17 New Year's Resolutions you have a shot at keeping in 2016
Creating New Year's resolutions offers a chance to improve yourself. Whether it's losing weight, saving money or quitting smoking, baby steps can help you succeed.
Leigh Weingus, an editor with EliteDaily.com, offers 17 resolutions that won't have you frustrated after week one and could help you reach your larger goals for the year ahead.
Do yoga once a week.
Whether it’s a 30-minute YouTube video or an hour-long class at your local studio, getting your downward dog on isn’t too much to ask when it comes to taking care of your mind, body and soul.
Wake up 15 minutes earlier.
It’s 15 minutes, not two hours. And it can make a huge difference in your morning routine.
Pack your lunch twice a week.
We know the salad joint near your office is healthy and delicious, but it’s costing you ten bucks every day. Making your salad at home twice a week isn’t much work, and it’s a lot less expensive.
Hold a plank for one minute, three days a week.
Plank pose does wonders for your core, back and overall strength. It’s tough, but it’s three minutes in your entire week. You’ve got this!
Skip one restaurant outing a week.
If you’re in the habit of dining out four nights a week, cut it down to three. You’ll save yourself calories and money.
Download a meditation app.
So meditating for two hours a day wasn’t realistic, but downloading a free meditation app is. A lot of the apps out there have options for meditating for a few minutes at a time — and you can handle that.
Escort electronics out of your bedroom an hour before bedtime.
Bring a book in instead. Trust us, you’ll sleep a lot better.
Get a latte twice a week instead of every day.
That thing is costing you like $4.25, right? Brewing your coffee at home most days will leave a nice chunk of change in your pocket by the end of the year.
Take a 20-minute walk every day.
It’s not running a marathon, and it’ll get you moving and make you happier. Maybe it means watching one less episode of “Friends” on Netflix every night, Rachel and Joey will understand.
Pick five things that scare you and do all of them.
The saying “do one thing every day that scares you” is pretty overwhelming. Try picking five things that scare you and set out to accomplish them throughout the year, whether it’s trying out a dating app or going skydiving.
Carve out a “power hour” every week.
You know those nagging tasks that never seem to get done, like cleaning out your junk drawer or sweeping the floor? Carve out an hour every week to tackle them. You’ll get a lot done and won’t have to worry about them for the rest of the week.
Dedicate two hours every week to YOU.
And no, scrolling through your Instagram feed doesn’t count. Spend two hours every week doing something you truly love, whether it’s painting, reading a book or going for a long run. No technology allowed.
Finish something you started in 2015.
Maybe you half-started a blog in 2015 but never got around to finishing it. You have a head start, so make sure it actually gets done this year.
Make a phone call every week to someone you love.
Connections with others make us happy, and it can be hard to keep in touch with your best friend who lives across the country or your grandma who has a hard time hearing. So every week, make a call to someone you love. It’ll make you (and the person you’re calling) super happy.
Just eliminate one “bad” thing.
Don’t swear off sugar, salt and alcohol. It’ll be so damn hard you’ll give up immediately. Instead, pick one thing.
If you’ve noticed you have a bad habit of eating a bag of chips every day after work, just give that up. You may be surprised by what a difference it makes.
Start wearing sunscreen.
We know, a tan is nice. But skin cancer and wrinkles are not. Wear sunscreen this year!
Incorporate a little more water into your day.
You don’t need to start downing 16 glasses a day. Maybe just start drinking a cup of tea or a glass of water when you wake up. Hydrate, people.
Here’s to a happy and healthy 2016.
IRS releases final rule on premium tax credits, notice addressing employer coverage
Original post by Timothy Jost, healthaffairs.org
Implementing Health Reform. On December 16, 2015, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) released a final regulation containing a number of premium tax credit eligibility provisions. Several of these concern the question of when an employer-sponsored health benefit plan offers affordable coverage that meets the minimum value requirement, but the rule also addresses other miscellaneous issues.
At the same time the IRS released a long and complicated notice addressing various issues that have arisen under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) with respect to employer-sponsored coverage, focusing particularly on account-based employee benefits such as section 125 cafeteria plans and health reimbursement arrangements.
Premium Tax Credit Final Rule
The rule finalizes a minimum value rule proposed over two years ago in May of 2013. The IRS had also recently proposed additional regulatory provisions relating to minimum value, while Department of Health and Human Services regulations address other issues related to minimum value. Parts of the earlier proposed rules are finalized in this rule, and other parts remain to be finalized later.
Premium Tax Credit Eligibility
The final rule begins by cleaning up one premium tax credit eligibility issue that has nothing to do with minimum value of employer-sponsored coverage. Eligibility for premium tax credits is based on household income, including the income of children or other members of the family who are required to file tax returns. Under certain circumstances parents are allowed to include their children’s income in their tax returns.
The regulatory language clarifies that when a parent does this, the household’s income includes the child’s gross income included on the parent’s return. The amount included for determining tax credit eligibility, however, is the child’s modified adjusted gross income (MAGI), which is not necessarily the amount reported as gross income on the tax return. MAGI would also include, for example, the child’s tax exempt interest and nontaxable Social Security income. The final rule clarifies how this is to be handled.
The rule next clarifies how wellness incentives are handled for determining the affordability of coverage for purposes of premium tax credit eligibility. Premium tax credits are not normally available to individuals who are offered health insurance coverage by their employer. Employees may, however, be eligible for premium tax credits if the employer coverage does not provide “minimum value” (MV) or if the employer coverage is “unaffordable.” Generally, a minimum value plan must have an actuarial value of at least 60 percent and cover substantial hospital and physician services. To be “affordable” a plan must cost no more than 9.56 percent (for 2015) of an employee’s MAGI. An employer that offers a health plan that fails to provide MV or that is unaffordable may also be assessed a penalty if one or more of its employees turns to the exchange for premium tax credits.
