Category: Archive

Posted on

Consumers’ Views of Health Care Held Steady in 2009

Consumer confidence in health care remained consistent this year despite the tumultuous debate taking place over health care reform on Capitol Hill, according to a Robert Wood Johnson Foundation survey.


An overwhelming majority of respondents, however (nearly 82 percent), believe health reform is crucial to reviving the economy.
After a sharp rise in confidence in October, the foundation’s monthly Health Care Consumer Confidence Index fell in November from 104.4 points to 96.9 points, “returning to a confidence level closer to those seen throughout most of 2009.” Since the index began in April 2009, confidence has averaged 99.2 points, the foundation reported.


Despite monthly fluctuation, “over time people’s concern regarding their ability to access and pay for care has remained consistent. That suggests that Americans’ confidence in the future of their care is more affected by personal concerns than political rhetoric,” said Risa Lavizzo-Mourey, president and CEO of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.


In recapping 2009 results, the index revealed that 26.5 percent of Americans each month worried that they would lose health care coverage and nearly half were concerned that they would not be able to afford future health care needs if they or a family member became seriously ill.


The poll’s results reflected telephone interviews with 508 randomly chosen people and was conducted October 29 to November 23.


Filed by Jennifer Lubell of Modern Healthcare, a sister publication of Workforce Management. To comment, e-mail editors@workforce.com.


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

Posted on

Disaster-Proofing the DC Plan

Early in 2009, a plan sponsor blurted out during an investment committee meeting, “I just need to make sure there are no ticking time bombs in my 401(k) plan!”


The plan sponsor was reacting at the time to the onslaught of unexpected 401(k) investment bombshells associated with the 2008-2009 market collapse. These included cratering market-to-book value ratios in stable-value funds, money market funds that were “breaking the buck,” and material cash collateral reinvestment losses in securities lending funds. In essence, plan sponsors were finding that even their most staid investment funds were imploding, and that seemingly benign aspects of their plan were in crisis.


With many of the fires of 2008-2009 extinguished or at least under control, plan sponsors are now asking: What are the next ticking time bombs to avoid? Or to put it another way: How can we disaster-proof our plans against the next financial upheaval—whatever that may be? Here are some approaches under consideration:


Breaking out the inflation hedges: According to a recent Callan survey, Real Return/Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities (TIPS) funds are the most likely fund to be added to 401(k) plans’ investment fund lineup in 2010. Moreover, the role of inflation-protection vehicles such as TIPS, real estate and commodities is increasing in many target-date funds as well. The reason is simple: Many plan sponsors fear the potential for severe inflation in the longer term, due to the twin Federal Reserve policies of low interest rates and a flood of liquidity, as well as massive federal spending to stimulate the economy. TIPS are particularly attractive to plan sponsors because they also offer additional fixed-income diversification opportunities. The majority of plans have only two fixed-ncome funds: a stable-value and a core bond fund. Some plan sponsors now believe it could be attractive to broaden the array of fixed-income offerings for risk-averse 401(k) investors.


Exploring a better target-date fund solution: Prior to the market crisis, target-date funds were viewed as the ultimate set-it-and-forget-it 401(k) investment vehicles. That perception has changed because of the wide variance in target-date fund performance during the market collapse—especially among funds geared to investors close to retirement—along with recent legislative and regulatory scrutiny. Plan sponsors are now debating whether their target-date funds should be managed with significant equity allocations through retirement to guard against longevity risk, or managed with a goal of being free of equity risk at retirement (assuming that plan participants will annuitize when they reach age 65). Plan sponsors are wondering if their target-date fund series should offer multiple risk levels (e.g., conservative, moderate, aggressive) in order to meet the varying needs of participants. They are even rethinking naming conventions, in some cases shifting to “birth-date funds” or “lifetime funds” and away from the concept of a target retirement date in the fund name.


