Tailoring voluntary benefits to meet employees' generational needs

 

Originally posted November 21, 2014 by Elizabeth Halkos on www.ebn.benefitnews.com

Well-designed benefits plans should be based on the desires and needs of employees in addition to supporting the employer’s business objective of providing a benefits package that aids in recruiting and retaining its workforce.

Once considered just a nice extra for a more comprehensive benefits package, voluntary benefits are now an essential element of the employee benefits program because they allow workers to customize their benefits and assist with the employee’s overall financial wellness.

There’s no doubt financial wellness is a concern for most of today’s employees. In a July 2014 Harris Poll on behalf of Purchasing Power, 80 percent of employees working full-time said they have financial stress today. Their stress is related to both long-term and short-term financial needs. Specifically, 67 percent indicated the stress is related to long-term financial needs (savings, retirement plan, etc.), while 60 percent said it was short-term related (everyday living expenses as well as unexpected financial needs such as a car repair, appliance replacement, or emergency medical expenses).

With such varying concerns among employees, employers need to know what voluntary products will most benefit their workers’ demographics. Today’s workforce spans three generations from millennials to baby boomers that look at work, life, money and finances in totally different ways. Likewise, they have different benefit needs and with voluntary benefits, workers can choose what suits their particular situations.

Traditional voluntary benefits are mostly self-explanatory. Let’s consider the growing list of non-traditional voluntary benefits in the marketplace today which give a wide scope of opportunity for meeting employees’ needs. Based on focus groups with employees from all generations, here are the non-traditional voluntary benefits that help address their financial situations. 

Baby boomers (born 1946 – 1964)

Baby boomers are worried. For the most part, if there’s something baby boomers want, they are able to buy it. However, many will question if they should buy it or rather save that money. Instead, they are trying to be financially responsible and scaling back from a materialistic lifestyle. Baby boomers, even if they are high earners, worry about retirement – both having enough money for retirement and wondering when the right time is to retire.

Non-traditional voluntary benefits that would appeal to  baby boomers include:

  • Discount Programs
  • Financial Counseling
  • Legal Assistance
  • Group Auto Insurance
  • Home Warranty Insurance
  • Wellness Programs
  • Long-Term Care Insurance

 

Generation X (born 1965 – 1979)

Generation X is stretched thin. Gen Xers’ work ethic is balanced and flexible with a “work hard, play hard” attitude. This generation’s financial stressors come from multiple angles. They are raising children, preparing for care of their aging parents and trying to save for their own financial futures. They appear to be having the toughest time financially. They find it difficult to meet their household expenses on time each month and are the most likely to carry balances on their credit cards.

Non-traditional voluntary benefits that would appeal to Gen Xers include:

  • Discount Programs
  • Employee Purchase Programs
  • FSAs
  • Financial Counseling
  • Wellness Programs
  • EAP
  • Child Care
  • Cyber Security Insurance
  • Homeowners’ Insurance
  • ID Theft Protection
  • Long-Term Care Insurance

Millennials (born 1980 – 2000)

Millennials are confused. They often juggle many jobs and move from job to job frequently. Their greatest fear is silence, unplugging, routine and eternal internship. Keys to job retention for millennials are personal relationships, multiple tasks and fast rewards. Their benefits needs include portable benefits, forced savings, financial education and concierge services. Key values for millennials include future financial security and better quality of life. To improve their financial situation, they need a better job or a promotion and expert advice on how to make the most of their money in addition to beginning a 401(k) or other retirement plan. The average millennial has $29,000 in student loan debt alone. Not surprisingly, they are also more worried about getting rid of or incurring additional debt than their day-to-day expenses.

Non-traditional benefits that would appeal to millennials include:

  • Employee Purchase Programs
  • Discount Programs
  • Tuition Assistance
  • Employee Assistance Program
  • Wellness Program
  • FSA
  • Financial Counseling
  • ID Theft Protection

By recognizing the value in voluntary benefits and adding to their voluntary offerings, employers not only can provide for their employees’ financial wellness, but can retain a loyal, motivated workforce as well.

 


Top 10 401(k) compliance mistakes auditors catch

Source: BenefitsPro.com

There are a number of emerging Department of Labor issues that employers should be aware of in order to ensure their benefit plans are compliant and being properly administered. Knowing the DOL is going to be vigilant in these areas means that now is a good time to review benefit plan documentation and administrative practices to ensure compliance.

