56% of employers offer CDHP, 44% may make it the only choice: Aon Hewitt
Originally posted October 09, 2013 by Jerry Geisel on businessinsurance.com
Once a rarity, consumer-driven health care plans have become a mainstream design among large employers.
Fifty-six percent of midsize to large employers responding to an Aon Hewitt survey released Wednesday said they now offer CDHPs. Such high-deductible plans are linked to health reimbursement arrangements or health savings accounts, which employees can use to pay for a portion of uncovered health care expenses.
The prevalence of CDHPs is expected to grow, as 30% of respondents said they are considering offering a CDHP in three next three to five years.
Because of their high-deductible feature, CDHPs are much less expensive than other plan designs, according to several studies. For example, a Kaiser Family Foundation survey released in August found that the average cost of family coverage through CDHPs was nearly $1,500 less per employee than coverage through a preferred provider organization.
“Employers are increasingly embracing plan designs that are cost-effective, promote consumer choice and accountability, and encourage employees to be more deliberate in how they spend their health care dollars,” Maureen Fay, an Aon Hewitt senior vice president in Norwalk, Conn., said in a statement.
Only health care option for some
In addition, many employers are considering making a CDHP their only health plan choice.
While just 10% of employers now offer CDHPs as their only plan, 44% said they are they are considering doing so in the next three to five years, according to the survey.
The findings are based on the responses of 837 employers, 57% of which had more than 2,500 employees.
Shutdown stalls remaining DOMA guidance
Originally posted October 10, 2013 by Andrea Davis on ebn.benefitnews.com
While much attention has been focused on the federal government shutdown and its effect on Affordable Care Act regulations, employers are still awaiting guidance on another key piece of legislation with benefits plan implications, the Defense of Marriage Act.
“The good news is the most critical guidance has already been issued,” says Todd Solomon, partner in the employee benefits practice of Will McDermott & Emery. “The IRS and DOL have already come out with their notices that explain the state of celebration rule for federal tax purposes so we know the way forward for plan administration.”
Plan sponsors, however, are still awaiting federal guidance on two key issues: retroactivity and the deadline for plan amendments.
“The retroactivity is a bigger issue because plans can and probably will be getting claims with or without the IRS guidance,” says Solomon. “The theory was that the IRS was going to address what employers had to do with retroactivity, and employers were going to hold their breath and hope nothing came with respect to retroactive claims until the IRS guidance came out.”
A delay in the guidance will only affect employers if they get claims for retroactive benefits, says Solomon, with the most likely scenario being a claim for a survivor annuity within a pension plan.
“If a same-sex employee died six months ago, for example, and the plan didn’t pay a survivor benefit to the same-sex spouse, the spouse can make a claim. The plan has to decide whether it’s going to pay that benefit and there’s no clear answer right now on whether the plan is required to,” he says.
“Plans without guidance are in a bit of a box — on the one hand, you could say ‘just pay,’ because that makes the issue go away but, of course, just paying costs money to the trust and if it’s not something that’s required under the terms of the plan, money should never leave a retirement plan trust.”
The IRS also needs to issue guidance about a deadline for when plans need to revise their definition of the term ‘spouse.’
“Absent guidance, it would need to be done by the end of the year,” says Solomon. “If they [federal agencies] want to extend that, they’d need to do that fairly quickly. … it’s not hard guidance to issue so I would guess the shutdown should not impact that too much as long things don’t go on too long.”
Following the Supreme Court’s decision striking DOMA down last June, the Internal Revenue Service and Department of Labor issued regulations adopting a state-of-marriage approach — anyone who is legally married in a state or country recognizing same-sex marriage is now treated exactly the same as an opposite-sex spouse for all qualified plan purposes, including the taxation of medical, dental and vision benefits.
PPACA hasn’t killed COBRA – yet
Originally posted by Gina Binole on https://www.benefitspro.com
With full implementation of the Affordable Care Act looming – delays in the employer mandate aside – many in the HR world have been wondering whether health care reform will render COBRA obsolete.
The short answer: yes – and no.
While the new law has no direct impact to the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act, the indirect effects of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act could eventually render COBRA meaningless.
COBRA was designed to bridge coverage for employees who lose their job, or lose health coverage through their job. This was deemed necessary because individual policies can be expensive and quite often imposed pre-existing condition exclusions.