Downside risk protection and guarantees: Just a couple of years ago, paying for downside protection—whether options strategies or annuities—was viewed as a waste of money. Now, plan sponsors are taking another look at downside-protection vehicles. These run the gamut from products that use options strategies in order to limit downside to products guaranteeing participants a certain stream of income during retirement. The buzz is particularly loud when it comes to in-plan annuities, such as deferred fixed annuities and guaranteed minimum withdrawal benefit products. Indeed, in Callan’s survey, while only 7 percent of plan sponsors said they are very likely to add a guaranteed-income-for-life solution to their DC plans in 2010, 15 percent said they were “somewhat likely.” The idea of attaching a guarantee to the near- or in-retirement portion of the target-date glide path has particularly caught the interest of some plan sponsors.


Rethinking capital preservation vehicles: In 2008-2009, plan sponsors felt particularly vulnerable when it came to their capital-preservation vehicles. Stable-value funds and money market funds were touted as a “safe haven.” Yet many of these funds were not immune to the recent credit crisis. Now plan sponsors wonder if it is more prudent to strip away the appearance of stability when it comes to stable-value funds and simply provide a high-quality short-duration bond fund instead. Others are contemplating introducing a government money market fund as their capital preservation bedrock, despite the very low yields such funds offer. At a minimum, there is more care shown today than ever before about the way such funds are communicated to plan participants. For example, there may be more emphasis on stable-value funds’ inner workings and less emphasis on their guarantees.


Are such initiatives by plan sponsors reactionary or prudent? Probably a little of both. The reality is that stable-value funds generally made good on their promises, and there certainly was little evidence of participant concern regarding these vehicles. According to the Callan DC Index, 65 percent of all money flowing into the funds of DC plans during the fourth quarter of 2008 was directed to stable-value funds. On the other hand, market-to-book value ratios on many stable-value funds dipped precariously low in late 2008 and early 2009. (The ratio represents the value of the underlying fixed-income portfolio relative to the guaranteed redemption value to participants.) Currently, and probably for some time to come, stable-value yields are coming under increasing pressure due to more stringent credit-quality requirements within the portfolios and higher costs for insurance wrappers. For this reason, it does make sense for plan sponsors to at least examine the efficacy of their capital-preservation and fixed-income alternatives.


Similarly, target-date funds have historically been viewed as somewhat generic investments, when in fact they are highly complex. It is wise for plan sponsors to step back and re-evaluate their goals in offering target-date funds, re-examine whether their current funds fit the demographics of the plan, ask whether their performance has met expectations and determine whether they have been communicated properly.


As for inflation-protection funds and downside-protection or guaranteed funds, plans sponsors should ask themselves whether these are truly a fit for the plan, or merely a case of good marketing by investment providers. TIPS could offer good diversification potential, but the market is relatively thin, and there’s little U.S. experience with these funds during times other than those of low inflation. Guaranteed income-for-life funds hold considerable promise conceptually, but are marred by significant issues of counterparty risk, portability and cost.


There is one exciting finding brought to light by the recent Callan survey. Unlike last year, DC plan sponsors are prioritizing strategic initiatives, such as re-evaluating their fund lineup, ahead of tactical initiatives, such as monitoring manager performance. This means that sponsors believe their DC plans are on steady enough ground that they can begin to position them for the future. The concern, however, is that any initiative might be disproportionately affected by recent market events and concerns. Plan sponsors, consultants and other providers to the 401(k) market will all have to be on guard against reacting to events in the past, and instead implement approaches that look to the future.

Posted on

How the Health Care Reform Measures Compare

Having passed separate reform legislation at the end of 2009, the House and the Senate must now reconcile their differences and craft a final bill on which the two chambers will vote. Democrats hope to pass a bill and have it ready to be signed into law by President Barack Obama by the end of the first quarter.


The coming weeks are likely to feature heated arguments over which of the elements in each bill should be included in a final version. Expect to hear a lot of talk about whether to include the House’s public plan option or whether to expand Medicaid eligibility.


