One compelling reason to participate in a wellness plan
Originally posted by Dan Cook on July 16, 2015 on benefitspro.com.
In the midst of questions about the effectiveness of wellness programs, one advocate for such programs says the results of a recent survey show that wellness initiatives greatly reduce the risk that a person's chronic condition will go undiagnosed.
The group, HealthMine, a consumer health engagement company, polled 750 people enrolled in wellness programs and found that 28 percent of participants had been diagnosed with a chronic condition in the past two years. Almost half of those (46 percent) had received their diagnosis through the wellness program, suggesting that they may have gone much longer without treatment had the program not been available.
HealthMine described the findings as particularly salient with regards to some of the most pressing American health concerns, noting that a third of those who suffer from diabetes are unaware of it. The solution, suggests HealthMine, is to expand the availability of wellness programs as well as to increase the number of health tests that allow people to better understand their health vulnerabilities.
A separate poll that HealthMine conducted of 1,200 consumers found 74 percent support the use of genetic tests in wellness programs to help consumers identify health risks.
Moreover, most of the survey respondents signaled they would take part in various health screenings if they were offered by their employer.
The survey nevertheless showed far greater resistance to certain health screenings than to others. Nearly three-quarters said they would be up to do a screening for vision or blood pressure, and 69 percent said they would do a cholesterol screening. But only 58 percent said they would do a cancer screening, 54 percent said they would do a BMI screening and only 41 percent said they were up for a skin analyzer.
HealthMine CEO Bryce Williams said these surveys suggest that only when consumers are aware of their own health conditions will wellness programs meet their full potential.
"To succeed, wellness programs must enable people to learn their key health facts, and connect individuals to their personal clinical data anytime, anywhere,” he said. “When consumers and plans are empowered with knowledge, wellness programs can make recommendations meaningful to individuals, and help to prevent and manage chronic disease."
A past study suggested that while companies do typically hope that wellness programs can help them keep down health care costs, their top motivation for doing the programs is to improve the health of their employees.
Stay-Put Counteroffers Can Backfire, CFOs Say
Originally posted by Stephen Miller on June 12, 2015 on shrm.org.
Although employee retention concerns continue to mount, a new survey suggests counteroffers aren't the answer when it comes to keeping valued talent.
In research findings published in June 2015 by staffing firm Robert Half, eight in 10 (78 percent) chief financial officers (CFOs) said they don't extend counteroffers to keep employees from leaving.
One reason may be because CFOs believe this tactic can have a ripple effect. Among the 21 percent of CFOs who do make counteroffers, roughly one-third (34 percent) said doing so necessitated raises for other employees in the department.
The survey was based on interviews with more than 2,200 CFOs at companies in more than 20 of the largest U.S. markets.
CFOs were asked and responded:
CFOs who said they'd extended counteroffers were subsequently asked and responded:
“Counteroffers are not an effective retention tool," said Paul McDonald, senior executive director for Robert Half, in a news release presenting the findings. “Offering more money to someone to prevent him or her from quitting doesn't typically solve the issue that prompted that person to resign in the first place. It can, however, upset the company's salary structure, prompt loyalty concerns and foster resentment among the rest of the team who may feel that they, too, must threaten to quit to receive a raise.”
Businesses must regularly review their compensation levels, particularly in today's job market, McDonald added. “Waiting until an employee quits is too late to think about whether the salaries you offer are strong enough. Employees’ frustration over their salaries could fester into a bigger problem of feeling undervalued and unappreciated, which more money via a counteroffer won’t be able to remedy.”
DOL Narrows Independent Contractor Classification
Originally posted by Allen Smith on July 16, 2015 on shrm.org.
More workers may be entitled to overtime due to July 15, 2015, Department of Labor (DOL) guidance that defines “independent contractor” narrowly enough for many previously classified as independent contractors to now be properly classified as employees.
This narrowing of the definition of independent contractor is due partly to the DOL deemphasizing the degree to which a business controls an individual’s work, and focusing instead on the economic realities test, which looks at whether the worker is economically dependent on the employer or in business for him or herself.
“This is part and parcel of the Obama administration’s push to give America a raise,” said Allan Bloom, an attorney with Proskauer in New York City, who added, “There certainly have been companies that have misclassified workers.”
