Workers Willing to Leave a Job if Not Praised Enough
Praising your employees on a frequent basis is a great way to increase employee engagement and productivity. Take a look at this article by Brookie Madison from Employee Benefit News on how employees are more likely to leave a job if they do not feel like they're getting enough praise.
Employers may be spending more than $46 billion a year on employee recognition, reviews and work anniversaries, but recent research shows it could be worth the investment to commit even more to the effort.
Although more than 22% of senior decision-makers don’t think that regular recognition and thanking employees at work has a big influence on staff retention, 70% of employees say that motivation and morale would improve “massively” with managers saying thank you more, according to a Reward Gateway study.
By not receiving regular feedback on their performance, employees feel they are not progressing at work, says Glenn Elliott, CEO of Reward Gateway. In fact, nearly one in two employees reported they would leave a company if they did not feel appreciated at work, the study found.
This is particularly true of millennials, Elliott says, who make up the largest segment of the workforce, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. To this generation, “Saying thank you for good work or good behavior shows you values those things and want to see more of that behavior,” he says.
Overall, employees want praise and recognition more frequently than at annual awards ceremonies. Although 90% of senior decision-makers believe they prioritize showing appreciation and thanks in a timely way, more than 60% of workers would like to see their colleagues’ good work praised more frequently by managers and leaders.
“On average, businesses spend 2% on recognition,” says Elliott. “Businesses can increase effects of recognition by moving money from tenure-based to valued- and behavior-based recognition.”
More than eight out of 10 workers (84%) say praise should be given on a continual, year-round basis.
The Reward Gateway study polled 500 workers and 500 decision-makers in the United States, United Kingdom and Australia.
See the original article Here.
Source:
Madison B. (2017 June 11). Workers willing to leave a job if not praised enough [Web blog post]. Retrieved from address https://www.benefitnews.com/news/workers-willing-to-leave-a-job-if-not-praised-enough
Why Employee Engagement Matters – and 4 Ways to Build it Up
Do you need help building up engagement among your employees? Take a peek at this interesting article by Joe Wedgwood at HR Morning about the benefits of employee engagement and how to get your employees more engaged.
“Organizations with high employee engagement levels outperform their low engagement counterparts in total shareholder returns and higher annual net income.” — Kenexa.
Your people are undoubtedly your greatest asset. You may have the best product in the world, but if you can’t keep them engaged and motivated — then it counts for very little.
By making efforts to keep your people engaged, you will maximize your human capital investment and witness your efforts being repaid exponentially.
The benefits of an engaged workforce
Increase in profitability:
“Increasing employee engagement investments by 10% can increase profits by $2,400 per employee, per year.” — Workplace Research Foundation.
There is a wealth of research to suggest that companies that focus on employee engagement will have an emotionally invested and committed workforce. This tends to result in higher profitability rates and shareholder returns. The more engaged your employees are the more efficient and productive they become. This will help lower operating costs and increase profit margins.
An engaged workforce will be more committed and driven to help your business succeed. By focusing on engagement and investing in your people’s future, you will create a workforce that will generate more income for your business.
Improved retention and recruitment rates:
“Replacing employees who leave can cost up to 150% of the departing employee’s salary. Highly engaged organizations have the potential to reduce staff turnover by 87%; the disengaged are four times more likely to leave the organization than the average employee.” — Corporate Leadership Council
Retaining good employees is vital for organizational success. Engaged employees are much less likely to leave, as they will be committed to their work and invested in the success of the company. They will have an increased chance of attracting more qualified people.
Ultimately the more engaged your people are, the higher their productivity and workplace satisfaction will be. This will significantly reduce costs around absences, recruitment, training and time lost for interviews and onboarding.
Boost in workplace happiness:
“Happy employees are 12%t more productive than the norm, and 22% more productive than their unhappy peers. Creating a pleasant workplace full of happy people contributes directly to the bottom line.” – Inc.
Engaged employees are happy employees, and happy employees are productive employees. A clear focus on workplace happiness, will help you to unlock everyone’s true potential. On top of this, an engaged and happy workforce can also become loyal advocates for your company. This is evidenced by the Corporate Leadership Council, “67% of engaged employees were happy to advocate their organizations compared to only 3% of the disengaged.”
Higher levels of productivity:
“Employees with the highest levels of commitment perform 20% better than employees with lower levels of commitment.” — The Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM).
Often your most engaged people will be the most dedicated and productive, which will give your bottom line a positive boost. Employees who are engaged with their role and align with the culture are more productive as they are looking beyond personal benefits. Put simply, they will work with the overall success of the organization in mind and performance will increase.
More innovation:
“Employee engagement plays a central role in translating additional job resources into innovative work behaviour.” — J.J. Hakanen.
Employee engagement and innovation are closely linked. Disengaged employees will not have the desire to work innovatively and think of new ways to improve your business; whereas an engaged workforce will perform at a higher level, due to increased levels of satisfaction and interest in their role. This often breeds creativity and innovation.
If your people are highly engaged they will be emotionally invested in your business. This can result in them making efforts to share ideas and innovations with you that can lead to the creation of new services and products — thus improving employee profitability.
Strategies to increase employee engagement
Communicate regularly:
Every member of your team will have valuable insights, feedback and suggestions. Many will have concerns and frustrations too. Failure to effectively listen and respond to everyone will lower their engagement and negatively affect the company culture.
Create open lines of communication and ensure everyone knows how to contact you. This will create a platform for your people to share ideas, innovations and concerns with you. It will also bridge gaps between senior management and the rest of the team.
