Skip to content

Workforce

Category: Archive

Posted on January 5, 2005June 29, 2023

Swallowing the Cost of Obesity Treatment

Officials at Blue Cross and Blue Shield of North Carolina knew that 55 percent of the health plan’s 3 million members were overweight and getting heavier, pounds that weighed down the plan’s bottom line as much as the physicians’ scales. 

    Still, they hadn’t isolated the precise dollars involved until 2003, when they scrutinized medical costs and claims data for one-third of the members. What they discovered was a mindblower. Treating obese members cost at least 30 percent more than normal-weight members; the price difference for overweight members was 18 percent. For 2003 alone, those excess dollars reached $83 million.



    The bad news didn’t stop there. A member survey highlighted a yawning gap between perception and reality. Nearly one-third of overweight members described their weight as “just right.” So did 5 percent of obese enrollees. In short, what didn’t appear to be broken couldn’t be fixed.


    That’s when the Chapel Hill-based plan, the state’s largest insurer, decided to wade into the high-cost, high-stakes world of obesity treatment, rolling out a benefits package that observers describe as one of the most comprehensive available. Depending upon the size of their waistlines and commitment to overhauling their weighty habits, members can qualify for a spectrum of services from nutrition counseling to weight-loss drugs to bariatric surgery.


    “The goal is not to have vast numbers of our members lose 50 to 100 pounds,” says Betsy LaForge, who oversees the health plan’s prevention and health education programs. “It’s really to have members not gain any more or to lose 5 to 10 percent of their weight.”


    In the process, though, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of North Carolina is taking a sizable gamble. Health policy analysts and business groups, even those intrigued by the obesity initiative’s public health potential, describe research as mixed on the question of whether these sorts of disease management efforts save money over the long haul.


    In October, a Congressional Budget Office analysis looking at disease management’s potential in the Medicare program found that “evidence on cost savings is limited,’’ with few studies available.


    For employers and health plans alike, there’s also the reality of turnover. Your newly svelte enrollee may reap lower health bills five years from now–for your competitor, that is. Meanwhile, self-insured employers who buy into obesity packages such as Blue Cross and Blue Shield’s are literally footing the initial bill themselves and assuming the risk that the payoff will occur on their watch.



The North Carolina plan is unusually gutsy in its move to develop an obesity package and promote it so aggressively, says Helen Darling, president of the National Business Group on Health. “A lot of companies don’t advertise what they pay for because they don’t want a demand.”



    The North Carolina plan is unusually gutsy in its move to develop an obesity package and promote it so aggressively, says Helen Darling, president of the National Business Group on Health. “A lot of companies don’t advertise what they pay for because they don’t want a demand,” she says.


    But Darling cautions that plan officials must still make their business case to employers by developing a scientifically rigorous study to track results. Given rising health care costs, “no employer is going to knowingly add to benefits unless they were confident that there was a trade-off in terms of lower claims costs later,” she says.


    Executives at the insurer, who say they are developing such a controlled study, won’t detail their return-on-investment projections for the 1.1 million members who are eligible for the obesity package–primarily individual members and commercial enrollees. They say one problem is that they simply don’t know how many people will sign up.


    They maintain, though, that long-term savings will far outweigh upfront costs. “We are going to see savings on the medical side, but it’s not going to be next month or next year necessarily,” says Dr. Robert Harris, senior vice president and chief medical officer of Blue Cross and Blue Shield of North Carolina. “But it will come to pass.”


Early intervention
The plan has garnered significant publicity for the Cadillac end of the obesity package. Weight-loss drugs, after all, can approach $100 a month, and bariatric surgery can easily cost $35,000 to $40,000.


    But executives at the insurer argue that it’s the plan’s basic framework, with its emphasis on prevention and early intervention, that drives their confident, albeit confidential, projections. To enroll in the program, members must not only provide details about their height and weight, but also answer questions designed to assess their willingness to revamp their lifestyle, says Dr. Don Bradley, the health plan’s senior medical director.


   “Some people aren’t ready to do that,” he says. “Then it’s really wasted time and money.”



There’s no clear-cut answer at this point in time on how to manage weight because everyone is different.
There are so many things that affect it (weight loss).



    During the pilot phase this past summer, 30,000 letters of invitation were mailed to members with diabetes and other high-risk conditions. By early November, 2,600 people had enrolled. Most are individually insured or employees in smaller businesses, as Blue Cross and Blue Shield had just started selling the plan to larger, self-insured employers.


    Once members demonstrate a commitment to weight loss, they will be mailed a package of health information, including a food diary and a personalized health assessment that will outline the potential risks associated with their body mass index and waist measurement, among other factors.


    In his first two months of participation, health plan member Robert Amato shed 31 pounds from his 378-pound frame. Using the food diary, he says, has helped keep him honest about what he’s putting into his body. The invitation “just came at the right time,” says Amato, who runs a small business. “I’m 64 years old. I’m overweight. I know from reading many things that I’m cutting years off my life.”


    By midyear, the program, Healthy Lifestyle Choices, will be made available to all 1.1 million eligible members. Additional medical benefits will kick in over the course of the year, with the exact dates depending upon the employee’s benefit cycle. In addition to the obesity surgery and weight-loss drugs, the plan will pay for four doctor visits annually to discuss obesity issues, along with dietitian counseling.


    Seven physician practices, with a total of 12 surgeons, have been designated as bariatric surgery centers of excellence in an effort to curtail rising complication rates.


The Obesity Train Wreck
    Employers and health plans aren’t just worried about today’s employees. The health profile of tomorrow’s workforce is even more dismal. More than 15 percent of adolescents are overweight, compared with 5 percent in the late 1970s.


    In 2000, overweight and obese Americans cost the U.S. economy an estimated $117 billion, according to a 2001 U.S. Surgeon General report. Of that total, $61 billion covered direct medical costs; the remainder accounted for indirect costs, such as lost work time, disability and lost income due to premature death.