Here are the top-10 mistakes auditors catch:

1. Late or erratic payment of employee deferrals. According to the DOL, contributions must be paid as soon as administratively feasible, but no later than the 15th business day of the following month (when deferrals are withheld). Employee contributions should be within this time frame, but also consistently remitted among all payrolls and pay periods.

2. Oversights in calculating employee contributions. 401(k) contributions should be determined in accordance with the plan document (which should include the definition of compensation) andin accordance with employees’ instructions.

3. Misunderstanding of the vesting period. Each plan defines when employees reach one year of service. HR and other departments may calculate it differently.

4. Disregard for break-in service rules. Usually, plans state that when employees leave and are rehired within a certain time frame, that they're automatically eligible to participate in a 401(k) plan. This rule is sometimes overlooked.

5. A growing number of forfeiture accounts. When employees leave and forfeit their 401(k) balances, those funds aren't always used as outlined in the plan, such as for paying employer-plan fees or in the time frame required by the Internal Revenue Service.

6. Incorrect tax witholdings when employees take distributions. People can take distributions from employer-sponsored plans prior to age 59½, but these early-withdrawals must be made in accordance with IRS rules in terms of penalties and any income taxes due.

7. Mistakes with profit-sharing contributions. Errors occur most often when annual calculations are performed manually vs. being automatically tallied through payroll software.

8. Mishandling employee requests. When employee requests, such as changes in deferral percentages, are handled manually, they are sometimes coded incorrectly or simply not entered at all.

9. Disconnect with service-provider contracts. Sometimes, there’s a disconnect between the company and its service provider. Responsibilities should be crystal clear, especially in the areas of hardship withdrawals and informing employees of eligibility.

10 Overlooking the plan's eligibility requirements. Some employees may be enrolled too early or too late ― or forgotten altogether, which can be the case with employees working at another corporate affiliate or division.

 


Build your employee handbook like a snowman: Start with a solid foundation

Originally posted by Holly Jones on HR.BLR.com.

Yes, winter is coming—that time for snowflakes (whether real or paper), festive holiday celebrations, and, of course, the annual review of the employee handbook. Is there anything that makes the season as merry and bright as updating policies for the coming year? Of course not!

Before embarking on a blustery trip down handbook lane, be sure to bundle up with this review of a few evergreen basics and best practices to ensure that your annual handbook review—for 2015 and the years to come—is as smooth as a frosty glass of eggnog.

At-will disclaimers—you have one, right?

Before you even get to the first policy, you want to set a few expectations for your handbook itself.

For example, first you want to establish that the employee handbook is just that—a handbook. It’s a guidance document full of policies and helpful information. What it isn’t is a promise, contract, or alteration to an otherwise at-will employment relationship.

Employment is at-will in 49 states (Montana is the exception); this means employers can generally terminate it at any time for any legal reason. Problems can arise, though, if an employee handbook seems to establish a contract and make certain promises that employment will be guaranteed unless, for example, every listed step of a disciplinary procedure is followed.

An at-will disclaimer can help avoid this appearance by stating right up front that, "Hey, this is not a contract! It’s just your employee handbook! This relationship is still at-will and we both have the discretion to break it off and move on at any time!"

Passing NLRA muster—Yes, Virginia, this means non-union employers, too!

Another important disclaimer that sets the scope of your handbook and, in this case, the rights it is not intended to restrict is an NLRA disclaimer.

The primary purpose of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) is to protect the collective bargaining rights of employees; however, this doesn’t mean that the act only applies to unionized workplaces. Section 7 of the NLRA, which applies to all private workplaces, provides employees with the right to engage in "concerted activities" to advance their interests as employees. These activities might include discussing pay, workplace conditions, and discipline with others.

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has been increasingly vigilant in interpreting and protecting employees’ Section 7 rights; in particular, the board has cracked down on numerous handbook provisions that could reasonably "chill" or deter employees from exercising those concerted activity rights. (No winter weather pun intended.)

For example, a social media policy that prohibits employees from posting "negative remarks" about the company could dissuade an employee from discussing wage practices or workplace conditions with others. Other policies that may be subject to NLRB scrutiny include at-will disclaimers, conduct standards, media contact policies, anti-disparagement standards, arbitration policies, language that a company is "union-free," … pretty much any policy that uses words.