An effective way to communicate and respond to everyone in real-time is by introducing pulse surveys — which will allow you to gather instant intelligence on your people to help you understand the sentiment of your organization. You can use this feedback to create relevant action plans to boost engagement and make smarter business decisions.
Take the time to respond and share action plans with everyone. This will ensure your people know that their feedback is being heard and can really make a difference.
Recognize achievements:
“The engagement level of employees who receive recognition is almost three times higher than the engagement level of those who do not.” — IBM Smarter Workforce Institute.
If your people feel undervalued or unappreciated then their performance and profitability will decrease. According to a survey conducted by technology company Badgeville, only 31% of employees are most motivated by monetary awards. The remaining 69% of employees are motivated by job satisfaction, recognition and learning opportunities.
Make efforts to celebrate good work and recognize everyone’s input. Take the time to personally congratulate people and honor their achievements and hard work. You will likely be rewarded with an engaged and energized workforce, that will make efforts to impress you and have their efforts recognized.
Provide opportunities for growth:
Career development is key for employee engagement. If your people feel like their careers are stagnating, or their hard work and emotional investment aren’t being reciprocated — then you can be certain that engagement will drop.
By meeting with your people regularly, discussing agreed targets and time frames, and clearly highlighting how they fit into the organizations wider plans, you can build a “road map” for their future. This will show that their efforts and hard work aren’t going unnoticed.
Improve company culture:
“Customers will never love a company until the employees love it first.” — Simon Sinek.
Building a culture that reflects your brand and creates a fun and productive working environment is one of the most effective ways to keep your employees engaged. It’ll also boost retention and help recruitment efforts. If your culture motivates everyone to work hard, help each other, become brand ambassadors, and even keep the place clean — then you have won the battle.
An engaged and committed workforce is a huge contributor to any organization’s bottom line. The right culture will be a catalyst to help you achieve this.
Here’s how you can improve the company culture within your organization:
- Empower your people: Empowered employees will take ownership of their responsibilities, solve problems and do whatever it takes to help your company succeed. This will drive your company culture forward. Demonstrate you have faith in your people and trust them to fulfill their duties to their best of their abilities. This will ensure they feel valued, which can lead to empowerment.
- Manage and communicate expectations: Your people may struggle to understand your cultural vision. By setting clear and regular expectations and communicating your vision via posters, emails, discussions and leading by example, you will prevent confusion and limit deviation from your desired vision.
- Be consistent: To sustain a consistent culture, you must show uniformity with your actions and communications. Make efforts to have consistent expectations and standards for all your workers, and communicate everything in the same way.
By focusing on employee engagement and investing in your people, they will repay your efforts with an increase in performance, productivity and — ultimately — profit
See the original article Here.
Source:
Wedgwood J. (2017 June 8). Why employee engagement matter - and 4 ways to build it up [Web blog post]. Retrieved from address https://www.hrmorning.com/employee-engagement-ways-to-build-it-up/
Employers Need to Protect Benefit Plans Against Cyberattacks
Is your employee benefits plan properly protected from cyberattacks? Here is a great article by Marlene Y. Satter from Benefits Pro on why employers must make sure that their employee benefits program is protected from cyberattacks and data breaches.
Think only credit card data and bank accounts are the targets of cyberattacks? Think again—because employee benefits data is in the hackers’ crosshairs.
That’s according to a report by the Society for Human Resource Management, which says that attacks on benefit plans can result in more than just loss of data for employers who fail to safeguard the information.
The report quotes Neal Schelberg, a partner with law firm Proskauer Rose in New York City, saying at the International Foundation of Employee Benefit Plans’ 2017 Washington Legislative Update in Washington, D.C. that employee health and retirement plans “are big targets and particularly susceptible to cyberattacks,” and warning employers to defend their plans against hacking attempts.
Schelberg pointed to some major attacks, including a June 2016 hit on more than 90 deferred-compensation retirement accounts of Chicago municipal employees. Hackers not only got personal information, but managed to pull money from 58 accounts, with the city losing $2.6 million that had to be replaced in participant accounts and also providing credit monitoring services to account holders.
Another big hit the very next month targeted a grocery workers union pension plan in St. Louis, with hackers demanding a three-bitcoin (about $2,000) digital currency ransom to return control of the United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) Local 655 pension plan’s computer servers.
Among the data at risk were employee names, birthdates, Social Security numbers and bank information. While the union refused to knuckle under and pay ransom (it had a backup system), it did end up footing the bill for a year of credit monitoring and theft restoration services.
But in another case, the University of Massachusetts Amherst was on the hook for a $650,000 penalty and had to follow a corrective action plan after a malware infection targeting the university's employee health care plan exposed the sensitive health information of 1,500 people in a potential violation of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA).
Why so much? The Department of Health and Human Services found that the university had failed to accurately assess the risk of malware infection and adopt procedures to secure its data.
According to Schelberg, benefit plans “are particularly susceptible to cyber-risks because they store large amounts of sensitive employee information and share it with multiple third parties.” And even though security measures may not be foolproof, cyber-risks “can be managed.”
It could be argued, he said, that it’s actually within a plan trustee's fiduciary duties not only to prepare for a possible cyberattack but also to ensure that any breach results in as little exposure, and cost, as possible.