    At this point, obesity intervention efforts have been more likely to fall under the umbrella of health improvement initiatives, such as fitness programs, says LuAnn Heinen, director of the Institute on the Costs and Health Effects of Obesity, part of the National Business Group on Health.


    Still, there has been a shift in the past year or so, with more progressive self-insured employers interested in covering weight-loss drugs and bariatric surgery, says Stephanie Pronk, a senior health care consultant at Watson Wyatt. One option for high-turnover industries, such as retail, is to design a benefit package that doesn’t pay for costly obesity interventions until the employee has worked beyond the typical turnover window.


    That way, Pronk says, “employers don’t feel like they are throwing money away and people are moving on.”


    Also, employers that have made more of an effort to tackle obesity–Heinen cites Union Pacific Railroad as one example–have high retention rates, with some companies hiring employees’ children and grandchildren, she says.


Weighing the Options
    Aetna, which is rolling out a pilot obesity program that includes its own workforce, already provides reduced-rate access to on-site fitness centers for its own employees. In 2003, those who made an effort to stay fit–using the centers at least twice a week–had pharmacy and medical costs that were $28 less per month than employees who didn’t use the centers but had a similar demographic background, says Jane Hopkins, Aetna’s director of benefits.



“If you’ve got an employee who is 10 pounds or 20 pounds or 30 pounds lighter three or four months down the road, that’s an immediate impact on morale and productivity.”



    A National Business Group on Health survey released last year found similar bottom-line fitness benefits. Twenty-seven percent of the 84 large companies reported that fitness initiatives helped reduce health care costs. The survey also revealed that jump-starting physical activity is far from easy. At two-thirds of the companies, less than one-fourth of employees participated.


    And footing the bill for drugs is no guarantee of substantial weight-loss success. A July 2004 report by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality found evidence of only modest success with orlistat (Xenical ) and sibutramine (Meridia), the two drugs covered by Blue Cross and Blue Shield of North Carolina. The weight loss attributable to the medications after 12 months was less than 13 pounds, a figure that nevertheless could be clinically significant, according to the report’s authors.


    Since the early 1990s, Union Pacific Railroad has offered a $2.5 million health promotion program to its 48,000 employees, along with their spouses. The program, which provides written information along with phone counseling, has reduced health claims related to lifestyle choices from 29 percent in 1990 to 18.8 percent in 2001, says Marcy Zauha, Union Pacific’s director of health and safety.


    But the company has only taken limited steps to cover weight-loss drugs and surgery. Self-insured plans for managers do cover surgery, but there’s no coverage for weight-loss drugs, and the HMO option doesn’t cover surgery either, according to a Union Pacific spokeswoman.


    More data is needed, Zauha says. The company participates in several weight-related studies, including one that’s following 225 employees who’ve been prescribed a weight-loss drug along with receiving behavioral modification. “There’s no clear-cut answer at this point in time on how to manage weight because everyone is different,” Zauha says. “There are so many things that affect it (weight loss).”


Surgical route
    Blue Cross and Blue Shield of North Carolina has covered bariatric surgery for at least 15 years, but the surgery’s popularity has surged only recently. In 2003, 495 surgeries were performed, compared with 75 just two years before, according to the plan’s claims data. During the first six months of 2004, 340 patients underwent the procedure. By the year’s end, nearly 700 patients were expected to have gotten the operation.


    When analyzing their own claims data, health plan officials also identified a significant correlation between a surgeon’s volume and results, says Bradley, the plan’s senior medical director.


    High-volume doctors, who averaged 35 surgeries in the previous year, had a 6.4 percent readmission rate within 60 days of a patient leaving the hospital, he says. Those with a limited track record, averaging just four surgeries, had an 11.7 percent complication rate. “This doesn’t mean these are bad surgeons,” Bradley says. “We view this as a learning curve.”


    The surgeons’ records were a significant part of the criteria used to develop the health plan’s list of centers of excellence. A physician advisory panel started with a list of 19 doctors who had performed 100 surgeries in the previous year for Blue Cross and Blue Shield patients, as well as members of other plans, according to spokeswoman Gayle Tuttle.


    The panel members also assessed the physicians’ ability to identify good surgical candidates. They visited their offices to gain insight into their sensitivity, Tuttle says: “Are the chairs big enough? Are the gowns big enough?”


    If the surgical results from the seven centers of excellence prove to be better, the plan then may provide financial incentives to steer patients to those practices, Bradley says. The hope is that other doctors performing bariatric surgery will improve their own results so they can be a designated center as well, he says.


    In making their case for the surgery’s health benefits, Blue Cross and Blue Shield officials cite a recent meta-analysis of 136 studies that was published in October in the Journal of the American Medical Association. The morbidly obese patients involved not only lost a lot of weight, often dropping more than 120 pounds, but also saw improvement in diabetes, blood pressure and sleep apnea. The diabetes benefits alone were particularly dramatic: Three-fourths experienced a complete reversal of the risky health condition.


    Employers are not necessarily convinced. In 2003, 52 percent of employers didn’t cover bariatric surgery at all, according to Mercer Human Resource Consulting’s annual survey of employer-sponsored plans. An additional 18 percent required criteria to be met.


    Some of the bariatric surgery debate boils down to a difference in perception, says Watson Wyatt’s Pronk. When obesity is not viewed as a disease, that influences employers’ thinking.


    “We cover coronary bypass surgery without blinking an eye,” she says. “That surgery costs roughly twice as much as bariatric surgery. If people don’t do the right thing (healthwise) after bypass surgery, in seven to 10 years they will be back in for another $40,000 to $50,000 procedure, and we never question that.”


Selling the Plan
    In November, Michael Roach and his team of 35 account managers started selling the new Healthy Lifestyle Choices program to the plan’s self-insured clients. In meetings with more than 200 businesses, including about 20 Fortune 500 companies, they will outline the obesity costs of doing business.


    For example, the health plan can compile a company’s diabetes-related claims and show how obesity drives up those costs, says Roach, vice president of national accounts. They also are discussing potential incentives for the program’s pioneers. One possibility would be to waive the administrative costs for the obesity benefits when a company signs on, Roach says.