The PPACA, however, seeks to sever the link between employment and health care. It does this by prohibiting pre-existing condition exclusions and creating state exchanges where individual coverage is supposed to be available at affordable rates.
Beginning Jan. 1, individuals who lose employer-provided coverage will have the choice of either purchasing COBRA coverage, or purchasing coverage through the exchanges. While COBRA only allows people to elect the coverage in which they were enrolled on the date they lost their job, the exchanges are meant to offer a range of options and coverage levels.
The premium subsidies that will be available to individuals with household incomes up to 400 percent of the federal poverty level also are expected to make purchasing coverage through an exchange more attractive than paying for insurance through COBRA.
But COBRA isn’t going to disappear overnight, if ever.
“Heath care reform is being marketed as a mechanism for enhancing choice in health care options. (Once Obamacare goes into full effect), the option to remain on an employer’s plan is likely to remain a choice, in addition to plans available through the exchanges,” said Iris Tilley, an Oregon-based benefits attorney. “In addition, while COBRA coverage is typically expensive, for some individuals it may remain less expensive than exchange coverage because the cost of exchange coverage correlates directly to an individual’s age, while employer coverage (and in turn COBRA coverage) reflects a broader range of ages.”
Tilley said individuals who suffer a loss of coverage are likely to weigh the plans available through the exchanges against their employer’s plan. For some, COBRA will make sense.
Moreover, employers with a qualified health plan still will be required to provide the opportunity for a person to elect COBRA coverage. Its rules will remain in force. Tilley also noted that the PPACA does not cover dental, vision, Medical Flexible Spending Accounts, Health Reimbursement Accounts or Employee Assistance Plans, which are subject to COBRA regulations.
“There is certainly a perception that the health care exchanges eliminate the need for COBRA since with the health exchanges, individuals will have access to insurance in ways they don’t today. But employers subject to COBRA today will remain subject to COBRA until such time as Congress decided to potentially do away with COBRA,” Mary Jo Davis, Ceridian’s vice president of product management said during a recent podcast.
Davis sought to clear up what she described as a few myths surrounding COBRA and PPACA. First, she said individuals assume health exchanges will be consistent across every state. But the reality is that states will have latitude to design their own coverage. Secondly, she said people are counting on the exchange premiums to be much cheaper than employer-sponsored health care coverage.
“We don’t know that. It could be more expensive,” she said.
Finally, she said people also assume that health care exchanges will be an option for all employees and consumers in 2014. But that is true only for small employers. Depending on the state, that means those with 100 employees or fewer or 50 and fewer.
Individuals also might have met their out-of-pocket deductible costs with their employer, and it would be costly for them to switch to an exchange. Another reason for COBRA to stay relevant might be that people want to stick with existing health care providers.
Other points to consider:
- One of the qualified events that trigger the need for a COBRA notice is a dependent losing eligibility under the health plan. Now that the age for dependents to lose coverage has been extended to age 26 under PPACA, it is possible that an adult dependent can continue for an additional 36 months under COBRA or until age 29 on the employer’s health plan.
- Under PPACA, waiting periods for coverage will be no more than 90 days. This means former employees may not need COBRA coverage for as long as in the past. However, depending on the viability and quality of health plans offered through the state exchanges, it might make more sense for a former employee to elect COBRA coverage if it looks like they will have more than a three-month gap in coverage during the year that could result in a penalty under the individual mandate.
State exchanges not viable choice for active employees
Originally posted October 03, 2013 by Andrea Davis on https://ebn.benefitnews.com
The state and federally facilitated health care exchanges are not a realistic option for active employees, according to one expert. Bryce Williams, managing director of exchange solutions for Towers Watson maintains that while the public exchanges offer a good solution for early retirees and COBRA-eligible participants, “it’s not yet a viable alternative to move [active employees] to state or public exchanges.”
Employers showed little confidence in public exchanges, according to a recent survey from Towers Watson that was released prior to the public exchange launch earlier this week. Eighty-eight percent of employers said they were not confident that the public health insurance exchanges would provide a viable alternative to employer-sponsored coverage for active full-time employees in 2014.
“They were prescient in terms of what would happen given the complexity of the launch,” says Williams.
Employers expressed skepticism even heading into 2015, with 71% saying they were not confident the public exchanges would provide a viable alternative to employer-sponsored coverage for active full-time employees.