Essentially any policy that touches on an employee’s ability to discuss work with another person is fair game for the NLRB, so it’s a good idea to review these policies with a couple of principles in mind.

First, be specific as to the type of activity you wish to restrict. Vague policies that prohibit "negative attitudes" or "discussing sensitive information on social media" are far less likely to pass muster than policies that specifically state that employees should not harass colleagues or disclose customers’ data to non-company personnel.

Second, when in doubt, remember the power of the disclaimer. An NLRA disclaimer can help clarify an otherwise vague policy by specifically alerting employees that "nothing contained in this policy is designed to interfere with, restrain, or prevent employee communications regarding wages, hours, or other terms or conditions of employment. Company employees have the right to engage in and refrain from such activities."

Binding agreements, restrictive covenants, and other lumps of coal in your handbook

Restrictive covenants are contractual provisions such as noncompetes, confidentiality agreements, and nondisclosure agreements. In general, employee handbooks should notcontain these types of agreements.

If your employee handbook is not meant to create a contract—and you’ve put a disclaimer in the handbook specifically stating that the handbook isn’t a contract—then it is extremely confusing and contradictory to later include language and policies intended to do just that—create binding, legally enforceable agreements.

Therefore, if you want to enforce these types of restrictions, these documents need to be drafted and executed separately (and, usually, reviewed by legal counsel, too!). Many states are extremely strict and employee-friendly when enforcing these agreements (if they are permitted at all), and the agreements must typically be very specific in intent, limited in duration, and must often provide something in exchange for the contract. So often a catch-all, blanket agreement won’t be effective anyway.

Of course, there’s nothing wrong with cross-referencing to these documents in your handbook, just as you would to a summary plan description for your health benefit plans. Doing so reminds employees that they may be subject to these agreements, then directs them to their own contracts, if applicable, or the appropriate company personnel for more details.

For example: "Acme employees may be bound by the terms of a non-compete or non-disclosure agreement. For specific details, please reference your individual agreement or contact HR."

Make your list, check it twice—did you get a signed acknowledgement of receipt?

So you’ve put all of this work into developing a handbook and researching policies. And you are absolutely sure that your employees have read and understood it. No? Well, you at least know they received copies, right? No?

A signed handbook acknowledgement can be helpful for employers and immediate supervisors when an employee claims ignorance of an established company policy. At minimum it is recommended that employers require return of a signed and dated acknowledgement from each employee that the handbook was received. It’s even better to get acknowledgement that the handbook was read.

Further, for particularly important policies or recent policy changes, you may wish to specifically list or reference these policies or changes on the acknowledgment and require employees to confirm that they understand them or know with whom to speak if they have questions or need additional information and guidance.

Of course, depending on the size of your handbook, it may not be practical to expect your workers to read the document from cover to cover. So, if you’re introducing a brand new handbook, distributing it to new hires, or making significant changes, it’s also a good idea to set up an orientation meeting to go over the key elements of the larger document.

Then you can ask employees to turn in their signed acknowledgements within a reasonable time after the meeting—a week or two—so that they have time to look through the document on their own and ask any individual questions that arise.

Bottom line

Before tackling the host of new laws that can affect your business and your employees with the new year, establishing a solid legal foundation for your handbook will help ensure that it brings you nothing but tidings of comfort and joy year after year.


2015 HSA and FSA Cheat Sheet

Source: BenefitsPro.com

Health savings accounts

What they are

A health savings account is a tax-advantaged medical savings account available to taxpayers in the United States who are enrolled in an HSA-qualified high-deductible health plan.

HSAs can grow tax-deferred in your account for later use. There’s no deadline for making a withdrawal: Consumers can reimburse themselves in future years for medical costs incurred now.

HSA contribution limits:

Individuals (self-only coverage) - $3,350 (up $50 from 2014)

Family coverage - $6,650 (up $100 from 2014)

The annual limitation on deductions for an individual with family coverage under a high-deductible health plan will be $6,650 for 2015.

The maximum out-of-pocket employee expense will increase next year to $6,450 for single coverage from $6,350, and to $12,900, from $12,700, for family coverage.

