factors, and hear from co-workers that someone might be in danger. Some of the warning signs for everyone to look for include:

Talking about wanting to die or to kill themselves.
Looking for a way to kill themselves, like searching online or buying a gun.
Talking about feeling hopeless or having no reason to live.
Talking about feeling trapped or in unbearable pain.
Talking about being a burden to others.
Increasing the use of alcohol or drugs.
Acting anxious or agitated; behaving recklessly.
Sleeping too little or too much.
Withdrawing or isolating themselves.
Showing rage or talking about seeking revenge.
Extreme mood swings.

3. Consider implementing a comprehensive psychological health and safety management program to help improve overall workplace culture and resolve issues more effectively. This program would include eliminating stigma related to mental health issues; developing an inclusive working environment for all; and ensuring that you have a confidential Employee and Family Assistance Program (EAP) that offers support and counseling services and that your employees are aware of it.

4. Educate all employees and support those are struggling. This effort includes mental-health awareness and suicide prevention education to employees; reducing stigmas relating to protected classes, mental illness, substance use disorder, and suicide; expanding awareness of mental illness and addiction; encouraging help-seeking for those at-risk; creating a caring and supporting work environment, including the promotion of listening and interpersonal skills to help all employees.

If you or someone you know is having suicidal thoughts or exhibiting suicidal behavior, help is just a phone call away via the National Suicide Prevention Hotline, 800-273-8255. One phone call can save a life.

July 22, 2019July 22, 2019

Student-Loan Matching Hits Snags

Plan sponsors have shown a lot of interest in a recent ruling that allowed one company to make 401(k) matching contributions while employees repay their student loans, but two attorneys following the progress of the idea are doubtful that federal guidance allowing others to implement the idea will be issued any time soon.

In August 2018, the Internal Revenue Service issued a private letter ruling allowing an unnamed company to amend its plan so workers who voluntarily agree to put at least 2 percent of pay toward a student loan would be eligible to receive an employer contribution equal to 5 percent of pay to their 401(k) plan.

That letter addressed the issue facing 44 million graduates today: the $1.5 trillion they carry in student loan debt. Organizations also are seeing a rapid rise in popularity for plans that ease the loan burdens of recent grads.

Since that time, the IRS has met with trade groups to talk about possible federal guidance, said David Levine, a principal at Groom Law Group who was speaking at the Plan Sponsor Council of America’s national conference in April.

“The outcome of the meeting was not as optimistic as one might hope for,” Levine said.

Jeffrey Holdvogt, a partner with law firm McDermott Will & Emery, said that there are other ways to help employees with their student debt, but this private letter ruling was a strategic way to shoehorn the benefit into a tax-friendly vehicle. He suspected that other plan sponsors have been asking for similar private letter rulings, but the IRS has turned them down.

Also read: Indebted to You? Student Loan Benefit Could Be Key Retention Tool

He and Levine agreed that there may be unintended consequences in broadening the scope of the initial private letter ruling or offering separate rulings to other plans sponsors.

First, the two agreed that the idea may get trumped by pending legislation. The Retirement Security & Savings Act, sponsored by Sens. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, and Ben Cardin, D-Maryland, would allow employers to make matching contributions with respect to student loan repayments. In addition, the Retirement Parity for Student Loans Act, sponsored by Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Oregon, would allow 401(k) and 403(b) plan sponsors to make matching contributions on qualified student loan repayments. Employees must submit to the employer proof of the student loan and the loan repayment.

Next, Levine posed several questions about how this ruling, if expanded, could set a precedent for other repayment programs. It could get as crazy as someone buying a yacht and asking for compensation. The general issue of needing to pay off a large liability while saving for retirement fits the same scenario as the student debt question.

“Where do you draw the line?” Levine asked.

Levine cautioned that plan sponsors interested in adopting similar strategies in their 401(k) plans need to rely on the guidance exactly as it was outlined in the original private letter. Companies that simply follow the “spirit” of the private letter may wind up having issues with the IRS.

July 10, 2019June 29, 2023

Why Are Employers Testing Job Applicants for Prescription Medications?