Parsing the nuances between the bills can be a full-time job. To help employers understand what is at stake for them in each bill, Workforce Management (with help from the Kaiser Family Foundation) has compiled a side-by-side comparison of the provisions in each bill that are likely to affect employers. A complete version of the differences between the two bills is available through the Kaiser Family Foundation here.


Both the House and Senate bills expand coverage by requiring most U.S. citizens and legal residents to have health insurance or pay a penalty. Individuals and families that make less than 400 percent of the poverty level will have access to tax credits to defray the cost of premiums and cost-sharing. (In 2009, the federal poverty level was $18,310 for a family of three.)


Individuals and small businesses—and large businesses in 2017—will be allowed to purchase insurance on newly created health insurance exchanges.


Here is how each bill will affect employers in these areas:


• Employer requirements


• Subsidies for employers


• New taxes on employers


• Other exemptions and subsidies



Employer requirements


 Senate Bill: Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (H.R. 3590, passed December 24, 2009)House Bill: Affordable Health Care for America Act
(H.R. 3962, passed November 7, 2009)
Employers face
penalties if:		At least one employee uses government tax credits to purchase health insurance. An employer offers health benefits that do not meet minimum requirements.
Employer minimum benefit requirements:Employer health plan must pay at least 60 percent of total actuarial value. The bill limits annual cost sharing to the 2010 health savings account out-of-pocket maximums of $5,950 per individual and $11,900 per family.

Premiums cannot exceed 9.8 percent of income.

If these minimums are not met, employees who make less than 400 percent of the federal poverty level are eligible for tax credits to purchase health insurance through an insurance exchange, resulting in fines against employer.

Employers must provide vouchers to employees who make less than 400 percent of the federal poverty level and whose premium exceeds 8 percent of income but is less than 9.8 percent. Vouchers are equal to what the employer would have paid to provide coverage to the employee under the employer’s plan. Vouchers are to be used to purchase insurance on the exchange. Employers are not penalized, though, if employees who receive vouchers also receive tax credits to purchase insurance.		Health plans offered to full-time employees must pay at least 70 percent of total actuarial value. The bill limits cost sharing to $5,000 for individuals and $10,000 for families.

Employers must contribute at least 72.5 percent of the premium cost for individual coverage and 65 percent of the premium cost for family plans.
The penalties: $750 for every full-time employee, or $3,000 for every full-time employee who receives a tax credit to purchase insurance, whichever is less.

Employers that impose waiting periods before an employee can enroll in health coverage will pay $400 for every full-time employee in a 30- to 60-day waiting period; $600 for any employee in a 60- to 90-day waiting period.		Employers whose benefits do not meet the minimum standards face fines of up to 8 percent of payroll, with the following exceptions:

• Annual payroll less than $500,000: exempt
• Annual payroll between $500,000 and $585,000: 2 percent of payroll
• Annual payroll between $585,000 and $670,000: 4 percent of payroll
• Annual payroll between $670,000 and $750,000: 6 percent of payroll
Automatic enrollment:Employers with 200 or more workers must automatically enroll eligible employees into health plan. Employees may opt out. Employers that offer coverage must automatically enroll employees into health plan. Employees may opt out.


Back to list


Subsidies for employers


 Senate Bill: Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (H.R. 3590, passed December 24, 2009)House Bill: Affordable Health Care for America Act
(H.R. 3962, passed November 7, 2009)
Premium subsidies for small employers:Small employers with no more than 25 full-time employees or average annual wages of $50,000 or less:

• for 2010 to 2013: provide a tax credit up to 35 percent of employer’s contribution to employee’s premium if employer covers half of the total premium cost.
• after 2014: small businesses that purchase coverage through an exchange can receive a tax credit up to 50 percent (35 percent for small, tax-exempt organizations) of the employer’s contribution to an employee’s premium if employer pays at least half the total premium cost. Credit is available for two years.


