Tips to Avoid the Scariest Place Of All
Originally Posted on Oct 23, 2014 by Sandy Smith on www.ehstoday.com.
Each year, 9.2 million babies, children and teens are injured severely enough to need treatment in emergency departments all across America, reports the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
“Nothing is scarier than a trip to the emergency room,” said Mark Cichon, DO, chair, Department of Emergency Medicine, Loyola University Health System. “In a season devoted to frights, it is our goal to keep everyone safe.”
Here are Dr. Cichon's top tips to avoid going bump in the night and for a healthy, happy Halloween:
Invest in a pumpkin carving kit and avoid knives. “Manipulating a sharp knife in a rigid pumpkin rind without injury is almost impossible for an adult or child,” said Cichon, a professor at Stritch School of Medicine, Loyola University. “Proper tools make sure you carve the jack o’ lantern and not yourself or a loved one.”
Supervise anything that is burning, from scented candles to carved pumpkins to firepits. “Fires can happen in a flash and get quickly out of control,” said Cichon. “The colder temperatures invite the warm glow of candles to the excitement of an end-of-season bonfire. Watch out for burning leaf piles.”
Use extra precaution when climbing ladders to hang decorations inside and outside. “Falls from ladders are one of the top reasons adults come to the emergency room and they are largely avoidable,” said Cichon. “Use the right-sized ladder, and one that is safe, and work with a partner to do the job right.”
Make sure Halloween costumes offer visibility and ease of movement. “Masks, hats, wigs, glasses, hoods – costumes often include headgear that can obstruct vision and lead to trips and falls,” Cichon cautioned. “And make sure it is easy to walk in the costume without tripping or catching on things.”
Dress for the weather. “It is easy to get overheated or too cold at this time of year, without the addition of wearing a costume,” Cichon pointed out. “Check skin temperature and watch for signs such as shivering or lethargy. Don’t forget to wear waterproof footgear that has treads for sure footing.”
Make sure your group is visible to motorists. Have one adult in the trick-or-treating group wear a reflective safety vest and give each child a glow stick or flashlight to increase visibility. “You want to be able to see where you are going and also for others to see you, especially around moving vehicles,” said Cichon. Stay in a group and put kids on the buddy system.
Avoid alcohol use when supervising children. “Don’t drink and accompany your kids as they trick-or-treat,” said Cichon. “If you choose, enjoy a beer or cocktail at the end of the night after kids are safely indoors, or better yet, in bed.”
Avoid over-tiring children. “Fatigue can lower resistance, leading to illness and injury,” warned Cichon. Make sure a good night’s sleep starts Halloween day and rest up before the night's activities. Eat healthy meals and drink plenty of water to stay hydrated. Maintain regular bedtimes.
Inspect treats when you get home. “Make sure candy and goodies are age-appropriate; avoid smaller pieces for younger children that could be a choking hazard,” said Cichon. And, if your child has food allergies such as a peanut allergy, remember to remove that candy from the bag.
Balance candy consumption with healthy foods. “When my four children were younger, my wife and I would hide their candy and allow them each to choose two pieces after dinner to limit over-consumption,” remembered Cichon.
Be aware of the potential for loud and scary noises. “Playful scaring antics by enthusiastic celebrants and even barking dogs can frighten children and cause them to react suddenly,” Cichon warned. “Falling down porch stairs, tripping over curbs and even colliding with others can result in harm.”
Drive vehicles slowly and cautiously on Halloween, especially on sidestreets. “Watch for trick-or-treaters but also be aware of any flying eggs or other debris that could impede vision,” Cichon cautioned.
The Retirement Readiness Challenge: Five Ways Employers Can Improve Their 401(k)s
Originally posted October 20, 2014 on www.ifebp.org.
Today, nonprofit Transamerica Center for Retirement Studies® ("TCRS") released anew study and infographic identifying five ways employers can improve their 401(k)s. As part of TCRS' 15th Annual Transamerica Retirement Survey, this study explores employers' views on the economy, their companies, and retirement benefits. It compares and contrasts employers' views with workers' perspectives.
"As the economy continues its prolonged recovery from the recession, our survey found upbeat news that many employers are hiring additional employees. Moreover, they recognize the value of offering retirement benefits," said Catherine Collinson, president of TCRS.
Seventy-two percent of employers have hired additional employees in the last 12 months (compared to only 16 percent that say they have implemented layoffs or downsizing). Among employers that offer a 401(k) or similar plan (e.g., SEP, SIMPLE), the vast majority (89 percent) believe their plans are important for their ability to attract and retain talent.