“We believe later this fall public exchanges will right themselves and be in good shape, but certainly they’ve gotten off to a bumpy start,” says Williams, adding he continues to see employers not making any big changes this year. “They want to see results.”
Still, “public exchanges continue to be a great alternative to early retiree coverage, to any of the mini-meds they’re providing to seasonal and part-time workers – this [public exchange] is a vastly better ecosystem and [offers] better coverage,” he says.
Towers Watson runs three private exchanges: OneExchange Retiree, a Medicare exchange for retirees; OneExchange Active, a self-insured exchange for active employees; and OneExchange Access, a concierge service that connects part-time employees, early retirees, dependents and others who aren’t eligible for employer-sponsored coverage, to the state exchanges.
Regs Limit Use of HRAs for Exchange-Purchased Coverage
Original content from https://www.shrm.org
On Sept 13, 2013, federal agencies issued further guidance via IRS Notice 2013-54 and DOL Technical Release 2013-03, reiterating that health reimbursement arrangements (HRAs), premium reimbursement arrangements (PRAs) and other employer payment plans cannot be used to pay for individual policy premiums on a pre-tax basis, such as when indivdiual coverage is purchased by employees through a public health insurance exchange or on the individual market.
For a true “retiree-only plan” under the tax code and ERISA, employers can still sponsor an HRA or PRA and reimburse individual policy premiums on a pre-tax basis.
Also, employers can provide their active employees with a defined dollar amount, on a pre-tax basis, to purchase group coverage through a private exchange, as explained in the SHRM Online articles "On Private Health Exchange, Choice Drives Satisfaction" and "Time for Defined Contribution Health Benefits?"
A set of frequently asked questions and answers (FAQs) issued by federal regulators on Jan. 24, 2013, will limit the use of employer-provided health reimbursement arrangements (HRAs) to fund employee purchases of individual (nongroup) coverage on government-run health care exchanges, scheduled to launch in 2014.
HRAs are employer-funded notional accounts that are often, but not always, linked to high-deductible group health plans. They typically consist of an employers' promise to reimburse an employee's out-of-pocket medical expenses through a dollar amount contributed annually to the employee's HRA, with unused amounts carried over to help reimburse medical expenses in future years. When the employment relationship ends, the HRA reverts back to the employer since, unlike a health savings account (HSA), an HRA is not employee owned and not portable. (To learn about HRAs and how they operate, see the SHRM Online article "Consumer-Driven Decision: Weighing HSAs vs. HRAs.")
The new guidance, jointly issued by the U.S. Departments of Health and Human Services, Labor and Treasury, distinguished between HRAs that are "integrated" with other coverage as part of a group health plan and HRAs that are not integrated ("stand-alone" HRAs).
The FAQs clarify that an HRA that is not integrated with group health plan coverage but provided as a stand-alone benefit is subject to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) prohibition on limiting the amount of an employee's annual health care spending subject to insurance coverage. Beginning in 2014, for employers with more than one employee, restricted annual dollar limits are not permitted.
Because of the prohibition on annual dollar limits, an employer-sponsored, stand-alone HRA cannot be used to fund the purchase of individual market coverage, or an employer plan that provides coverage through individually purchased policies, including those that might be purchased on a government-run exchange.
Public Exchanges and HRAs Don't Mix
"Some employers had hoped that with the advent of the [government-run] exchanges in 2014, they would be able to offer their employees a fixed-dollar contribution through an HRA, which would permit the employee to take advantage of the tax subsidies currently available through HRA coverage but get the employer out of the health insurance business," explained Timothy Jost, a professor at the Washington and Lee University School of Law in Virginia, in a commentary about the new FAQs posted on the journal Health Affairs' blog.
In addition, "some consumer advocates had hoped that employees would be able to couple funds offered by employers through HRAs with advance premium tax credits available through the exchanges to make individual health policies truly affordable," Jost wrote.
However, he noted, the FAQs clarify that this approach will not be permitted. "The agencies intend to issue further guidance on the issue but have concluded that stand-alone HRAs used to purchase individual coverage will not be considered to be integrated coverage that complies with the annual dollar limit requirement" under the PPACA.
Moreover, if employees are offered an HRA and group coverage but decline the latter, they still may not use the HRA to purchase individual policies, Jost said.
Not a Blanket Prohibition?
