Court denies NAFA in DOL fiduciary rule case
Department of Labor fiduciary rule survives its first challenge, by Nick Thornton
The National Association for Fixed Annuities has lost its challenge to the Department of Labor’s fiduciary rule.
In a decision issued today in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, Judge Randolph Moss denied NAFA’s motions for a preliminary injunction and summary judgment.
Among other things, NAFA claimed DOL violated the Administrative Procedure Act when it shifted the regulation of fixed indexed annuities to the rule’s Best Interest Contract Exemption. In the proposed version of the rule, FIAs were scheduled for regulation under the less restrictive Prohibited Transaction Exemption 84-24.
In shifting FIAs to the BIC exemption in the final rule, NAFA argued industry was not given adequate notice to comment on the implications, as the APA requires.
But Judge Moss cited case law showing that a final rule “need not be the one proposed” in the rulemaking process.
“It is enough that the final rule constitute a logical outgrowth” of the proposed version, wrote Moss.
Moss reasoned that NAFA was given adequate notice that the Department was considering regulating FIAs under the BIC exemption when it explicitly sought comments on whether annuities were adequately regulated in the proposal.
NAFA argued the proposal gave “no inkling whatsoever that the Department was considering moving FIAs from PTE 84-24 to the BIC.”
But Moss ruled that NAFA’s reading of the proposal, and DOL’s request for comment on the viability of how annuities were treated, was “not tenable.”
“The Department expressly requested comment on its decision to ‘continue to allow IRA transactions involving’ fixed indexed annuities ‘to occur under the conditions of PTE 84-24,” wrote Moss.
“That is, it (DOL) asked whether fixed indexed annuities should be grouped under PTE 84-24 or not,” added Moss. “And, if there were any doubt on this, it would be put to rest by the fact that NAFA, along with other industry groups, provided comments on that very issue.”
Full analysis of the ruling will follow.
See the original article Here.
Source:
Thornton, N. (2016 November 04). Court denies NAFA in DOL fiduciary rule case. [Web blog post]. Retrieved from address https://www.benefitspro.com/2016/11/04/court-denies-nafa-in-dol-fiduciary-rule-case?ref=hp-news&slreturn=1478547367
Beware: Losing health plan grandfathered status is an administrative nightmare
Some interesting points on grandfathered status' from HRMorning, by Jared Bilski
Employers that have managed to keep their grandfathered status until now may think they’re immune from the hassles of the ACA, but a recent DOL investigation is a good reminder that the feds are always watching for a slipup.
Sierra Pacific Industries Health Plan was one of the few remaining grandfathered plans in existence, and they managed to keep that status for years after the ACA took effect.
But, according to a DOL investigation, the plan made some changes beginning on Jan. 1, 2013, that prevented the plan from keeping its grandfathered status and led to a relinquishing of that status in the feds’ eyes.
Those plan changes, as well as how the plan made determinations on employee health claims, violated both the ACA (specifically the provisions on preventive health services and internal claims and appeals rules) and ERISA, the DOL claimed.
‘Operating as though it were exempt’
As the DOL’s Assistant Secretary of Labor for Employee Benefits Security Phyllis C. Borzi said:
“The Affordable Care Act put into place standards and protections for workers covered by employee benefit plans. The Sierra Pacific plan was operating as though it was exempt from such requirements, when indeed, it was not. This settlement means that workers improperly denied health benefits will have their claims paid. Corrections made to plan procedures will also mean that all future claims are processed and paid properly.”
No premium or deductible bumps
The end result of the feds’ investigation: A lot of administrative work and changes for Sierra Pacific.
As part of the settlement, plan fiduciaries agreed to comply with the ACA requirements for non-grandfathered plans moving forward, specifically the rules for internal claims and appeals and coverage of preventive health services.
Plus, for the 2017 plan year, the company will have to forgo any increases to participant premiums, annual out-of-pocket limits, annual deductible and coinsurance percentages in effect for the 2016 plan year.
On top of all that, the company agreed to:
- Revise plan documents and internal procedures.
- Re-adjudicate past claims for preventive services, out-of-network emergency services, claims affected by an annual limit and pay claims in compliance with the ACA and ERISA.
- Submit to an independent review organization claims were eligible for external review.
- Pay claims that had been left on hold for a long time.
- Comply with timelines for deciding claims as provided in the department’s claim regulation.
See the original article Here.