Retirement Benefits and Savings Are Increasing (Yet More Can Be Done)
Employers are increasingly offering 401(k) or similar plans to their employees. Between 2007 and 2014, the survey found that the percentage of employers offering a 401(k) or similar plan increased from 72 percent to 79 percent. The offering of a plan is highest among large companies of 500 or more employees (98 percent) and small non-micro companies of 100 to 499 employees (95 percent) and lowest among micro companies of 10 to 99 employees (73 percent).
During the recession and its aftereffects, many 401(k) plan sponsors suspended or eliminated their matching contributions. Plan sponsors that offer matching contributions dropped from 80 percent in 2007 to approximately 70 percent from 2009 to 2012. In 2014, the survey found that 77 percent of plan sponsors now offer a match, nearly rebounding to the 2007 level.
"Despite the tumultuous economy in recent years, 401(k) plan participants stayed on course with their savings," said Collinson. According to the worker survey, participation rates among workers who are offered a plan have increased from 77 percent in 2007 to 80 percent in 2014. Among plan participants, annual salary contribution rates have increased from seven percent (median) in 2007 to eight percent (median) in 2014, with a slight dip to six percent during the economic downturn.
Workers' total household retirement savings increased between 2007 and 2014. The 2014 estimated median household retirement savings is $63,000, a significant increase from 2007, when the estimated median was just $47,000. Notably, Baby Boomers have saved $127,000 (estimated median) in household retirement accounts compared to $75,000 in 2007. "For some workers, current levels of retirement savings may be adequate; for many others, they are not enough," said Collinson.
Five Ways Employers Can Improve Their 401(k)s
"401(k)s play a vital role in helping workers save and invest for retirement," said Collinson. "Until every American worker is on track to achieve a financially secure retirement, there will be opportunities for further innovation and refinements to our retirement system."
The survey identified five ways in which employers, with assistance from their retirement plan advisors and providers, can improve their 401(k)s. Plan sponsors are encouraged to consider these enhancements to their plans:
1. Adopt automatic plan features to increase savings rates
"Automatic enrollment is a feature that eliminates the decision-making and action steps normally required of employees to enroll and start contributing to a 401(k) or similar plan," said Collinson. "It simply automatically enrolls employees. They need only take action if they choose to opt out and not contribute to the plan."
The percentage of plan sponsors offering automatic enrollment increased from 23 percent in 2007 to 29 percent in 2014. Plan sponsors' adoption of automatic enrollment is most prevalent at large companies. Fifty-five percent of large companies offer automatic enrollment, compared to just 27 percent of small non-micro companies and 21 percent of micro companies.
Plan sponsors automatically enroll participants at a default contribution rate of just three percent (median) of an employee's annual pay. "Defaulting plan participants into a 401(k) plan at three percent of annual pay can be very misleading because it implies that it is adequate to fund an individual's or family's retirement when in most cases, it is not," said Collinson. "Plan sponsors should consider defaulting participants at a rate of six percent or more of an employee's annual pay."
"Automatic increases can help drive up savings rates: Seventy percent of workers who are offered a plan say they would be likely to take advantage of a feature that automatically increases their contributions by one percent of their salary either annually or when they receive a raise, until such a time when they choose to discontinue the increases," said Collinson.
2. Incorporate professionally managed services and asset allocation suites
Professionally managed services such as managed accounts, and asset allocation suites, including target date and target risk funds, have become staple investment options offered by plan sponsors to their employees. These options enable plan participants to invest in professionally managed services or funds that are essentially tailored to his/her goals, years to retirement, and/or risk tolerance profile.
Eighty-four percent of plan sponsors now offer some form of managed account service and/or asset allocation suite, including:
56 percent offer target date funds that are designed to change allocation percentages for participants as they approach their target retirement year; 54 percent offer target risk funds that are designed to address participants' specific risk tolerance profiles; and, 64 percent offer an account (or service) that is managed by a professional investment advisor who makes investment or allocation decisions on participants' behalf.
"For plan participants lacking the expertise to set their own 401(k) asset allocation among various funds, professionally managed accounts and asset allocation suites can be a convenient and effective solution. However, it is important to emphasize that plan sponsors' inclusion of these options, like other 401(k) investments, requires careful due diligence as well as disclosing methodologies, benchmarks, and fees to their plan participants," said Collinson.