    Frontier Spinning Mills, a North Carolina manufacturer with 950 employees covered by Blue Cross and Blue Shield, was among the first self-insured employers to express interest. Employers can’t ignore the escalating cost of chronic, obesity-related illness, says Jim Powers, Frontier’s human resources director.


    True, some employees will inevitably move on, he says. (Frontier’s 2003 turnover rate was 18.2 percent.) “But I think that (the turnover issue) is a narrow way to look at it,” Power says. “You’ve got 18 percent of people who may leave, but 82 percent are going to stay.”


    For companies a little too cynical, or cost-strapped, to buy the public health argument, Roach points to more immediately visible results. “If you’ve got an employee who is 10 pounds or 20 pounds or 30 pounds lighter three or four months down the road, that’s an immediate impact on morale and productivity.”


    With no sign of a slimmer American workforce in sight, academics and health purchasers already know the weighty cost of inaction. The only question is which initiatives and what companies will forge the way.


Workforce Management, January 2005, pp. 47-51 — Subscribe Now!

Posted on January 4, 2005July 10, 2018

Benefits Managers Turn Eye to Recruiting, Retention

The recruiting, retention and motivation of employees is the second-biggest priority of benefits specialists, according to a study by Deloitte and the International Society of Certified Employee Benefit Specialists.


This finding marks the first time in the survey’s 11-year history that such “talent management” issues have cracked the list of top five priorities for a majority of benefit managers. Fifty-six percent cited it this year. Controlling health care costs (cited by 90 percent of respondents) was the No. 1 issue.


Fifty-two percent cited addressing employee willingness to pay more for benefits as one of their top five priorities.


The results are a reminder of the “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” conundrum that faces many employers. Health care costs continue to rise, and many businesses are shifting costs to employees. At the same time, however, the job market is heating up, and employees will more often have the chance to compare benefits offerings among two or more companies.


A total of 350 benefits specialists in the United States were surveyed.

Posted on January 3, 2005July 10, 2018

Aetna’s Exercise in Obesity Treatment

In October, Aetna officials launched a pilot weight management program to determine if intensive education and support motivates hefty employees to shed pounds.



    The heaviest participants will be contacted at least 29 times a year, primarily by phone, with nutritionists, weight-loss counselors and nurses at the other end of the line, Aetna spokeswoman Susan Millerick says. Those who only need to lose a few pounds will hear from Aetna about half as often.


    Participants will also be provided pedometers and discounts to community weight-loss programs. The pilot initiative is being marketed to 35,000 employees working at Aetna and building materials manufacturer Owens Corning, Millerick says. In the first eight weeks, 400 people have expressed interest.


    “I look at obesity as causing so many other problems in our health care costs,” says Jane Hopkins, Aetna’s director of benefits. “If we can get people to manage that weight and be physically active, we are going to see decreases in medical costs.”


Uncovering other conditions
    Hopkins acknowledges that self-insured companies like Aetna face inherent risks when they aggressively treat obesity.


    A recent Congressional Budget Office report looking at the potential cost-effectiveness of disease management highlighted that dilemma. Most current studies don’t include the financial hit of unearthing other, heretofore unknown, medical conditions, the report’s authors wrote.


    Still, Hopkins would prefer identifying employees’ obesity-related health problems sooner rather than later. “If we happen to stumble across the fact that they have diabetes and hypertension, that’s a good thing. If we don’t find that, then they will have the stroke or heart attack and they will be more expensive down the line.”


Return on investment
    It’s too soon to speculate about the pilot program’s potential return on investment, Millerick says. Aetna officials plan to track both the program’s costs and clinical outcomes. But the real-life benefits of disease management are not necessarily limited to medical savings, she says.


    Aetna’s congestive heart failure program, for example, has a strong medical return on investment, with $3 in health costs saved for every $1 invested in the disease management program, Millerick says. On the other hand, the asthma program breaks even, with $1 saved in health costs for every $1 invested. But savvy employers understand the added value of boosted productivity, she says.


    “You have (asthmatic) children who are feeling better, so parents are at work,” Millerick says. “You have employees who are breathing better, who are at work. You will in fact have that employee in that chair that day.”

Posted on January 3, 2005July 10, 2018

IRS advice to large companies Hit the books

The old adage that the best defense is a good offense holds new meaning for companies facing the prospect of not one but two beefed-up Internal Revenue Service audits.



    In the past year, the IRS has instituted redesigned, tougher audits of employee pension plans and executive compensation programs at Fortune 1,000 and other large companies, part of a drive to crank up enforcement and crack down on scofflaws. Already, the agency has identified dozens of companies violating tax code provisions on everything from pension plan vesting to golden parachutes, according to consultants familiar with the new audits.


    In the area of pension plans alone, the IRS has assessed individual companies hundreds of millions of dollars in additional taxes after audits revealed miscalculations in pension benefits and related errors. The agency has also imposed tax penalties on underpayments at specific companies “in the six figures,” according to one IRS senior program manager. The agency doesn’t name audited companies.


    In light of the developments, advice from IRS agents and tax experts is straightforward: Don’t wait to get audited to act. Companies should scrutinize their pension and executive compensation plans and voluntarily make needed adjustments. In taking the offensive, they could save tremendous time and money by avoiding a much more intrusive government audit, industry experts say.


    “It’s critical that key players in the organization realize this is coming down the pike. Sooner or later they need to get a better handle on it,” says Monique Guesnon, a manager with PricewaterhouseCoopers’ human resources services in New York who’s helping at least five clients perform self-audits of executive pay programs in light of the stricter policies.


    The IRS is doing its share to alert companies to the changes, sending officials on hundreds of speaking engagements a year and maintaining extensive Web pages to explain how the audits work and what resources and remedies are available.


    “Pay attention to the operation of your plan,” says Mark O’Donnell, an IRS customer education and outreach director for the new pension plan audit program. “Defects often arise because of neglect or not having the information. We want to minimize that.”