However, according to Peter Antoine, a compliance communications specialist at Middleton, Wisc.-based Employee Benefits Corporation, the fact that under the FAQ guidance a stand-alone HRA is subject to the no-limit provision does not mean that it can’t be used to reimburse the cost of an individual plan, even one purchased on an exchange. Rather, “the non-integrated HRA would have to have an unlimited benefit available, unless certain exemptions apply that weren’t spelled out in the FAQs,” he told SHRM Online.
Moreover, Antoine explained that “we believe that non-integrated HRAs that operate as health flexible spending accounts (FSAs), as described in IRS Notice 2002-45 and Internal Revenue Code Section 106, are not subject to the no-limit provision. Consequently, a stand-alone HRA that satisfies the health FSA definition could have a limited benefit, reimburse individual plan premiums and comply with health care reform.”
However, an analysis by law firm McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP concludes:
"Note that some experts have challenged whether the annual dollar limit prohibition even applies to an HRA used to fund individual premiums, since the law only prohibits annual dollar limits on EHBs [essential health benefits]. ... Other experts argue that the HRA premium reimbursement arrangements for individual market coverage should be exempt from the annual dollar limit prohibition as health flexible spending accounts meeting the definition of Code Section 106(c)(2) (i.e. the maximum amount available for reimbursement under the plan may not exceed 500% of the value of the coverage). However, the Departments apparently take a different view given the clear statement in the FAQ that HRAs reimbursing employees for individual market insurance premiums will violate the annual dollar limit prohibition."
Private Exchanges: Employer's Subsidy and Employee's Contributions Remain Pre-Tax
In Aon Hewitt's private Corporate Health Exchange, which launched in fall 2012 for plan year 2013, "the contracts between insurers and employers are traditional group contracts" covered under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), Ken Sperling, Aon Hewitt national health exchange strategy leader, explained to SHRM Online. "The employee contributions are still covered under Section 125, so the employer subsidy is deductible and the employee contributions are pre-tax, just like today. Nothing changes from a tax perspective."
Private exchanges are not eligible for government-subsidized coverage, and thus differ from the new public exchanges (to learn more, see the SHRM Online article "On Private Heatlh Exchange, Choice Drives Satisfaction.")
Small-group employers skip SHOP, move to individual exchanges
Originally posted October 03, 2013 by Elizabeth Galentine, additional reporting by Brian Kalish on https://ebn.benefitnews.com
While President Barack Obama has frequently told Americans, “if you like your plan, you can keep it,” that is not ringing true for some small groups across the country. A number of small-group employers are already planning to send their employees to the Affordable Care Act’s exchanges. It’s an outcome predicted by many in the industry, but one surprise to some is the choice of exchange.
Rather than utilize the Small Business Health Options Program (SHOP exchanges) that the ACA has set up for employer groups of 50 or fewer full-time employees, some brokers are finding their clients are more interested in sending their employees to the individual exchanges instead.
Kelly Fristoe, owner of Financial Partners in Wichita Falls, Texas, is wary of the fact that his state’s SHOP exchange only has one insurance company participating at this point. Rather than deal with potential consequences of that, he is steering his small-group clients interested in the exchange market toward the individual plans. “We’ve had some small-group customers — not a lot — telling us that they’re going to dump their plan and send their employees to the individual market,” says Fristoe, president of the Texas Association of Health Underwriters.
“So we’ve made some arrangements with those employers to be able to be the agent that sits with those employees. They’re going to let us have time with their employees to educate them on purchasing insurance through the marketplace and qualifying for a subsidy.”
Because he wants to keep those individuals as clients no matter what, Fristoe was particularly “frustrated” Tuesday when technical glitches kept him from checking out the plans on healthcare.gov. “I’m needing to salvage that business and I need to know what those individual rates are so that I can go back to those people and show them how to qualify for a subsidy, if they qualify, and get them enrolled,” he says. “… We’re going to be the agent that’s going to try to salvage that business instead of it going to one of our competitors.”
David Smith, vice president at Ebenconcepts in Morrisville, N.C., agrees that accessing the information on exchange rates is of the utmost importance right now. “You have to recognize that we’re going to have some percentage of very small groups that have already decided they’re not going to offer a group health insurance plan next year,” he says. “So if you have four or five employees a lot of them have made a business decision to not do it, and they just want to get a feel for what it’s going to cost their employees when they make that decision.”