Source:
Bilski, J. (2016 October 14). Beware: losing health plan grandfathered status is an administrative nightmare. [Web blog post]. Retrieved from address https://www.hrmorning.com/beware-losing-health-plan-grandfathered-status-is-an-administrative-nightmare/
ACA premiums to rise 25 percent in biggest jump yet
Zachary Tracer clarifies on ACA premiums rising yet again.
Originally posted on BenefitsPRO.com
Posted October 25, 2016
Premiums for mid-level Obamacare health plans sold on the federal exchanges will see their biggest jump yet next year, another speed bump in the administration’s push for enrollment in the final months of the U.S. president’s term.
Monthly premiums for benchmark silver-level plans are going up by an average of 25 percent in the 38 states using the federal HealthCare.gov website, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services said in a report today. Last year, premiums for the second-lowest-cost silver plans went up by 7.5 percent on average across 37 states.
Individuals signing up for plans this year are facing not only rising premiums, but also fewer options to choose from after several big insurers pulled out from some of the markets created under the Affordable Care Act, known as Obamacare. While the ACA has brought uninsured numbers to record lows in the U.S., millions remain uninsured. To attract more people, the government has emphasized that subsidies are available for many people to help cushion the premium increases.
Protecting consumers
About 77 percent of current enrollees would still be able to find ACA plans for less than $100 a month, once subsidies are taken into account, according to the report. Subsidies are calculated based on the cost of the second-lowest-premium silver plan in a given area. Silver plans typically cover about 70 percent of an individual’s medical expenses, though additional subsidies can help make the coverage more generous for lower-income individuals.
“Even in places of high rate increases this year, consumers will be protected,” Kathryn Martin, assistant secretary for planning and evaluation at the health department, said on a conference call with reporters. Her message to consumers is to check if they are entitled to subsidies and shop for options: “The odds are good you’ll find plans more affordable than what the public debate about the ACA might lead you to expect.”
Changes in the cost of the benchmark silver plans varied widely among regions, and the median benchmark premium increase was 16 percent. Premiums actually declined about 3 percent in Indiana, to $229 a month. In Arizona, on the other hand, the benchmark premium more than doubled, from $196 a month to $422, the report shows.
The data released Monday confirm reports based on state regulatory filings that have been accumulating for months, showing much higher premiums for 2017. ACASignups.net, which tracks the health law, had also estimated a 25 percent rise in premiums on average, weighted by membership.
Silver plans are mid-level on Obamacare’s marketplaces, with other plans including bronze, gold and platinum.
The government data show that some people may be able to find lower-cost plans by switching from their current coverage. The U.S. said that if all people who currently have ACA plans switched into the cheapest option of the same “metal” level, they could cut their premiums by 20 percent. Some people will have to switch because their plan will no longer be offered.
See the original article Here.
Source:
Tracer, Z. (2016 October 25). ACA Premiums to rise 25 percent in biggest jump yet. [Web blog post]. Retrieved from address https://www.benefitspro.com/2016/10/25/aca-premiums-to-rise-25-percent-in-biggest-jump-ye?kw=ACA%20premiums%20to%20rise%2025%20percent%20in%20biggest%20jump%20yet&et=editorial&bu=BenefitsPRO&cn=20161025&src=EMC-Email_editorial&pt=News%20Alert
For Jamie, Chili Time Is Family (and Football) Time
This month, we are bringing you some food favorites of our own Jamie Charlton!
Jamie is the founding partner and CEO of Saxon Financial Services. He graduated from the University of Michigan in '98 and has been in the Financial Services industry ever since. Did we mention he's a Wolverines fan?
When it comes to eating out with the family, The Silver Springhouse is the place to go. "If we have kids, it is an easy decision as we are usually coming from a ball field or a gym. We like it because the atmosphere is fantastic, especially in the summer time, allowing for a relaxing place to take the whole family. We really don’t have a favorite dish because we like chicken and you have a hard time getting bad chicken at the Springhouse, thus we like most everything!"
At home, he enjoys making big family meals and his Homemade Texas Chili pairs perfectly with fall weather and football season! "It is a great family activity because the kids each have a task. As it cooks, we head out to rake the leaves and just as the Michigan game is about to start we all come in, grab a bowl to warm up and have a great time cheering the Wolverines to victory!"
For the recipe, Jamie doesn't really measure and ultimately it's all up to his taste buds, but below you'll find the recipe for his Homemade Texas Chili. The amounts of each ingredient are really up to you!