What’s new

The out-of-pocket limits include deductibles, coinsurance and copays, but not premiums. But starting in 2015, prescription-drug costs must count toward the out-of-pocket maximum

Account numbers — and exploding growth

Health savings accounts have grown to an estimated $22.8 billion in assets and roughly 11.8 million accounts as of the end of June, according to the latest figures from Devenir. The investment consulting firm said that’s a year-over-year increase of 26 percent for HSA assets and 29 percent for accounts.

Projections

Devenir projected that the HSA market will exceed $24 billion in HSA assets covering more than 13 million accounts by the end of 2014. Longer-term predictions are far greater: The Institute for HealthCare Consumerism, for one, estimates that 50 million Americans will be covered by HSA-qualified health plans by Jan. 1, 2019, and that HSA adoption will grow to 37 million.

Who’s using them

Both men than women. The gender distribution of people covered by an HSA/HDHP as of January 2014 was evenly split — 50 percent male and 50 percent female. But males have more money in their accounts. At the end of 2013, men had an average of $2,326 in their account, while women had $1,526, according to the Employee Benefit Research Institute. EBRI reported that older individuals have considerably more money in their accounts than do younger HSA users: Those under 25 had an average of $697, while those ages 55-64 had an average of $3,780, and those 65 or older had an average account balance of $4,460.

Other things of note

People are becoming more active and better managers of their HSA dollars. In 2012, 52 percent of HSA account holders spent in excess of 80 percent of their dollars on health care expenses, according to research by the HSA Council of the American Bankers' Association and America’s Health Insurance Plans.

Flexible spending accounts

What they are

FSAs allow employees to contribute pre-tax dollars to pay for out-of-pocket health care expenses — including deductibles, copayments and other qualified medical, dental or vision expenses not covered by the individual’s health insurance plan.

They’re also known as flexible spending arrangements, and they’re more commonly offered with traditional medical plans.

Limits

On Oct. 30, the IRS announced the FSA contribution limit for 2015 would increase $50 to $2,550 under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

What’s new

Last fall the U.S. Treasury Department issued new rules that let employers offer employees the $500 carryover. Previously, unused employee FSA contributions were forfeited to the employer at the end of the plan year or grace period, which industry insiders say were a barrier to adoption. The rule went into effect in 2014.

Double-digit growth

Alegeus Technologies said that clients who have actively promoted the FSA rollover allowance to their employer groups and eligible employees are seeing 11 percent incremental growth in FSA enrollment and 9 percent growth in FSA elections — compared to a flat overall FSA market growth.

Projections

The change to the FSA use-it-or-lose-it rule was greeted enthusiastically by employers, consumers and industry insiders. Many believe adoption will grow with that amendment.

Who’s using them

An estimated 35 million Americans use FSAs.

Other things of note

A survey from Alegeus Technologies says most consumers, and even account holders specifically, do not fully understand account-based health plans, including HSAs, FSAs and health reimbursement accounts. Only 50 percent of FSA holders passed a FSA proficiency quiz.


More on the EEOC and Wellness Programs

Source: ThinkHR.com

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC) recent litigation against employers over incentives granted to employees participating in wellness programs may be a concern for other employers. Specifically, the EEOC has asserted that the size of the incentive that is lost by employees that refuse to participate could render an employer’s wellness program “involuntary” and in conflict with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Our recent blog post on this issue highlights the concern.

The EEOC’s action raises issues that have confused employers and benefit advisors for many years: What types of wellness program rewards or penalties are acceptable under the ADA? Will programs that comply with other federal laws for employer-sponsored health plans avoid claims of discrimination under the ADA?

The ADA generally prohibits employers from requiring employees to answer disability-related questions or to undergo medical exams (except certain health/safety exams in specific professions or industries). The EEOC, which regulates various ADA provisions, has confirmed that employers may conduct health assessments or exams as part of a voluntary wellness program without violating the ADA. Medical records must be kept confidential and separate from personnel records.

While the EEOC has not published clear guidance as to the meaning of “voluntary” participation, the need for clarification is apparent. The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), has long permitted health plans to make wellness rewards (incentives or penalties) up to certain limits — those limits were increased under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) starting in 2014. These ACA limits may inform strategy on employer implementation of incentives to promote participation in wellness programs.

Penalties and Rewards

The ADA speaks of penalties, but in the vernacular of the ACA, the term “reward” refers both to an incentive payment or a penalty surcharge. Further, the ACA categorizes wellness programs as either “participatory” or “health-contingent” and applies different rules for each category.