He remarked that the latest guidance is important because “the DOL significantly downplays the ‘control test,’ which has long been the guide many businesses consider when determining whether or not a worker is truly an ‘employee’.” Bloom recommended that, “Businesses worried about staying under the DOL radar on this issue should make sure that they are doing business with established independent service providers if they intend to pay on a 1099 basis.”
Matthew Disbrow, an attorney with Honigman in Detroit, said, “The subjective nature of the DOL’s interpretation, and its narrow focus on ‘economic dependence,’ creates substantial challenges for companies who wish to maintain their independent-contractor relationships. Furthermore, although the elements of the ‘economic realities’ test may appear understandable at first blush, a careful reading of the DOL’s guidance reveals that there are no bright-line rules upon which to rely. The same person could be considered an independent contractor or an employee simply based on the business at issue.”
He added that the administrator’s interpretation [AI] “arguably restricts the use of independent contractors to very few specific situations.” Disbrow explained, “Because no factor is determinative, and the AI rejects any ‘mechanical’ application of the test, inside counsel or other executives will not always know what factor the DOL or a reviewing court might find most important. Such ‘fuzzy’ multifactored tests usually create more problems than they solve."
Six Factors
In conducting an economic realities test, an employer should look to six factors, the DOL noted:
- The extent to which the work performed is an integral part of the employer’s business.
- The worker’s opportunity for profit or loss depending on his or managerial skill.
- The extent of the relative investments of the employer and the worker.
- Whether the work performed requires special skills and initiative.
- The permanency of the relationship.
- The degree of control exercised or retained by the employer.
“In undertaking this analysis, each factor is examined and analyzed in relation to one another, and no single factor is determinative,” the DOL noted. “The ‘control’ factor, for example, should not be given undue weight.”
“The factors should not be applied as a checklist, but rather the outcome must be determined by a qualitative rather than a quantitative analysis,” the DOL stated.
“The subjective nature of such a test is a slippery slope and provides no practical, objective criteria on which businesses can rely,” Disbrow said.
Under the department’s analysis of the six factors, positions frequently considered as independent contractors—such as carpenters, construction workers, cable installers and electricians—aren’t necessarily independent contractors if they don’t satisfy the factors.
Suppose, the department hypothesized, a highly skilled carpenter provides carpentry services for a construction firm. But the carpenter does not exercise his skills in an independent manner. He does not determine the sequence of work, order additional materials or think about bidding for the next job, but instead is told what work to perform where. “In this scenario, the carpenter, although highly skilled technically, is not demonstrating the skill and initiative of an independent contractor (such as managerial and business skills),” the DOL emphasized. “He is simply providing his skilled labor.”
By contrast, “a highly skilled carpenter who provides a specialized service for a variety of area construction companies (for example, custom, handcrafted cabinets that are made to order) may be demonstrating the skill and initiative of an independent contractor if the carpenter markets his services, determines when to order materials and the quantity of materials to order, and determines which orders to fill,” the DOL stated.
Monitor Classifications
“While the human resources function clearly ‘owns’ employee issues in corporate America, many companies do not monitor their independent contractor relationships,” said Michael Droke, an attorney with Dorsey and Whitney in Palo Alto, Calif., and Seattle.
“Companies should make clear which department within the organization is responsible to understand the law, know which contractors have been engaged and monitor compliance. Often, the human resources or finance department is put in charge,” he noted.
“Employers should maintain basic records on the independent contractor determination process, and the facts used to make that determination. For example, they should keep records of business licenses, business cards, contractor tax records, project work plans showing limited engagements and correspondence from the contractor,” according to Droke.
For Disbrow, some main takeaways from the guidance are:
- The DOL believes most work should be performed by employees. So, independent contractors should be used sparingly.
- Entering into independent contractor agreements or hiring a business entity (rather than a person) does not necessarily protect you from liability under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
- A careful review of the type and scope of work being performed should be completed before engaging the services of any nonemployee.
- When entering into agreements with other service providers, ensure that you obtain appropriate indemnification provisions to protect the company from the wage and hour claims of the service provider’s workers.
“Companies should avoid giving contractors rights or access that cut against contractor determination. For example, contractors should not have internal e-mail accounts, should not be given server access and should not be invited to employee functions,” Droke observed. “The DOL guidance reminds employers to periodically audit existing contractors to make sure they have not inadvertently slipped from contractors to employees. If an otherwise-valid contractor arrangement becomes economically dependent on the work, then the relationship may convert to an employee entitled to overtime.”