3. Add the Roth 401(k) option to facilitate after-tax contributions
"Roth 401(k) can help plan participants diversify their risk involving the tax treatment of their accounts when they reach retirement age," said Collinson. The Roth option enables participants to contribute to their 401(k) or similar plan on an after-tax basis with tax-free withdrawals at retirement age. It complements the long-standing ability for participants to contribute to the plan on a tax-deferred basis. Plan sponsors' offering of the Roth 401(k) feature has increased from 19 percent in 2007 to 52 percent in 2014.
4. Extend eligibility to part-time workers to help expand retirement plan coverage
"Expanding coverage so that all workers have the opportunity to save for retirement in the workplace continues to be a topic of public policy dialogue. A tremendous opportunity for increasing coverage is part-time workers," said Collinson. Only 49 percent of 401(k) or similar plan sponsors say they extend eligibility to part-time workers to save in their plans.
"Employers should consider consulting with their retirement plan advisors and providers to discuss the feasibility of offering their part-time workers the opportunity to save for retirement," said Collinson.
5. Address any disconnects between employers and workers regarding benefits and preparations
The survey findings revealed some major disconnects between employers and workers regarding retirement benefits and preparations. For example: Ninety-five percent of employers that offer a 401(k) or similar plan agree that their employees are satisfied with the retirement plan that their company offers; yet, in stark contrast, only 80 percent of workers who are offered such a plan agree that they are satisfied with their employers' plans.
"Starting a dialogue between employers and their employees could help employers maximize the value of their benefits offering while also helping their employees achieve retirement readiness," said Collinson. Just 23 percent of employers have surveyed their employees on retirement benefits and even fewer workers (11 percent) have spoken with their supervisor or HR department on the topic in the past year.
United States: You've Acquired A New Qualified Retirement Plan? Time For A Compliance Check
Originally posted October 20, 2014 by Nancy Gerrie and Jeffrey M. Holdvogt of Mondaq Business Briefing, on www.ifebp.org.
In connection with a merger or acquisition, an acquiring company may end up assuming sponsorship of a tax-qualified retirement plan that covers employees of the acquired company. Basic due diligence on the plan likely was done during the acquisition. But if the plan will continue to be maintained following the acquisition, this is the perfect time to establish procedures to ensure that the numerous administrative and fiduciary requirements involved in maintaining a qualified retirement plan will continue to be met on an ongoing basis. Following is a brief summary of some key issues that a company should focus on after it assumes a new qualified retirement plan.
Review Compliance with Coverage and Nondiscrimination Testing
In order for the plan to retain its tax-qualified status, the Internal Revenue Code requires that a qualified retirement plan be tested periodically to ensure that it does not discriminate in favor of highly compensated employees. Two of the most important tests to be monitored are: (i) the coverage test, to ensure that the plan covers a stated minimum number of non-highly compensated employees on a controlled group (employer-wide) basis, and (ii) the nondiscrimination test, to ensure that the formula for determining the amount of contributions and benefits a particular participant receives does not discriminate in favor of highly compensated employees. Advance planning should be done to determine the impact of the acquisition on these tests, both for the new plan and any existing plans within the controlled group. Different rules may apply for determining which employees are highly compensated, depending on the type of transaction.
Become Familiar with the Plan's Investments and Investment Policy
The acquiring company, or more typically a committee appointed by the acquiring company, will have fiduciary responsibility for selecting the plan's investments, including the investment funds offered under a 401(k) or other individual account retirement plan. Plan fiduciaries, who likely will be newly appointed following the acquisition, must familiarize themselves with the fund lineup, obtain information to evaluate the funds and document how they monitor and select funds to ensure compliance with U.S. Department of Labor requirements. Plan fiduciaries also should familiarize themselves with the plan's written investment policy or guidelines, refer to the investment policy or guidelines when meeting to discuss changes to plan investments and update the policy or guidelines, as needed.
Understand Plan Fees and Revenue Sharing
New plan fiduciaries should carefully review any revenue-sharing arrangements related to the plan and understand the plan's use of so-called "12b-1 fees" and other revenue-sharing payments. Plan fiduciaries must understand the formula, methodology and assumptions used to determine the respective share of any revenue generated from plan investments by the plan's service provider. Plan fiduciaries also must monitor the arrangement and the service provider's performance to ensure that the revenue owed to the plan is calculated correctly and that the amounts are applied properly (for example, for payment of proper plan expenses or for reallocation to participants' plan accounts).