Parsing pension plans
   
Of the revamped audits, the IRS’ pension plan exam, called the Employee Plans Team Audit Program, has the most far-reaching impact, and the biggest plans are the biggest targets, industry watchers say.


    According to IRS estimates, 690,000 U.S. companies or corporate subsidiaries offer defined-benefit or defined-contribution pension plans, but the top 1 percent accounts for 60 percent of plan participants and 70 percent of total pension assets.


    Historically, the IRS hadn’t targeted top pension providers for audits, and hadn’t kept up with cash balance and other recent changes in plan design. That changed in the late 1990s, when the agency restructured to become more efficient. As part of the revisions, the IRS revamped its pension audits, running a two-year pilot before integrating what was learned into the Employee Plan Team Audit Program exams, which began in late 2003. The focus of those audits: public and private companies running plans with more than 2,500 participants.


    EPTA exams, as they are called, are structured to analyze a sort of “10 Most Wanted” list of pension plan trouble spots. Auditors comb through a company’s Form 5500 pension plan tax filing, looking for dramatic drops in vesting or distribution in a given year, changes in benefits when one company acquires another, how deferrals are treated and whether plan documentation matches operation, among other things.


    The IRS posts its top 10 list on an EPTA Web site, so it’s a logical starting point for a company doing a self-audit, IRS officials and accounting consultants familiar with the audits say.


    Chris Lipski, a partner with Ernst & Young’s human capital practice in Cleveland, is shepherding several companies through IRS pension audits–“very large companies you’ve heard of,” he says, though he could not disclose names. Lipski suggests starting an internal review by forming an ad hoc committee headed by a human resources executive familiar with the company’s pension plan administration, working with finance and tax departments, the general counsel’s office, any contractor responsible for pension administration, plus outside attorneys and CPAs.


    Have everyone meet at least once to orchestrate the review and divide responsibilities, Lipski says. The internal audit itself should include: gathering and reviewing pension plan documents, performing a test or sample to pinpoint weak spots, completing a more comprehensive check in those areas, taking any necessary steps to correct mistakes and documenting every stage of the review.


    With Lipski’s clients, most mistakes have been inadvertent administrative errors, such as using the wrong definition of compensation to calculate pension amounts or mistakenly determining that someone isn’t vested so they don’t begin accruing benefits when they should.


    To further shield themselves from an audit, companies can enroll in the EPTA’s Voluntary Correction Program, where they can formally disclose any errors they may have uncovered and pay a fee based on the number of plan participants. The IRS has 150 days to approve the company’s self-audit, during which time the agency is restricted from starting its own examination. About 2,300 companies have already signed up for the program, according to O’Donnell, the EPTA customer education and outreach director.


    Lipski recommends that companies do a quick analysis, file a Voluntary Correction Program application, and then spend the time it takes the IRS to follow up with a more thorough review.


    If a self-audit sounds like a lot, it’s nothing compared to the real deal. An EPTA audit can involve up to five agents, take up to 200 or more staff days and involve 75 to 150 separate requests for documents, according to agency officials. When they’re on site, agents need desks, phone lines, computer hook­ups and a company liaison to answer questions. Start to finish, the process could take up to two years, says Peter Breslin, the IRS’ EPTA senior program manager. The IRS initially undertook 40 EPTA exams, but eventually (when enough agents are trained) it will have about 90 of the exams under way at any given time, says Mark Hoffman, EPTA national coordinator.


Minding executive pay
    The other revamped IRS audit targets salary and benefits paid to top officers at public and private companies with annual revenue of $10 million—fallout from scandals at companies such as Tyco International and WorldCom, where executives awarded themselves enormous pay packages.


    In a yearlong pilot project started in October 2003 and involving two dozen unnamed companies, the IRS’ large and medium-sized business division zeroed in on seven areas of concern: nonqualified deferred compensation plans, stock-based compensation, fringe benefits, the $1 million cap on deductible compensation, golden parachutes, split-dollar insurance and family limited partnerships.


    The agency investigated but dropped an eighth issue, employee leasing, as not being a significant problem among large and medium-sized businesses. The IRS is using results of the pilot program to craft guidelines that will be included in routine corporate tax audits, according to industry watchers.


    What the IRS found in its initial executive-pay audits ranged from the astounding to the mundane, says Andrew Liazos, a Boston-based attorney at McDermott Will & Emery who has attended agency briefings on the topic. In the pilot, the IRS matched corporate returns against returns for individuals and found that some executives didn’t file tax returns at all, says Liazos, head of his firm’s executive compensation practice.


    The IRS also uncovered instances where companies deducted deferred compensation from their balance sheets before it was paid, allowed executives to collect deferred compensation before agreed-upon dates without tax consequences, or changed targets for executives’ performance-based pay during a fiscal year without first receiving board or shareholder approval.


    The tougher audits also found “a laundry list” of violations of fringe benefit tax laws, such as companies allowing execs to take out loans and never repay them or use corporate jets without declaring such use as income, Liazos says.


    Many problems with executive compensation plans stem not from nefarious intentions but from poor oversight, Liazos says. “We worked with a company with a bonus plan that was supposed to be approved by shareholders every five years, but five years went by and nothing happened,” he says.


    As with pension plans, IRS officials and consultants recommend that companies do an internal review of their executive compensation program.


    Consultants recommend having outside legal counsel or a CPA firm direct an executive pay plan compliance audit because of the complexity of such reviews. If a law firm leads the audit, the information gleaned would be protected by attorney-client confidentiality in the event of an IRS audit. The best course might be to have outside legal counsel hire the CPA, so any communication about a compliance review between the CPA and the company or the CPA and legal counsel would also be shielded, consultants say.


    In all cases, it’s vital that key staff be aware of what’s happening, says PricewaterhouseCoopers’ Guesnon.


    A lot of larger companies have outsourced administration of benefits, including executive compensation plans.