Under the ACA, employers can offer wellness incentives that reduce the cost of the employee contribution or cost-sharing for program participants. The question arises, therefore, whether affordability and minimum value should be determined with or without the application of wellness incentive premium and cost-sharing reductions. The final regulations provide that affordability and minimum value should be determined by assuming that employees fail to qualify for the wellness incentive premium or cost-sharing reductions with one exception — if the wellness incentive relates to tobacco use affordability will be determined based on the assumption that the employee qualifies for the incentive and is thus not subject to the tobacco use surcharge.
Extension Of The ‘Family Glitch’
The final regulation proceeds, however, to extend the “family glitch.” One of the most criticized IRS rules implementing the ACA provides that if an employer offers an employee affordable sole-employee coverage, the employee’s entire family is ineligible for premium tax credits even though employer-sponsored family coverage is unaffordable.
Under the minimum value final rule, if an employee uses tobacco and does not join a tobacco cessation program, and thus coverage is in fact unaffordable with the tobacco surcharge or does not offer minimum value, not only the employee, but also the employee’s entire family, is ineligible for premium tax credits as long as coverage would have been affordable or offer minimum value had the employee complied with the smoking cessation program. This is true even if no one else in the family smokes.
Health Reimbursement Arrangements
The final regulation next addresses the effect of health reimbursement arrangements (HRAs) on affordability. Amounts newly made available to an employee through an HRA that is integrated with ACA-compliant employer-sponsored health coverage when the employee may use the HRA to pay premiums are counted toward an employee’s required contribution to determine affordability. Amounts newly made available to an employee through an HRA that is integrated into with eligible employer-sponsored coverage that an employee may only use to reduce cost-sharing is counted toward determining minimum value. If HRA contributions may be used either to cover premiums or reduce cost-sharing, they are considered for determining affordability and not minimum value.
HRA contributions, however, are only taken into account if the HRA and the primary employer-sponsored coverage are offered by the same employer. They are also taken into account for determining affordability or minimum value if the amount of the annual contribution is determinable within a reasonable time before an employee must decide whether or not to enroll.
Cafeteria Plans
The final rule also provides that employer contributions to flex arrangements under section 125 cafeteria plans are considered for determining affordability and minimum value if 1) the employer contribution cannot be taken as a taxable benefit, 2) it may be used to pay for minimum essential employer coverage, and 3) it may only be used to pay for medical care, as opposed to other benefits like dependent care that can be paid for under a section 125 plan. The guidance also released on December 16 discusses HRAs and 125 plans in much greater detail, and is examined below.
Continuation Coverage Eligibility And Tax Credits
The rules next address the effect on eligibility of former employees and retirees for continuation coverage under federal or state law, such as Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA) coverage, on eligibility for premium tax credits. The rule provides that eligibility for continuation coverage does not disqualify former employees or retirees, or their dependents, from premium tax credit eligibility unless the individual actually enrolls in the coverage. If continuation coverage is offered to current employees because of a reduction in hours, however, it will disqualify the employee from premium tax credits if it is affordable and offers minimum value. Of course, continuation coverage offered current part-time employees will often not be affordable.
Tax Credits And Coverage For Partial Months
The final rule concludes by addressing premium tax credit issues that arise when an individual is enrolled in coverage for a partial month. When a child is born, adopted, or placed with a family for adoption or foster care, or placed by court order, that child can be covered as of the date of birth, adoption, placement, or the order. The rule clarifies that when this happens, the child is treated as enrolled from the first day of the month for purposes of determining premium tax credit eligibility, even though the child is enrolled during the middle of the month. The adjusted monthly premium is determined as if all members of the coverage family were enrolled as of the first of the month in this situation.
The rule next addresses how premium tax credits are calculated where there is a partial months of coverage, which can occur when a child joins the plan mid-month by birth, adoption, placement or court order or when coverage is terminated mid-month, for example by a death. In this situation, the premium tax credit covers the lesser of the actual amount of the pro-rated premium charged for the month (taking into account any premium refunds) or the excess of the benchmark plan premium for a full month of coverage over the full amount that the eligible household would be required to contribute for coverage given its income level.
Thus if a taxpayer has a $500 premium and would normally be entitled to a premium tax credit of $300 based on a $450 benchmark premium and a $150 contribution amount, and the taxpayer dies mid-month and is refunded $250, the taxpayer would be entitled to a $250 premium tax credit based on his or her actual expenditure, but if the taxpayer is refunded $150, the taxpayer would be entitled to a $300 tax credit based on the benchmark plan cost.
The final rule provides that if family members live in different states the benchmark plan premium is determined by summing the benchmark premiums for the different states as they apply to the family members in each state. The rule updates the table of percentages, which determines how much individuals must contribute of their own income toward the cost of premiums to be eligible for premium tax credits given their income. And, finally, the rule analyzes how qualified health plan premiums and benchmark plan premiums should be allocated for determining premium tax credit eligibility when either the premiums of a plan in which an individual is enrolled or a state’s benchmark plan covers services that are not essential health benefits and thus not eligible for premium tax credit payments.
IRS Notice 2015-87
The notice (IRS Notice 2015-87) addresses a range of issues relating to the ACA and employer coverage, elaborating on some issues addressed by the final rule. Many of the questions it raises elaborate on IRS Notice 2013-54, issued in 2013. The notice states that a number of these issues will be addressed by future rulemaking and requests comments. It clarifies existing requirements as to some issues and allows plans a grace period before employers must come into compliance. The notice also, however, allows employees to claim the benefit of some of the requirements even though employers have not yet come into compliance.