Review Consultant, Investment Manager and Service Provider Agreements
Qualified retirement plan fiduciaries typically have agreements with various consultants, investment managers and service providers that carry over following an acquisition. This is a good time to review these agreements, both to understand the service providers (and whether they are still needed) and to make sure plan fiduciaries are set up to properly monitor and select new service providers, as needed. In particular, plan fiduciaries should understand whether the consultant or advisor represents itself to be a fiduciary or co-fiduciary of the plan, whether the consultant or advisor maintains adequate insurance coverage, whether fees are reasonable and whether any conflicts of interest exist.
Ensure the Plan's Eligibility Provisions Reflect the New Controlled Group
The plan document will specify precise rules for employee eligibility. Following an acquisition, the acquiring company often must update the plan's eligibility provisions to reflect the new controlled group. In addition, with new administrators and new human resources personnel likely to be looking at the plan, this is an ideal time to make sure the plan is following the eligibility and enrollment rules set forth in the plan document, including: (1) eligibility for or exclusion of part-time employees; (2) proper classification of independent contractors; (3) adherence to hours-of-service counting rules or the elapsed-time alternative; (4) re-enrollment of rehired participants; and (5) for automatic enrollment plans, proper automatic enrollment for eligible employees on a timely basis.
Check the Plan's Definition(s) of Compensation
A plan's definition of compensation is used for a variety of important purposes, including the calculation of an employee's allocation in a defined contribution plan or benefit accruals in a defined benefit plan, adherence to limitations on allowable compensation and performing nondiscrimination testing. The plan document must specify precise definitions for applicable compensation for each purpose. Problems frequently arise following an acquisition because the payroll provider may change or key personnel who understood how compensation was applied under the plan may be gone. Also, the transaction agreement may require the continuation of certain benefit levels for a period of time, which in practice may require that the plan continue to apply the same definition of eligible compensation as before the transaction. Plan administrators should review payroll codes against the plan's definition of compensation and make adjustments to either the plan or the payroll codes, as needed.
Review the Distribution Paperwork
The acquiring company will usually update the plan's summary plan description and employee communications to reflect the new employer. However, distribution paperwork, including benefit election and rollover forms that the employee must complete, as well as descriptions of optional forms of benefits and other required disclosures, is often overlooked in the due diligence and transition process. If election forms are not periodically reviewed and updated, the plan may fail to provide all the correct options (for example, installments, annuities and lump sums, where available) or fail to require spousal consent for distributions, where it is required under plan rules.
Update ERISA Fidelity Bonds and Fiduciary Insurance Coverage
One of the most common failures noted by the Department of Labor during audits is a plan's maintenance of an Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) fidelity bond. ERISA generally requires that every fiduciary of an employee benefit plan and every person who handles funds or other property of such a plan be bonded (for at least 10 percent of the amount of funds he or she handles, subject to a $500,000 maximum per plan for plans that do not hold employer securities) to protect from risk of loss due to fraud or dishonesty on the part of persons who "handle" plan funds or other property. The period after an acquisition is an excellent time to make sure the plan maintains appropriate bonds, as well as to make sure the company is adequately protected with fiduciary insurance coverage, which may be with the same insurer as the fidelity bond.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
Deadline Looms to Obtain Group Health Plan Identifiers
Originally posted October 17, 2014 by Stephen Miller on www.shrm.org.
updated 9/19/2014
Self-insured employers should take note of approaching deadlines under a Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) final rule that requires large health plans to obtain health plan identifiers (HPIDs) by Nov. 5, 2014; for small plans, the deadline is Nov. 5, 2015.
An HPID is intended to serves as a unique identifier for health plans involved in transactions subject to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). HIPAA defines a small health plan as one with annual receipts of $5 million or less.
Employers “are really struggling with the requirements for health plan identifiers,” said Gretchen Young, senior vice president for health policy at the ERISA Industry Committee (ERIC), in a news release. “Regulations issued by HHS were clearly not written with self-insured group health plans in mind.”
Clarification Sought
ERIC recently polled its members, who are large employers that sponsor benefit plans for their workers, and found that the vast majority of these companies had not tried to obtain an HPID as of September 2014. The poll indicated that nearly half of the respondents (45 percent) were still waiting, with hopes that HHS would publish relevant guidance.
For those members who have attempted to obtain an HPID, 100 percent found the process to be “very difficult” or “difficult,” Young said. Common problems included the lack of guidance from HHS regarding the manner in which self-insured plans should calculate the number of plans that need an HPID.