This guidance is Administrator’s Interpretation No. 2015-1.
Is coconut really more hydrating? Clarifying myths and fact on waters.
Originally posted by Ellie Krieger on July 7, 2015 on washingtonpost.com.
It’s sweltering outside and you’ve worked up a big thirst, so you duck into a grocery store to pick up a bottle of water. But these days there are so many brands and types on the shelves that you could drop from dehydration before figuring out which one to buy.
Regardless of their prices or promises, all the waters on the market hydrate you equally well, and no better than tap water does. So if that is all you care about, just grab the cheapest. Even better, remember to fill up a bottle at home before you leave next time. But if you want something that tastes different or has the possibility of added health benefits, here’s the lowdown on what’s out there.
Bottled water, as defined by the Food and Drug Administration, which regulates the industry, is simply water fit for human consumption that is bottled safely. It could be packaged tap water. But beyond that baseline there are official definitions for terms such as “purified,” “spring,” “artesian” and “mineral” that specify how the water is processed and sourced.
“Purified” means the water — from any viable source, even, say, a municipal water supply — has been filtered or distilled to remove impurities such as chlorine and other elements that affect taste. Spring and artesian waters come from specific sources: spring water from an underground formation that flows naturally to the surface, and artesian water, which is tapped from an underground aquifer that’s under pressure. Although spring and artesian are often more expensive and have chic packaging, they do not offer any benefits beyond, perhaps, a special taste and status appeal.
Mineral water is defined as having 250 parts per million dissolved solids naturally present (no minerals may be added) and must originate from a protected underground source. Most of these waters are so mineral-rich that drinking them can significantly boost your intake of the nutrients, especially calcium and magnesium, which many people lack. Plus, mineral water tends to be alkaline, which may help bone health. (More on that later.) Depending on the brand, one liter a day can cover you for 20 to 58 percent of calcium and 16 to 41 percent of magnesium needs. On the flip side, it can also contribute a significant amount of sodium, so read the label carefully to decide what is right for you.
For those who don’t care for the taste of plain water, there is a vast array of flavored options. Some are simply treated with a hint of natural fruit and/or herbal essences. Others have sweeteners, food colorings and artificial flavors, making them, to me, more like soft drinks than water. Many sweetened waters contain considerable calories from refined sugar, upwards of 50 calories per cup (120 in a typical 20-ounce bottle), which can really add up if you are chugging several each day. Many also have promising names like “Revitalize” or “Focus,” which are mainly marketing tools that are better ignored, and vitamin and herb enhancements that probably won’t hurt you but won’t benefit you much, either. When picking up flavored water, I suggest going for one that is as much like actual water as possible, unsweetened and with minimal additives.
When coconut water first burst onto the scene, it promised better hydration than water, but marketers have since backed off on that unjustified claim. What it can claim to be is a lightly sweet liquid with a somewhat nutty taste that hydrates as well as water and provides a significant dose of potassium. Coconut water comes from the inside of the young green fruit and, unlike coconut milk, has no fat. If you want a change of pace flavor-wise and you take into account the 45 calories it has per cup (if you get the unsweetened variety), it can be a good way to change things up. But there is nothing magical about it. You could also hydrate and replenish your potassium (plus get other nutrients and filling fiber) by drinking a cup of water and eating a small banana.
A new kid on the shelf in the same category is maple water, the liquid (sap) from the maple tree that is usually boiled down to make a syrup. In its unconcentrated form, it is clear and has a subtle sweetness, plus some minerals, for about 20 calories per cup. There isn’t enough research to back the many claims about its health benefits, including the “cleansing” power I was told it has by the woman providing tastes of it at my local market. (I hope she didn’t see me rolling my eyes.) But I thought it was delicious, if expensive, at $4 for a small bottle, and, like coconut water, a healthy way to switch things up taste-wise.
An overwhelming trend in the beverage aisle is the emergence of “pH-balanced” alkaline waters — boasting a pH greater than 7. The trend stems from a popular but unfounded theory that if we consume too much water that is on the acidic side (which tap water often is), we wind up acidifying our body and compromising our health in myriad ways. The fact is, our body’s pH is maintained in a tight range, thanks to our kidneys and other buffering systems, and there is no substantial research to show that drinking more acidic water does any harm per se. But while there is no need to stress about your water’s pH, there is one well-documented “pro” to drinking water that is more alkaline: It could benefit your bones.