During a pre-employment medical examination and drug screen, an applicant tests positive for Alprazolam, the generic form of Xanax (a medication commonly prescribed for anxiety), a fact she had already disclosed during the examination.

The doctor performing the medical exam and reviewing the drug screen concludes that the applicant is medically acceptable for work as an intake specialist at an inpatient mental health facility. The employer, however, has other ideas. It withdraws the job offer without providing the applicant any opportunity to discuss the results.

The applicant sues, claiming disability discrimination.

Who wins?

(a) The employer, because the ADA permits pre-employment medical examinations and drug screening, and further because there exists a nexus between the applicant ’s underlying mental impairment (anxiety) and her fitness to work at a mental health facility.

(b) The employer, because the ADA only protects physical and mental impairments, not drugs used to treat them.

(d) The applicant, because the only logical explanation for rescinding a job offer after an applicant tests positive for a prescription drug commonly used to treat anxiety is that the employer regarded the applicant as disabled.

While we may eventually find out the official answer to this puzzle (the EEOC recently filed suit alleging an ADA violation arising from these facts), if you answered (d), grab yourself a Kewpie Doll.

Still, the answer might not nearly be this cut-and-dry. The ADA is remarkably silent on the issue of testing for legally prescribed medications.

Thankfully, courts have stepped in to fill in the ADA’s omission. For example, Bates v. Dura Automotive Sys. (6th Cir. 8/26/14) [pdf].

1. Does the ADA permit an employer to test for prescription medications?

Whether the ADA permits an employer to test employees for prescription medications will hinge on whether the test is a “medical examination.” If the test is a “medical examination,” then the ADA only permits it during employment if the test is “job-related and consistent with business necessity.” According to the Court, whether the prescription-drug screen is a “medical examination” will hinge on whether the test “is designed to reveal an impairment or physical or mental health,” which examines both the employer’s reasons in using the test and the test’s typical uses and purposes.

2. Does the ADA permit an employer to require employees, after a positive test, to disclose medications to a third-party administrator?

The court concluded that there exists a huge difference between a general requirement that employees disclose a list of all prescription medications taken (possibly illegal), versus a policy that only requires the disclosure of job-restricted medications after a positive test.

How can an employer make sense of this discussion? These are difficult issues that balance an employer’s right to maintain a safe workplace against an employee’s right to medical privacy. What is an employer to do?

1. Limit testing for the use of prescription drugs to safety-sensitive positions, and then only for those medications that could pose a safety risk.
2. Do not ask employees to disclose the underlying medical condition for which they are taking the medication.
3. Be consistent in your treatment of employees who test positive.
4. Only disclose the results to those who need to know.

In conclusion, I want to focus for a moment on point No. 1 — limit testing for the use of prescription (any?) drugs to safety-sensitive positions and then only for those medications that could pose a safety risk.

Unless one is applying for a job that poses a safety risk, why are we drug testing at all? If you don’t want those who use illegal drugs to work for you, I get that.

That’s your right and your decision. But prescription drugs?

What are you hoping to learn from those tests? Unless you have a legitimate reason to hunt for medications that could impair an employee’s ability to safely perform their job, the risks of the test severely outweigh any benefits to gain.

You’ll learn a heap of protected medical information (or make assumptions based on the physical or mental impairments the drugs are used to treat). Either way, you are opening yourself up to a difficult disability-discrimination lawsuit if you rescind a job offer, as Rogers Behavioral Health in the lawsuit the EEOC recently filed.

Is this risk worth the minimal benefit?

July 2, 2019February 11, 2022

3 Ways HR Can Address Alcohol Addiction

More than 21 million people in the United States struggle with addiction. I used to be one of them.

After suffering several sports-related injuries, I developed an opiate addiction. And though I’m now in recovery, I remember clearly how difficult that battle was.

My story may sound out of the ordinary to some, but those 21 million struggling Americans say otherwise. And there’s a good chance that someone — or several people — at your company has battled addiction as well. As an HR leader, acknowledging that fact and taking it into account in your interactions with employees can be monumentally important to the health and well-being of your staff.