“Many plan sponsors use a single document that includes a variety of different benefit programs and they treat all of the benefit programs as a single plan for reporting purposes under ERISA. It is unclear whether companies would need to treat each type of benefit as a separate [controlling health plan] that needs its own HPID, even if they use a single document and their benefits are treated as a single plan for ERISA purposes,” explained Young.
“It is critical that HHS act quickly to address the deficiencies in the current guidance...given the lack of guidance and difficulties using their system,” she said.
Other Self-Funded Arrangements
“While it is the insurer that is responsible to obtain an HPID on behalf of fully insured health plans, plan sponsors of fully insured health plans should be aware that an HPID may be required for other self-funded arrangements,” cautioned Tripp Vander Wal, an attorney with law firm Miller Johnson, in an online article.
Examples of these self-funded arrangements include health reimbursement arrangements (HRAs) or medical flexible spending accounts (FSAs). “The good news is that HRAs and FSAs are likely to qualify as small health plans and have an additional year to obtain an HPID,” he noted.
Update:
In a subsequently issued set of FAQs, the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Eligibility stated that neither health FSAs nor HSAs are required to obtain an HPID because they are “individual accounts directed by the consumer to pay health care costs.” In addition, CMS stated that whether an HRA needs an HPID depends on what it reimburses. HRAs that cover only deductibles or out-of-pocket costs do not require HPIDs; however, HRAs that pay for other costs (e.g., health insurance premiums) still need HPIDs.
Commented law firm Alston & Bird LLP in an Advisory Update, “We note that, while this guidance may appear to be welcome news for employers with only fully insured plans and health FSAs or HRAs (whose only potential HPID enumeration responsibility would be because of the health FSA or HRA), it is not consistent with HIPAA’s definition of health plan, under which both health FSAs and HRAs are health plans, as CMS has previously recognized. Employers should be able to rely on CMS’s clear statement in this guidance that FSAs and certain HRAs do not require HPIDs, but we advise caution. Given the inconsistency with previous guidance on FSAs and HRAs and the manner in which CMS has phrased the FAQ, the guidance may not create as broad an exception as it first appears.”
IRS Expands Midyear Election Change Rules for Section 125 Plans
Originally posted October 1, 2014 on https://blog.thinkhr.com.
On September 18, 2014, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) issued Notice 2014-55, Additional Permitted Election Changes for Health Coverage under § 125 Cafeteria Plan, which allows employers to make specific changes to their plans. These changes will make it easier for employees to change their group plan elections and take advantage of individual health plans available to them through the Marketplace exchanges created by the Affordable Care Act (ACA).
Section 125 cafeteria plans generally require participants to make binding elections for an entire plan year, with employers being able to allow employees to make changes only in limited cases (e.g., marriage, birth, or adoption of child). With the issuance of Notice 2014-55, the list of possible exceptions expands somewhat, making it possible for the employer to amend its plan design to allow an employee to drop employer-sponsored group coverage in order to enroll in a state or federally-facilitated Health Insurance Marketplace.
This guidance applies only to health coverage offered through a cafeteria plan that is minimum essential coverage. Thus, it does not apply to stand-alone dental and/or vision coverage or to health flexible spending accounts (FSAs). Further, an employer’s choice to amend its plan to adopt any of these exceptions is voluntary.
Reduction in Hours
Under the new exceptions, if an employee experiences a reduction in work hours to less than 30 hours per week, the employee may revoke coverage in the cafeteria plan if he or she plans to enroll in coverage through the Marketplace or another health plan.
This new opportunity for exemption could allow an employee who is changing to part-time status to benefit from subsidies available through the Marketplace. This is likely to be the case if an employee expects to experience lower household income after a change in status.
Previously, participant elections were irrevocable during the plan year unless the employee experienced certain family status changes, or unless the plan sponsor made significant changes to coverage or cost. For instance, under the ACA’s employer shared responsibility (play or pay) rules, a variable-hours employee may be covered for an entire “stability period” although the employee’s work schedule and earnings may change dramatically. The existing cafeteria plan rules would not allow the employee to revoke coverage in that case. The new exceptions, however, permit the employer to amend the cafeteria plan so an employee in that circumstance would be able to drop the coverage before the end of the stability period.
If a plan intends to adopt this exception, the following requirements must be met:
An employee must have been expected to average at least 30 hours per week prior to an actual change in the employee’s status that results in the expectation that the employee will average less than 30 hours per week. It does not matter if the employee will actually lose health plan eligibility due to hours — the expectation of averaging 30 hours per week is the test.