As an administrator for the testing process for agents to be certified with Covered California, Neil Crosby, director of sales at Warner Pacific Insurance Services in Westlake Village, Calif., is surprised that the majority of people attending his classes so far have been serving the individual market. “I’m shocked at how many … are coming to primarily do it individually. There’s so many of them,” he says. “Some of the ones that do individual they also do small group, of course, but a lot of them are representing the individual. I’d say maybe 65% of people in the room.”
A lot of agency owners “want to get a feel for” for the individual market exchanges, says Ebenconcepts’ Smith, because it is very appealing for micro groups, those with nine, 10 employees, to “go to the marketplace for subsidized coverage and maybe pay less for that than they would for their group insurance today.” An employer who is looking at saving $3,500 to $5,000 in premiums by making the switch, “they’re not walking that border, they’re running to that border,” says Smith.
A common sentiment among several brokerages contacted by EBA, EBN’ssister publication, in the days following the opening of the exchanges was that they have yet to take a look at the individual or SHOP exchanges. While online enrollment in SHOP exchanges run by the federal government is delayed until Nov. 1, applicants still have the option of submitting over the phone or through the mail.
Some are using the delay as a reason not to take a look at SHOP exchanges yet, but Michael Wolff, chief operations and financial officer at Dickerson Employee Benefits in Los Angeles, cautions against such an approach. “I don’t think that’s a good idea. … I think you want to have all the tools in your tool box. In California at least they have been successful in negotiating with the carriers to come to the table and give their best offers … there’s a chance they are giving a very good rate,” he says.
Wolff references the SHOP exchange tax credit for small businesses with low-wage earners that is available for 2014. “Of course we don’t know how long that will be upheld, but it’s a real tax advantage for next year at least,” he says. “… Why not have it in your portfolio to show? Everybody’s talking about it. You don’t want to say, ‘Well, I don’t know about it, but it’s probably bad because [it’s] the government [offering it].’ Well, maybe some clients will believe you, but it’s a better story if you say, ‘Yeah, I have that, and this is what they offer.’ Why would you not?
“Our model is … to bring a representation of the market to the agent and to the client,” adds Wolff, whose agency is one of only four in the state of California authorized to be a wholesaler for Covered California’s SHOP exchange, which did open on time Oct. 1. “This is a market phenomenon right now that we want to offer and explain. That is our role. We are ready.”
Meanwhile, like millions of others in the last few days, Don Garlitz, executive director of exchange technology provider bswift Exchange Solutions, logged on to a couple of SHOP exchanges to do a little window shopping. However, he could not get past the registration screen. If people are going to purchase such plans, the window shopping experience needs to improve, he says.
“People will look until they [get] what they want. [On Tuesday] I wasn’t able to find any kind of window shopping experience, which will be important for consumers,” he said. “They will not want to go through a 35-45 minute application process just to look at a rate. The call center I spoke with was not sure if there would be window shopping available. That will be an important thing for the federal government to consider.”
Breast Cancer Death Rates Down 34% Since 1990
Originally posted October 01, 2013 by Stacy Simon on https://www.cancer.org
A new report from the American Cancer Society finds that death rates from breast cancer in the United States have dropped 34% since 1990. But the rate at which new breast cancers are diagnosed increased slightly among African American women from 2006 to 2010, bringing those rates closer to those of white women, who still have the highest diagnosis rates among women ages 40 and older.
The findings are published in Breast Cancer Facts & Figures 2013-2014 and in Breast Cancer Statistics, 2013 in CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians. The reports, published every 2 years, provide detailed analyses of breast cancer trends and present information on known risk factors for the disease, factors that influence survival, the latest data on prevention, early detection, treatment, and ongoing research.
Breast cancer is the most common cancer among women in the United States, after skin cancer. It accounts for nearly 1 in 3 cancers diagnosed in women. By the end of 2013, an estimated 232,340 women will be diagnosed with invasive breast cancer and an estimated 39,620 women will die from breast cancer. The risks generally increase with age. Almost 8 of every 10 new breast cancer cases and almost 9 of every 10 breast cancer deaths are in women 50 years old and older.
In January 2012, more than 2.9 million women living in the U.S. had a history of breast cancer. Some of them were cancer-free, while others still had evidence of cancer and may have been undergoing treatment.