    “But the executives have a fiduciary responsibility even if it is outsourced,” Guesnon says.


Workforce Management, January 2005, p. 60-61 — Subscribe Now!

Posted on January 2, 2005July 10, 2018

Washington, D.C., Dethroned as Job Leader

November marked the first month since December 2001 that Orange County, California, had a lower unemployment rate than Washington, D.C., among America’s metropolitan areas of 1 million or more people.


Orange County is alone at the top of the employment rankings, with a November rate of 2.9 percent. It was tied with Washington in October.


According to the Orange County Register, the county’s unemployment rate may be misleading. For one, many immigrants are not showing up in the data. Also, many people may have stopped looking for jobs in the county because they don’t feel that they can find a position that pays enough to cover housing costs. Lastly, the job-growth rate, sometimes considered more important than the jobless rate, is actually quite low in Orange County. Job growth is higher in Las Vegas.


Among large cities, unemployment rates are also low in Middlesex-Somerset-Hunterdon, New Jersey (3.3 percent); San Diego (3.4 percent); and Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, Florida (3.5 percent). The job market is weaker in Michigan and Ohio. Detroit and Cleveland are experiencing high unemployment, and unemployment is rising in Columbus, Ohio.

Posted on December 30, 2004July 10, 2018

Dear Workforce How Do You Give a Group a Raise–and Not Alienate Others

Dear Spinning:



Companies adjust salary ranges for jobs for several reasons. One, salaries may simply be going up in the market overall. In this case, salary ranges are increased for all grades and for all jobs at a certain time of the year.

Sometimes, a company will adjust ranges just for specific types of jobs, because talent is scarce and wages are rising quickly in those jobs. Lastly, companies sometimes set up a new salary range when the content of the job has changed.

Let’s focus on this last type of change, because that’s what you’re dealing with. Now, let’s assume you’ve done a job evaluation and determined that the job should be elevated to a higher salary range. You now have several choices:

  1. Adjust all salaries by the amount of increase in the range minimum, range midpoint or market rate (your current practice)
  2. Adjust the salaries of employees who are below a certain point in the new salary range (such as midpoint or market rate)
  3. Adjust the salaries of employees below the new range minimum to the new range minimum
  4. Do not adjust any salaries now, but adjust those employees below the new range minimum on the date of their next merit increase or wage adjustment.

Each of these alternatives has advantages and disadvantages. The most costly is the first option, since you’re raising the salaries of everyone in the job, regardless of pay level. This leads to job re-evaluations being viewed as an entitlement. Salaries are increasing regardless of the market rate, and the more increases you grant, the more managers will assume it’s an easy way to get “free” (off-budget) increases for staff. The least costly, and disruptive, are options three and four. Many firms choose option three because:

  • It provides increases for those who are below the salary range and whose salaries would typically need to be adjusted
  • It ensures that employees are paid within the salary range, but not excessively
  • It generally has only a minor cost impact, and directs dollars more effectively to below-market salaries.

I’d apply a performance caveat to whatever option you choose. Companies that assess performance regularly can avoid paying these adjustments to employees whose performance is below expectations.

SOURCE: Bob Fulton, Managing Director, The Pathfinder’s Group, Inc., Chicago, Illinois, Feb. 20, 2004.

LEARN MORE:How Can We Devise a Standardized Compensation Strategy?

The information contained in this article is intended to provide useful information on the topic covered, but should not be construed as legal advice or a legal opinion. Also remember that state laws may differ from the federal law.

Ask a Question
Dear Workforce Newsletter
Posted on December 30, 2004July 10, 2018

Health Care Is No. 1 Benefits Concern, Survey Finds

The percentage of employers ranking health care costs as the most important issue to senior management jumped from 54 percent in 2003 to 87 percent in 2004, according to a new MetLife study.


Other benefits issues of concern for senior management include retirement savings programs (44 percent), workers’ compensation (31 percent), retiree benefits (25 percent) and long-term care (18 percent).


Some of the survey’s other findings:


  • Among companies that do not currently offer online benefits enrollment, 36 percent of employers expect to add online enrollment during the next 18 months.
  • Employers’ most important benefits objective is controlling costs, with 55 percent citing that as the most important goal. The next most important objectives are improving retention (53 percent), boosting productivity (37 percent), increasing employee job satisfaction (36 percent), attracting employees (25 percent) and helping employees make better benefits decisions (15 percent).
  • Only 11 percent of employers (and 20 percent of those with 1,000 or more employees) offer a wellness program, such as efforts to help employees quit smoking. Most employers have no plans to introduce a wellness program during the next 18 months.

The MetLife study was conducted during the third quarter of 2004. A total of 1,528 human resources/benefits executives from companies with at least two employees participated in the employer survey, which was fielded in September by TNS NFO.

Posted on December 30, 2004July 10, 2018

But It Was Just an Interview!

Trade secret litigation is the hottest thing going in employment law today. In the corporate world, everybody who’s anybody has trade secrets to protect, and companies are increasingly vigilant about protecting their confidential information. Employees are routinely asked to sign confidentiality and nondisclosure agreements, and these agreements are often Exhibit A in lawsuits filed against departing individuals and their new employers.



    These cases usually arise after a new employee is hired away, but as companies grow increasingly aggressive, the timeframe can be moved back. A controversy arose in 2000 when Intel accused Broadcom of conducting job interviews of Intel employees to get confidential information, changing the trade secret litigation landscape.


    Trade secret cases usually start with an immediate battle for the upper hand: One or both parties requests injunctive relief from the court on the grounds that confidential information is in imminent danger and that the company needs protection while the case is pending. The prevailing party (if there is one) gains control of the litigation and is able to negotiate a settlement from a position of strength. Very few trade secret cases ever get to trial.


    In the Intel case, a judge determined that Broadcom had attempted to extract trade secrets during job interviews with Intel employees, and granted a preliminary injunction against Broadcom. The case, filed in Superior Court in Santa Clara, California, touched a nerve in the Silicon Valley, where executives often probe job candidates about their current and future projects at competing firms.