But that’s not always an easy task. Today’s American workplace is saturated with opportunities to grab a drink with co-workers, celebrate closing a huge deal over a few beers or have one cocktail too many at the annual holiday party. I believe that work and drinking should remain separate and that time spent in the office should be dedicated to productivity, but I’m aware that’s not the norm in every company culture.

For any HR leader hoping to navigate the rough terrain of alcohol in the workplace while remaining sensitive to the struggles and needs of your team, let these three principles be your guide.

Invest in Teaching Your Leadership About Addiction

Help educate the entire leadership team, not just your HR team. With 1 in 13 American adults dealing with alcohol addiction, executives and managers must grasp how prevalent this issue in the workplace.

HR can help leaders at your organization recognize the signs and symptoms of addiction so they’re prepared to help an employee who may need it. These signs can include:

Regular, unexplained absences or tardiness.
Sluggishness in the mornings.
Inconsistent job performance.
Appearing overly tired or sleep-deprived.

Leaders should know that addiction doesn’t discriminate. From lawyers to athletes to doctors and everyone in between, this disease affects every socioeconomic status. Never assume that people in your office couldn’t possibly be impacted.

Lastly, make it a priority to offer your company leaders a new perspective on addiction and destroy the typical stigma that surrounds it. Addiction is a disease, not just a bad habit or poor choice. You wouldn’t discriminate against an employee who requires time and medical treatment to recover. Dealing with someone fighting addiction shouldn’t be any different.

Give Your Employees Options

With this knowledge in mind, your company may choose to rethink how it incorporates alcohol into work-related events. Avoid pairing happy hours with huge company announcements, for example. Give all employees an easy way to opt out of events where alcohol will be present.

And of course, not every company gathering has to center itself around drinking. Instead, try to plan an equal amount of social and team building activities in which alcohol plays absolutely no part. Plan a team-building activity (axe throwing, anyone?) or take a group coffee date in the middle of the day. HR has the opportunity to get creative.

Practice a True Open-Door Policy

The most important option HR leaders can provide for their teams is the option to ask for help. Find a way to let all your team members know that your company has an open-door policy for anyone who may be struggling and that the leadership is willing to work with them in a confidential and supportive manner.

Many employees assume that termination will be the first course of action if they open up about their issues with addiction. Make it clear that their health and well-being come first and guide them toward help. This may come in the form of an employee assistance program or perhaps by connecting them with a local support group.

I’m more than lucky that my second chance at my life and career led me to American Addiction Centers, where sensitivities around drinking are always respected and where someone in recovery can remain focused on growth and success. But this is not yet the case across the country.

It’s far past time to acknowledge that addiction is real, it’s common, and there’s a good chance it’s affecting someone on your team. Let’s start to do better at offering a workplace in which everyone can thrive.

June 28, 2019June 29, 2023

The Employer’s Voice in the Future of American Health Care

I went to the Society for Human Resource Management’s annual conference in Las Vegas this past week with one very specific goal: Get a feel for what HR professionals are excited and worried about in the benefits space, especially regarding health care and the 2020 election.

Tracy Watts, senior partner at Mercer, began here health care presentation with her “favorite quote from the president”: “Nobody knew health care could be so complicated.”

This obviously got a lot of laughs from the audience of HR professionals.

Watts’ main message to employers in the course of her session was that employers, who insure 54 percent of the American population, have a vital role in helping to shape the future of the country’s health care. She cited that employers collectively spend about $668 billion annually on health benefits to cover employees and their dependents. “[Employers] have a bigger stake in this than anybody,” she said.

She also listed the health-related issues that different governing bodies can address and the ones that they’ve already begun to address. For example, the Trump administration has the ability to address HSA guidance, mental health parity, drug prices, HRA guidance and ACA Section 1557 nondiscrimination, and it’s currently addressing the latter three. Meanwhile, Congress has the ability to address the Affordable Care Act employer mandate, HSA reforms, drug prices, the ACA Cadillac tax and out-of-network “surprise” medial bills, and it’s currently addressing the latter three.

My question for employers: What power do you have to impact the health care environment? How are you currently utilizing that power? Where is there still room for improvement?