Several studies show that drinking water that is more alkaline because of its electrolyte and mineral content (whether naturally occurring, as with mineral water, or added) can help preserve bone by reducing the kidney’s need to tap into calcium reserves to balance normal acid in the body. So, not only do you ingest more important minerals and nutrients like potassium when you drink this kind of water, you also help keep calcium in your bones instead of breaking it down. Skip brands that have been made alkaline through a process of ionization, which won’t give you the nutrient benefit that minerals and electrolytes do. Also keep in mind that more alkaline (a higher pH) is not necessarily better. Aim for a pH somewhere between 7.5 and 8.5, because once you get above that, the water tends to have a slippery feel and less appealing taste. With all the options out there, you shouldn’t settle for less than one that delivers both good health and good taste.
Birth Control Coverage Rules Announced by Obama Administration
Originally posted by Louise Radnofsky on July 10, 2015 on wsj.com.
WASHINGTON—The Obama administration on Friday set final rules for contraception coverage in workers’ health insurance plans, putting in place rules that are unlikely to satisfy some religious employers who object to birth control.
The rules reaffirmed that most health plans have to include birth control with no out-of-pocket costs as part of the 2010 Affordable Care Act. The regulations include alternative arrangements for employers such as Catholic universities that have moral objections to most forms of contraception, and other Christian institutions that object specifically to forms of emergency contraception such as the “morning-after pill.”
Under the rules, employers with such objections must tell their insurance company or the federal government. The insurance company then takes over responsibility for providing the coverage to employees who want it.
Federal officials said the arrangements also would be available to closely held for-profit companies such as Hobby Lobby Stores Inc. that last year won a Supreme Court case against the coverage requirement under the Affordable Care Act.
The high court said the Obama administration hadn’t done enough to take into account the religious objections of the owners of companies such as the arts-and-crafts chain. The justices didn’t specify what the federal government should do to address those concerns.
The White House and Christian leaders have tussled for years over the health law’s requirement that most insurance plans cover preventive services without charging co-pays or deductibles, and that prescription methods of contraception such as the pill and intrauterine device be counted among them.
Churches are excluded from the requirement, but Catholic bishops, in particular, have argued that religiously affiliated hospitals, universities and charities should be given the same exemption so they do not have to violate Catholic teachings by paying for something they believe to be immoral.
Women’s health advocates, for their part, have pushed the White House to hold firm and ensure that the provision of the 2010 health law is widely available.
To qualify for the alternative system outlined by the government, companies must be privately held and controlled by five or fewer individuals, federal officials said Friday. The company’s board must adopt a resolution stating the company’s objection to covering some or all forms of contraception.
Catholic bishops and other religious leaders have said the revised system is inadequate because it still uses the insurance plan they set up to provide something they believe to be wrong.
They have challenged the alternative system in the courts. Many of those challenges are working their way through the legal system, and the federal government has prevailed in several cases so far.
Attorneys representing many of the religiously affiliated litigants in those cases derided the final rules.
“The government keeps digging the hole deeper,” said Adèle Auxier Keim, legal counsel at the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, adding that “there is no reason at all the government needs religious employers to help it distribute these products.”
A spokeswoman for the Department of Health and Human Services said she couldn’t comment on continuing litigation.
In a statement, HHS Secretary Sylvia Mathews Burwell said the regulations were intended to balance the religious objections with the government’s desire to guarantee access to no-cost contraception for women, regardless of where they worked.
“Women across the country should have access to preventive services, including contraception,” Ms. Burwell said.
“At the same time, we recognize the deeply held views on these issues, and we are committed to securing women’s access to important preventive services at no additional cost under the Affordable Care Act, while respecting religious beliefs,” she said.
Communicating With Your Doctor On Facebook May Be The Future Of Healthcare
Originally posted by Carolyn Gregoire on June 20, 2015 on huffingtonpost.com.
We communicate with our friends, our families and our coworkers via email and Facebook, and apparently, most Americans also wish that they could keep in touch with their health care providers this way.
A national survey of 2,252 pharmacy customers conducted by Johns Hopkins University's Bloomberg School of Public Health highlights the gap between what patients want from their health care providers in terms of communication and engagement, and what they're actually getting.