Here's what you'll need:
- 1lb ground beef
- 1lb spicy sausage
- diced onion
- a few cloves of chopped garlic
- 2 cans of red kidney beans
- 2 cans of red chili beans
- 2 cans of stewed tomatoes
- 1 can of diced tomatoes
- 1 chopped bell pepper
- a container of mushrooms
- 1/2 a jalapeno
- 1 1/2 cup of chili powder
- 2 tablespoons ancho chili pepper
- Frank's Red Hot Sauce
- yellow mustard
- brown sugar
- Worchestshire Sauce
Here's how Jamie does it:
- Brown 1lb of ground beef and 1lb of spicy sausage - you can pick the spice level - at the same time, make sure to include a diced onion and a few cloves of garlic. (Stirring the meat while browning is a great task for a child).
- Once the meat is browned, everybody else jumps into the pool! Add 2 cans of red kidney beans, 2 cans of red chili beans, 2 cans of dark red kidney beans, 2 cans of stewed tomatoes, and 1 can of diced tomatoes. (The kids love to open the cans with an old fashion can opener).
- Add 1 chopped bell pepper (I use red because it blends in and the kids don't see it), a container of mushrooms, and 1/2 a jalapeno. (Chopping is a great activity for an older child).
- Now is the time where measuring goes out the window and cooking to taste begins!
- Add a 1 1/2 cup of chili powder, 2 table spoons of ancho chili pepper, 5-10 dashes of Frank's Red Hot Sauce, a long squeeze of yellow mustard, a handful of brown sugar, 5-10 dashes of Worchestshire Sauce.
- The best part is to taste as it cooks and adjust your flavor accordingly. Add more chili powder for spicy, sugar for sweet.
- Last step - get a bowl of chili, top with cheddar cheese, sour cream and get a bag of Frito Scoops instead of a spoon and enjoy the game!
- For adults, a nice red wine or lager complete the meal!
Can we have game day at your house, Jamie? Sounds like there's good food and good times to go around!
Executive order forces DOL to enact final rule on paid sick leave
Interesting read about the new DOL final rule from Employee Benefit Adviser, by Leanne Mehrman
The U.S. Department of Labor acted on President Obama’s Executive Order 13706 (EO) and released a final rule implementing the requirements for federal contractors and subcontractors to provide employees with paid sick leave. Specifically, contractors must provide one hour of paid sick leave for every 30 hours worked on or in connection with a covered contract, for at least 56 hours per year, and subject to certain limitations. The requirements will take effect for covered contracts entered into on or after January 1, 2017.
An employee may use the leave for his or her own physical or mental illness, injury, medical condition, treatment or diagnosis as well as that of any person with whom the employee has a significant personal bond that is or is like a family relationship, regardless of biological or legal relationship. This includes such relationships as grandparent and grandchild, brother- and sister-in-law, fiancé and fiancée, cousin, aunt, and uncle. It could also include others with whom the employee has a family-like relationship such as a foster child or foster parent, a friend of a family, or even an elderly neighbor in certain circumstances.
An employee may also use the leave for absences from work resulting from domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking, if the leave is for the reasons described above or to obtain additional counseling, seek relocation, seek assistance from a victim services organization or to take related legal action. The leave for domestic violence, sexual assault or stalking is available for the employee and for the employee to assist a related individual as described above.
Covered contracts: The EO and Final Rule apply to contracts and contract-like instruments (which will be defined in DOL regulations) if the contract is:
- a procurement contract for services or construction;
- a contract for services covered by the Service Contract Act (SCA);
- a contract for concessions, including any concessions contract excluded by DOL regulations at 29 CFR 4.133(b); or
- a contract or contract-like instrument entered into with the federal government in connection with federal property or lands and related to offering services for federal employees, their dependents, or the general public; and
The wages of employees under these contracts are covered by the Davis Bacon Act (DBA), the SCA or the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), including employees who are exempt from the FLSA's minimum wage and overtime provisions.
For contracts covered by the SCA or DBA, the EO and Final Rule apply only to contracts at the thresholds specified by those statutes. For procurement contracts in which employees' wages are covered by the FLSA, the EO and Final Rule apply only to contracts that exceed the micro-purchase threshold as defined in 41 U.S.C. 1902(a), unless expressly made subject to this order pursuant to DOL regulations.