The change must correspond to the employee — including dependents experiencing a resulting change in coverage — intending to enroll in another plan providing minimum essential coverage.
The new coverage must be effective by the first day of the second month following the month in which the original coverage is revoked.
“Intending to enroll” in other coverage is determined by the statement of the employee experiencing a change in status. The employer may rely on such an employee’s reasonable representation of intentions. This reasonable representation applies to the employee and any related individuals impacted by the change.
Changes in Connection with Marketplace Enrollment
The IRS Notice also provides for another exception so employees can make midyear election changes. This new exception may be beneficial to employees who are covered by non-calendar year cafeteria plans, or who are finding Marketplace plans more attractive after a change in family status, to resolve the gap between an employer’s cafeteria plan year and the Marketplace open enrollment January 1st effective date. The current cafeteria plan rules do not allow employees to drop coverage at work midyear in order to enroll in a Marketplace plan. The Marketplace offers open enrollment for new policies starting January 1; however, many employer plans do not operate on a calendar-year basis.
Employers are now able to adopt provisions allowing an employee to revoke an enrollment election in order to obtain coverage through the Marketplace. The following conditions must be met for this exception to be allowed:
The employee must be seeking to enroll in the Marketplace during annual open enrollment or during a special enrollment period.
Enrollment in the Marketplace plan must be effective immediately following loss of coverage from the employer-sponsored plan.
Any related individuals who were dependent on the employee’s previous enrollment must also be enrolled in the new plan.
In this case, the employer is not required to prove that other coverage is actually elected. Rather, the employer is allowed to rely on the reasonable representation of an employee that he or she is intending to enroll in Marketplace coverage immediately after the change to enrollment in the employer’s plan is effective. Thus, there should be no gap in coverage if an employee is allowed to exercise this option.
Adopting the New Optional Provisions
Employers may adopt one or both of the new exceptions for midyear election changes by amending the cafeteria plan. For convenience, the IRS is allowing employers to amend their plans for the 2014 plan year by adopting the amendment at any time on or before the last day of the plan year that begins in 2015. Although the employer has extra time to adopt the formal amendment, the employer must take the following steps before allowing the exceptions:
Operate the cafeteria plan in accordance with the guidance outlined in IRS Notice 20144-55; and Notify all plan participants of the changes.
For complete details, read IRS Notice 2014-55.
5 companies that dropped part-time employee health care
Originally posted on https://ebn.benefitnews.com.
Just 25% of companies that offered employee health insurance made coverage available to part-time workers in 2013, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. That percentage will decline further with Walmart Stores Inc.’s announcement that it is dropping health insurance for part-time employees. Walmart joins a growing list of major retailers that have done the same.
Target announced in January 2014 that it was dropping coverage for part-time employees. The company said in a blog post that less than 10% of its total employee population participated in that plan.
The world’s largest home improvement retailer said in September 2013 that it was ending coverage for 20,000 part-time employees. Employees with fewer than 30 hours a week were no longer offered limited liability medical coverage, Bloomberg reported. At the time, 5% of the company’s 34,000 employees were enrolled in that plan.
In August 2013, the retailer sent a memo to staff that it was dropping coverage for part-timers, but giving them a check for $500 to find coverage through the public exchanges.
In August 2013, the retailer announced it was cutting some employees’ hours to 29.5 hours, or just under the 30 hour threshold at which the Affordable Care Act mandates coverage be provided. Forever 21 does not provide coverage to part-time employees. In a Facebook note, the company said the decision was made “independent of the Affordable Care Act” and that the change impacted less than 1% of all U.S. store employees.
On Oct. 7, the world’s largest retail chain said it plans to stop offering health benefits to employees who work less than 30 hours a week, or about 2% of its U.S. staff.
Taking an unconventional approach to wellness planning
Benefits managers often find themselves stranded in no-man’s land when it comes to bringing wellness to a workplace. As a concept, wellness is a thriving and transformative experience for many employers, but justifying those costs – or adopting a wait-and-see attitude to measuring a wellness program’s success – is a difficult case to make with a company’s financial decision-makers.
In tracing the wellness success story of Elkay Manufacturing – whose wellness program saw a 76% reduction in major health issues among staff most likely to incur substantial health care costs, not to mention a projected increase in 2015 health care premiums limited to just 1.8% - some of the secret may lie in the unconventional approach taken by the company’s wellness champion.