    The court determined that Broadcom’s endeavors “were clearly not employment interviews,” and ordered Broadcom to undertake measures to prevent the future disclosure of the private information of competitors.


    The case was ultimately settled. But the allegations highlight another facet of the new economic espionage: Without using restrictive covenants (which are unenforceable in some jurisdictions), you can’t stop your employees from going to your competitors. And as this example illustrates, the process of downloading information sometimes doesn’t wait until the employee is hired.


    An unfortunate reality of our legal system is that anyone can file a baseless lawsuit. Disproving false allegations and prevailing in litigation is costly and burdensome. And so a natural question arises: How can a prospective employer avoid a trade secret violation during a job interview? And more importantly, how can a company protect itself from baseless allegations? The answer lies in carefully educating interviewers about confidentiality and trade secrets, and in expressly disavowing to the job candidate any interest in protected information.


    Interviewers should be made aware of the type of information that can be protected. Under the Uniform Trade Secrets Act, which has been adopted by most state legislatures, trade secrets can be any type of information, process, idea or “know how” that is not generally known and gives the possessor an advantage in the marketplace.


    By that definition, trade secrets include a wide range of confidential business or proprietary information, such as chemical formulas, industrial processes, business plans and, under certain circumstances, customer lists. In order to maintain business information as a trade secret, one must take reasonable precautions to prevent the information from becoming generally known to his or her competitors. “Reasonable precautions” usually include requiring employees to execute confidentiality and nondisclosure agreements in favor of the employer.


    At the outset of the interview, the candidate should be warned not to share proprietary information gained from previous employment. The interviewer must be circumspect in his or her questioning. Common sense is an appropriate guide.


    A general description of the interviewee’s job responsibilities and capabilities is fair game, but specifics of his or her accomplishments might include dangerous details. Interviews of salespeople can be especially perilous because even the identity of existing or prospective customers could be protected. Asking a candidate to list the customers with whom he or she regularly does business, or who could be brought over as new customers by the candidate, could lead to an accusation of wrongful conduct. Engineers may have worked on secret formulas, and executives may have participated in the preparation of business plans. In this era, virtually any employee may be in possession of confidential information.


    During witness depositions, attorneys often avoid information protected by the attorney-client privilege by asking, “Did you discuss this document with anyone other than your lawyer?” A similar framework can be used in interview questions. “Without telling me anything about the actual formula for Pepsi, what is your role in developing new products for the company?” Cautious questioning can prevent inadvertent disclosure of confidential information.


    In especially sensitive situations, it may be appropriate to ask the candidate–before the interview–to acknowledge in writing that he or she has been admonished to avoid discussing confidential or trade secret information. Should a claim arise, and the allegedly aggrieved party requests injunctive relief, a signed acknowledgment would make it very difficult for the plaintiff to obtain relief. This area, like many areas of employment law, is one where an ounce of prevention is very much worth a pound of cure.


Workforce Management, January 2005, pp. 12-13 — Subscribe Now!

Posted on December 30, 2004June 29, 2023

Buckle Up For Bush 2.0

President Bush’s inauguration at the U.S. Capitol on January 20 should come with this warning for anyone involved in workforce issues: Buckle up, because his second term could be quite a ride. If the president gets what he wants, companies will find themselves scrambling to keep up with an array of administration initiatives, including the partial privatization of Social Security and the expansion of consumer-driven health care plans. Executives should also expect political solutions for imperiled private pension guarantees, as well as medical malpractice insurance reform and stepped-up enforcement efforts by the Labor Department’s wage-discrimination cops.



    Fresh off his hard-fought victory over John Kerry and reinforced by stronger Republican majorities in the House and Senate, Bush is expected to move swiftly to push forward his “ownership society” legislative agenda.


    At a time when companies are struggling to find answers to rising health care costs, troublesome pension regulations and sometimes cynical younger workers who wonder if the Social Security system will be drained dry by the time they retire, Bush’s legislative agenda offers potential solutions.


    Issues that employers found problematic with Kerry, such as the Massachusetts senator’s support for tax increases, a promised rollback of Medicare prescription drug benefits and a cool posture toward malpractice limits, are no longer on the table.


    Bush’s central theme of an ownership society would establish a new set of core relationships among the government, employers and workers. That could be good news for employers if, as promised, it brings health care costs under control and eases the stress on the Social Security system.


    But big problems remain. With federal budget deficits already weighing down the government, Bush still must find ways to pay for his programs. Last month, during a White House meeting with Social Security trustees, Bush reiterated that he would not raise payroll taxes to finance his Social Security proposals. Both Social Security and Medicare face huge increases in costs as baby boomers get closer to retirement.



“There is going to be a need for Bush to use these Republican majorities, but it has to be done on a bipartisan basis. You can’t browbeat the minority.”



    PricewaterhouseCoopers Health Research Institute says that retiring baby boomers, increases in national health expenditures and sizable federal budget deficits “will challenge the stability of the Medicare program and could prevent enhancements to other programs unless Congress curbs spending, raises taxes, or both.”


    Jim O’Connell, vice president of government relations and human resources policy at Ceridian, says Bush is clearly in a position of strength and that should help in passing issues defeated in the past by slim margins.


    “During the last four years, the margins on a lot of the issues were very close, often decided by a few votes,” he says. “There are a lot of issues that need to be addressed but were bottled up for one reason or the other.”


    Bush should reach out to Democrats to pass big-ticket items, says James Klein, president of the American Benefits Council. “There is going to be a need for Bush to use these Republican majorities, but it has to be done on a bipartisan basis,” he says. “You can’t browbeat the minority.”


    Working in the president’s favor is a widely shared view that health care and retirement issues related to the aging population will only get worse if there is a political standoff and nothing gets done. Social Security is approaching the day when contributions won’t be enough to cover benefits.


    Health care is increasingly unaffordable for both employers and individuals, as evidenced by the 45 million Americans without insurance. Government-backed private pension guarantees are shaky, with the agency responsible for them running out of money.