Some actions he suggested sponsors take to protect plan data include the following:
- Developing and implementing a framework to address cybersecurity issues
- Addressing third-party vendor vulnerabilities that could add risk, especially for electronic transfer of sensitive data to third parties
- Backing up sensitive data, then storing it off network where it is not accessible to hackers
- Boosting passwords, including adding multifactor authentication for accessing data systems
- Increasing investment in security software and systems
- Involving boards of directors more directly in security matters
- Considering the purchase of cyberliability insurance
Sponsors must also be current on the HIPAA requirements for notification of people whose health information may have been breached, even if a third party is involved, as well as for ERISA requirements for notification and for other actions in the event of a security breach.
And in the case of ERISA, the process could be far more complicated than sponsors believe.
In the report, Kristen Mathews, another partner in Proskauers New York City office, was cited saying that benefit plans are affected by the laws of states where health plan enrollees or retirement plan participants live—not just the state where the company is headquartered or where the plan is administered.
She pointed out that pension plans could be affected by security laws in any state in which a retiree or beneficiary resides.
See the original article Here.
Source:
Satter M. (2017 June 9). Employers need to protect benefit plans against cyberattacks [Web blog post]. Retrieved from address https://www.benefitspro.com/2017/06/09/employers-need-to-protect-benefit-plans-against-cy?ref=hp-news&page_all=1
6 Favorable Changes to HSAs Under GOP Health Bill
With the passing of the AHCA, Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) are on the verge of expansion. Check out this article by Emily Zulz of Benefits Pro and see how this new legislation will impact HSA's.
Current legislature sitting in Congress -- including the American Health Care Act -- indicates favorable changes for health savings accounts.
Since the new Congress began in January, there have been more than 20 bills proposed that impact consumer-directed health care, and more specifically HSAs. In May, the House of Representatives narrowly passed the American Health Care Act.
A new report from HSA Bank provides insight into specific impacts on HSAs and consumer-directed health care outlined in the American Health Care Act, as well as examines the other proposed legislation.
“Whether they get passed or not, I don’t expect that to have a negative impact on HSAs,” Chad Wilkins, executive vice president and head of HSA Bank, told ThinkAdvisor. “We’ll continue to see that kind of growth going forward. And if they do get passed, we’ll see more wind at the back of high-deductible health plans and HSAs.”
HSAs, which can be as much a retirement savings vehicle as a health care financing plan, have grown in popularity recently.
The number of people enrolled in HSAs continues to grow, although more slowly than in previous years. According to America's Health Insurance Plan report, 20.2 million U.S. residents were covered through HSA-compatible, individual, small-group or large-group plans in 2016.
A Fidelity analysis shows a surge in health savings account in the third quarter of last year.
Wilkins, who co-authored the report with Kevin Robertson, senior vice president and chief revenue officer, attributes the growth in HSAs to both the cost standpoint for employers offering plans, as well as the cost savings for individuals both today and in retirement.
And he predicts this growth and popularity will continue to expand -- despite what happens in Congress.
“There’s been a lot of changes in legislators over the past 10 years and HSAs have stayed relatively stable in that world,” Wilkens said.
The report provides insight into the six specific impacts on HSAs and CDH plans outlined in AHCA, as passed by the House, with a focus on how they will positively impact individuals' ability to own their health.
The top-ranking Democrat on the Senate side of the Joint Economic Committee, though, has said expanding the health savings account program would do little to help ordinary Americans cope with cuts in Affordable Care Act coverage expansion programs.
According to Robertson, these impacts “focus on expanding access to health savings accounts and CDH plans for Americans.”
1. Raises HSA contribution limits to the high-deductible health plan (HDHP) out-of-pocket maximum.
The current 2017 HSA contribution limits are $3,400 for a single plan and $6,750 for a family plan. The proposed 2018 contribution limits would increase that to $6,550 for a single plan and $13,100 for a family plan.
2. Repeals the ACA contribution limit on flexible spending accounts (FSAs) (currently $2,600 for 2017)
Approximately 20 percent of Americans covered by private insurance are able to contribute to an HSA since they are enrolled in a qualified HDHP, according to the report. For those not covered by an HDHP, this change effectively allows for significantly higher contributions to help cover large out-of-pocket expenses.
3. Allows spouses to make catch-up contributions to the same HSA
“The most significant obstacle to maximizing spousal contributions has been the aggravation of having to open a second account,” the report says.
This change will make it easier for seniors to maximize their savings for retirement years, both in terms of lower administration costs, and simplification of the contribution process.
4. Repeals the prescription requirement for over-the-counter medications as qualified medical expense distributions from HSAs, FSAs, and health reimbursement arrangements (HRAs)
The ACA raised the prices for anyone purchasing over-the-counter medications, and with this repeal, it will immediately lower healthcare costs for people using HSAs, FSAs, and HRAs to purchase these products, according to the report.
5. Lowers the penalty for non-qualified HSA distributions made prior to age 65 from 20 percent to 10 percent
This penalty exists to ensure that HSAs are used as health care savings tools and not tax shelters for assets. The report says a lower penalty would make HSAs more attractive since “the fear of a 20 percent penalty may have been a detractor in individuals using HSAs as a savings account.”
6. Allows for qualified distributions to reimburse medical expenses incurred within 60 days of HDHP coverage but before HSA account is established
“Even though an individual may be covered by an HSA-qualified health plan, they are not allowed to claim their medical expenses as qualified distributions until they have met the legal requirements of establishing their HSA,” according to the report.
This provision would give individuals a 60-day window to cover these instances.
See the original article Here.
Source:
Emily Zulz (2017 June 16). 6 favorable changes to HSAs under GOP health bill [Web blog post]. Retrieved from address https://www.benefitspro.com/2017/06/16/6-favorable-changes-to-hsas-under-gop-health-bill?ref=hp-news&page_all=1
Losing Sleep Over Benefits Technology? Get Over It!