Highlights of the final rule requirements include:
- Accrued sick leave must be carried over from year to year;
- Contractors must reinstate accrued sick leave for employees rehired by a covered contractor within 12 months after job separation;
- Contractors are not required to pay a separating employee for unused sick leave upon separation;
- Contractors must inform an employee, in writing, of the amount of paid sick leave accrued but not used no less than once each pay period or each month, whichever is shorter;
- Contractors cannot require the employee to find a replacement worker as a condition for using the paid sick leave;
- Contractors covered by the SCA or DBA will not receive credit toward their prevailing wage or fringe benefit obligations under these acts by providing the paid sick leave required by the EO;
- A contractor's existing paid sick leave policy provided in addition to the fulfillment of the SCA or DBA requirements, which is made available to all employees, fulfills the requirements of the EO and Final Rule if it permits employees to take at least the same amount of leave as provided by the EO for the same reasons;
- Employees must provide written or verbal notice of the need for leave at least seven days in advance if the leave is foreseeable and as soon as practicable when the need for the leave is not foreseeable;
- A contractor may only require certification of the need for the leave for absences of three or more consecutive days, but only if the employee received notice of the requirement to provide certification or documentation before returning to work;
- A contractor’s existing PTO policy can fulfill the paid sick leave requirements of the EO as long as it provides employees with at least the same rights and benefits that the Final Rule requires if the employee chooses to use that PTO for the purposes covered by the EO;
- Contractors may not interfere with or retaliate against employees taking or attempting to take leave or otherwise asserting rights under the EO;
- Contractors must still comply with federal, state or local laws or collective bargaining agreement provisions that require greater paid sick leave than required by the EO.
SCA health and welfare benefit rate to be adjusted: The DOL’s Wage and Hour Division (WHD) will be announcing an SCA health and welfare benefit rate specifically for federal contractors whose employees receive paid leave pursuant to the EO and Final Rule. This rate is expected to be lower than it would be without consideration of the provision of this paid sick leave.
Recordkeeping requirements: Contractors will be required to make and maintain records for purposes of the EO and Final Rule, including:
- Copies of notifications to employees of the amount of paid sick leave accrued;
- Denials of employees’ requests to use paid sick leave;
- Dates and amounts of paid sick leave employees use; and
- Other records showing the tracking of employees’ accrual and use of paid sick leave.
As with other leave laws, federal contractors must also keep employees’ medical records, as well as records relating to domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking, separate from other records and confidential.
Employers’ bottom line
Federal contractors who anticipate entering into contracts that will be subject to Executive Order 13706 should do the following: First, review any current PTO/sick leave policy to determine if any revisions may be needed to bring it into compliance with the EO and Final Rule. Second, review the current payroll system to ensure that it has the capabilities to track the amount of paid time off accrued and taken, and timely advise employees. And finally, become familiar with the specific and detailed requirements contained in the Final Rule to ensure compliance upon entry into the first covered contract.
See the original article Here.
Source:
Mehrman, L. (2016 October 6). Executive order forces DOL to enact final rule on paid sick leave. [Web blog post]. Retrieved from address https://www.employeebenefitadviser.com/opinion/executive-order-forces-dol-to-enact-final-rule-on-paid-sick-leave
Current Form I-9 Valid Until Jan. 21, 2017
Original Article From SHRM.org
By: Roy Maurer
The newest version of the Form I-9 will be made available by Nov. 22, 2016, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced.
Employers may continue using the current version of Form I-9 with a revision date of 03/08/2013 until Jan. 21, 2017. After Jan. 21, all previous versions of the Form I-9 will be invalid.
The White House Office of Management and Budget approved the latest revisions to the Form I-9 on Aug. 25, 2016, clearing the way for the form to be released.
"Ever since the current version of the I-9 expired on March 31, 2016, employers have been anxiously awaiting the release of the new form, which will now include some 'smart' error-checking features," said John Fay, vice president and general counsel at LawLogix, a Phoenix-based software company specializing in cloud-based immigration and compliance services. "The newly revised I-9 also features several new structural changes and instructions which will be important for all employers to know and learn."
The new Form I-9 will have an expiration date of Aug. 31, 2019.
Fay said that the Jan. 21 extension to transfer to the new form is "great news for employers, many of whom struggle to stay up-to-date with the latest I-9 changes and requirements."
In 2013, USCIS provided employers with only two months to start using the current version of the form, "hardly enough time for HR to update all of the policy documents, training materials, and procedures which go along with the I-9," Fay said.
Changes to the Form I-9
The new form is designed to address "frequent points of confusion that arise for both employees and employers," Fay said. The proposed changes specifically aim to help employers reduce technical errors for which they may be fined, and include:
- Validations on certain fields to ensure information is entered correctly. The form will validate the correct number of digits for a Social Security number or an expiration date on an identity document, for example.