Participatory programs do not depend on health status and no specific health outcome is required. For example, a program that rewards all employees that complete a health risk assessment, without regard to the results, is a participatory program. A health-contingent program is one that offers the reward only to employees that either meet an initial health standard (such as satisfactory biometric screenings) or do not meet the initial standard but meet a reasonable alternative standard (such as attending an educational program).

Starting with 2014 plan years, the maximum allowable reward (incentive or penalty) in a health-contingent wellness program under the ACA is 30 percent of the health plan cost, or 50 percent if the program is designed to prevent or reduce tobacco use. (Health plan cost generally is the COBRA rate minus the 2 percent administrative fee.) If the program is merely participatory, however, there is no limit under the ACA for the amount of reward an employer can give an employee.

Regardless of the ACA provisions for wellness programs, the EEOC presently believes that compliance with the ADA prevents employers from offering rewards amounting to steep or enormous penalties — even in a participatory-only program. In its recent case, the EEOC cites the difference between employees paying 25 percent versus 100 percent of the cost for health insurance based on whether they participated in a wellness program as an “enormous penalty.”

Considering the EEOC’s public comments endorsing voluntary wellness programs, and that their enforcement activity is focused on programs imposing penalties that they describe as enormous or steep, it appears likely the use of wellness program incentives will continue to be permitted. However, compliance with the reward limits and reasonable alternatives required under the ACA needs to be complimented with awareness of the EEOC’s concern over excessive penalties. Formal guidance from the EEOC is still pending.

For more information about wellness programs under the ACA, read the Final Rule.

 


IRS Announces 2015 Retirement Plan Contribution Limits

Source: ThinkHR.com

On October 23, 2014 the Treasury Department announced cost-of-living adjustments affecting dollar limitations for pension plans and retirement accounts for tax year 2015. The following is a summary of the changes that impact employees:

401(k), 403(b), most 457 plans and the federal government’s Thrift Savings Plans

  • The elective deferral (contribution) limit increased from $17,500 to $18,000.
  • The catch-up contribution limit for employees aged 50 and over who participate in these plans increased from $5,500 to $6,000.

Individual Retirement Arrangements (IRAs)

  • The limit on annual contributions remains unchanged at $5,500.
  • The additional catch-up contribution limit for individuals aged 50 and over is not subject to an annual cost-of-living adjustment and remains $1,000.

Simplified Employee Pension (SEP) IRAs and Individual/Solo 401(k)s

  • Elective deferrals increase from $52,000 in 2014 to $53,000 in 2015, based on an increased annual compensation limit of $265,000, up from $260,000 in 2014.
  • The minimum compensation that may be required for participation in a SEP increases from $550 in 2014 to $600 in 2015.

SIMPLE (Savings Incentive Match Plan for Employees) IRAs

  • The contribution limit on SIMPLE IRA retirement accounts for 2015 is $12,500, up from $12,000 in 2014.
  • The SIMPLE catch-up limit is $3,000, up from $2,500 in 2014.

Defined Benefit Plans

  • The basic limitation on the annual benefits under a defined benefit plan is unchanged at $210,000.

Other Changes

  • Highly-compensated and key employee thresholds: The threshold for determining “highly compensated employees” increases from $115,000 to $120,000 in 2015; the threshold for officers who are “key employees” remains at $170,000 for 2015.
  • Social Security Cost of Living Announcement: In a separate announcement, the Social Security Administration increased the Taxable Wage Base from $117,000 in 2014 to $118,500.
    • The maximum “Old Age, Survivor and Disability Insurance” (OASDI) tax will be $7,347 for both employers and employees; and
    • Hospitalization Insurance (Medicare) tax continues to apply to all wages.

The IRS pension plan limits announcement with more details is available here.
The Social Security Administration Fact Sheet outlining the 2015 changes can be found here.

 


Too Many Choices?

Source: ThinkHR.com

Some of the earliest investment advice given: “Don’t put all of your eggs in one basket.” Its value is enduring. An investor can minimize the risk of losing money by diversifying the allocation of money into different categories of investments. Even within a single category, an investor can choose investment vehicles, such as mutual funds, spreading ownership over an array of financial instruments. Are plan sponsors successful if they offer participants the highest possible amount of mutual funds and other investment choices?