"This study tells us that for most patients, healthcare isn’t quite ready for the future," Joy Lee, a post-doctoral fellow at the university, told The Huffington Post.
In fact, there's something of a patient engagement paradox in healthcare, Lee said.
"On the one hand, doctors, policymakers, and researchers often talk about the need to engage patients," she explained. On the other hand, many patients are already engaged -- in Facebook and other online communities. Yet instead of embracing this connection, medicine is preoccupied with confidentiality and drawing professional boundaries.
Fifty-seven percent of respondents -- who were generally educated, healthy and regular users of Facebook -- said that they were very interested in using Facebook and email to communicate with their physicians and to manage their health. More than half of respondents also said that they wanted to use their physicians' websites to access health information.
More than a third said that they already communicated with their doctors via email, and 18 percent said they connected with their doctors on Facebook, a surprising finding considering that many health care providers have rules barring this mode of interaction with patients due to privacy concerns and ethical guidelines for physicians.
Young adults -- as well as caregivers, patients with chronic conditions, and regular Facebook users -- were more likely to communicate with their doctors via email and Facebook.
Lee emphasized that of course, it's critical to safeguard patient information. But "Health care organizations need to figure out how to take advantage of resources like Facebook," she added.
They're already on the way. As part of the growing telehealth movement, many doctors and health care organizations have electronic systems that patients can use for things like messaging, accessing test results and personal information, and health tracking.
"Many patients are interested in [these services] but few are actually using them -- possibly because patients don’t know they’re available," Lee said. "Doctors and health care organizations should take steps to publicize and educate patients of these opportunities. Either way, it starts with a conversation between patients and doctors on how they prefer to communicate online."
The study was published this month in the Journal of General Internal Medicine.
Penalties Increased for Filing Errors
Originally posted on July 7, 2015 on acatimes.com.
Penalties in sections of the Internal Revenue Code relating to the failure to timely file correct and complete information in a return as well as the failure to timely distribute correct and complete statements were substantially increased – by up to 150% – with the passage on June 29 of the Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015 (“TPE Act”).
The penalties are related to IRC Sections 6721 and 6722. Section 6721 pertains to the failure to file correct and complete information in a return. Section 6722 pertains to the failure to furnish complete and correct information in the payee statements. Section 806 of the TPE Act substantially increases the penalties set forth separately under these IRC Sections.
The penalty for failing to timely file and/or failing to file correct and complete information will be $250 per return (previously $100.) The cap on all such failures is raised to $3,000,000 (previously $1,500,000) under Section 6721.
This increase also applies to penalty for the failure to furnish complete and correct information in the payee statements, under Section 6722.
Under provisions of Section 6721 and 6722 for reduced penalties if corrections are made within 30 days after the required filing date, those lower penalties are now $50 per return (previously $30), with a maximum of $500,000 (previously $250,000).
The reduced penalties under each Section 6721 and 6722 where the corrections are made by August 1 is increased to $100 (previously $60) per return, with a maximum of $1,500,000 (previously $500,000).
The lower limitations under each Section 6721 and 6722 for persons with gross receipts of not more than $5,000,000 have also been increased. Such persons are subject to a cap of (a) $1,000,000 (previously $500,000) for failing to timely file and/or failing to file correct and complete information, (b) $175,000 (previously $75,000) for corrections made within 30 days of filing deadline, and (c) $500,000 (previously $200,000) for corrections made by August 1.
Penalties under Section 6721 and 6722 in case of intentional disregard as would be applicable to ACA reporting is increased to $500 per return (previously $250), and no cap applies.
These penalties apply with respect to returns and statements required to be filed after December 31, 2015.
The timing of when these penalties will impact ACA reporting appears to be after December 31, 2016. This is in view of the IRS’s previously announced availability of short-term relief for 2015 from ACA reporting penalties under Sections 6721 and 6722 if the employer can make a showing of good faith effort to comply with the ACA reporting requirements.
The penalties may also be abated based on reasonable cause and not due to willful neglect.
Presumably, the IRS could continue with that short-term relief and allow the TPE Act to go into effect with respect to ACA reporting penalties starting the following year, after December 31, 2016.
Take safety steps during most dangerous month for lightning strikes
Originally posted by Ben Smart on July 2, 2015 on cnn.com.