- Drop-down lists and calendars.
- Embedded instructions for completing each field.
- Buttons that will allow users to access the instructions electronically, print the form and clear the form to start over.
- Additional spaces to enter multiple preparers and translators. If the employee does not use a preparer or translator to assist in completing section 1, he or she must indicate so on a new check box labeled, "I did not use a preparer or translator."
- The requirement that workers provide only other last names used in Section 1, rather than all other names used. This is to avoid possible discrimination issues and to protect the privacy of transgender and other individuals who have changed their first names, Fay said.
- The removal of the requirement that immigrants authorized to work provide both their Form I-94 number and foreign passport information in Section 1.
- A new "Citizenship/Immigration Status" field at the top of section 2.
- A dedicated area to enter additional information that employers are currently required to notate in the margins of the form, such as Temporary Protected Status and Optional Practical Training extensions.
- A quick-response matrix barcode, or QR code, that generates once the form is printed that can be used to streamline enforcement audits.
- Separate instructions from the form. Employers are still required to present the instructions to the employee completing the form, however.
"It's important to remember that this new smart I-9 form is not an electronic I-9 as defined in the regulations," Fay said. "Employers filling out the new form I-9 using Adobe Reader will still need to print the form, obtain handwritten signatures, store in a safe place, monitor reverifications and updates with a calendaring system, and retype information into E-Verify as required."
See the original article here.
New EEOC pay reporting rule issued: 3 things you need to know
Check out some new EEOC rules from HR Morning, by Christian Schappel
It’s official: Employers will have more reporting duties moving forward. Here’s everything you need to know about the EEOC’s new final rule.
As expected, the agency just released its final rule updating the EEO-1 reporting requirements employers have to abide by.
For the most part, the final rule mirrors the proposed rule we got our hands on earlier this summer.
The rule requires certain employers to submit a summary of employees’ pay to the EEOC in addition to the gender, race and ethnicity reporting many employers are already accustomed to.
Beginning in 2018, employers will be required to report aggregate W-2 wages and hours worked in 12 pay bands for each of the 10 EEO-1 job categories and 14 gender, race and ethnicity categories. The EEOC issued a new sample EEO-1 form to help employers prepare for the new rule.
Three key components of the rule employers need to know:
Who will (and won’t) report pay data?
- Private employers and federal contractors with 100 or more employees will have to report the summary pay data on the new EEO-1 form.
- Federal contractors and subcontractors with between 50 and 99 employees will not report summary pay data, but they will tally employees by job category and then by sex and ethnicity or race, as they did before and report that information.
- Federal contractors and subcontractors with fewer than 50 employees will not file EEO-1 reports.
- Private employers with 99 or fewer employees will not file EEO-1 reports.
When is the first pay data due?
- The new EEO-1 report will be due for the first time on March 31, 2018, and it’ll be due every March 31 thereafter.
- This year’s reporting requirements have not changed, however. Those required to submit an EEO-1 report must still submit their 2016 reports by Sept. 30, 2016.
- Employers will then have 18 months between the 2016 and 2017 EEO-1 deadlines — from September 30, 2016 until March 31, 2018 — to comply with the new reporting requirements.
How will the new pay data be reported?
- Employers with 100 or more employees must first categorize employees by EEO-1 job category. The 10 categories are:
- (1) Executive/Senior Level Officials and Managers;
(2) First/Mid Level Officials and Managers;
(3) Professionals;
(4) Technicians;
(5) Sales Workers;
(6) Administrative Support Workers;
(7) Craft Workers;
(8) Operatives;
(9) Laborers and Helpers; and
(10) Service Workers.
- (1) Executive/Senior Level Officials and Managers;
- Then, they will categorize employees by sex, and ethnicity or race. These first two steps mirror the current EEO-1 reporting procedures.
- Next, employers will categorize employees by pay bands. The 12 pay bands added to the EEO-1 form are:
- (1) $19,239 and under;
(2) $19,240 – $24,439;
(3) $24,440 – $30,679;
(4) $30,680 – $38,999;
(5) $39,000 – $49,919;
(6) $49,920 – $62,919;
(7) $62,920 – $80,079;
(8) $80,080 – $101,919;
(9) $101,920 – $128,959;
(10) $128,960 – $163,799;
(11) $163,800 – $207,999; and
(12) $208,000 and over.