Are you having a hard time figuring out all the different technologies associated with your benefits program? Read this great article by Linda Keller from SHRM on how to navigate through the different technologies accociated with you employee benefits program .
It’s easy to get caught up wanting to deliver a sophisticated platform to engage your workforce. Many benefits technology solutions promise to make employees smarter consumers of health care through slick recommendation engines, bots, and avatars delivered on smart phones.
I advise you to keep these three things in mind when you evaluate benefits technology:
See the original article Here.
Source:
Keller L. (2017 May 23). Losing sleep over benefits technology? get over it! [Web blog post]. Retrieved from address https://blog.shrm.org/blog/losing-sleep-over-benefits-technology-get-over-it
The American Health Care Act: Economic and Employment Consequences for States
Could health insurance reductions under the American Health Care Act (AHCA) cause problems for employment in the future? Check out this article from The Commonwealth Fund to learn more.
Abstract
Issue: The American Health Care Act (AHCA), passed by the U.S. House of Representatives, would repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act. The Congressional Budget Office indicates that the AHCA could increase the number of uninsured by 23 million by 2026.
Goal: To determine the consequences of the AHCA on employment and economic activity in every state.
Methods: We compute changes in federal spending and revenue from 2018 to 2026 for each state and use the PI+ model to project the effects on states’ employment and economies.
Findings and Conclusions: The AHCA would raise employment and economic activity at first, but lower them in the long run. It initially raises the federal deficit when taxes are repealed, leading to 864,000 more jobs in 2018. In later years, reductions in support for health insurance cause negative economic effects. By 2026, 924,000 jobs would be lost, gross state products would be $93 billion lower, and business output would be $148 billion less. About three-quarters of jobs lost (725,000) would be in the health care sector. States which expanded Medicaid would experience faster and deeper economic losses.
Background
On May 24, 2017, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the American Health Care Act (AHCA, H.R. 1628) to partially repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act (ACA), also known as Obamacare. The U.S. Senate is currently developing its own version of the legislation.
A January 2017 analysis found that repealing certain elements of the ACA—the Medicaid expansion and premium tax credits—could lead to 2.6 million jobs lost and lower gross state products of $1.5 trillion over five years.1,2 That brief focused only on specific repeal elements because other details were not available. This brief examines all aspects of the AHCA, including restructuring Medicaid and health tax credits and repealing ACA taxes (Exhibit 1).
Key Provisions of the American Health Care Act as Passed by the U.S. House of Representatives
| Eliminates individual penalties for not having health insurance and penalties for employers that do not offer adequate coverage to employees. Raises premiums for people who do not maintain continuous insurance coverage. |
| Replaces the current income-related premium tax credits to subsidize nongroup health insurance with age-based tax credits. Allows premiums to be five times higher for the oldest individuals, compared to the current threefold maximum. |
| Restricts state Medicaid eligibility expansions for adults, primarily by reducing federal matching rates from 90 percent beginning in 2020 to rates ranging between 50 percent and 75 percent. |
| Creates temporary funding for safety-net health services in states that did not expand Medicaid. |
| Restructures Medicaid funding based on per capita allotments rather than the current entitlement. States may adopt fixed block grants instead. |
| Creates a Patient and State Stability Fund and Invisible Risk-Sharing Program. |
| Terminates the Prevention and Public Health Fund. |
| Repeals numerous taxes included in the ACA, including Medicare taxes on investment income and on high-income earnings, taxes on health insurance and medical devices, and a tax on high-cost insurance (i.e., the “Cadillac tax”); raises limits for health savings accounts and lowers the threshold for medical care deductions. |
| Allows states to waive key insurance rules, like community rating of health insurance and essential health benefits. Creates a fund that states could use to lower costs for those adversely affected by the waiver. |
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) reported the AHCA would increase the number of uninsured Americans under age 65 by 14 million in fiscal year 2018, eventually reaching 23 million more by 2026.3 A RAND analysis of an earlier version of the bill was similar: 14 million more uninsured in 2020 and 20 million in 2026.4
This report examines the potential economic effects of the AHCA from calendar years 2018 to 2026, including:
-
- employment levels, measured as changes in the number of jobs created or lost due to policy changes
- state economic growth, as measured by changes in gross state products in current dollars, adjusted for inflation; an aggregate measure of state economies, analogous to the gross domestic product at the national level
state business output,
- as measured by changes in business receipts in current dollars at production, wholesale, and retail levels, encompassing multiple levels of business activity.
Our estimates are based on changes in federal funding gained or lost to states, consumers, and businesses. The AHCA significantly reduces federal funding for Medicaid. It lowers federal match funding for the 31 states and District of Columbia that expanded Medicaid, encouraging them to discontinue their expansions. It gives states an option to either adopt per capita allotments for Medicaid or fixed block grants; either option lowers federal Medicaid expenditures. Eliminating the tax penalty for individuals without health insurance reduces incentives to purchase insurance, raising the number of uninsured people. Restructuring premium tax credits and widening age-related differences in premiums are expected to shrink nongroup insurance coverage and reduce federal spending for health insurance subsidies. The AHCA is designed so that tax cuts take effect sooner than reductions in health insurance subsidies. Thus, state employment and economies could grow at first but shrink in later years as the coverage reductions deepen.