    “We expect 2005 to be a very active year,” says Frank McArdle, manager of the Washington, D.C., office of Hewitt Associates.


    Here are the domestic issues that are at the top of the president’s agenda and what to expect as they wend their way through Congress:


Social Security
    This is a cornerstone issue for Bush’s ownership society. The president has not presented a specific plan, but what he and others have been discussing is allowing 2 percent to 4 percent of workers’ contributions to be deposited into private savings accounts. Individuals would control the investments.


    Supporters of the partial privatization plan say that individuals are better able to invest and grow their retirement dollars than the government. Opponents say that the inherent risks of the stock market and other investments mean that some workers could ultimately end up losing money.


    Those issues aside, estimates are that it will take $1 trillion to $2 trillion over 10 years to keep the system afloat during the transition. “It’s not at all clear how the problem of paying transitional costs will be solved,” says Stan Panis, a consultant with Deloitte & Touche. “It does nothing to fix the overall solvency of the system.”


    As it stands, Social Security estimates that tax revenues will fall below payouts by 2018 and that trust funds will be exhausted by 2047, requiring a reduction in benefits.


    The privatization plan does not address the longer-term funding problems of the system.



“Consumers’ unwillingness to hold themselves accountable for health care costs is a stumbling block for proponents of health care savings accounts and the new breed of high-deductible consumer-directed health plans,” says Brad Holmes, a vice president and research director for Forrester. “Until consumers accept their share of responsibility, even the financial incentives inherent in HSAs and CDHPs will be a tough sell.”



    One straightforward fix would be to raise payroll taxes on workers and employers. Bush has vetoed that, and Ceridian’s O’Connell doesn’t see that changing. “There is no sentiment for higher taxes,” he says.


    Given the problems, not everyone expects Bush to be successful. “It surprised me that he made Social Security a signature issue,” says Gretchen Young, vice president of government affairs for Aon Corp. Given the estimated transition costs, Young adds, “I don’t understand how he can get that through.”


    Among the early opponents is the AARP, the lobbying group for older Americans.


Health care
    Health insurance is getting prohibitively expensive for individuals and represents a growing, unwelcome cost for employers. It is often cited as one of the leading contributors to the increasing number of Americans without insurance–45 million at last count.


    “Affordability is probably the No. 1 health policy issue for 2005,” O’Connell says.


    Without action, the problem of Americans being priced out of the health insurance market will only get worse, according to the Lewin Group, a nonpartisan health care and human services research and consulting firm. The Lewin Group estimates that 49.5 million Americans will be without health insurance by 2006 unless there is some kind of intervention.


    Based on the proposals Bush presented during the campaign, his plan would cover 8.2 million new people by 2006, dropping the number of uninsured down to 41.3 million, the Lewin Group’s research indicates.


    Bush attacks the problem from a variety of directions. He is proposing to bring large numbers of low-income children into the Medicaid system. He believes high-deductible, low-premium insurance designed to cover major medical expenses would help provide an alternative for individuals priced out of the current market.


    He supports legislation to create association health plans that would allow employers to join insurance pools in order to negotiate less expensive insurance plans. The president also believes that limits on malpractice awards will help bring down costs. One issue that Bush so far has not embraced–opening the door to the reimportation of lower-cost medicines from Canada–may also be part of the mix.


    Bush believes that granting tax credits and other tax benefits will encourage the use of enhancements such as health savings accounts and high-deductible plans. He would give low-income families a $1,000 direct contribution to help them purchase HSAs. He also proposes allowing income tax deductions to defray the cost of premiums paid for major medical policies and has talked about giving a refundable $3,000 tax credit to individuals to buy standard medical coverage instead.



“The president’s victory and the larger Republican majority in the Senate and House means that the overtime rules are here to stay. In general, the new Congress will be even less sympathetic to mandates on employers than the previous one.”



    Consumer-driven health care, so much a part of the Bush plan, is still struggling to find acceptance. Changing the health care spending habits of Americans is a must.


    “Consumers’ unwillingness to hold themselves accountable for health care costs is a stumbling block for proponents of health care savings accounts and the new breed of high-deductible consumer-directed health plans,” says Brad Holmes, a vice president and research director for Forrester. “Until consumers accept their share of responsibility, even the financial incentives inherent in HSAs and CDHPs will be a tough sell.”


    Bush is expected to once again put his muscle behind medical malpractice insurance legislation that would cap pain-and-suffering damages at $250,000. He contends this would reduce the number of frivolous lawsuits that he says are driving up the costs of health care.


    “The most likely thing to pass is tort reform–putting limits on damages because of medical malpractice,” Aon’s Young says.


    The malpractice proposal was passed by the House last year, only to be blocked in the Senate by Democrats. A pre-election survey of workforce managers shows that they believe Bush was the candidate best able to control health care costs. In the survey of U.S.-based human resource and benefit managers, Aon found that 48 percent of the respondents felt that Bush would be more effective than Kerry in controlling company health plan costs.


Private pensions
    Private pension funding shortfalls are another problem that will land on Bush’s desk during his second term. The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp., the federal agency that insures pension plans for 35 million Americans, announced in November that it lost $12.1 billion during the 2004 budget year, doubling its deficit to $23.3 billion in just 12 months. The announcement came with a warning from Bradley Belt, the agency’s executive director, that Congress must “act expeditiously so that the problem doesn’t spiral out of control.”


    Contributing to the problem is the fact that Americans are living longer. But terminations of pension plans by troubled companies that are sinking into bankruptcy and defaulting on their pension obligations present a much bigger problem.


    Since September, the agency has assumed pension obligations for more than 12,000 employees of Lumbermans Mutual Casualty Co., a property-casualty insurer and parent of Kemper Insurance Corp.; 3,700 former employees of Fruehauf Trailer Corp.; and 9,600 hourly employees covered by the Kaiser Aluminum Pension Plan.


