8 Common But Costly Benefits Communication Mistakes
Original Post from HRMorning.com
By: Tim Gould
Here are a few stats that really drive home just how critical benefits communication is for HR pros.
When employees that were offered rich employer benefits received poor communication, just 22% of those workers reported being satisfied with their benefits.
On the other hand, when employers with less-rich benefits communicated those benefits effectively, 76% of workers reported being satisfied with their employers’ benefit offerings.
These stats were part of a recent study by Towers Watson WorkUSA.
At the 2015 Mid-Sized Retirement & Healthcare Plan Management Conference in San Diego, Benefits Strategist Julie Adamik used those surprising stats as an opening to launch into a presentation about effective benefits communication.
What to avoid
During the presentation, Adamik covered some of the most common — and costly — benefits communication mistakes, which included:
1. Holding a boring benefits presentation. There’s a common misconception among workers that anything about benefits is going to be boring. But when HR pros don’t make the effort to make their benefits presentations interesting, the message is bound to be lost on employees.
2. Letting Legal draft all of your benefit communications. When employers let a legal department write all your benefits communications, there’s a very good chance the documents will be littered with legalese that confuses employees, bores them to the point of tuning out or both.
3. Not allotting enough of the budget to the benefits communications. Upper management often doesn’t have a handle on just how much solid benefits communications are going to cost — at least not in the same way HR does.
Benefits communication must be more detailed than standard inter-office communications, so it’s likely to take more time to prepare and produce.
4. Relying on workers will bring their benefits info home and discuss it with their family members.Effective benefits communication should always try to include spouses and family members.
5. Assuming employees will simply act on the messages in the benefit communications. It’s up to HR to specifically tell staffers what they should do with the benefits info as well as why.
6. Thinking workers will read their open enrollment materials cover to cover on their own time. The more HR can go over during the actual open enrollment meeting, the better. Of course, enrollment time shouldn’t be the only time benefits info should be addressed. Communication should be a year-long process.
7. Opting for “professional-sounding” language instead of simple “plain-speak” English. Sure, HR pros’ world is filled with jargon, buzzwords and benefits-related acronyms, but rank-and-file employees’ worlds are not. Keep the benefit communications as simple as possible.
8. Covering too much info. It’s only natural to try and cram everything possible into your open enrollment materials, but when there’s just too much being thrown at employees, they suffer from information overload — and retain little (if any) of what was covered.
Remember, continuous education is a proven way to improve employees’ decision-making regarding their benefits, which should be the goal of every communication effort..
Adapted from “Effective Benefit Communications” by Julie Adamik, CEBS, CCP, CBP, as presented at the 2015 Mid-Sized Retirement & Healthcare Plan Management Conference in San Diego.
4 keys to picking the right benefits admin system
Original Post by HRMorning.com
By: Jared Bilski
With HR departments at small companies stretched so thin (many times one staffer handles all of HR), it’s no surprise many small companies are using benefits administration systems for their needs. But with new software vendors popping up every day, how do HR pros find the right system?
At the Dig|Benefits Conference in Austin, TX, Joshua N. Jeffries, a partner with Arkin Youngentob Associates, LLC, outlined the four most important steps small employers should take when selecting an “efficient, cost-effective” benefits administration system:
Selection checklist
Step 1: Define your needs. What are you looking for in a benefits administration system? This step needs to go beyond HR and incorporate all departments within the company. Jeffries reminded HR pros that Benefits has one of the top Profit/Loss (P/L) line items for most businesses. Any soft-dollar spending in this area needs to be justified in your compensation plans.
Step 2: Evaluate your vendor. With the sheer number of vendors out there, this step can seem a bit daunting. But the process is much less intimidating when HR pros break it down into small questions.
Examples: What type of back-end customer support do I need? Is it broker-friendly — in other words, will most brokers be able to use the system easily and effectively? Does the system account for all ACA and other federal and state regs? Does the system offer a mobile component? Does the data make it home? If the system is giving employees easy access to their benefits, it should offer a mobile component for spouses and dependents. After all, most families use smartphones for virtually everything.