Race and Ethnic Factors
White women get breast cancer at a higher rate than African-American women, but African-American women are more likely to get breast cancer before they are 40, and are more likely to die from it at any age. Incidence and death rates for breast cancer are lower among women of other racial and ethnic groups. Asian and Pacific Islander women have the lowest incidence and death rates.
Disparities also exist regarding the prevalence of breast cancer types among racial and ethnic groups. Breast cancers that are estrogen receptor-negative are often harder to treat because they are not likely to respond to hormone therapy. In every age group, African American women have the highest rates of this type of breast cancer. White women have the highest rates of estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer.
Prevention and Early Detection
- Because obesity and excess weight increase the risk of developing breast cancer, the American Cancer Society recommends that women maintain a healthy weight throughout their life. Losing even a small amount of weight has health benefits and is a good place to start.
- Growing evidence suggests that women who get regular physical activity have a 10%-20% lower risk of breast cancer compared to women who get no exercise. Doing even a little physical activity beyond your regular daily routine can have many health benefits.
- Many studies have confirmed that drinking alcohol increases the risk of breast cancer in women by about 7% to 12% for each serving per day. If you do drink alcohol, the American Cancer Society recommends women limit themselves to no more than 1 drink per day.
- A recent study by American Cancer Society researchers found that current smokers had a 12% higher risk of breast cancer than women who never smoked. Research also suggests that risk may be greater for women who begin smoking before they give birth to their first child. Quitting has numerous health benefits.
- To find breast cancer early, when treatments are more likely to be successful, the American Cancer Societyrecommends women 40 and older have a mammogram and clinical breast exam every year, and younger women have clinical breast exams periodically as well (preferably at least every 3 years).
Citations: Breast Cancer Facts & Figures 2013-2014. Published October 1, 2013. American Cancer Society, Atlanta, Ga.
Breast Cancer Statistics, 2013. Published October 1, 2013 in CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians. First author Carol DeSantis, MPH, American Cancer Society, Atlanta, Ga.
7 Breast Cancer Misconceptions
Originally posted September 20, 2013 by Vince Pierri on https://www.ahchealthenews.com
Our nation spends more money on breast cancer research than any other type of cancer. Still, many women are confused about the basics, like the signs, symptoms and treatments.
“With the deluge of information, tips and advice about breast cancer these days, it’s easy to get lost,” says Dr. Heidi Memmel, a breast surgeon at Advocate Health Care. “It’s more important than ever that women have a clear understanding of the issues.”
Dr. Memmel shares 7 of the biggest misconceptions to separate fact from the fiction:
1. Fiction: If I have no family history of breast cancer, then I am not at risk.
Fact: Approximately 70 percent to 75 percent of women who develop breast cancer have no family history.
2. Fiction: There is nothing I can do to reduce my risk of developing breast cancer.
Fact: We can’t completely prevent cancer, but we can reduce the risks by maintaining a healthy weight, exercising, quitting smoking, and reducing our alcohol consumption.
3. Fiction: My mammogram was normal, so I don’t have to worry about getting breast cancer.
Fact: Mammograms are a good annual screening tool, but they do not detect all breast cancers. It is still important to perform a self-breast exam once a month and have a doctor’s exam once a year.
4. Fiction: Underwire bras can increase the risk of breast cancer.
Fact: Underwire bras or trauma to the breast do not increase the risk of developing breast cancer.
5. Fiction: Cancer cells can spread during a biopsy.
Fact: Cancer cells do not spread from a biopsy. A biopsy can confirm that cancerous cells are present.
6. Fiction: I’ve been cancer-free for five years from my diagnosis, so there is no chance of it returning.
Fact: There is less risk of a cancer returning in the breast or elsewhere in the body after five to 10 years, but there is still a slight risk. It’s important to see a doctor regularly and have regular mammograms.
7. Fiction: My weight and the size of my breasts do not affect my risk of breast cancer.
Fact: Obesity significantly increases the risk of developing breast cancer. Obese women are more likely to be diagnosed with more aggressive tumors and diagnosed at a more advanced stage.
For more information on breast health, visit www.Storiesofthegirls.com.
How to Find the Right Leadership Training for Your Company
Originally posted August 07, 2012 by Sharlyn Lauby on https://www.hrbartender.com
There’s lots of talk these days about leadership deficits. Part of the conversation is being fueled by the skills gap. Another part is focused on the Boomers retiring and Millennials entering the workforce. Regardless of the reason, I think we can all agree that strong, capable leadership is necessary for our businesses to survive and thrive.