A lightning strike -- a brief but intense burst of electricity -- affected as many as 16 hikers. Three were rushed to a local hospital and eight others required medical treatment, according to the Clear Creek County Sheriff's Office. All the hikers survived the incident, but one hiker's dog was killed.
Across the country in Greeleyville, South Carolina, lightning may have caused a fire at Mount Zion African Methodist Episcopal Church that gutted the interior and collapsed the roof, according to the FBI.
And now it is July, the month when the number of lightning strikes -- and fatalities -- is at its highest. So far in 2015, 14 people have been killed by lightning. On average, 49 people are killed and hundreds more are injured in the United States each year by lightning strikes.
The odds of being struck in your lifetime are about 1 in 12,000, the National Weather Service estimates. But experts say there are a few rules to help keep people safe.
"We need to look at lightning safety proactively, not reactively," said Dr. Mary Ann Cooper, a physician and lightning researcher who directed the Lightning Injury Research Program at the University of Illinois at Chicago. "Avoiding situations where lightning can strike is key."
One simple rule
The National Weather Service recommends one rule to avoid lightning injuries: "When thunder roars, go indoors."
No place outside is safe when there are thunderstorms in the area, they say, as lightning can strike 10 to 15 miles away from a storm. If there isn't a structure nearby, a metal-topped vehicle with closed windows can provide safety.
Stay safe indoors
Although the safest place from lightning is indoors, there a number of extra precautions to take once inside.
A common misconception is that metal objects or water "attract" lightning. In reality, they're no more likely to be struck than a piece of cardboard or a person. The danger occurs because metal and water better conduct electricity once they're zapped.
The National Weather Service recommends people avoid washing hands or taking a shower, and touching or even unplugging electrical devices plugged into walls, as these can conduct electricity from a lightning strike.
Disregard outdated advice
Experts said there's some truth in the idea that lightning is more likely to strike the tallest object in an area -- for example, a tree or a skyscaper -- and that "pointier" objects are more likely to be hit.
But being outside at all during a thunderstorm puts you at risk of getting struck. The "lightning crouch," which was once thought to keep people safe during a lightning storm, is no longer recommended, Cooper said. There is no "safe" place outdoors during stormy weather.
"Lightning doesn't know if you're 6 feet tall or 3 1/2 feet tall after it's traveled miles through the air," said Cooper, who is the founding director of the African Centre for Lightning and Electromagnetics.
It's not always a direct hit
It's a common misconception that a person needs to be struck directly to be injured by lightning, Cooper said. Only 3% to 5% of injuries are from direct strikes, she said.
There are several ways lightning can reach a victim's body and cause injury. More than half of lightning-related injuries result from what's called a "ground strike," where lightning strikes the Earth and spreads through the ground, eventually reaching a person, Cooper said.
"A lightning 'side flash' also kills a tremendous portion of people," Cooper said. "That's where lightning travels down a tree and sideways where a person might be standing."
After lightning strikes
The surge of electricity from a lightning strike can wreak havoc on a person's heart, brain and nervous system, and it can cause instant death by "short-circuiting" the heart. A survivor of a lightning strike might live with severe brain damage that can make activities such as memory, learning and task organization difficult.
"Ninety percent of people who are injured by lightning survive, but disabilities can last for a lifetime," Cooper said. "I've seen significant devastation to families from lightning injuries."
If you witness someone struck by lightning, get emergency medical help right away. If multiple people are impacted, help anyone unconscious first. If the person has stopped breathing or has no pulse, correct CPR should be attempted immediately.
"If the person is breathing, talking and making sense, there is no emergency and generally little a physician would find or be able to treat," Cooper said. Some symptoms may not be noticeable until later, when a person is unable to carry out daily responsibilities in the way they did before.
"Many people who are struck by lightning describe it as a blunt force... like being impacted by an explosion," Cooper said. "Others may feel the sensation creeping up one leg, or as a burning or searing pain."
What Employers Need to Know About Court’s Gay-Marriage Ruling
Originally posted by Rachel Emma Silverman on June 30, 2015 on wsj.com.
The Supreme Court on Friday ruled that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry, meaning that same-sex marriages must be recognized nationwide. The ruling will have vast implications for employers, which until now have been operating under a patchwork of different state and federal laws governing the legal and tax treatment of same-sex unions.
Here’s what businesses should keep in mind as they navigate the new landscape.