Carol Partington, corporate manager of compensation and benefits with the 3,000-employee maker of sinks and water coolers – speaking at last week’s EBN Benefits Forum and Expo – said her company’s unimpressive early results with wellness required her to take a more straight-forward tack.
“You need to get leadership support to create an effective program, but you also don’t want to scare the hell out of senior management,” Partington says. “My approach was, ‘I know where I’m going, I’m just not telling everyone where we’re going yet.’ You also can’t be too aggressive; you need to put disciplined steps in place, and be willing to be flexible.”
And while most company executives need to be shown the hard facts before committing to any additional wellness spend, Partington says she simply admitted to her company’s leaders – a business founded in 1920 – that return on investment is often impossible to demonstrate in a wellness effort, opting to emphasize value of the investment instead. Rogue as that may seem, Elkay’s current wellness results – and its low anticipated health care cost increases – earned her the respect of her managerial team.
“We have a company that’s 70% manufacturing workers, in 15 locations across the country, two of which are unionized, and I don’t get a lot of time with people,” she notes. “But my job is to remove distractions from our employees’ lives – we work in a setting where people can lose body parts if they’re worried about their own health, their parents, their sick kids. How can I give them a solution that works?”
Elkay first adopted biometric testing-based wellness in 1994, offering a $25 incentive to employees to participant, but Partington says that the company so almost no results after 12 years, with the company still paying approximately $23 million a year on its employee health care plan. Partington said a high-deductible plan never fit into Elkay’s culture, and costs continued to escalate. Evan a $700 premium differential for employees who demonstrated better health results wasn’t the answer, she says.
“We asked our employees why they took part in the health screenings, and most said they were doing it just to get the premium. I realized we’d failed in our mission,” she notes. “And with no dedicated wellness staff at our company, wellness is only 15% of what I can pay attention to – it’s one of my many responsibilities.”
Partington opted to join forces with Interactive Health to introduce an evidence-based program that could seriously improve her employees’ health, especially those with the most potential health risks, as well as actively addressing those escalating health plan costs. The use of aggregated health data was instrumental in finding some customized solutions for workers.
She says it was also critical to match any incentive programs to company culture, a task somewhat more difficult as Elkay has manufacturing sites in more than a dozen very different and often remote parts of the country. In some rural sites, hunting and fishing licenses were seen as extremely valuable commodities, or even Jiffy Lube coupons for oil changes.
Partington also shied away from gamification efforts, given employees’ limited access to email and smartphones, and also did not establish fitness challenges as a company-wide initiative. She says she also had to be mindful of other cultural differences: Championing the company’s successful tobacco-cessation efforts at a manufacturing site in the middle of tobacco-growing country, where employees’ spouses and families were often employed in that business, required a bit of extra sensitivity.
In the end, by personalizing the incentives and communication, Elkay has created an almost $1,200 differential in its better-health insurance rates, resulting in a 20% savings. Of 636 employees tracked with a litany of five serious current or potential health indicators, Elkay produced a 76% reduction in those health issues. And 77% of employees taking part in more personalized health tracking met their personal health goal in the second year of the enhanced program.
“Change is hard,” Partington says. “So you gotta talk a lot.”
Workforce participation: Entering later, staying longer
Originally posted October 3, 2014 by Nick Otto on https://ebn.benefitnews.com.
Retirement patterns are changing globally. As a result, providing employees greater retirement security and financial literacy can help employers cultivate a less stressed, healthier and more engaged workforce.
To fend off employee concerns about retirement savings, Shane Bartling, a senior retirement consultant at Towers Watson, says benefits managers should work to use impactful approaches to set smart retirement savings habits.
“Showing employees the age when their resources will maintain their lifestyle [and their] financial independence, provides a clear, personal and emotional motivation to save,” he says. That pre-retirement sweet spot, which the consultant firm dubs “the FiT Age,” can be reinforced with “emotionally impactful, personalized communications to drive behaviors, since auto-enrollment and auto-escalation may fall well short of what is needed.”
During the mid-to-late 20th century, labor force participation rates dropped for older workers and rose for younger ones. These trends have recently reversed, especially among men and younger workers.
More recently, a chart from the Senate Budget Committee shows that almost 1 in 4 Americans in their prime working years, between the ages of 25-54, are not working which could drastically affect changes in how and when an employee can eventually retire.
The trend of longer working careers is expected to continue, possibly even intensifying, according to recent Towers Watson survey results. On the other hand, those who are unemployed today require more and more education, resulting in many young adults putting off a potential job in favor of additional education. Typically, employees delay or take a break from labor force participation by spending more time in school.