- (1) $19,239 and under;
- Employers will tally the number of employees in each pay band by sex, and ethnicity or race. For example, an employer might report 23 Sales Workers who are non-Hispanic, white women in pay band (4) $30,680 – $38,999.
- The rule changes the “workforce snapshot” to a pay period between Oct. 1 and Dec. 31. The current snapshot period is July 1 through Sept. 30. The EEO-1 report due March 31, 2018 will be the first to use the Oct. 1 through Dec. 31 snapshot period.
- Report income provided in Box 1 of Form W-2.
- Employers will report the total number of hours worked that year by the employees in each pay band. For example, an employer reports the total number of hours worked by 23 Sales Workers who are non-Hispanic white women in pay band (4). (Note: The new EEO-1 gives employers a choice for how to count hours worked for employees who are exempt employees under the FLSA. An employer may either use 40 hours per week for full-time employees and 20 hours per week for part-time employees or, if it chooses, report the number of hours the employees actually worked.)
- Under no circumstances should employers report individual pay or salaries or any personally identifiable information.
The EEOC says the new data will help it improve investigations into pay discrimination. The goal is to close the wage gap and better equalize pay among different age, gender and ethnic/racial groups.
See the original article Here.
Source:
Schappel, C. (2016 September 30). New EEOC pay reporting rule issued: 3 things you need to know. [Web blog post]. Retrieved from address https://www.hrmorning.com/eeoc-new-pay-reporting-rule-need-to-know/
The demand for data transparency is mounting
Interesting thoughts on transparency data from Employee Benefit Adviser, by Suzy K. Johnson
December 2003 was a great time for health plans in America. This was when high deductible health plans and the underlying health savings accounts were enacted into law by the federal government.
With this law, we were provided the ability to engage employees more directly in the cost of their care with the elimination of copays and Rx cards under these plans.
What many brokers don’t realize is that the law allows anyone to fund the underlying health savings accounts. This means that employers can and should be shown how to use the savings in premiums created by moving to these types of plans to “fund” employees’ health savings accounts. This can result in a win/win for all.
When employers fund the employee’s HSA, they provide the employee the ability to direct additional money into a flex spending type of plan (HSA) that has much higher limits for funding, and allows the same expenses to be reimbursed along with long-term care premiums, COBRA premiums and Medicare Part B expenses. These accounts don’t have the “use it lose it” risk that flex medical reimbursement plans have always included.
A top priority
Now what we need is transparency data from the hospitals and providers. It is my belief that if every American was required to have a high deductible health plan paired with a health savings account only, the demand for transparency data would be palpable and the pressure forced on providers and hospitals to comply would amplify.
Right now the transparency data is not available and this needs to change. If the only plans employers could offer were HDHP plans with HSA accounts and if employers provided funding to help their employees to be able to afford the additional exposure shifted to them, the demand for transparency data would suddenly become top priority and the government would demand it of providers.
Yes, they are more complicated to understand, and yes, the programs require more employee education and hand holding. Nothing good happens when we sit on the sidelines. Let’s commit to becoming part of the solution!
See the original article Here.
Source:
Johnson, S. K. (2016 October 4). The demand for data transparency is mounting. [Web blog post]. Retrieved from address https://www.employeebenefitadviser.com/opinion/the-demand-for-data-transparency-is-mounting
The millennial marketing tactic your competitors aren’t using
Some helpful tips for marketing with Snapchat from Employee Benefit Adviser, by Eric Silverman
“Hey cuz, do you Snap?” That’s the question my millennial client asked me a couple of years ago via text message. My response was probably not very different from yours would have been at that time and probably is still: ‘Isn’t Snapchat just for teens sending each other questionable videos?’
Similar things were initially said about text messaging, YouTube, Facebook, Instagram and Twitter. Most social media experts have said that Facebook is so full of baby boomers and Generation X that millennials aren’t using it nearly as much as they used to. Recent reports have even shown that the same thing is now happening with Twitter.
If the natural progression for millennials and Generation Z is to quickly migrate to whatever the newest cutting-edge social platform is when prior generations finally catch on, then why wouldn’t you want to market on a platform that currently consists of a younger demographic? After all, recent history has proven that the migration from one generation to another on new social platforms happens fairly quickly. With that in mind, I’m convinced that Snapchat will evolve to Generation X and even baby boomers at some point in the near future.