Health Reimbursement Arrangements
The notice begins by addressing a series of issues raised by health reimbursement arrangements (HRAs). It first clarifies that an HRA that covers only former employees or retirees is not required to be integrated with an employee-sponsored plan that meets ACA requirements. A former employee covered by such an HRA, however, is ineligible for premium tax credits as long as funds remain available in the HRA.
If an HRA covers current employees, a former employee who is no longer covered by the group health coverage that must be integrated with an HRA for the HRA to comply with ACA requirements may not use funds remaining in his or her HRA to purchase individual coverage. Amounts credited to an HRA prior to January 1, 2013, or during 2013 under terms in effect prior to January 1, 2013, may, however, be used for medical expenses under the terms then in effect even though those terms do not comply with ACA requirements that went into effect in 2014.
The notice provides that HRAs available to cover medical expenses of an employee’s spouse or children (family HRAs) may not be integrated with employee-only coverage but must be integrated with coverage in which the dependents are enrolled to comply with ACA requirements. Recognizing that many employer plans do not conform to this requirement, the IRS is allowing plans a grace period to come into compliance with this requirement.
Under earlier guidance, the IRS had made it clear that HRAs could not be used to purchase individual health insurance coverage. This guidance clarifies that HRAs can be used to pay the premiums for excepted benefit coverage, such as dental or vision plans. The notice further clarifies that section 125 cafeteria plans cannot be used to purchase individual coverage, even if the 125 plan is funded fully by employee contributions.
The Notice explains at great length and in detail how HRAs and flex contributions to a section 125 cafeteria plan are treated for determining affordability and minimum value of employer-sponsored coverage. This issue is also addressed by the rule and discussed above. The notice offers several examples of how these rules are applied.
Flex Plans And Opt-Out Payments
One of the requirements of the rule and notice is that employer contributions to flex plans will only be considered for determining affordability or minimum value of employer coverage if the flex plan can only be used for health spending. Solely for purposes of determining affordability for application of the employer mandate (which imposes a penalty of employers who do not offer affordable, minimum value coverage if their employees receive premium tax credits) and for employer reporting requirements, contributions to flex accounts that can be used for non-health as well as health purposes will be considered to reduce employee contributions for plan years beginning before January 1, 2017 for arrangements adopted on or before December 16, 2015. However, they will not be considered for determining affordability of employer coverage for an employee either for determining liability under the individual responsibility provision or eligibility for premium tax credits.
If an employer offers an employee payments that are available only to an employee if the employee declines health insurance coverage (an opt-out payment), the IRS will consider the opt-out payment as an additional charge for the coverage for determining its affordability for application of the employer mandate penalty. The employee has the option of receiving additional salary for foregoing coverage, and thus is being charged the amount of the additional salary if he or she accepts coverage.
The IRS intends to issue a rule on this issue, and might treat opt-out payments differently if they are subject to additional requirements, such as proof of coverage under a spouse’s plan. The IRS will offer a transitional period for plan years beginning before January 1, 2017 based on arrangements established on or before December 16, 2015, for purposes of the employer mandate penalty and employer reporting, but individual taxpayers may consider opt-out payments as increasing the cost of coverage for application of the individual mandate or premium tax credit eligibility requirements.
Complex issues are presented by the McNamara-O’Hara Service Contract Act and the Davis-Bacon and related acts, which require federal contractors to pay prevailing wages and fringe benefits or cash out fringe benefits for workers. Until these issues are resolved employers may for purposes of the employer mandate and reporting requirements consider cash payments in lieu of fringe benefits as increasing the affordability of coverage, although employees are not required to consider the payments as making coverage more affordable for purposes of the individual mandate affordability exemption or premium tax credit eligibility. Recognizing that the disconnect between employer reporting requirements and employee premium tax credit eligibility requirements during transitional periods for this and other requirements may cause difficulties for employees in establishing tax credit eligibility, the notice urges employers to work with employees to provide necessary information.
Affordability Under The Employer Mandate
For purposes of the employer mandate affordability requirement and related regulatory requirements, including affordability safe harbors, affordability of coverage is defined as costing no more than 9.5 percent of household income (or for safe harbors, 9.5 percent of W-2 or hourly wages or the poverty level). The 9.5 standard is adjusted annually and is set at 9.56 percent for 2015 and 9.66 percent for 2016. The notice makes clear that this adjustment applies to all provisions that use the 9.5 percent standard.
The notice also provides the inflation updates for the statutory penalties under the employer mandate. The $2,000 per full-time employee penalty that applies when an employer fails to offer minimum essential coverage and an employee receives premium tax credit will increase to $2,080 for 2015 and $2,160 for 2016; while the $3,000 penalty that applies on a per-employee basis for employees who receive premium tax credits when coverage does not meet affordability or minimum value standards will increase to $3,120 for 2015 and $3,240 for 2016.
The notice provides a complex analysis of when “hours of service” that would count for crediting hours for Department of Labor regulations do or do not count as “hours of service” for calculating whether an employee is a full-time employee for purposes of the employer mandate. This analysis is beyond the scope of this post.
Service Breaks
A number of ACA rules that apply to full-time employees assume that employees are continuously employed without long breaks in service. Special rules apply for employees of educational institutions who routinely have long breaks in service between school years. Under IRS rules, employees of educational institutions cannot be treated as having terminated employment and then been rehired unless they have a break in service of at least 26 consecutive weeks.