If an employer offers spousal health-insurance benefits, do they need to offer them to all married employees, gay or straight?
In general, yes.
Companies that offer spousal health benefits and use a separate insurance company to fund their benefits will now be required to cover both gay and straight spouses. “Based on the court’s ruling. there is simply one type of spouse,” says Todd Solomon, a law partner in the employee-benefits practice group at McDermott Will & Emery in Chicago, who has been tracking same-sex employee benefits for nearly two decades.
But companies that are self-insured, which means they assume the insurance risks for their own employees, a common practice among large companies, aren’t under the same legal constraints. “There is technically no legal requirement that a self-insured company has to include a same-sex spouse,” Mr. Solomon says. As a result, self insurance “is where we are going to see a lot of activity and a lot of litigation.”
Companies should think twice about self-insuring but denying benefits to gay spouses because they will be vulnerable to discrimination suits, he says.
What if an employer has a religious objection to gay marriage?
They have limited options.
Companies could choose not to offer benefits to spouses altogether. Or they could self-insure and attempt to offer benefits to only straight spouses, but they run a high risk of discrimination suits, Mr. Solomon says.
Now that same-sex marriage is legal, will it add a lot of people to employers’ benefits plans? Will this be expensive for employers?
It could, but it depends on what type of plan a company already had.
If a company already covered unmarried same-sex domestic partners, it could be cheaper because covering spouses doesn’t have negative tax implications and is easier to administer than most domestic partnership benefits, Mr. Solomon says.
But if a company only offered spousal benefits, the ruling will add new couples that previously weren't allowed to marry.
Will the Supreme Court ruling lead to fewer employers offering spousal benefits?
Yes—that has been the trend, and the ruling might exacerbate it.
Employers have been cutting spousal benefits to save money, either dropping spousal coverage or imposing surcharges on spouses who can obtain health insurance elsewhere. A survey from consulting firm Mercer of more than 1,100 large employers found that 17% either excluded spouses with other coverage available or imposed a surcharge in 2014, compared with 12% in 2012.
The Supreme Court ruling might spur some employers who were already inclined to cut spousal benefits to do so, Mr. Solomon says.
What are the tax implications?
It equalizes the tax treatment of gay and straight married couples.
Until the ruling, there were a patchwork of state and federal tax laws governing same-sex couples. Employers, depending on the state, sometimes faced additional payroll taxes for same-sex employees, and workers sometimes faced additional income taxes.
Now, for both federal and state tax purposes, companies and employees won't face different tax treatment for gay and straight married couples. That will make benefits easier for companies to administer, Mr. Solomon says.
What does this mean for domestic partnership benefits?
This is a particularly complicated issue for employers.
Over the past decade, a growing number of companies offered “domestic partnership” coverage for gay employees and their partners as a way to provide equal benefits for couples who couldn’t legally wed. Others companies offer coverage more broadly to unmarried domestic partners, regardless of sexual orientation, recognizing that some employees simply prefer not to marry.
Companies that offer unmarried partnership benefits to both gay and straight couples will likely continue to do so.
But companies that offer partnership benefits just to gay couples may begin to phase them out because now all their employees can legally marry. Offering domestic partnership benefits just to gay couples but not straight ones might make firms vulnerable to reverse discrimination lawsuits, lawyers say.
On the other hand, firms may choose to keep domestic partnership benefits to help protect gay employees from discrimination. The majority of U.S. states lack anti-discrimination protection for gay employees, so workers can be fired for their sexuality. Because marriage certificates are public, forcing employees to get married for spousal benefits may end up “outing” an employee, while domestic partnerships are typically private matters, gay advocates say.
12 Ways Your Pet Can Improve Your Mental Health!
Originally posted by Danielle Hark on July 14, 2013 on HuffingtonPost.com.
When I am feeling down and weary, and I can barely lift myself off the couch, my dog comes to my rescue. She cuddles with me, then motivates me to get up, dressed, and out the door for a walk or some play time. Somehow my fur-baby even gets me to smile, no matter how miserable or stressed I feel.
I am not alone. It turns out that all pets, not just therapy pets, can help your mind, body, and spirit.