This session also gave me the opportunity to overhear gossip from the audience about the latest developments in the benefits space. For example, a major piece of health care-related breaking news had just happened in the past 24 hours: President Donald Trump announced his “Executive Order on Improving Price and Quality Transparency in American Healthcare to Put Patients First.”.

Meanwhile, more major changes were happening on the state level. California had just voted to reintroduce the individual mandate for health insurance. Also, a few women around me were expressing frustration about how difficult it is to keep up with what’s happening on the state level in the paid sick leave and paid family leave areas. They expressed exhaustion at dealing with “the nuance of state laws.”

Overall, the 2019 conference meant many HR folk were feeling confused and overwhelmed by the massive regulatory changes happening (or likely to happen) in the benefits space.

Also watch: Tracy Watts on the Executive Order and its Implications for Employers:

More 2019 SHRM Conference Coverage:

Brené Brown at SHRM Conference: ‘Leaders Are Never Quiet About Hard Things’

Exclusive Video Interviews from the 2019 SHRM Conference

The State of #SHRM19 Speech: Wait Until Monday

Day 2 at #SHRM19: It’s All About the Underutilized Talent Pool

SHRM Releases Annual Benefits Survey

Gary Kusher on Workplace Health Care Issues and the 2020 Election

June 25, 2019June 27, 2019

SHRM Releases its Annual Benefits Survey

The Society for Human Resource Management released its annual benefits survey today at the organization’s annual conference in Las Vegas.

The survey confirmed some facts that HR has known for a while, like that employers find that retirement and health care benefits are most important to their workforce. It also highlighted some major trends that are impacting the benefits landscape including health insurance costs, competition for top talent and the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017.

Not surprisingly, employer-sponsored health care is a major concern for both employees and employers. The SHRM survey found that eighty-five percent of organizations prefer Preferred Provider Organization insurance plans. Meanwhile, though, interest in high deductible health plans linked with health saving accounts is rising. Fifty-nine percent of organizations offer an HDHP plan option that’s linked with a savings/spending account while 19 percent offer an HDHP option that’s not linked with an account.

Also read: The 4 Myths of Health Care Cost Reduction

Employers in general are aware that social determinants of health may impact an employee’s ability to afford to access coverage, but the survey data doesn’t show a response to that in the form of something like wage-based premiums or a reduction in cost-shifting, according to SHRM Chief Knowledge Officer Alex Alonso. That being said, he sees an increase in “cafeteria-style benefits” as a way for employees to access what benefits they need for their individual circumstances.

The survey also shared some details on how health care costs are being split between employers and employees. For full-time employees, it depends on company size. Twenty-eight percent or companies with 1-99 employees fully pay for health insurance premiums, compared to 9 percent of employers with over 500 employees.

Also notable is that offering health insurance to part-time employees is becoming more popular in order to attract and retain talent. Still, 19 percent of organizations require part-time employees to pay their premiums in full, while 36 percent of organizations share the cost.

According to Alonso, there has also been an increase in telemedicine. It can be a “convenient health care option” for employees, especially those in rural areas where there aren’t as many health care providers as more urban areas.

On the more surprising side, employers as a whole ranked wellness “near the bottom in importance to their workforce.” SHRM Director of Data Science Liz Supinski said one reason behind this is that insurers are increasingly offering services like chronic disease management programs that used to only be offered through wellness services.

Between and 2015 and 2019, a couple key areas of health care have seen a dramatic drop of prevalence, according the survey. Ninety-one percent of employers offered mental health coverage in 2015 compared to 83 percent in 2019, and 83 percent of employers offered contraceptive coverage in 2015 compared to 71 percent in 2019.

Supinski noted that this is not necessarily a negative sign or employees who need to access mental health or reproductive health services. Rather, before the Affordable Care Act, these areas were not automatically included in the core, basic health plan, and then the ACA mandated them as essential health benefits. The survey question refers to extra services that exist out of the health plan.

More 2019 SHRM Conference Coverage:

Exclusive Video Interviews from the 2019 SHRM Conference

The State of #SHRM19 Speech: Wait Until Monday

Day 2 at #SHRM19: It’s All About the Underutilized Talent Pool

Brené Brown at SHRM Conference: ‘Leaders Are Never Quiet About Hard Things’