Offering a large number of funds does not equate to success in either the realm of compliance with regulation, nor in achieving maximum levels of employee participation. It is important to offer the appropriate number of choices to empower participants to meet goals for retirement income. It is also important to do this in a manner that allows the employer to meet fiduciary responsibilities.

Fiduciary Responsibility

On one hand, participant-directed accounts, such as many 401(k) plans, give members control over their own investment accounts. On the other hand, the plan sponsor is generally still responsible for the fiduciary liability associated with selecting and monitoring the investment vehicles being made available to participants. Good processes with solid documentation of their application provide the foundation, enabling employees to make good decisions about investments. These factors also position the employer to face an Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA) audit without undo fear of negative consequences. Most employers will need to engage the services of a “prudent expert” as a guide along the path of selecting and monitoring appropriate investment opportunities.

A prudent expert financial advisor must be familiar with methods required to deliver comprehensive analysis of investment vehicles. Among these methods is the necessity to establish and track appropriate benchmarks to measure a particular investment’s performance over time. Understanding the purpose of a particular class of investments and how the particular fund being offered relates to its peers is more important than offering a large number of funds in that class.

Sponsors need to maintain an Investment Policy Statement outlining the categories of investments to be offered to participants. This document should also identify the committee and entities responsible for choosing, monitoring, and, when appropriate, replacing the individual investment options offered to participants. This tool will assist the sponsor in seeing when it is appropriate to replace an option instead of just adding new options. Beyond concerns about managing an employer’s exposure to liability, providing a reasonable, yet limited, choice of options can actually improve employees’ willingness to participate in the benefit plan.

Participant Behavior

Fewer choices are better when people do not come into a situation already knowing for sure what they prefer. This describes most employees in their relationship to employee benefit plans. They simply do not know what to do without education. Initially, it may seem logical to grant the widest possible range of options. If surveyed, employees may even indicate a strong preference for unlimited choices. However, the employer’s goal is not to merely capture interest — the goal is to make it easy for employees to participate in a benefit plan and see progress towards fulfillment of their own financial objectives.

The opportunity to make some choices is a good thing for participants. Indeed, it is necessary for employees with participant-directed accounts to be offered options so that they can achieve diversification of their investments. However, too much of a good thing is manifest when participants experience choice overload.

Behavioral scientists are finding choice overload to be a condition people experience when they withdraw from a situation out of fear of making the wrong decision. Often an individual starts off highly motivated as they begin to examine the choices they have been presented. As choice overload sets in, the extensive array of choices becomes demotivating, and the individual may put off a decision to commit or give up entirely.

Sheena S. Iyengar of Columbia University and Mark R. Lepper of Stanford University demonstrated the impact of choice overload when they studied the influence of choice on the purchasing habits of 502 people who were introduced to various selections of exotic jams. They found that 60 percent of the people given the opportunity to choose from 24 items were interested in investigating, but only 3 percent made a purchase. By contrast, only 40 percent of those given the limited choice of 6 items investigated, but 30 percent made a purchase. The average quantities of jam individuals were willing to taste test was less than 2, regardless of whether they were offered an array of 6 or 24.

Employers can promote participation in benefit plans by reducing the complexity of presentations to employees. Making use of competent advisors, employers can present employees with properly labelled choices packaged in a consumer-friendly manner.


EEOC Challenges Employer Sponsored Wellness Programs Over “Enormous Penalties”

Source: ThinkHR.com

Recently, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced litigation against a second employer — Flambeau, Inc., a plastics manufacturer based in Baraboo, Wisconsin — over employer-sponsored wellness program participation incentives granted to employees. The specific issue with Flambeau involves an employee unable to qualify for the program due to medical leave. However, a major concern for other employers is the EEOC’s assertion that size of the payment incurred by an employee refusing to participate in a wellness program could render participation involuntary.

In its press release published October 1, 2014, the EEOC describes “enormous penalties” as unacceptably compelling participation, mirroring language used in its August 20, 2014 announcement of a lawsuit against Orion Energy Systems on similar grounds. The example of shifting 100 percent of the premium cost to an employee who refuses to participate in biometric tests or to complete a health risk assessment was cited as unacceptable. This 100-percent employee responsibility is in contrast with employees who participated in the wellness program, but were only required to pay 25 percent of the premium cost. Such a scheme is alleged to make participation involuntary; this is critical because voluntary participation is described as a major factor in avoiding a claim of disability discrimination under Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

Most employers do not charge 100 percent of premiums to employees who fail to participate in a wellness program. What percentage of cost is acceptable under the ADA?