Small employers with 10 or fewer full-time employees and average wages of $20,000 or less can receive a tax credit equal to 50 percent of employee premium costs paid by employers. Credit is phased out as average wages reach $40,000 and firm size increases to 25 full-time employees. Credit is not available to employees earning more than $80,000 a year. Tax credit is available for up to two years and is effective January 1, 2013.
Retiree health care:Creates a $5 billion reinsurance pool to help cover health care costs of retirees older than 55. Pool would reimburse employers or insurers for 80 percent of claims between $15,000 and $90,000. Pool will be used to lower health care premiums for retirees in employer plan.Effective 90 days after enactment until January 1, 2014.Provides $10 billion over 10 years for reinsurance pool to cover health care costs of retirees older than 55. Pool would reimburse employers or insurers for 80 percent of claims between $15,000 and $90,000. Pool will be used to lower health care premiums for retirees in employer plan. Effective 90 days after enactment.


Back to list


New taxes on employers


 Senate Bill: Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (H.R. 3590, passed December 24, 2009)House Bill: Affordable Health Care for America Act
(H.R. 3962, passed November 7, 2009)
Tax on employer-sponsored health plans:Imposes a 40 percent tax on employer-sponsored health plans with aggregate values that exceed $8,500 for individuals and $23,000 for family coverage.Exceptions: threshold amount for individuals 55 or older and workers engaged in so-called high risk professions is raised by $1,350 for individual plans and $3,000 for family plans. The threshold is increased 20 percent in the 17 states with the highest health costs.None.
Tax on income:Limits deductibility of executive and employee compensation to $500,000 for health insurance executives.Imposes a 5.4 percent tax on individuals with modified gross adjusted income exceeding $500,000 and on families with income exceeding $1 million.


Back to list


Other exemptions and subsidies


 Senate Bill: Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (H.R. 3590, passed December 24, 2009)House Bill: Affordable Health Care for America Act
(H.R. 3962, passed November 7, 2009)
Exemptions for grandfathered plans:Existing employer-sponsored plans do not have to meet the new benefit standards. However, if the plans do not meet the minimum requirements, individuals enrolled in them do not satisfy the individual mandate.Employer plans have five-year grace period after which they must meet new coverage standards.
Wellness programs:• Provides grants for up to five years to small employers that establish wellness programs. (Funds appropriated for five years beginning in fiscal year 2011.)
• Provides technical assistance and other resources to evaluate employer-based wellness programs. Conducts a national survey of worksite health policies and programs to assess employer-based health policies and programs. (Study would be conducted within two years following enactment.)
• Permits employers to offer employees rewards—in the form of premium discounts, waivers of cost-sharing requirements, or benefits that would otherwise not be provided—of up to 30 percent of the cost of coverage for participating in a wellness program and meeting certain health-related standards. Employers must offer an alternative standard for individuals for whom it is unreasonably difficult or inadvisable to meet the standard.		Provides wellness grants for up to three years to small employers for up to 50 percent of costs incurred for a qualified wellness program. (Effective July 1, 2010.)


Back to list

Posted on

PBGC Taking on Plan From Steel Products Firm

The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. is taking over the pension fund of PTC Alliance Corp., a bankrupt steel products manufacturer, PBGC spokesman Marc Hopkins confirmed this week.


The Wexford, Pennsylvania, company filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection October 1. It plans to sell most of its assets in a transaction that will not include the pension fund, according to a PBGC news release.


The pension fund, which covers 750 employees and retirees, was terminated December 28, the PBGC said in the release.


The plan is 51 percent funded, with $39.7 million in assets and $77.1 million in liabilities; the PBGC expects to cover $37 million of shortfall, according to the release.


Earlier this month, auto-parts maker Visteon Corp. proposed that the PBGC take over its underfunded pension plans as part of its plan to emerge from bankruptcy.


The PBGC said the three plans sponsored by Van Buren, Michigan-based Visteon are underfunded by about $544 million. The PBGC would be liable for about $444 million in unfunded guaranteed benefits.  The plans have about 21,000 participants.


Visteon filed its proposal December 17 in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Wilmington, Delaware.