If we’re going to help boost your enrollment participation and millennial recruiting, then we must talk ‘geofilters.’ What’s that, you ask? With your smartphone’s location services and filters enabled, a geofilter is a fun and engaging way for a Snapchat user to share where they are, or what they’re up to, by simply swiping left or right on their device and adding what’s known as an ‘overlay’ to their Snapchat message.
These geofilters appear at thousands of places around the world. For instance, while I’m at the ballpark, I can swipe and see a geofilter that adds a fun Oriole Park at Camden Yards overlay to show my Snap followers that I’m at the game. Or, if I keep swiping, I can see overlays from the various cities in Baltimore near the stadium, or even a sponsored overlay from Starbucks reminding me that it’s the first day of fall.
The key with geofilters is that Snapchat won’t let you design them as true “advertising” with any call to action buttons or messages, so you’ve got to be creative. Overlays should be fun and engaging and make users desire your product or service. For example, the Starbucks overlay is very simple, clean and non-intrusive, and on a chilly autumn evening, makes me crave a piping hot cup of pumpkin spiced coffee.
Pro tip: If you’re not the creative type, consider hiring a social media designer to make your geofilter and overlay for you. It’s not hard to find creative freelancers to help you for about $10-$20 dollars per project.
Translating geofilters into higher enrollment engagement and participation
Let’s say you have a 500-employee enrollment where most of the employees are in the same location throughout the day. You can design a simple Snapchat geofilter that covers the geographic square footage of the company’s building for a set timeframe during your enrollment. Don’t worry; Snapchat geofilters are very affordable ways to market right now. The last time I checked, you could cover nearly 200,000 square feet for about 10 hours for less than $40 dollars.
Imagine how useful this could be to boost your enrollment engagement if you knew the demographic of your client happened to be heavily dominated by millennials, who are more likely to be using Snapchat these days than any other social platform. Be creative and make your Geofilter something they want to use and you could ‘go viral’ (that’s a good thing) at your enrollment. Worse case, even if your target audience doesn’t use your filter, it was a small investment to serve as an on-demand reminder that it’s open enrollment time for your client and all of their employees.
Translating geofilters into new recruits
Similar to the enrollment example used earlier — but let’s change the enrollment location to a college internship and career fair — talk about the right demographic to implement Snapchat geofilters. I’ve personally participated in hundreds of internship and career fairs to recruit college kids, and I can assure you that students are never lined up in droves to speak with me or any other insurance company at the fair. Let’s face it, just as I wrote in my June 3, 2015 article, internships and careers in insurance just aren’t very sexy, and if you’re like me, you never dreamed of working in insurance any more than your peers did or these students do now.
Snapchat to the rescue. Here, you have hundreds or even thousands of millennials who will likely be using Snapchat geofilters all day long with their friends. Creating a unique and fun geofilter for your benefits company is an excellent use of your firm’s investment dollars that when done properly, will generate a tremendous ROI in the form of higher engagement levels at your booth. Once they’re at your booth, that’s your problem!
The use of Snapchat to engage and recruit millennials not only shows that you and your company are with the times, but moreover, it makes you more attractive to them as opposed to the non-appealing and boring insurance company that they already perceive and stereotype you as.
Pro tip: Try blanketing a college campus or in the least, near the college dorms, with your custom-made geofilter and overlay. I recommend it at the very beginning of a semester for a couple of set days and times and then again at the end of a semester. I can tell you from years of college recruiting that college kids are typically looking for internships when the semester starts and always looking for internships, and definitely career opportunities, when the semester ends, since they usually have no idea what they’re doing next.
My goal was never to educate you on everything there is to know about Snapchat — heck, we didn’t even discuss creating your own Snapchat ‘Lenses’ that morph your face into various crazy and wacky shapes. Bottom line: Plan your marketing well in advance of your next enrollment and career fair, strategically implement Snapchat with a heavy dose of creativity, and you’ll be watching your profitability soar. Happy Snapping!
Have a question or comment about Snapchat or adding Snapchat to your benefits business? Contact me directly using any of the boring old communication methods you’re accustomed to or why not just Snap me? Snapchat user name: “dsdaddio.” (My Gen-Z daughter helped me pick it and Snapchat doesn’t allow user names to be changed.)
See the original article Here.
Source:
Silverman, E. (2016 October 3). The millennial marketing tactic your competitors aren't using. [Web blog post]. Retrieved from address https://www.employeebenefitadviser.com/opinion/the-millennial-marketing-tactic-your-competitors-arent-using
3 things NAHU told the IRS about ACA premium tax credits
The National Association of Health Underwriters has tried to show Affordable Care Act program managers that it can take a practical, apolitical approach to thinking about ACA issues.