Here are a dozen reasons why:
1. They get you outside: Sun and fresh air elevate your mood and the sun gives you an extra dose of vitamin D. Vitamin D exposure helps fight physical and mental conditions, including depression, cancer, obesity, and heart attacks. Also, when you go outside with your pet, you are engaging with nature. Try taking a moment to listen to the trees rustling, feel the wind rushing past, and the sun upon your face. The sounds and feeling of nature can be incredibly calming.
2. They get you moving: Walking your dog and engaging in outdoors activities like tossing a Frisbee gives you a natural energy boost, and allows you to let off steam. It also makes you more physically fit, strengthening your muscles and bones, which helps not only your body, but also your self-esteem. Studies have shown that animal owners, both adults and children, have lower blood pressure, as well as lower cholesterol and triglycerides, which may be in part attributed to the more active lifestyle pets promote. Pet owners also have been noted to have better circulation, and a lower risk of experiencing major cardiac issues. And when your body feels stronger, you are less susceptible to mental health issues.
3. They lessen allergies and asthma, and build immunity: This one may sound counterintuitive, but children who grow up in homes with furry friends are actually less likely to develop common allergies. Studies have shown that children who were exposed to two or more dogs or cats as babies were less than half as likely to develop allergies, including dust, grass, ragweed and pet allergies, and were at a lower risk for asthma. Allergies can cause people to become lethargic, apathetic, and suffer from insomnia, which can make them more vulnerable to mental health issues, such as depression.
4. Petting reduces stress: Rhythmic petting or grooming can be comforting to your dog or cat, and you. Concentrate on the texture of his soft fur, the warmth he radiates, and his deep breaths. When you connect with your pet, oxytocin, the hormone related to stress and anxiety relief, is released, helping to reduce blood pressure and lower cortisol levels.
5. They both distract you and keep you present: Being present and engaged with your pet takes your thoughts off of the issues that are plaguing you. When you are fully in the moment, you are not worrying about the past or the future. It's just you and your pet. Another way to keep distracted and present with your furry friend is to take photos or videos of his or her cute antics.
6. They lessen loneliness: If you don't like to be alone, pets can be great domestic companions. Often a pet is very intuitive and will seek you out when you're feeling down, refusing to allow you to remain alone. Just make sure you can fully care for and love a pet before you take her home. Pets should not be used to fill a temporary void and then pushed aside. A dog or cat is a long-term commitment, and it's not always easy, but if you are up to it, they can provide much love through the good times and the bad.
7. They're great listeners: You can talk to your pet about anything -- your day, your hopes, your dreams. You can practice a speech with them, lament about a breakup, or utter truths that you may be afraid to actually share with someone else. A dog or cat can be the perfect "person" to go to when you want to vent without any potential repercussions.
8. They love you unconditionally: Seeing her enthusiasm when you walk in the door can be an instant mood-lifting boost. Her tail wagging, tongue hanging out her mouth making it look like she is smiling, the way her ears perk up. Her grunts or purrs. She doesn't care if you just screwed up a deal at work, or bombed a test, she loves you for being you, whatever that means on any given day. She's just happy to seeyou. She wants to be around you, to love you, and be loved by you.
9. They can lessen your isolation: Dog parks allow for more opportunities for socialization for both your dog and you. Your dog makes friends pretty easily and will break the ice so you can connect with new people, and perhaps set up future dog dates, hikes, or playtimes at local parks. Your little cutie can be an instant conversation starter, and also a good way to get to know some of the people in your neighborhood.
10. They can give you a purpose: Having a pet to care for can give you a feeling of purpose, which can be crucial when you are feeling really down and overwhelmed by negative thoughts. By caring for your pet, or another person or animal in need, you are focusing on something other than yourself and your life. Your good deeds, and your pet's positive response, will give you a feeling of instant gratification.
11. They make you smile: When your dog does cute things like rolling on his back or putting a paw up on your arm, he can make you smile, which in turn triggers neurotransmitters to fire. These pet-time smiles can raise your serotonin and dopamine levels, which are nerve transmitters associated with calmness and happiness.
12. Playing is fun: With the grind of daily life, sometimes we forget to just let loose and have fun. Go ahead; wrestle, play catch, dance together, or just run around and act silly. Your dog will love you for it.
So go have some fun with your pooch or feline friend! Have a ball, with a ball, or anything else, and you will both benefit from the pleasurable together time.
And if you don't have a pet or can't get one right now, you can volunteer at a shelter. There are many animals that can still benefit from your love, and you will feel the benefits, too.