Filed by Doug Halonen of Pensions & Investments and Jerry Geisel of Business Insurance. Both are sister publications of Workforce Management. To comment, e-mail editors@workforce.com.


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

Posted on

COBRA Enrollment Rises After Subsidy Enacted

Average monthly COBRA enrollment rates increased by 20 percentage points since the federal COBRA premium subsidy program took effect, according to a Hewitt Associates Inc. analysis.


From March 1—when the 65 percent premium subsidy generally first became available—through November 30, monthly COBRA enrollment rates for eligible laid-off employees averaged 39 percent, according to Hewitt’s analysis of COBRA enrollment among 200 large employers.


By contrast, from September 1, 2008, through February 28, 2009, an average of 19 percent of involuntarily terminated employees were enrolled in COBRA.


The largest percentage-point increases in COBRA enrollment were seen in the sectors of industrial manufacturing—to 67 percent from 7 percent—and aerospace and defense, where enrollment rose to 63 percent from 30 percent, according to Hewitt’s analysis.


“The increase we’ve seen in COBRA enrollments since March highlights how important the subsidy benefit has been to families who have been affected by the high rate of unemployment,” Karen Frost, health and welfare outsourcing leader for Lincolnshire, Illinois-based Hewitt, said in a statement.


With nonsubsidized COBRA premiums often about $400 a month for individual coverage and $1,200 a month for family coverage, the subsidy has slashed health insurance premium costs for beneficiaries laid off from their jobs.


President Barack Obama last week signed a bill that extends the nine-month, 65 percent premium federal subsidy by six months. The change applies to those who are involuntarily terminated through February 28, 2010.


The legislation also provides an additional six months of subsidized coverage for beneficiaries whose nine-month COBRA premium subsidy has run out.

Filed by Matt Scroggins of Business Insurance, a sister publication of Workforce Management. To comment, e-mail editors@workforce.com.


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

Posted on

Survey Finds Tax on Costly Health Care Plans Would Reduce Employer-Provided Benefits


Nearly two-thirds of employers say they would reduce health care benefits if Congress passes health care reform legislation that would impose a tax on costly health insurance plans, according to a survey released Thursday, December 3.


The legislation under consideration on the Senate floor would impose a 40 percent excise tax on health insurance premiums exceeding $8,500 for individual coverage and $23,000 for family coverage, starting in 2013.


The cost threshold triggering the tax would be somewhat higher for plans covering early retirees and employees in certain “high-risk” industries. The tax would be paid by insurers and third-party administrators, but the cost surely would be passed back to employers, benefits experts say.


And that is something many affected employers want to avoid.


According to the Mercer survey of 465 health plan sponsors, 63 percent of respondents said they would cut benefits to reduce costs so as not to hit the cost threshold triggering the tax.


On the other hand, 23 percent of respondents said they would maintain their plans and share the cost of the tax with employees. Just 2 percent of employers said they would fully absorb the cost of the tax.


Among employers saying they would reduce benefits, a significant majority—75 percent—said they would increase deductibles and co-payments.


Additionally, 40 percent said they would add a new low-cost plan as an alternative to their costly plan, 32 percent said they would replace their plan with a low-cost plan, and 19 percent said they would terminate their contributions to flexible spending accounts, health savings accounts and health reimbursement arrangements.


Mercer previously estimated that about 20 percent of employers offer health care plans, which, if not changed, would be subject to the excise tax.


The survey also found that employer attitudes on a key provision in the legislation—imposing a financial penalty on individuals who do not enroll in a health care plan—vary significantly by company size.


For example, 65 percent of employers with at least 5,000 employees are in favor of an individual mandate. That compares with 45 percent of employers with fewer than 500 employees, and 47 percent of employers with 500 to 4,999 employees.





Filed by Jerry Geisel of Business Insurance, a sister publication of Workforce Management. To comment, e-mail editors@workforce.com.


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


Posted on

Businesses Tap Into Staffing Firms for Holiday Help

While some businesses hire holiday help on their own, many also turn to staffing firms to get the extra workers they need.