How Federal Health Funding Stimulates Job Creation and State Economies
Federal health funds are used to purchase health care. Then, fiscal effects ripple out through the rest of the economy, creating employment and other economic growth. This phenomenon is called the multiplier effect. Health funds directly pay hospitals, doctors’ offices, and other providers; this is the direct effect of federal funding. These facilities use revenue to pay their employees and buy goods and services, such as rent or equipment; this is the indirect effect of the initial spending. In addition, there are induced effects that occur as health care employees or other businesses (and eventually their workers) use their income to purchase consumer goods like housing, transportation, or food, producing sales for a diverse range of businesses. Similarly, when federal taxes are reduced, consumers or businesses retain income and can purchase goods and services, invest, or save. Due to interstate commerce, each type of effect can flow across state lines.
Both government spending increases and tax reductions can stimulate job creation and economic growth. The relative effects depend on how the funds are used. Government spending or transfers, like health insurance subsidies, typically have stronger multiplier effects in stimulating consumption and economic growth than do tax cuts. Tax cuts usually aid people with high incomes who shift much of their gains into savings, stimulating less economic activity.5,6,7 A recent analysis found that 90 percent of the AHCA’s tax cuts go to the top one-fifth of the population by income.8
This report estimates how the AHCA will change federal funds gained or lost for all 50 states and the District of Columbia from 2018 to 2026. We allocate federal funding changes, based on CBO estimates, for each state. We then analyze how federal funding changes ripple through state economies, using the PI+ economic model, developed by Regional Economic Models, Inc. (REMI).9 (See Appendix B. Study Methods.)
Findings
Overall Effects
As illustrated in Exhibit 2, most of the AHCA’s tax repeals begin almost at once, while coverage-related spending reductions phase in. The net effect initially raises the federal deficit. In 2018, the number of jobs would rise by 864,000 and state economies would grow. Health sector employment begins to fall immediately in 2018, with a loss of 24,000 jobs, and continues dropping to 725,000 health jobs lost by 2026 (Exhibit 3). Most other employment sectors gain initially, but then drop off and experience losses.
By 2020, the reduction in federal funding for coverage would roughly equal the total level of tax cuts. By the following year, 2021, coverage reductions outpace tax cuts. As a result, there are 205,000 fewer jobs than without the AHCA and state economies begin to shrink.
By 2026, 924,000 fewer people would have jobs. Gross state products would drop by $93 billion and business output would be $148 billion lower. These downward trends would continue after 2026.
Looking at Coverage-Related and Tax Repeal Policies
To better understand how the AHCA affects state economies and employment, Exhibit 4 looks at the two major components of the AHCA separately. The coverage-related policies (Title I of the AHCA and sections related to premium tax credits and individual and employer mandates) generally lower federal spending, particularly due to cuts to Medicaid and premium tax credits. Some policies partially offset those large cuts, such as the Patient and State Stability Fund. The tax repeal policies (Title II, except for sections about premium tax credits and individual and employer mandates), such as repeal of Medicare-related taxes, Cadillac tax, or medical device tax, predominantly help people with high incomes or selected businesses.
Implemented alone, the coverage-related policies would lead to steep job losses over time, reaching 1.9 million by 2026, driven by deep Medicaid cuts (Exhibit 4). Job losses begin to mount in 2019.
Alternatively, the tax repeal policies on their own would be associated with higher employment and state economic growth. Gains begin with 837,000 more jobs in 2018; this rises through 2024, and leads to 1 million additional jobs in 2026. Combined, tax repeal and coverage-related changes lead to initial economic and employment growth but eventual losses.
The detailed employment results show how these two components of the AHCA affect different economic sectors. Coverage and spending-related policies are directly related to funding for health services (e.g., Medicaid, premium tax credits, high-risk pools). The reductions directly affect the health sector—hospitals, doctors’ offices, or pharmacies—but then flow out to other sectors. Thus, about two-fifths of jobs lost due to coverage policies are in the health sector while three-fifths are in other sectors. Tax changes affect consumption broadly, spreading effects over most job sectors.
Within the health sector, job losses due to coverage-related cuts are much greater than gains due to tax repeal; losses in health care jobs begin immediately. In other sectors, employment grows at the beginning but later declines.
State-Level Effects
Consequences differ from state to state. We summarize data for nine states: Alaska, Florida, Kentucky, Maine, Michigan, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia. Exhibit 5 shows the effects of the AHCA in 2018 and in 2026. Complete results for all 50 states and the District of Columbia are available in Appendices A1–A4. In this analysis, states that expanded Medicaid tend to experience deeper and faster economic declines, although substantial losses occur even among nonexpansion states:
- Eight of the nine states (Alaska, Florida, Kentucky, Maine, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia) begin with positive economic and employment effects in 2018, but are worse off by 2026, with outcomes typically turning negative well before 2026.
- Michigan is worse off in 2018 and continues to decline through 2026. We assume Michigan will terminate its Medicaid expansion immediately because of a state law that automatically cancels the expansion if the federal matching rate changes.10 Six other states (Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana, New Hampshire, New Mexico, and Washington) have similar legislation and experience losses sooner than other states.
- Most job losses are in health care. In six states (Florida, Kentucky, Maine, Michigan, Ohio, and West Virginia) health care job losses begin in 2018, but all nine states have significant reductions in health employment by 2026. Looking at the U.S. overall, in most states, losses in health care jobs begin by 2020 (Appendix A2).
- States that expanded Medicaid have deeper and faster losses. Having earned more federal funds, they lose more when Medicaid matching rates fall. While cutting funds to states that expanded health insurance for low-income Medicaid populations, the bill temporarily increases funding to states that did not expand Medicaid. Nonetheless, states that did not expand Medicaid, like Florida and Maine, experience job and economic losses after a few years. In fact, Florida has the third-highest level of job loss in the nation by 2026.