ADA Voluntary Wellness Participation Not Clearly Defined

The EEOC acknowledges an employer’s right to conduct voluntary medical examinations as part of a health plan under certain circumstances. Among these circumstances would be meeting the requirement for programs to be voluntary and the medical records to be maintained separate from personnel records and used in a confidential manner. Such guidance is published in the EEOC Enforcement Guidance on Disability-Related Inquiries and Medical Examinations of Employees Under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) under “Other Acceptable Disability-Related Inquiries and Medical Examinations of Employees.”

What is not published is clear guidance as to the meaning of voluntary participation, a point acknowledged in testimony before the EEOC on May 8, 2013 by its own Christopher Kuczynski, Acting Associate Legal Counsel. Kuczynski called attention to the need for clarification concerning the ADA in an environment where the Affordable Care Act (ACA) amended the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) to permit rewards (incentives or penalties); but it was not clear what limits, if any, would be required by the ADA. To date, the EEOC has not published guidance clarifying the requirements to satisfy the ADA requirement that disability-related inquiries or medical examinations be voluntary.

Employers, along with their attorneys, will be busy studying case law developing from EEOC-driven litigation. Additionally, the limitations under the ACA may inform strategy on the implementation of incentives to promote participation in wellness programs. Comments about “reasonableness” and percentage limits to certain types of wellness benefits under the ACA may help inform the development of a wellness incentive strategy.

Affordable Care Act Demands Reasonableness

While the ADA speaks of penalties, in the vernacular of the ACA incentive payment or penalty surcharges are lumped together in the term “rewards.” For plan years beginning on or after January 1, 2014, maximum rewards are 30 percent of the annual total cost of coverage for a health-contingent wellness program (50 percent for tobacco-related health programs) offered in connection with an employer-sponsored group health plan. The total cost of coverage would likely be the COBRA rate, less the 2 percent administrative charge. Thus, the maximum amount that an employer can transfer to an employee for participation in a health-contingent wellness program under the ACA is 30 percent, and 50 percent for tobacco-related programs (effective 2014); however, there is technically no limitation under the ACA for the amount of reward an employer can give an employee for a participatory wellness program.

Under the ACA, wellness programs are categorized as either “participatory” or “health-contingent.”

Participatory programs do not depend on health status; thus, no specific health outcome is required. (For example, requiring a member to fill out a health risk assessment would be an example of a participatory activity.) ACA regulations do not limit the reward an employer can give for a participatory activity. However, as mentioned above, the EEOC presently believes ADA compliance will prevent offering rewards amounting to steep or enormous penalties, citing the difference between employees paying 25 percent versus 100 percent of the cost for health insurance based on participating in a wellness program as an “enormous penalty.”

Health-contingent programs are divided into one of two subgroups: activity-based programs and outcome-based programs. Activity-based programs require activities such as exercise, but with no required outcome. Further, a reasonable alternative path to the reward must be provided when it is medically inadvisable to perform the primary activity. An example of a reasonable alternative would include exempting a member from an activity based on a physician’s advice. Outcome-based programs include, for example, biometric screening of triglycerides < 151 mg/dL. The program must offer a reasonable alternative path to the reward for anyone failing to meet the goal. No doctor’s note is required to access the alternative.

Considering the EEOC’s public comments endorsing voluntary wellness programs, and their enforcement activity being focused on what they describe and enormous or steep penalties, it appears likely that the way forward for wellness programs will permit the use of incentives. However, compliance with the reward limits and reasonable alternatives required under ACA needs to be complimented with awareness of the EEOC’s concern over excessive penalties. Formal guidance from the EEOC is still pending.

For more information, read the Final Rule.

 


Ohio Employment Law Alert – October 2014

Source: ThinkHR.com

Minimum Wage Increase

On September 29, 2014, the Ohio Department of Commerce announced that the state minimum wage will increase to $8.10 on January 1, 2015, for non-tipped employees and to $4.05 per hour for tipped employees. The increased minimum wage will apply to employees of businesses that have annual gross receipts of more than $297,000 per year.

For employees at smaller companies (with annual gross receipts of $292,000 or less per year in 2014 or $297,000 or less per year after January 1, 2015) and for 14- and 15-year-old workers, the state minimum wage is $7.25 per hour. For these employees, the state minimum wage is tied to the federal minimum wage.