Some educational institutions have been attempting to get around this rule by claiming that their employees are actually employed by staffing agencies with which they contract, and thus, for example, terminated at the end of the school year and rehired in the fall. The IRS is considering a rule that would provide that the educational institution exception would also apply to employees who provide services primarily to educational institutions and are not offered a meaningful opportunity to provide service during the entire year. An individual who worked in a school cafeteria nominally employed by a staffing agency rather than the school, for example, would be protected by the break in service exception unless the staffing agency offered employment in another position throughout the summer.
The notice clarifies that AmeriCorps members are not employees for purposes of the employer mandate, but that individuals offered TRICARE coverage by virtue of their employment are offered minimum essential coverage. The notice discusses how employer aggregation rules apply to government employers. It requires each separate government employer entity to have an employer identification number. The notice also discusses special rules that apply to health savings accounts contributions for individuals eligible for VA coverage and the application of COBRA continuation coverage to flexible spending account carryovers, both topics beyond the scope of this post.
Finally, the notice reiterates that the IRS will not impose penalties on employers that provide incorrect or incomplete 1094-C and 1095-C reports to employees in 2016 for 2015 coverage if they can demonstrate good faith efforts to comply with requirements. Employers who fail to file reports on a timely basis will also be provided relief from penalties if they can show reasonable cause for their failing to do so.
IRS extends due dates for ACA information reporting
Original post by Stephen Miller, shrm.org
Employers subject to the Affordable Care Act’s 2015 information reporting requirements now have extra time to give forms to employees and to file them with the government.
In Notice 2016-4, issued by the IRS on Dec. 28, the agency extended these reporting deadlines:
| Previous IRS Due Date | New IRS Due Date |
| Forms 1095-B and 1095-C were due to employees by Feb. 1, 2016 | March 31, 2016 |
| Forms 1094-B, 1095-B, 1094-C and 1095-C were required to be filed with the IRS if filing on paper by Feb. 29, 2016 | May 31, 2016 |
| Forms 1094-B, 1095-B, 1094-C and 1095-C were required to be filed with the IRS if filing electronically by March 31, 2016 | June 30, 2016 |
| Source: ADP, based on IRS Notice 2016-4. | |
• For furnishing employees with the 2015 Form 1095-B (Health Coverage) and Form 1095-C (Employer-Provided Health Insurance Offer and Coverage), the deadline has been extended from Feb. 1, 2016, to March 31, 2016.
• For filing with the IRS the 2015 Form 1094-B (Transmittal of Health Coverage Information Returns), Form 1095-B, Form 1094-C (Transmittal of Employer-Provided Health Insurance Offer and Coverage Information Returns) and Form 1095-C, the deadline has been extended from Feb. 29, 2016, to May 31, 2016 if not filing electronically, and from March 31, 2016, to June 30, 2016 if filing electronically.
Any employer filing 250 or more information returns during the calendar year must file the returns electronically. For employers with fewer than 250 returns, electronic filing is voluntary.
“Earlier guidance would have been preferred, but the last-minute relief will still be helpful for employers that have been working to understand the complexities of compiling all the information needed and completing the forms, or gathering the information needed to work with their reporting vendors,” said Ann Marie Breheny, a senior legislative adviser at Towers Watson in Arlington, Va.
The notice also provides guidance to employees who might not receive a Form 1095-B or Form 1095-C by the time they file their 2015 tax returns.
Employers Sought Extension
Employer groups had been seeking filing extensions. Because instructions for filing the reporting forms were released late in the year, “employers have been struggling with logistical issues” related to reporting, said Chatrane Birbal, the Society for Human Resource Management’s senior advisor for government relations.
The IRS deadline extension “is appreciated and will provide employers relief,” she said. “The ACA reporting forms require specific information on each employee’s insurance coverage—and their spouse’s and dependents’, if applicable—such as employer identification number, taxpayer identification number, addresses, employee’s full-time status and length of full-time status, proof of minimal essential coverage offered, coverage dates, and employees’ share of coverage premium costs. Collecting required information to ensure accurate reporting is an administrative burden for employers.”
While HR professionals have the relevant data requested, she noted, “this information is not contained in a central repository. Most employers will have to use multiple sources to obtain the data necessary to complete the reporting forms, including their benefits carrier or broker, HR information system, payroll company, time-off tracking software and other sources.”
The administrative burden and penalties related to missed deadlines and incorrect filing “will inevitably add to the employer’s cost of providing benefits to employees,” she noted.
Similarly, the American Benefits Council, in a Dec. 24 letter to IRS Commissioner John Koskinen, wrote that employers “have expressed significant concerns about their ability to furnish accurate Forms 1095-C and Forms 1095-B to employees by the Feb. 1, 2016 deadline.”
“The data that needs to be reported—particularly on the Form 1095-C—relates to information that many employers did not previously maintain in a format that facilitated reporting,” said Kathryn Wilber, senior counsel for health policy at the council. “As a result, employers’ attempts to establish systems that can accommodate the reporting requirements have generated logistical complications and we continue to hear about new difficulties from employers on a regular basis.”.
Earlier Filing Encouraged
The IRS said it is still prepared to accept filings of the information returns on Forms 1094-B, 1095-B, 1094-C and 1095-C beginning in January 2016. “Following consultation with stakeholders, however, the Department of the Treasury and the [IRS] have determined that some employers, insurers, and other providers of minimum essential coverage need additional time to adapt and implement systems and procedures to gather, analyze and report this information,” the IRS said in its notice. “Notwithstanding the extensions provided in this notice, employers and other coverage providers are encouraged to furnish statements and file the information returns as soon as they are ready.”
Employers that don’t comply with these extended due dates will be subject to penalties under ACA section 6722 or 6721 for failure to timely furnish and file, the IRS said. The agency added that even if employers or other coverage providers miss the extended due dates, they are still encouraged to furnish and file, “and the service will take such furnishing and filing into consideration when determining whether to abate penalties for reasonable cause.”