People have to learn leadership skills from somewhere. Typically, leadership isn't taught in high school or college. Yes, you might learn some theories but without real life examples it’s hard to see how and when those theories should be applied. That’s why organizations have to put some kind of leadership training in place. It allows individuals to tie together the theory they learned and the practical application they’re gaining in the workplace.
I’m guessing I don’t need to sell you on the concept of good leadership. The question is when it comes time to bring leadership training into your organization, what’s the best way to do it? How can you find the right leadership training for your organization? Here are a few things to consider:
Decide what skills to focus on. Make a list of the challenges facing your organization and prioritize them. If you try to tackle too much, it can overwhelm the training participants. Narrow it down to a few skills that will make the most impact and start with those. This is very helpful in designing the program and also can be valuable when determining your training budget.
Talk to several people. Any really good training provider isn't afraid of a client talking to others. Companies make the right decision for their operation and find the training provider who best aligns with their culture. Know a provider’s experience, what industries they've worked in and their philosophy regarding the subject matter.
Like the methods the training provider uses. It’s important to understand the training provider’s style, any models they mention, the books they share and the activities they conduct. For example, if you’re not a fan of games in training, what happens if the trainer uses games? Or maybe doing Karate as part of a teambuilding exercise? You probably want to know about that (and yes, some training providers do that sort of thing). Those conversations should happen early on.
Consider schedules and the operation. Work with your training provider to find a schedule that allows for an excellent program and minimal disruption to the operation. When participants are distracted during training, it’s hard on everyone. A good provider should be able to work with your schedule.
Know what evaluation methods the trainer uses. Ask your training provider what they measure from the training program. If all they do is a Level 1 evaluation, request that they also provide a Level 2. This helps you, the client, have a better understanding of the learning that took place. Trainers often get a bad rap for not showing ROI from their training sessions. These evaluations can provide helpful information.
Discuss ways for participants to practice after the training and retain the material. Let’s face it…training is an investment. Companies want to know their investment is going to stick. Training providers should work with their client companies and find ways for participants to immediately apply the material they've learned. It’s the best way for participants to retain the information. Find out if the vendor offers additional options such as coaching or social learning to help reinforce the initial training.
The next time you’re looking for training, I hope you find this list helpful. It can really make a difference in selecting the right training provider and getting a quality program that will benefit your organization. Please feel free to contact us if you have any questions and check out our list of highly successful, proven training programs and customized solutions that can be tailored to the unique needs of your organization.
Shutdown places ACA guidance in jeopardy
Originally posted October 03, 2013 by Andrea Davis on https://ebn.benefitnews.com
The federal government shutdown could delay much-anticipated guidance on a number of provisions of the Affordable Care Act.
“If the shutdown lasts a week or two, that could really throw a monkey wrench into the timing of guidance,” says Paul M. Hamburger, co-chair of Proskauer’s employee benefits, executive compensation and ERISA litigation practice center. “The biggest problem with the shutdown, vis-a-vis guidance on the ACA, is the ability to get all of this updated guidance from the DOL, HHS and IRS out there quickly before the end of this year.”
At issue is the need for updated guidance on the employer mandate. While the mandate has been delayed until 2015, employers need to start preparing for it now by figuring out how they’re going to accurately measure and report to the IRS on which employees qualify as full time workers.
Hamburger says update guidance was expected in November but the shutdown may delay it. Employers are “just going to have to sit and wait and hope that when the shutdown is over, the guidance will come out,” he says.
Also at stake, he says, is regulatory guidance related to certain coverage mandates coming into effect in 2014. The requirement that waiting periods cannot exceed 90 days, the elimination of pre-existing conditions exclusions and other coverage-related mandates “all need some additional guidance, presumably before 2014,” says Hamburger. “The shutdown is going to dramatically reduce the extent to which that guidance can come out.”
The end result could be more of a reliance on FAQ-type guidance, rather than the preferred way of issuing proposed regulations for review and comment followed by the publication of final rules.
What employers should be doing now, says Hamburger, is looking at those 2014 coverage mandates and figuring out how they’re going to comply, even in the absence of official guidance. In the case of waiting periods, for example, “there are proposed regulations out there and I think employers need to look at that carefully and decide how they’re going to exercise reasonably good faith in interpreting those rules based on their particular waiting period,” he says.