Joyce Russell, president and COO of Adecco General Staffing, says her company gets holiday help requests from retail and logistics companies, as well as call centers, starting at the beginning of October.


“They need to get that product moved,” she explains. “We have nice ramps around the holiday season. It’s more retail-centric.”


Bill Stoller, one of the founders of Express Employment Professionals, says his company gets holiday help requests from the same types of businesses, but that they come in as early as August and September.


“We feel that companies will come to us [to get some more people on board],” Stoller says. “People need holiday help.”


Kforce gets calls from businesses that need financial assistants, as well as people who can do technology work and compliance for reporting purposes during the holidays, CEO Dave Dunkel says.


JoAnn Wagner, CEO of SOS Staffing, says her firm volunteers temporary workers who can work as receptionists for companies while they’re at holiday parties.


“The holidays are a hectic time for many businesses, so I believe a lot of them will turn to staffing firms to hire holiday help,” SkillStorm CEO Vince Virga says.

Posted on

Its a Wrap Holidays and Staffing

Manpower doesn’t slow down much during the holidays.


The staffing giant was closed Thanksgiving Day and also closes Christmas Day and New Year’s Day, but other than that remains open for business, says Cathy Paige, vice president and general manager for the company’s Northeastern division.


Some of Manpower’s clients close during the holidays, but Manpower wants to be able to continue to serve clients that don’t shut down, Paige explains.


“We’re in the service industry and we’re here to service clients,” she says. “It’s business as usual.”


In fact, some of Manpower’s site offices even remain open on the actual holidays.


“Christmas is a big day if you’re in the call center business,” Paige points out.


Many staffing companies like Manpower don’t take much of a break during the holiday season. Others shut down for a half-day the day before or after the holiday as well. And there are some that shut down the whole week between Christmas and New Year’s because it’s typically a slow time.


Those that shut down that week say they’re not closing longer this year because of the recession. It’s typical that staffing firms need to adjust their schedules to fit a client’s needs, even if that means skipping the holiday turkey.


Nevertheless, staffing firms are affected by the holidays, whether it’s giving gifts to clients or owners taking a moment to reflect on what they’re thankful for.


Business (mostly) as usual
At Express Employment Professionals, “We’re always open, other than the holiday itself,” says Bill Stoller, one of the founders. “During normal business hours, if we have an associate out on assignment we want to be able to service them as well as our clients. We’ve never closed. We’ve never planned on closing during the holiday week [between Christmas and New Year’s], if you will.”


Dave Dunkel, CEO of Kforce, says the holidays aren’t a time off, but a time on at his company, as people work on getting things done that need to be finished by the end of the year.


“There’s always activities,” Dunkel explains. “The clock continues to run. There’s regular operations that continue. The animal still needs to be fed, so we keep on working.”


The only thing that’s different during the holidays is that Kforce’s government and clinical clients close for two weeks, and thus consultants who are assigned to those clients also take that time off, Dunkel explains.


Hire Dynamics and the Nelson Family of Companies are open the day after Thanksgiving, even though a lot of staff takes the day off and they’re operating with a skeleton crew. It’s also business as usual for both companies the week between Christmas and New Year’s.


“As long as our clients are open, we’re open,” says Hire Dynamics CEO Dan Campbell. “We’re really driven by the needs of our customers.”


Gary Nelson, chairman of the Nelson Family of Companies, says, “We have to be available to service those clients that are operating that week. It’s pretty much business as usual except we do see more and more of our clients shutting down during that time.”


There are exceptions to this business-as-usual approach. For example, SkillStorm closes the day after Thanksgiving, says CEO Vince Virga.


“One of our SkillStorm values is ‘work hard, play hard,’ ” he says. “We definitely work hard, but during the holidays we believe in spending time with family and friends.”


Akraya, an IT staffing firm based in Sunnyvale, California, closes between Christmas and New Year’s, although accounting and payroll staff work flexible hours so that people can still be paid on time, CEO Amar Panchal says.