Step 3: Understand the implementation process. Obviously, you’ll want the system to be as accurate as possible, so you’ll want to do your homework and find out any vendors with less-than-stellar track records in this area. You’ll also want to find out if the system updates automatically or if that’s a separate undertaking.
Step 4: Change your culture. For many employees, any type of change is difficult. If your benefits administration system alters the way people are used to doing things, which it most likely will, you have to account for that — and find ways to make sure the new system can positively impact your company’s culture. Here, Jeffries lauded the use of employee committees as a means to educate staffers on how everything works and all that workers can get from a new system.
Based on “Platform Power — Solving Ben Admin For Small Businesses,” by Joshua N. Jeffries, as presented at the Dig|Benefits Conference in Austin, TX.
DOL Overtime Rule Will Impact Hospitality Industry
Originally Posted by SHRM.org
By: Allen Smith
The hospitality industry will be hit hard by the Department of Labor’s updates to the overtime rule implementing the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), experts say. With high overhead costs and a low-profit margin, hotels and restaurants typically don’t have enough money in reserve to give employees big raises to preserve their exempt status or to pay many hours of overtime if employees are eligible.
As a result, hospitality employers will need to explore alternative compensation models, schedules and staffing options to try to mitigate costs, according to Ryan Glasgow, an attorney with Hunton & Williams in Richmond, Va.
Some choices will be simple, he noted. For employees with relatively high salaries who work long hours, the logical choice is to increase their salaries, as the minimum increase in salary likely will be less than the employer would have to pay in substantial overtime hours. As for employees with low salaries who don’t work much overtime, it makes sense to convert them to nonexempt and pay overtime for the few overtime hours they might work.
“For all other employees, the decision will be much more difficult and will require a lot of strategic planning and analysis,” Glasgow said. “For example, in certain circumstances, it may be feasible for the employer to combine two exempt positions into one position so that the cost of increasing the salary for the remaining one employee is offset by the cost-savings from the elimination of the other employee’s position.”
He added that it may be better for the employer to convert a position to nonexempt and hire more employees to perform the work so that none of the employees work overtime. “Similarly, employers should evaluate each impacted position to determine whether there are unnecessary and/or inefficient tasks that can be eliminated or given to another employee so that the position requires fewer hours of work, thus lowering the impact of paying overtime,” he noted.
Domino Effect
Be aware of the potential domino effect when an employee’s salary is increased above the new salary level. The employee and the employee’s supervisor may suddenly be making similar salaries. Supervisors may ask for an increase as well, leading to salary increases up the organizational chart, Glasgow said.
Bonus and commission plans will have to be re-evaluated since there may be overtime pay consequences if employees who have been converted to nonexempt are paid bonuses or commissions, noted Robert Boonin, an attorney with Dykema in Detroit and Ann Arbor, Mich., and immediate past chair of the Wage and Hour Defense Institute, a network of wage and hour lawyers.
Rule’s Potential Winners
Salaried workers earning less than $913 a week or $47,476 annually and who regularly work more than 40 hours per week stand to gain from the overtime rule, said Wendy Stryker, an attorney with Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz in New York City. These workers will have their salaries raised above the new threshold, be paid overtime or have their hours reduced to a 40-hour workweek, she said. These employees include entry and midlevel professionals, such as chefs, sommeliers, and hotel or restaurant managers and assistant managers, she added.
The hospitality industry has a lot of employees earning in this range, according to Stryker. She noted that the average U.S. wage for chefs, head cooks and pastry chefs is $45,920. For bakers, the average U.S. wage is lower, at $26,270, Stryker noted.
While workers may benefit from the overtime rule, Michael Layman, vice president, regulatory affairs for the International Franchise Association in Washington, D.C., said the overtime rule will hit the hospitality industry particularly hard. Its employers “disproportionately face unpredictable season- or weather-dependent schedules and variable labor demands, which makes tracking hours and managing overtime costs a significant challenge,” he said.