- Other factors that can affect the size of economic and employment effects include:
- the extent to which states gained coverage in the ACA health insurance marketplaces; states with higher marketplace enrollment tend to lose more
- the cost of health insurance in the state; the new tax credits are the same regardless of location, making insurance less affordable in high-cost states and reducing participation
- age structure; older people will find insurance less affordable
- state population size; the population size of states magnifies their losses or gains
- other factors that affect tax distribution, like number of residents with investment income or high incomes or whether medical device or pharmaceutical manufacturers are located in the state.
Overall, the 10 states with the largest job losses by 2026 are: New York (86,000), Pennsylvania (85,000), Florida (83,000), Michigan (51,000), Illinois (46,000), New Jersey (42,000), Ohio (42,000), North Carolina (41,000), California (32,000), and Tennessee (28,000). Forty-seven states have job losses by 2026; four states (Colorado, Hawaii, Utah, and Washington) have small job gains in 2026, but would likely incur losses in another year or two (Appendix A1).
Conclusions
The House bill to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act would greatly reduce the number of people with insurance coverage, effectively reversing gains made since the law’s enactment. The AHCA would initially create more employment and economic growth, driven by a federal deficit increase in 2018 and 2019, but the effects turn negative as coverage reductions deepen, with job losses and lower economic growth beginning in 2021. By 2026, 924,000 jobs would be lost, gross state products would be $93 billion lower, and business output could fall by $148 billion.
Health care has been one of the main areas of job growth in recent years.11 Under the AHCA, the sector would lose jobs immediately, with a loss of 24,000 jobs in 2018. By 2026, 725,000 fewer health sector jobs would exist. This would be a major reversal from current trends. While our analysis shows other employment sectors grow initially, most other sectors would experience losses within a decade.
It may be useful to look at these findings in a macroeconomic context. The U.S. unemployment rate for May 2017 was 4.3 percent, the lowest in 16 years and about half as high as during the recent recession. When unemployment is low, additional job growth creates a tighter labor market, so that businesses often have greater difficulties filling job vacancies. In turn, this can accelerate inflation.
It is likely that the business cycle will eventually slow down again. In that event, the AHCA could accentuate job loss and economic contraction. Combined with major increases in the number of uninsured, this could contribute to a period of economic and medical hardship in the U.S. The AHCA could exaggerate both the highs and lows of the business cycle. From a national policy perspective, it may be more useful to develop countercyclical policies that strengthen employment and the economy during times of contraction.
This analysis finds that the net effect of the AHCA would be a loss of almost 1 million jobs by 2026, combined with 23 million more Americans without health insurance, according to the CBO. In late May, the Trump administration released its budget proposal, which appears to propose an additional $610 billion in Medicaid cuts, beyond those included in the AHCA.12 Such deep cuts would further deepen the employment and economic losses discussed in this study.
This analysis has many limitations. We do not know whether or when the AHCA or an alternative will be enacted into law. Alternative policies could yield different effects. We focus only on the consequences of the AHCA. Other legislation, such as infrastructure, trade, national security, or tax policies, may be considered by Congress and might also affect economic growth and employment.
These projections, like others, are fraught with uncertainty. Economic, technical, or policy changes could alter results. In particular, the AHCA grants substantial discretion to states, such as in Medicaid expansions, waivers of federal regulations, and use of new funds like the Patient and State Stability Fund. While this analysis is aligned with CBO’s national estimates, we developed state-level projections, introducing further uncertainty. Our approach conservatively spreads changes across states and may underestimate the highs and lows for individual states.
See original article Here.
Source:
Ku, L., Steinmetz, E., Brantley, E., Holla, N., Bruen, B. (14 June 2017). The American Health Care Act: Economic and Employment Consequences for States. [Web Blog Post]. Retrieved from address https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/issue-briefs/2017/jun/ahca-economic-and-employment-consequences
401(k) Borrowing Isn’t Free
Have your employees been dipping into their 401(k)s to support their financial needs? Then take a look at this article by David Sherman from Employee Benefit Adviser on why employees shouldn't dip into their 401(k)s and what employers can do to help employees support themselves financially without having to use the money saved in their 401(k)s.
When dire financial need strikes, employees often tap their retirement accounts. While there are cases in which a 401(k) withdrawal makes sense, these loans should be viewed as an absolute last resort.
There are significant downsides related to 401(k) loans such as including penalties, administration and maintenance fees as well as “leakage” from retirement accounts. This occurs when an employee takes a loan on their 401(k), cashes out entirely or leaves their job and rolls over their account to their new employer.
Borrowing from retirement plans presents hazards to the employer, as well. More employers are minimizing the ability of employees to dip into their 401(k) savings by limiting the number of loans from 66% in 2012 to 45% in 2016, according to SHRM. Despite this, the bottom line is that employees need access to low cost credit.
More than 1-in-4 participants use their 401(k) savings for non-retirement needs, according to financial education provider HelloWallet. That amounts to a startling $70 billion of retirement savings that employees are siphoning away from their future.
There are hidden costs to 401(k) loans. One of the perceived benefits of a 401(k) loan is that the borrower isn’t charged any interest. That’s a fallacy: 401(k) loans typically include interest rates that are 1 to 2 points higher than the current Prime Rate plus administrative fees. While the borrower pays this money to him or herself rather than to a bank, these “repayments” don’t take into account penalty of taking money out of a 401(k) for months or years when it might have enjoyed market gains.