Recruiters do not come in that week, but if they get an e-mail or phone call and they’re not traveling, they’ll usually respond, Panchal explains. He says Akraya always closes the week between Christmas and New Year’s and is not doing anything differently this year because of the recession.


Staff can use sick days while Akraya is closed, so they don’t have to use vacation days, Panchal points out.


“It seems to work well with most of our employees,” he says. “Most want to take off during that time of year. It’s good for people to get a break during the holidays and come back refreshed the next year.”

Posted on

Americans Clueless About Paying for Long-Term Care, Report Concludes


Even as long-term care costs skyrocket, many Americans have unrealistic plans for how they expect to pay for those services, according to a new survey from the LIFE Foundation.


An online poll of 1,000 American adults revealed that only 10 percent of those surveyed would turn to long-term-care insurance if they needed help paying for assistance with the basic activities of daily living, including bathing, eating and dressing.


The study, performed between October 28 and November 3, coincided with LIFE’s Long-Term Care Awareness Month in November.


Nearly a quarter of those polled said they would look to family and friends to help chip in for those costs, while 13 percent said they’d use their savings. Eleven percent indicated they’d use their Social Security benefits.


Many Americans also have misconceptions on which entitlement programs cover long-term-care needs. For instance, 16 percent of those polled thought they could use Medicare to help pay for long-term-care services, and 7 percent thought Medicaid would give them some coverage.


Medicare, however, only covers certain conditions. It covers the first 20 days in a skilled nursing facility after a hospital stay of at least three days. It will also cover patients who are homebound under a doctor’s care or those who are terminally ill and under hospice care.


Medicaid, for lower-income individuals, pays for long-term care, but users whose assets exceed the requirements need to deplete their holdings—the so-called Medicaid spend-down—so that they’re poor enough to qualify.


Another 20 percent of those surveyed mistakenly thought that health insurance would pay for long-term-care needs. That coverage only pays for medical services.


The median annual rate of a private room in a nursing home is $74,208, according to Genworth Financial Inc.’s “Cost of Care” survey. Meanwhile the median annual cost of home care with a Medicare-certified home health aide hit $105,751.


Homemaker services, which provide non-medical help with basic tasks, was the least expensive of all the services, coming in at an average median annual expense of $38,896.



Filed by Darla Mercado of InvestmentNews, a sister publication of Workforce Management. To comment, e-mail editors@workforce.com.


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

Posted on

Visteon U.K. Retirees Continue Fight for Guaranteed Benefits, but Protest Fizzles When Exec Calls In Sick


More than 150 members of the collapsed Visteon UK Pension demonstrated at the South Wales Bridgend Ford Factory in support of their claim against Ford Motor Co. but ultimately were turned away when the company’s chief executive they wanted to see did not show because he said he was ill.


There is widespread anger among the 3,000 Visteon retirees that commitments made by Ford are now being sidestepped after Ford and Visteon Corp. promised “mirrored terms and conditions and pension safeguards.” As a result, some pensioners are seeing reductions in their pensions of 40 percent.


Andy Belch, a Visteon retiree and former senior manufacturing engineer at the Basildon, England, plants, said: “I worked for 38 years as a Ford employee and paid into the pension fund every day. I had only three months in the Visteon scheme. My pension has now been reduced by around 42 percent for the rest of my life, with limited future rises, despite commitments made by Ford to employees and unions at spinoff to protect my pension.”


Investigations by the Visteon Pension Action Group have reportedly shown that the Ford pension fund was 120 percent funded in 2000, but the final transfer to Visteon had a £49 million shortfall.


“Ford made copper-bottomed promises to the workers before they were transferred to Visteon and we intend to hold them to those promises,” said Tony Woodley, the joint general secretary of the Unite trade union.




Filed by Anthony Clark of Plastics & Rubber Weekly, a sister publication of Workforce Management. To comment, e-mail editors@workforce.com.


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