Meanwhile, to assist employees to build better saving habits, Bartling advises that employers educate the advantages of increased tax efficiencies for workers which would provide for a stronger retirement. “Tax treatment of Social Security and post-retirement medical premiums makes Roth 401(k) and health savings accounts highly attractive for many workers, including [those in] middle income levels; tax efficiency alone may pay for a year of retirement,” he says.
“The risk of a workforce that is stuck, due to employee retirement financial shortfalls, merits re-examining how benefits are delivered,” he adds. “Evaluate the business case for more efficient retirement benefit delivery,” adding that just matching contributions may not be the most efficient way to deliver benefits.
10 states with the highest uninsured rates post-ACA
Originally posted on https://ebn.benefitnews.com.
While the uninsured rate has dropped to a record low of 13.4% nationwide, according to Gallup figures, rates differ dramatically across states. Here are the 10 states with the highest uninsured rates in the aftermath of health care reform implementation, according to WalletHub.
A decreasing rate of uninsured Americans shows the Affordable Care Act has impacted the number of individuals with health care coverage, but that impact varies widely by state. We’ve already highlighted the 10 states with the lowest uninsured rates post-ACA. Here are the 10 states with the highest uninsured rates, according to WalletHub, which analyzed data from the Kaiser Family Foundation, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the U.S. Census Bureau. Seven states were excluded from analysis because of data limitations.
Pre-ACA uninsured rate: 21.66%
Post-ACA projected uninsured rate: 18.16%
Difference before and after: -3.50%
Pre-ACA uninsured rate: 18.92%
Post-ACA projected uninsured rate: 18.29%
Difference before and after: -0.63%
Pre-ACA uninsured rate: 19.76%%
Post-ACA projected uninsured rate: 18.33%
Difference before and after: -1.43%
Pre-ACA uninsured rate: 20.48%
Post-ACA projected uninsured rate: 18.96%
Difference before and after: -1.52%
Pre-ACA uninsured rate: 26.52%
Post-ACA projected uninsured rate: 19.58%
Difference before and after: -6.94%
Pre-ACA uninsured rate: 24.29%
Post-ACA projected uninsured rate: 19.59%
Difference before and after: -4.69%
Pre-ACA uninsured rate: 24.73%
Post-ACA projected uninsured rate: 19.61%
Difference before and after: -5.12%
Pre-ACA uninsured rate: 22.41%
Post-ACA projected uninsured rate: 20.91%
Difference before and after: -1.50%
Pre-ACA uninsured rate: 18.11%
Post-ACA projected uninsured rate: 21.46%
Difference before and after: 3.34%
Pre-ACA uninsured rate: 26.8%
Post-ACA projected uninsured rate: 24.81%
Difference before and after: -1.99%
5 root causes of disengagement
Originally posted on https://ebn.benefitnews.com.
The one-size-fits-all communications approach is ending, but employee engagement is still an issue for many employers. Alison Davis, of employee communication firm Davis & Company, identified five root causes of deteriorating engagement, which she shared with attendees at this year’s Benefits Forum & Expo.
Since the recession, employees are losing confidence in the security of their jobs. Workers feel there has been a shift and that employers are holding more of the cards. According to Gallup, the number of actively disengaged workers increased to 24% in organizations that have recently laid off employees. Additionally, Towers Watson notes that 72% of companies have reduced their workforce in response to the recession.
According to Towers Watson, fewer than two in five employees have confidence in senior leaders. People are skeptical and often have a wait-and-see attitude to what leaders have to say. Employees are saying “let’s wait and see what really happens,” Davis says.
Another, and probably the biggest, challenge revolves around the different attitudes of the three primary generations in today’s workforce, says Davis. Baby boomers are burnt out and display a negative attitude in their exchanges with co-workers; Gen Xers are balancing work and home life responsibilities; Millennials have an “all about me” attitude and are somewhat impatient about moving up (or across) the corporate ladder. The average length of tenure out one job for a millennial is 2.6 years, and by the age of 27 they will have already worked four different jobs.
Employers are trapped in a 1950s mindset. This can be seen in the organizational charts that show a top-down hierarchy. The decision-making is done at the top, and general access to information is scarce, even as corporate leaders talk about transparency.
We’re in a 24/7/365 mindset where an employee is always on the job. Employees never feel quite done or that they can ever shut it down, which affects their work-life balance and causes them to feel disengaged.