The downside of the interest rate is that it makes paying back the loan more difficult and this will likely lead to 401(k) leakage. In some cases, loopholes that allow employees to raid their 401(k)s before retirement reduce the aggregate wealth in those accounts by 25%. Simply put, this translates into having the most senior and highest paid employees stay on the job because they do not have enough funds in their account to retire. From an HR administrator’s standpoint, that can increase overall costs, since employees who cannot afford to retire are drawing higher-than-average salaries. And thanks to their advanced age, they also run-up costs on the employer’s medical plan.
The financial wellness alternative
Employers should offer socially responsible alternatives to borrowing from their 401k. Not only to ensure that older workers can afford to retire and make room for younger, less-expensive hires, but to ease the financial burden for employees when emergencies do happen. This should be offered as a voluntary benefit with no risk to employers. In a recent Wall Street Journal article, “The Rising Retirement Perils of 401(k) ‘Leakage’” Redner’s Markets made that leap offering a low-cost Kashable loan to its employees. It stopped leakage and offered employees of the online grocer much needed relief from financial stress.
Adding a financial wellness solution to the employee voluntary benefits package that provides access to responsible credit is a first step in untangling employees’ financials. For employees struggling with college loans and credit card debt, this financial-wellness benefit allows them to borrow when needed at a low rate. For the 35% of employees surveyed by PWC in 2016 that said they had trouble meeting their monthly household expenses and the 29% that said they had trouble meeting their minimum credit card charges each month, this voluntary program provides multiple benefits. For the employee, it is an opportunity to build or improve their credit score, and provide relief from financial stress. To the employer, it’s a risk-free solution to stop the leakage from retirement accounts.
See the original article Here.
Source:
Sherman D. (2017 June 5). 401(k) borrowing isn't free [Web blog post]. Retrieved from address https://www.employeebenefitadviser.com/opinion/401-k-borrowing-isnt-free?feed=00000152-1377-d1cc-a5fa-7fff0c920000
Rising Health Care Costs Threatening Employees’ Financial Goals
Did you know that the rising costs of healthcare could be having a negative effect on your employees' financial goals? Check out this great read by Marlene Y. Satter from Benefits Pro on how your employees' finances are being impacted by the costs of healthcare.
Employees are under financial stress — big time. In fact, 56 percent of them are stressed about their financial situation, and more than half of them say it’s taking a toll on both their ability to focus and their productivity on the job.
That’s according to the latest Bank of America Merrill Lynch Workplace Benefits Report, which finds that not only are 53 percent of stressed employees having trouble concentrating on their work, the cost of health care is a big shadow cast over workers’ financial situations. And that’s already an issue, with 43 percent of employees owning up to spending 3 or more hours a week while at the office dealing with personal financial matters.
As more employees find themselves shelling out more from their own pockets to pay health care bills — 69 percent of workers said so in 2015, but 79 percent said so in 2016 — it’s no surprise to hear that health care costs are up 10 percent since 2015. No wonder they’re stressed; salaries certainly haven’t risen to match.
Those rising health care costs are taking a bite out of most employees’ other financial goals — among workers who have experienced increasing health care costs, 56 percent are having to save less toward other objectives.
Women in particular are abandoning more discretionary spending and debt management to cover health care costs than men, with 72 percent chucking spending on recreation or entertainment, compared with 59 percent of men; 63 percent saving less for retirement, compared with 62 percent of men; and 50 percent paying down less debt, compared with 46 percent of men.
And the more expensive health care becomes, the more employees appear to appreciate employer-provided health coverage — with workers ranking health benefits as their top employer benefit (40 percent), followed by their 401(k) plan (31 percent).
Even among employees who class themselves as optimists about their financial futures, worries about health care and its cost are weighing them down. And as might be expected, money woes weigh more on women than men, even — or perhaps especially — when it comes to health care. While 52 percent of men say that becoming seriously ill and unable to work is a major concern (even larger for men than having to work longer than they planned), 58 percent of women fear illness and subsequent absence from the workplace.
And more than half of employees say that financial stress is negatively affecting their physical health. Different generations feel the effects more, with 51 percent of boomers, 56 percent of Gen Xers and 68 percent of millennials saying money worries are literally making them sick. Employers need to be aware of this and take steps to deal with it, particularly since it translates into a toll not just on workers but on the employer’s bottom line — via higher absenteeism rates and higher health care costs.
See the original article Here.
Source:
Satter M. (2017 June 1). Rising health care costs threatening employees' financial goals [Web blog post]. Retrieved from address https://www.benefitspro.com/2017/06/01/rising-health-care-costs-threatening-employees-fin
High-Deductible Health Plans Promote Increased Wellness Program Participation
Are you looking for a new way to increase participation in your wellness program? Take a look at this interesting article by Nick Otto from Employee Benefit News on how offering high-deductible health plans can be a great way to boost enrollment into your wellness program.
Employer-provided healthcare continues to be the most common access to health insurance in the U.S., and as employers continue to look for ways to cut costs, consumer-driven high-deductible health plans continue to grow with the added benefit of increased employee engagement in healthcare choices.
Fourteen percent of the U.S. population was enrolled in a CDHP and 14% was enrolled in an HDHP, a slight increase for both from the previous year, according to the 2016 EBRI/Greenwald & Associates Consumer Engagement in Health Care Survey.
And the number of workers who were in a CDHPs or HDHPs was more likely than those in a traditional plan to exhibit cost-conscious behaviors, according to a recent report from the non-partisan Employee Benefit Research Institute.