Some of the Washington-based agent group's members strongly supported passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 and its sister, the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010. Many loathe the ACA package.
But NAHU itself has tried to focus mainly on efforts to improve how the ACA, ACA regulations and ACA programs work for consumers, employer plan sponsors and agents. In Washington, for example, NAHU has helped the District of Columbia reach out to local agents. NAHU also offers an exchange agent certification course for HealthCare.gov agents.
Now NAHU is investing some of the credit it has earned for ACA fairness in an effort to shape draft eligibility screening regulations proposed this summer by the Internal Revenue Service, an arm of the U.S. Treasury Department.
Janet Stokes Trautwein, NAHU's executive vice president and chief executive officer, says she and colleagues at NAHU talked to many agents and brokers about the draft regulations.
For a look at just a little of what she wrote in her comment letter, read on:
1. Exchanges have to communicate better
The IRS included many ideas in the draft regulations about ways to keep consumers honest when they apply for Affordable Care Act exchange premium tax credit subsidies.
ACA drafters wanted people to be able to use the subsidies to reduce out-of-pocket coverage costs as the year went on, to reduce those costs to about what the employee's share of the payments for solid group health coverage might be.
To do that, the drafters and implementers at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the IRS came up with a system that requires consumers to predict in advance what their incoming will be in the coming year.
Consumers who predict their income will be too low and get too much tax credit money are supposed to true up with the IRS when the file their taxes the following spring. The IRS has an easy time getting the money when consumers are supposed to get refunds. It can then deduct the payments from the refunds. When consumers are not getting refunds, or simply fail to file tax returns, the IRS has no easy way to get the cash back.
The exchanges and the IRS also face the problem that some people earn too little to qualify for tax credits but too much to qualify for Medicaid. Those people have an incentive to lie and say their income will be higher than it is likely to be.
Trautwein writes in her letter that the ACA exchange system could help by doing more to educate consumers when the consumers are applying for exchange coverage.
"The health insurance exchange marketplaces [should] be required to clearly notify consumers of the consequences of potential income-based eligibility fraud at the time of application, in order to help discourage it from ever happening," Trautwein writes.
2. Federal health and tax systems have to work smoothly together
Trautwein notes in her letter that the ACA exchange system has an exchange eligibility determination process, and that the IRS has another set of standards for determining, based on a consumer's access, or lack of access, to employer-sponsored health coverage, who is eligible for premium tax credit subsidies.
NAHU is worried about the possibility that a lack of coordination between the IRS and the HHS could lead to incorrect decisions about whether exchange applicants have access to the kind of affordable employer-sponsored coverage with a minimum value required by the ACA laws and regulations, Trautwein writes.
"We believe that it is fairly easy for consumers to mistakenly apply for and then receive advanced payments of a premium tax credit for which they are not eligible" based on wrong ideas about affordability, she says.
Consumers could easily end up owing thousands of dollars in credit repayments because of those kinds of errors, she says.
In the long run, employers should be reporting on the coverage they expect to offer in the coming year, rather than trying to figure out what kind of coverage they offered in the past year, Trautwein says.
In the meantime, the IRS and HHS have to work together to improve the employer verification process, she says.
3. Employees do not and cannot speak ACA
Trautwein says NAHU members also worry about exchange efforts to depend on information from workers to verify what kind of coverage the workers had.
"Based on our membership's extensive work with employee participants in employer-sponsored group benefit plans, we can say with confidence that the vast majority of employees do not readily understand the various ACA-related labeling nuances of their employer-sponsored health insurance coverage offerings," she says.
"Terms that are now commonplace to health policy professionals, like minimum essential coverage and excepted benefits, are meaningless to mainstream consumers," she says.
NAHU does not see how an exchange will know what kind of coverage a worker really had access to until after employer reporting is reconciled with information from the exchanges and from individual tax returns, which might not happen until more than a year after the consumer received the tax credit subsidies, Trautwein says.
"This weakness on the part of the exchanges could leave consumers potentially liable for thousands of dollars of tax credit repayments, all because of confusing terms and requirements and inadequate eligibility verification mechanisms," she says.
See the Original Article Here.
Source:
Bell, A. (2016, September 30). 3 things NAHA told the IRS about ACA premium tax credits [Web log post]. Retreived from https://www.lifehealthpro.com/2016/09/30/3-things-nahu-told-the-irs-about-aca-premium-tax-c?page_all=1