“The IRS said it will take a good-faith enforcement approach to this first year of reporting,” said Breheny. “As the deadlines approach, there have been many questions from reporting entities about these complex requirements and the systems involved, so this is a welcome development.”
Stephen Miller, CEBS, is an online editor/manager for SHRM.
Health apps widely embraced, but sustained engagement a challenge
Original post ebn.benefitnews.com
Employers using health apps as part of their wellness programs may want to pay attention to what is being called the most in-depth analysis to date of health-related app use in the United States.
A new online national survey of Americans’ health app use shows both positive and negative aspects of their adoption. The survey results, published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research mHealth and uHealth, and analyzed by researchers at NYU Langone Medical Center, show that 65% of respondents indicated that apps improved their health, and a majority had strong faith in the accuracy and effectiveness of the apps.
In addition, 58% of the 1,604 adult smartphone users surveyed had downloaded one of the estimated 40,000 available health-related mobile apps, while 42% had downloaded five or more.
About 65% of respondents reported using health apps on a daily basis. According to the survey, the most popular apps were those used to track physical activity (53%), food consumption (48%), weight loss (47%), and exercise instruction (34%).
However, at the same time, 46% of those surveyed admitted to having downloaded an app they no longer used. Respondents also cited cost, disinterest over time, and privacy concerns as barriers to wider and more effective use of the apps.
The most common reasons for people not downloading apps were lack of interest, cost, high volume of information that needed to be entered on a daily basis, and concern about apps collecting their personal data. When it comes to cost, 41% said they would never pay anything for a health app, 20% would pay only up to $1.99, while 23% said they pay at most between $2 and $5.99.
“Our study suggests that while many Americans have embraced health apps along with their smartphones, there are challenges to keeping users engaged, and many Americans who might benefit are not using them at all,” says lead investigator and clinical psychologist Paul Krebs, an assistant professor at NYU Langone. “There is still much more to be learned about how we can broaden the appeal and make best use of the wide variety of health apps now available — not just for fitness and nutrition, but for other purposes, such as monitoring sleep and scheduling medical appointments.”
Further, Krebs argues that far more must be done to test and validate the health benefits of apps and that app developers also need to address consumer concerns about privacy, keeping purchase costs low, and reducing the burden of data entry.
The average age of respondents was 40, and a majority had annual incomes of less than $50,000. Overall, those most likely in the survey to use health apps were younger, more educated, of higher income, of Hispanic ethnicity, or obese (with a body mass index of 30 or more).
Greg Slabodkin writes for Health Data Management, a SourceMedia publication.
Help your employees find time for fitness
If you asked, the majority of your employees would say they would like to get more exercise. But many would add it's hard to find the time.
Fitting in fitness benefits not only your employees, but you, the employer. Why?
Ann Wyatt, with HealthFitness, lays out the facts in her blog, "8 ways to help your employees find time for fitness."
- Physical inactivity and its adverse health effects are comparable to that of smoking and obesity.
- Sedentary jobs have increased 83 percent since 1950.
- More than 80 percent of American adults do not meet the recommended amounts of physical activity.
- Not only does being physically active boost the health of your employees, but it’s good for your business as well. Research shows that workers who exercise during the day reported a 15 percent boost in performance, a happier mood and increased ability to meet deadlines.
So, how can you help you employees find time for fitness. Wyatt offers these suggestions:
Leadership support. At one of our technology client sites, a focus group shared that a key barrier to participation was an underlying perception that if they were seen working out, they will be seen as slackers and not working. We helped change that perception by recruiting C-suite leadership to work out while on the clock, opening the door for employees to see that fitness was a priority all of the way up the ladder.
Offer a variety of fitness options. To appeal to the range of ages and diversity of employees at a leading biotech company, HealthFitness offers a variety of 15 group exercise classes each week—from strength training to Pilates to HIIT (high-intensity interval training) classes.
Extend hours of corporate fitness center. At one of our manufacturing client sites, the staff has extended the hours of the fitness center early and late to accommodate different work shifts. At another site, employees at a high-tech company work a variety of hours throughout the day. To meet the needs of this diverse group of employees, the fitness center is open 24/7 and is staffed from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m.
Step up to better health. An eight-week walking program at a leading car manufacturing company encourages participants to use pedometers to track steps taken on the production line, in the lunchroom, during breaks, off campus and at home.
Take a hike at work. Walking trails give employees the opportunity to exercise at work. At one of our client sites, the trails are clearly marked and measured so employees can keep up with how far they walk. Employees can walk a shorter route during breaks and take a longer walk during lunch.
Encourage at-desk workouts. To inspire employees at a biotech client site to sit less and move more, HealthFitness staff host 15-minute energy breaks in conference rooms where employees learn workouts do to at their desks.
Provide a virtual fitness trainer. To reach employees who are not comfortable going to the gym—or exercising with their co-workers—HealthFitness staff at one of our high-tech client sites create and post short videos with exercise tips on the company’s intranet site.
Despite delay, employers adopt ‘Cadillac Tax’ strategies
Original post by John Scorza, shrm.org
Hope for the best, but prepare for the worst, may be the best advice for employers when it comes to the uncertain future of the “Cadillac tax.”
The Affordable Care Act’s (ACA’s) 40 percent excise tax is now slated to be levied on costly employer-sponsored health insurance coverage beginning in 2020. The plans subject to the tax are those with benefits valued above $10,200 for single coverage and $27,500 for family (other than self-only) coverage, indexed annually for inflation.