“This survey found that high deductibles are associated with new behaviors [that are] often encouraged by employers and insurers,” says Paul Fronstin, director of EBRI’s Health Research and Education Program and co-author of the report.
The theory behind CDHPs and HDHPs is that the cost-sharing structure is a tool that will be more likely to engage individuals in their health care, compared with people enrolled in more traditional coverage, the study suggests.
And with the employees taking a bigger interest in their healthcare planning, employers are noticing their wellness programs taking a bigger role.
The study focused on three types of wellness programs: a health-risk assessment, a health-promotion program to address a specific health issue, and a biometric screening.
“CDHP enrollees and HDHP enrollees were more likely than traditional-plan enrollees to report that they tried to find cost information. They are also more likely to participate in wellness programs.” Adds Fronstin.
Specifically, 45% of CDHP enrollees reported that their employer offered a health risk assessment, compared with 34% of traditional-plan enrollees and 30% of HDHP enrollees. When asked about the availability of health-promotion programs, 53% of CDHP enrollees, 32% of HDHP enrollees and 41% of traditional-plan enrollees reported that their employer offered such a program.
Additionally, when asked about biometric-screening programs, 45% of CDHP enrollees reported that their employer offered such a program, compared with 36% among traditional-plan enrollees and 33% among HDHP enrollees.
CDHP and HDHP enrollees were also more likely than traditional-plan enrollees to report that their employer offered a cash incentive or reward for participating in a biometric screening program. Seventy percent of CDHP and 67% of HDHP enrollees reported a cash incentive or reward for a biometric screening, compared with 51% among traditional-plan enrollees.
While these numbers represent self-reported awareness of available health and wellness programs and cannot be cross-referenced with objective data from employers and insurers, it is significant that, across the board, CDHP enrollees are aware and participate at higher rates in wellness programs, the author notes.
Another trend the study found was the increased interest in health savings accounts.
Among individuals enrolled in CDHPs, 56% opened an HSA, 19% were in an HRA, and 25% were enrolled in an HSA-eligible health plan but had not opened an HSA.
It’s more common for employers to contribute to HSAs than in the past, and the dollar amount is also increasing, EBRI says. Seventy-eight percent of CDHP enrollees reported that their employer contributed to the account in 2016, up from 67% in 2014.
Additionally, 20% of CDHP enrollees reported an employer contribution of at least $2,000 in 2016, up from 10% in 2014.
See the original article Here.
Source:
Otto N. (2017 June 1). High-deductible health plans promote increased wellness program participation [Web blog post]. Retrieved from address https://www.benefitnews.com/news/high-deductible-health-plans-promote-increased-wellness-program-participation
Retirement Calculator Seen as Critical Tool
Did you know that the most impactful tool for employee financial wellness is a retirement calculator? Find out more in this article by Bruce Shutan from Employee Benefit News on why you should have a retirement calculator included in your employee benefits program.
In analyzing the financial behaviors of 67,089 U.S. employee financial wellness assessments, Financial Finesse concluded that the most impactful action was for employers to offer a retirement calculator. The 2016 Year in Review Report also suggested that they promote it to the hilt with the help of their brokers and advisers.
“Running that projection is driving other behavior,” such as changes in cash flow or higher retirement plan contributions over time, explains Cynthia Meyer, a financial planner with Financial Finesse and author of the report.
She says advisers can help spotlight the use of a retirement calculator in an educational workshop or enrollment meeting where they can detail examples or case studies involving the potential effect of this handy tool.
The report uncovered a few bright spots. More employees ran a retirement projection, which jumped to 49% in 2016 from 35% in 2015. In addition, about 60% of these employees discovered they were on track to retire comfortably while about 40% discovered they were underfunded and needed to make changes.
Another positive development was that repeat usage of workplace financial wellness programs appears to be gaining momentum. The number of employees who have done annual workplace assessments of their finances multiple times has climbed steadily since 2013 when it was just 6% to 15% in 2014, 16% in 2015 and 29% in 2016.
However, problems persist. Virtually all demographic groups were still found to have insufficient savings for a comfortable retirement. For example, while 92% of the employees studied participate in an employer-sponsored retirement plan, just 77% contribute enough to earn the full employer match.
Still, Meyer notes that packaging financial wellness content with a good retirement plan is becoming a standard practice as the movement toward a more holistic view of employee finances gains traction.
Aon Hewitt’s 2017 Hot Topics in Retirement and Financial Wellbeing survey found that 59% of employers are very likely and another 33% are moderately likely to focus on the financial wellbeing of workers in ways that extend beyond retirement decisions. Moreover, 86% of employers are very or moderately likely to communicate to their workforces the link between health and wealth.
Rob Austin, director of retirement research at Aon Hewitt, says this is an indication of “just how much I think employers still care about their employees.” It certainly bodes well for brokers and advisers who can expect to be busy in the coming years helping their clients create a strategy and build out a plan that appeals to each workforce, he believes.
Aon Hewitt’s survey, whose 238 respondents represent nearly 9 million employees, noted several other key trends. They include employers enhancing both the accumulation and decumulation phases for their defined contribution plan participants, and defined benefit plan sponsors revisiting ways they’re removing risk from their plan.
See the original article Here.
Source:
Shutan Bruce (2017 May 29). Retirement calculator seen as critical tool [Web blog post]. Retrieved from address https://www.benefitnews.com/news/retirement-calculator-seen-as-critical-tool?brief=00000152-14a7-d1cc-a5fa-7cffccf00000