“Given the need for onsite guest services, employers in the hospitality industry may have less flexibility than other employers to automate or offshore operations,” said Nancy Vary, director of the compliance consulting center at Xerox HR Services in New York City.
However, Carolyn Richmond, an attorney with Fox Rothschild in New York City, said, “I think we will see the live reservationist all but disappear as reliance on [online booking apps] OpenTable, Resy and the others grows.” She added, “Owners are looking at more and more automation—programs that monitor and control labor costs and even how to replace certain employees.”
Other Significantly Affected Industries
Hospitality isn’t the only industry to feel the brunt of the new overtime rule.
“The construction and retail industries will be impacted significantly because, like the hospitality industry, they have unusually high concentrations of low-salaried managers,” Glasgow said. He also expected large research and educational hospitals to be uniquely impacted because they have many low-salaried professionals.
“Any industry that has traditionally offered low pay to its skilled workers is likely to be hard-hit by the new overtime rules,” Stryker said. “In New York City, this is likely to be the creative industries such as advertising and film/television production, where hours are traditionally long, and the work product cannot necessarily be created on a 40-hour-per-week schedule.”
The point of the rule isn’t to benefit employers, though. “The new overtime rules were created to benefit employees,” Stryker said. “As the president noted when he directed the Department of Labor to update the relevant regulations, the FLSA’s overtime protections “are a linchpin of the middle class, and the failure to keep the salary level requirement for the white-collar exemption up to date has left millions of low-paid salaried workers without this basic protection.”
That said, Richmond noted that “While the Department of Labor hopes and expects these changes will lead to increased wages through overtime, I don’t expect that to be the case in [the hospitality] industry. Payroll has already risen dramatically with minimum wage increases and resulting wage compression, and owners will spend more time looking at controlling overtime.”
Allen Smith, J.D., is the manager of workplace law content for SHRM. Follow him @SHRMlegaleditor.
- See more at: https://shrm.org/legalissues/federalresources/pages/hospitality-industry-weighs-options-in-wake-of-overtime-rule.aspx#sthash.D3BGAwvR.dpuf
5 Things Employers Need to Know About Overtime Rules
Original post benefitsnews.com
With compensation taking up the biggest slice of the benefits pie, employers are paying close attention to the Department of Labor’s proposed changes to the overtime rules – expected to be released as early as this month – under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The proposed rules bump the salary threshold for overtime from $23,600/year to $50,440/year. If the final rules stay the same as the proposed rules, employees currently working in salaried positions who make less than $50,440 will now be entitled to overtime pay. That’s a 113% increase, which is “incredibly dramatic,” says Lisa Horn, spokesperson for the Partnership to Protect Workplace Opportunity.
“Not only does it raise it that high, but what many have failed to hone in on is the fact that this is an annual increase,” she adds. “That’s quite impactful on top of that huge initial jump in the salary increase.”
Horn says some research predicts that because of that annual increase, which is tied to the 40th percentile of all full-time salaried workers in the country, the minimum salary threshold for overtime could rise as high as $90,000 within five to seven years.
It’s possible the final rules could include a lower salary threshold – Horn says she’s heard it could be $47,000/year instead of $50,440 – but even if that’s the case, it will still mean a big jump. Employers will have to decide whether to increase workers’ salaries to make them exempt from overtime or reclassify them as non-exempt.
And since many employers have different benefit structures for hourly and salaried workers, if some employees need to be reclassified as non-exempt they could see their benefits affected.
Moreover, in the eyes of employees, being reclassified as non-exempt is “seen as a demotion,” says Horn, who also works as SHRM’s director of Congressional affairs. “Because you’re continually trying to climb most employees from that non-exempt hourly status to the more professional exempt status.”