The levy—popularly known as the “Cadillac tax”—has employers on edge, with many acting to reduce their risk of exposure while keeping an eye on repeal efforts. A brief repreive was provided by the Consolidated Appropriations of 2016, enacted in December 2015.
As regards the Cadillac tax, the omnibus measure:
- Delayed the effective date by two years, from 2018 to 2020.
- Made the excise tax deductible by businesses.
“The two-year delay gives Congress more time to devise a longer-term solution to the excise tax, including potentially amendment or repeal,” commented Kathryn Bakich, J.D., national health care compliance practice leader at Segal Consulting in Washington, D.C.
Even with this delay, it's wise for employers not to bank on its ultimate repeal, as noted below, and to use any expanded breathing room to consider steps to avoid the tax's grasp—or just to keep health benefit spending under control.
Restraining Spending & Raising Revenue
The excise tax was designed to accomplish two primary goals:
- Lower overall spending on health care by making employer-sponsored health plans less comprehensive, and thereby fostering more cost-conscious spending decisions by employees.
- Generate federal revenue to pay for other provisions of the ACA, including subsidies provided through federal and state health exchanges for low-to-moderate-income employees who lack affordable coverage through their employer.
The Cadillac tax is estimated to raise nearly $90 billion through 2025. Twenty-five percent of those funds will come directly from employers. The other 75 percent will be generated by taxes on higher employee wages that presumably would result from lower health care costs—although there’s no guarantee that companies will raise wages as health costs go down. “There’s evidence both for and against” that assumption, noted Paul Fronstin, director of the Employee Benefit Research Institute’s (EBRI’s) health research and education program, at a Dec. 10 EBRI policy forum in Washington, D.C.
Opposition to the tax is strong. The tax eventually will affect nearly all 175 million Americans with employer-sponsored health plans, said Katy Spangler, senior vice president of health policy at the American Benefits Council. That’s because the thresholds that trigger the tax are indexed to the consumer price index (CPI), but medical inflation rises much faster than the CPI. As a result, more and more plans will become subject to the tax, Spangler said. Additionally, the tax is forcing employers to shift costs to employees in the form of higher deductibles and co-pays, she said.
That’s the main tactic employers are using to prepare for the tax, according to Richard Stover, principal with Buck Consultants. He identified five possible employer strategies:
- Shift costs. Many companies are doing this, at least as a component of their overall strategy, by imposing higher deductibles, reducing medical benefits, implementing high-deductible health plans combined with health savings accounts (HSAs) and offering voluntary benefits that help employees cover medical expenses. “Unfortunately, the primary way [to achieve significant cost-savings], the easiest way to do it, is to shift costs to employees,” Stover said.
- Absorb the cost. This is not a viable long-term strategy because of the cost impact and the administrative burden that would result, Stover said. “No one wants to absorb the cost,” he remarked.
- Improve plan efficiency. Employers can consider three broad approaches here, according to Stover. First, manage utilization through tactics such as onsite clinics, high-performance networks, and telehealth and transparency tools. Second, manage unit costs by using medical and prescription discounts and finding more effective vendors, for instance. Third, promote health through wellness and disease-management programs.
- Eliminate ancillary health benefits. Options here include reducing or eliminating employer HSA contributions and limiting or eliminating employee pretax HSA contributions (see the SHRM Online article HSA Strategies to Avoid the Cadillac Tax).
- End health plan sponsorship. Just as most employers are not willing to absorb the costs of the tax, most are not considering dropping their health plans, either. Organizations that terminate their plans will likely face significant recruiting and retention problems unless they provide employees with additional wages to purchase coverage on a public exchange. But even that is no panacea. “There’s really no tax-effective way to do that,” Stover said.
Regarding these five strategies, Stover stressed that “No one of these levers is enough. Employers are looking at combinations of these approaches that they could use to better manage the costs of their programs.”
Repeal Sought
Spangler at the American Benefits Council is optimistic that Congress will ultimately repeal the excise tax. The council is a member of the Alliance to Fight the 40, a coalition of nearly 90 organizations opposed to the levy.
Others have noted, however, that revenues lost due to repeal would need to be replaced with other income sources.
In the immediate future, President Barack Obama has pledged to veto any repeal measure. In any event, benefit advisors are telling employers not to leave themselves vulnerable to triggering the tax, if and when it should take effect.
John Scorza is associate editor of HR Magazine.
Don't forget to update benefit plan documents
Original post thinkhr.com
This year came with notable compliance changes that may require updating group health plan materials extending into the new year. Employers should review these requirements and make the necessary changes to materials offered to participants at plan renewal.
The Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) employer shared responsibility provision (§ 4980H), also referred to as “play or pay,” took effect January 1, 2015. Under the employer mandate, large employers may be assessed a penalty for failure to offer health coverage to full-time employees if at least one employee receives a government subsidy to buy individual coverage through an Exchange (Marketplace). However, some employers were able to take advantage of one or more transition relief provisions to avoid potential penalties for part or all of 2015 (and part of 2016, in some cases). This relief expires in 2016, along with transition relief impacting calculations of the possible assessable payment.
Applicable large employers (ALEs) must ensure their group health plans are designed to meet minimum value coverage and are deemed affordable to limit assessment of penalty. For plan years after 2015, the required contribution percentage under the affordability safe harbor is 9.5 percent, based on employee-only coverage. ALEs who have variable hour employees should establish and document their designated measurement periods for determination of “full-time” employees.
The employer shared responsibility provision also establishes employer reporting requirements. For calendar year 2015, the first reports are due February 1, 2016 and are required annually thereafter on January 31st. These reporting requirements include:
- Under I.R.C. § 6056, large employers must report information about health coverage offered to full-time employees.