Read the Department of Commerce News Release

View the 2015 Minimum Wage Poster

 


Federal Employment Law Update – October 2014

Source: ThinkHR.com

FAQs about Affordable Care Act Implementation Part XXI

On October 10, 2014, the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services (HHS), and the Treasury jointly released FAQs about Affordable Care Implementation (Part XXI). The FAQS update prior guidance on cost-sharing limitations for plans using “reference-based pricing.”

The new FAQS set forth specific factors the departments will consider when evaluating whether a non-grandfathered plan that utilizes reference-based pricing (or similar network design) is using a reasonable method to ensure that it provides adequate access to quality providers at the reference-based price.

IRS – 2015 Per Diem Rates for Travel Expense Reimbursements

On October 6, 2014, the IRS released Notice 2014-57. This annual notice provides the 2014-2015 special per diem rates for taxpayers to use to substantiate ordinary and necessary business expenses incurred while traveling away from home, specifically:

  1. The special transportation industry meal and incidental expenses rates (M&IE).
  2. The rate for the incidental expenses only deduction.
  3. The rates and list of high-cost localities for purposes of the high-low substantiation method. Taxpayers using the rates and list of high-cost localities provided must comply with Rev. Proc. 2011-47, I.R.B. 2011-42, 520.

Transportation industry rates

The special M&IE rates for taxpayers in the transportation industry are $59 for any locality of travel in the continental United States (CONUS) and $65 for any locality of travel outside the continental United States (OCONUS).

Incidental expense only rate

The rate for any CONUS or OCONUS locality of travel for the incidental expenses only deduction is $5 per day.

High-low substantiation method

For purposes of the high-low substantiation method, the per diem rates are $259 for travel to any high-cost locality and $172 for travel to any other locality within CONUS. The amount of the $259 high rate and $172 low rate that is treated as paid for meals is $65 for travel to any high-cost locality and $52 for travel to any other locality within CONUS. The per diem rates in lieu of the meal and incidental expenses only substantiation method are $65 for travel to any high-cost locality and $52 for travel to any other locality within CONUS.

High-cost localities changes

San Mateo, Foster City, Belmont, Sunnyvale, Palo Alto and San Jose, California; Glendive and Sidney, Montana; and Williston, North Dakota, have been added to the list of high-cost localities appearing in Notice 2013-65, I.R.B. 2013-44, 440. The portion of the year in which they are high-cost localities has changed for Sedona, Arizona; Napa, California; Vail, Colorado; Fort Lauderdale, Florida; Miami, Florida; and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The following localities have been removed from the list of high-cost localities: Yosemite National Park, California; San Diego, California; and Floral Park, Garden City, and Great Neck, New York.

Effective date

The guidance is effective for per diem allowances for lodging, meal and incidental expenses, or for meal and incidental expenses only that are paid to any employee on or after October 1, 2014, for travel away from home on or after October 1, 2014. For purposes of computing the amount allowable as a deduction for travel away from home, this guidance is effective for meal and incidental expenses or for incidental expenses only paid or incurred on or after October 1, 2014.

Read IRS Notice 2014-57

Executive Order 13658 – Final Rule

On February 12, 2014, President Obama signed Executive Order 13658, Establishing a Minimum Wage for Contractors, to raise the minimum wage to $10.10 for all workers on federal construction and service contracts. The Executive Order directed the Department of Labor to issue regulations to implement the new federal contractor minimum wage.

On October 1, 2014, the department announced a Final Rule implementing the provisions of Executive Order 13658. Key provisions of the final rule include:

  • It defines key terms used in the Executive Order, including contracts, contract-like instruments, and concessions contracts.
  • It provides guidance for contractors on their obligations under the Executive Order.
  • It establishes an enforcement process that should be familiar to most government contractors and will protect the right of workers to receive the new $10.10 minimum wage.
  • It confirms that approximately 200,000 workers will benefit from the Executive Order.

Executive Order 13658 applies to new contracts and replacements for expiring contracts with the federal government that result from solicitations issued on or after January 1, 2015, or to contracts that are awarded outside the solicitation process on or after January 1, 2015.

The Final Rule will be published in the October 7, 2014 Federal Register.

Read the Final Rule

Read the Fact Sheet on the Final Rule

Read the FAQS on the Final Rule