    Potential pension plan terminations by United Airlines and US Airways loom on the horizon. The PBGC has promised to guarantee the basic pension benefits of the airline workers. Should United terminate its pension plan, it would add an estimated $6.4 billion to the agency’s deficit.


    Such things as premium increases paid by employers or changes in interest rate assumptions could make it more costly and cumbersome for companies–even those with well-funded plans–to continue to sponsor fixed-benefit pensions. If that happens, then the American Benefits Council’s Klein fears that the dramatic termination of fixed-benefit pension plans will intensify. From 1999 to 2003, 25 percent of the nation’s pension plans were terminated.


    Klein says Congress must adopt new rules clarifying and updating accounting standards and liability measurements that employers can live with well into the future.


Labor department
    Just weeks after the election, the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs unveiled new guidelines that put employers on notice that they could face more aggressive enforcement of anti-discrimination laws.


    The new guidelines come on the heels of a mid-November announcement by the OFCCP that there was a 31 percent increase in financial recoveries for workers victimized by unlawful workplace discrimination during the 2004 budget year. Nearly 11,000 workers split $34.5 million in back-pay settlements.


    “The administration has been very forceful in going after workplace discrimination,” says attorney Matthew Halpern of the Jackson Lewis law firm. “This is a decidedly business-friendly administration, but it is also a very tough law-and-order administration. Even though you think they will cut business a break, that is not the case when it comes to civil rights enforcement agencies.”


    A hot issue during the campaign was enforcement of the Fair Labor Standards Act and overtime rules interpretations by the Bush Administration, which have been criticized for reducing the number of workers eligible for overtime pay. Kerry vowed to overturn the rules.


    “The president’s victory and the larger Republican majority in the Senate and House means that the overtime rules are here to stay,” McArdle says. “In general, the new Congress will be even less sympathetic to mandates on employers than the previous one.” But he says Bush can be counted on to put teeth into such regulations as anti-discrimination statutes.


    In the end, the success of Bush’s second-term workforce management initiatives could hinge not on how well he pushes his proposals through Congress, but how well he sells his ideas to Democrats.


    “People are hoping that a new spirit of cooperation takes hold,” Aon’s Young says. “If not, it could get real ugly in Congress.”


Workforce Management, January 2005, pp. 35-39 — Subscribe Now!

Posted on December 30, 2004June 29, 2023

Workforce Management January 2005

Reporting to the Depot
By Martin Booe
Home Depot prizes the skills and leadership abilities that former military personnel bring to the company, and that’s why it hired 13,000 of them in 2004.
Now it has launched Operation Career Front, an even more extensive campaign to recruit veterans into its ranks.

Buckle up for Bush 2.0
By Douglas P. Shuit
If President Bush gets what he wants, companies will find themselves scrambling to keep up with an array of administration initiatives, including the partial privatization of Social Security and the expansion of consumer-driven health care plans. Executives should also expect political solutions for imperiled private pension guarantees, as well as medical malpractice insurance reform and stepped-up enforcement efforts by the Labor Department’s wage-discrimination cops.

Eliyon steps up the search
By Patrick J. Kiger
One observer thinks Eliyon Technologies is “the wave of the future” for passive recruitment. Another calls what it does invasion of privacy on a grand scale. Eliyon’s sophisticated software combs the Web for information on companies and their personnel, analyzes it for relevance and compiles it into a searchable database of corporate executives and upper-level managers that has grown to 23 million dossiers. But recruitment, Eliyon leaders say, is just the beginning.

Middle management
Charlotte Huff
  When Blue Cross and Blue Shield of North Carolina scrutinized medical costs and claims data for its obese members, it discovered that their care cost at least 30 percent more than normal-weight members. That’s when the Chapel Hill-based plan decided to wade into the high-cost, high-stakes world of obesity treatment, rolling out a benefits package that observers describe as one of the most comprehensive available. Now comes the tricky part: getting employers to foot the bill.

Between the Lines
Lessons from the Donald
You can learn a lot by watching Trump’s weekly fire-a-thon. But what you won’t see is how to lead, support or motivate people.
  Reactions From Readers
Letters on drinking at work and FedEx Ground’s use of contract workers.

In This Corner
But it was just an interview!
Treading on trade secrets with job candidates–even inadvertently–can land employers in legal hot water. In one case, Intel accused Broadcom of conducting job interviews of Intel employees to get confidential information. That allegation changed the trade secret litigation landscape.

Legal Briefings
No overtime exemption for computer-support workers. Sanctions for
e-mail destruction.


PC compatibility: IBM and Lenovo mesh their staffs
The devil is often in the details, but it seems the IBM-Lenovo deal will result in few major changes for employees. Also: Healthy bargains in Wyoming and Minnesota. UnumProvident settles claims dispute. Firings and union stirrings at Wal-Mart.
 
 

Global Management
Cirque du Soleil’s balancing act
The Montreal-based troupe’s rapid growth, far-flung presence and crush of aspiring performers raise unique challenges. Cirque also struggles with perplexing U.S. labor laws, and the business of dealing with high-wire artists and contortionists who refuse to accept that one day they’ll have to bow out of the spotlight.
 

Retirement Benefits
Addressing women’s retirement needs
Financial education programs speak to special challenges raised by cultural factors and longer life expectancy. Weyerhaeuser’s approach is a model.
 

Health Care Benefits
Merger may bolster consumer-driven plans
UnitedHealth’s acquisition of Definity could put pressure on competitors to add such offerings to their product lines.
 

HRMS
Niche players swoop in as Oracle tends to PeopleSoft
As the two software giants slugged it out, smaller businesses jumped at the chance to get their foot in the door with customers. They even succeeded in winning business away.
 

Legal
IRS advice to large companies: Hit the books
Internal reviews of pension plans and executive compensation may help companies avoid penalties and disruptive probes. 
 

 
December  2004

November  2004

October 2004
If you’re not currently receiving Workforce Management magazine, click here to request a FREE trial issue today!

 

Posts navigation

Previous page Page 1 … Page 281 Page 282 Page 283 … Page 591 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