- Under I.R.C. § 6055, large employers with self-funded plans must report information about the coverage provided to each individual.
ALEs should review their Summary Plan Descriptions (SPDs) to ensure measurement periods used in the determination of the employee counts are documented. To comply with the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), the health plan’s SPD must describe the plan’s eligibility requirements. The SPD’s description of the measurement method should clearly define the measurement periods and plan eligibility requirements so that it is understandable to the average participant.
Employers should review their ability to maintain grandfathered status for 2016. While grandfathered plans can continue, ALEs will need to determine if offering these plans conforms to the play or pay rules to limit assessable payment. If the plan will lose its status, the plan should include all of the additional patient rights and benefits required by the ACA for nongrandfathered plans (e.g. coverage of preventive care without cost‐sharing requirements).
Several indexed inflation increases have been announced, which may require updates to Summary of Benefits and Coverage (SBC) documents and other participant plan materials, such as contributions to health savings accounts (HSAs), out-of-pocket spending under high deductible health plans (HDHPs), and essential health benefits (EHBs).
The annual cost-sharing and out-of-pocket maximums increase for plan years beginning on or after January 1, 2016. A health plan’s out‐of‐pocket maximum for EHBs may not exceed $6,850 for self‐only coverage, and $13,700 for family coverage.
The out‐of‐pocket maximum, however, continues to apply to all nongrandfathered group health plans, including self‐insured health plans and insured plans.
The minimum annual deductible and out-of-pocket expenses for HDHPs renewing on or after January 1, 2016 have increased in 2016:
- The minimum annual deductibles under an HDHP must be at least $1,300 for self-only coverage (no change from 2015) and $2,600 for family coverage (no change from 2015).
- The maximum out-of-pocket expense limit for self-only HDHP coverage for 2016 is $6,550, which is up from $6,450 in 2015. For family HDHP coverage, the maximum out-of-pocket expense limit for 2016 is $13,100, which is up from $12,900 in 2015.
The annual dollar limit on the combination of employer and employee contributions to HSAs remains at $3,350 for an individual with self-only coverage under a HDHP; however, this limit increases to $6,750 for an individual with family coverage under an HDHP (an increase of $100 dollars from 2015).
Note: The HDHP maximums for HSA-qualified HDHPs are lower than the ACA out-of-pocket maximums. Employers offering HSA-qualified plans will need to ensure they satisfy these lower HDHP out-of-pocket maximums.
The annual dollar limit on employee contributions to employer-sponsored healthcare flexible spending arrangements (FSAs) is $2,550 (no change from 2015).
Under the small business health care tax credit, the employer must employ fewer than 25 full-time equivalent employees (FTEs) whose average annual wages are less than $50,800 (indexed for 2015). The tax credit phases out for eligible small employers when the number of its FTEs exceeds 10 or when the average annual FTE wages exceeds $25,900 for tax year 2016 (up from $25,800 in 2015). Only qualified health plan coverage purchased through a Small Business Health Options Program (SHOP) marketplace is available for the tax credit, and it is available only for a two-consecutive year period.
Employers managing compliance with benefits-related mandates under the ACA and other benefits rules for coverage, documentation, and reporting requirements should be aware of applicable penalties that compliance failures may trigger. Potential fines and penalties vary depending upon the provision under the Internal Revenue Code, ERISA, or the Department of Health and Human Services and Department of Labor rules. While these agencies are working towards helping plan sponsors comply with the new rules, compliance failures can be costly. Take the best approach and make it a new year’s resolution to be aware of the compliance requirements and develop plans for meeting them!
Congress vote delays Cadillac tax by 2 years
Original post by Shelby Livingston, businessinsurance.com
The $1.1 trillion budget deal that Congress approved Friday would delay the notoriously unpopular Cadillac tax for two years and put a repeal in reach of the congressional leaders and business groups who oppose it.
But benefits experts say delaying the excise tax until 2020 is unlikely to ease the aggressive strategies companies have put in place to avoid triggering it.
The House voted 316-113 Friday to approve the omnibus spending deal that congressional leaders unveiled earlier in the week. The Senate followed quickly with a 65-33 vote to approve the package and send it to President Barack Obama, who indicated he would not veto the measure.
Opponents of the 40% excise tax, which would be imposed on the portion of group health plan premiums that exceed $10,200 for single coverage and $27,500 for family coverage under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, say the two-year delay is a major win for employers.
“The ACA relief is welcome and appreciated,” the National Retail Federation said in a statement.
The delay is “the first step toward full repeal,” the Alliance to Fight the 40, a lobbying group opposed to the tax, said in a statement.
For Victoria Nolan, risk and benefits manager for Hillsboro, Oregon-based Clean Water Services, a water resources management utility, the delay would “provide more breathing room to look at what additional things can be done to keep under the Cadillac tax in the future.”
Others say postponing the excise tax signals a repeal is on the way.
“We see the two-year delay as a down payment on a full repeal,” said Katy Spangler, senior vice president of health policy at the Washington-based American Benefits Council, which has backed repealing the tax on behalf of the hundreds of large employers it represents.
“If we keep the pressure on Congress, the delay may help us move toward” a repeal, American Benefits Council President James Klein said.
Geoffrey Manville, principal of government relations at Mercer L.L.C. in Washington, said the congressional vote “really increases the odds that this tax will not go into effect,” but he added the final decision would come down to “the next Congress and the next president.”
The odds for a repeal are “better than even,” he said.
While delaying the tax gives employers more time to find ways to reduce their exposure, it's unlikely to halt much of the aggressive cost-management strategies employers have already set in motion to avoid triggering the tax, sources said.
“The majority of employers will continue down that road like they have been before the excise tax — whether or not it's delayed or repealed,” said Steve Wojcik, vice president of public policy with Washington-based National Business Group on Health, of many employers' shift to high-deductible health plans. “As long as overall spending for health care continues to climb faster than general inflation, there's going to be this pressure.”
Seventy-two percent of employers expect at least one of their benefit plans to hit the excise tax in 2020 if they don't control costs, according to an NBGH survey in August. Mr. Wojcik said that number could potentially be reduced with the delay.
Delaying the tax also does nothing to fix ongoing cost increases squeezing employers' benefits plans, prompting them to shift more costs to workers, sources said.
Employers saw group health plan costs rise 3.8% in 2015 to an average $11,635 per employee, according to Mercer.
Supporters of the excise tax see it as a way to slow U.S. heath care spending, which the U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services said topped $3 trillion in 2014.
According to the bipartisan nonprofit Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, delaying the Cadillac tax until 2020 would cost the government $16 billion. Repealing it would cost $91.1 billion over the next 10 years, the committee said last week.
In addition to the two-year delay Congress passed Friday, the omnibus budget bill also calls for a study by the U.S. comptroller general and the National Association of Insurance Commissioners of whether the ACA uses “suitable” benchmarks to determine if the tax should be adjusted to reflect age and gender factors in setting the excise tax thresholds.
Still, the delay means Clean Water Services has more time before it might need to reduce the amount workers are allowed to contribute to their flexible spending accounts, a strategy the company is considering because pretax contributions to FSAs — as well as health savings accounts and health reimbursement arrangements — would be included in the excise tax calculation, Ms. Nolan said.
But a full repeal of the Cadillac tax would eliminate the company's need to reduce the FSA limit on contributions altogether, she said.
Tips to succeed at your New Year Resolution
Wellness, which covers more than fitness, is at the top of many resolution lists year after year. Wellness can also mean eating healthier, quitting smoking or reducing stress.
People with all the desire in the world to succeed at their resolution fall short within the first week.
Ipswich life coach Ronita Neal shared some advice with The Queensland Times on ways to keep your resolutions in 2016.
Think through your resolution
"The problem is seven seconds from midnight and maybe with a few drinks under your belt is not the best time to make a resolution about change," Ronita said.
Don't make too many resolutions
"It is not useful to make a whole heap of impulsive resolutions that it will be impossible to keep and so you start the year as a failure."
Make 'smart' resolutions
Ronita describes smart resolutions as being specific, measurable, achievable, relevant and time bound.
"Change is hard and we need to make sure we have carefully considered what we want in the context of our life goals," Ronita explained. "It is a good idea to think about all the different areas of your life and where you would most benefit from making changes."
Remember change takes time
"In order to keep your resolutions and achieve your goals, you will need to keep up your motivation over a long period of time, but most of us give up too quickly," she said.
Sticking to change could take up to three months of constantly making the choice.
"When you are trying to break a habit your brain usually has a very short-term focus and will throw a "tantrum" to get what it wants (the old way) now. Just remind yourself why you are making the change (long-term goal) and don't go for the short-term pleasure."
Resolve to change what you can control
Setting a goal to lose a certain amount of weight in a certain number of weeks may seem like a good resolution. But while it's specific and measurable, the outcome isn't entirely under your control.
According to Ronita, a resolution we can control is how much effort we put in.
"Have you been for your walk, did you do your weights session at the gym, did you leave the yummy packet of chocolate biscuits in the shop, and have you avoided the deep fried chips this week?" Ronita said.
"This continued effort, if at a sufficiently serious level, will eventually yield results such as being fitter, healthier, more active, more toned and happier."
Don't stop working
"Set progressively harder targets and make sure there is no end point for habits you need to keep going (for example, lose five kilograms for a specific event) because then your brain will have no reason to continue with the new habits."
Take small steps
"If you are confident and are working on bigger work goals make sure you still cut them down into smaller steps. Measure, reward ... and review frequently."
You may look more productive skipping lunch, or eating at your desk. But you aren’t.
Original post Ellie Krieger, The Washington Post
The hour-long lunch may be a charming relic of the past, like phone cords and typewriters, but in today’s 24-7 work culture, many of us don’t take any lunch break at all.
Fewer than 20 percent of American workers regularly step away for a midday meal, and 39 percent usually eat at their desks, according to a survey done by Right Management.
This trend is fueled by the notion that the most dedicated, effective workers are constantly available and on-task, and that taking a lunch break is counterproductive. It’s a perception that’s especially powerful in the tech sector, which gave birth to the meal-replacement drink Soylent so you don’t need to stop what you are doing to eat. The tagline for the product is “free your body,” which implies we’d be better off liberated from the pesky burden of needing to be fed.
But the idea that breaking for a meal hinders accomplishment is plainly wrong. The truth is, stopping to eat can actually make you much better at what you do.
Part of the reason lunch can boost your performance at work is that food literally fuels your brain, which needs a constant supply of energy to function optimally. So, the worst thing you can do for your midday mental performance is to skip lunch; and the best thing you can do, it seems, is to eat one with a balance of carbohydrates, protein, and fat.
Carbohydrate is the brain’s primary fuel and study after study, on everyone from children to airline pilots to the elderly, show improvement on memory tests after eating carbs, especially slow-release carbohydrates such as whole grains and vegetables. But it turns out that protein and fat have distinct roles in powering our brains as well.
In a 2001 study published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition looking at how carbs, protein and fats affect thinking, researchers concluded that each of the macronutrients enhanced performance on different kinds of tasks. So the optimal power-lunch should include all three — carbs from vegetables and/or whole grains; a protein such as lean meat, eggs, beans or nuts; and a healthy fat like olive oil or avocado.