Here are five things employers need to know about the proposed rules from the PPWO, a group of more than 70 employer organizations and companies created to respond to the overtime rule changes:
1. This proposal represents a 113% immediate increase plus an annual increase. The proposed overtime rule would initially raise the salary threshold defining which employees must be paid overtime by 113%, from $23,600 to $50,440. In addition, the DOL has proposed increasing this minimum salary on an annual basis.
2. The proposal will impact millions of workers and cost billions to businesses.According to the DOL, the rule will affect over 10 million workers – workers who may see their workplace flexibility diminished or a loss in other benefits they rely on, says the PPWO. The National Retail Federation estimates retail and restaurant businesses will see an increase of more than $8.4 billion per year in costs.
3. The implementation window is very short. As proposed, the implementation timeline for this rule is only 60 days, which will place a massive burden on HR departments and organizations scrambling to comply, according to the PPWO. “That 60 days is just completely unworkable from an organization’s standpoint and having to implement these changes in such a short time frame,” says Horn. “These are, for some organizations, really massive changes.”
4. Many employees will need to be demoted. This change could force employers to reclassify professional employees from salaried to hourly – including many managers and those with advanced degrees – resulting in a loss in benefits, bonuses, and flexibility, and a reduction in professional opportunities.
5. This is a blanket increase that disproportionally impacts lower cost areas. A one-size-fits-all approach is inappropriate for the different industries and various regions of the country. While the threshold of $50,440 may be reasonable in New York City, a comparable cost of living in Birmingham, Alabama, for example, is only about $21,000 – making the threshold unattainable and unrealistic for many small businesses in lower cost of living areas, according to the PPWO.
Many Patients Don't Get Much Out of EHRs
Original post benefitspro.com
Most Americans appear to view electronic health records (EHR) as a welcome convenience, but not as a game-changing medical advance. That’s what one can glean from a recent survey of patients conducted by HealthMine.
The poll of 500 insured adults found that 60 percent have access to an electronic health record, but only 22 percent of those with an EHR say they use it to guide their medical decisions. The great majority of patients say they rely on the technology as a way to “stay informed.”
Other results:
- 71 percent of those with EHRs say they access the records when needed
- 15 percent say it’s hard to understand the information presented
- 14 percent never access their EHR
Of course, not all EHRs are created equal. Some patients report only having access to a limited amount of information, and others say they are not able to see that same information as their doctor:
- 69 percent can see lab work/blood tests
- 60 percent see their prescriptions
- 55 percent view their billing information
- 47 percent see notes from their physician
Bryce Williams, CEO of HealthMine, suggested that many patients have not yet fully grasped the value of EHRs. Educating people on how to benefit from them could be an important part of wellness programs, he said.
"Electronic health records are still in the early phases of consumer adoption. They have the potential to engage consumers more directly in managing their health," he said. "Wellness programs can help bridge the gap between EHR adoption and understanding by making the information both meaningful and actionable for patients."
Wellness Programs Benefit Employers, Employees
Original post benefitspro.com
Offering employee wellness programs isn’t just an exercise in altruism for employers. It pays off where most companies would value it most: the bottom line.
According to Forbes, companies are jumping on the wellness program bandwagon right and left, to varying degrees. In fact, Society for Human Resource Management statistics indicate that in 2015, 80 percent of employers offered preventive wellness resources and educational information, with 70 percent providing full strategic wellness programs.
But while companies are happy that such programs pay off in healthier employees — 59 percent of employers offering such programs believe they’ve resulted in improved worker health — those programs also pay off in ways that have more to do with the balance sheet than the scales.
The cost of wellness programs is nothing to be sneezed at, but on the other hand, employees involved in them often shift their diets to healthier foods, quit smoking, have a better mental outlook on life, and watch the pounds come off through diet and exercise. That means they’re less likely to have to take so much advantage of company-provided health plans, if they’re reducing or eliminating some of the risk factors that could send them to the doctor more often.
Healthy employees might exercise more and weigh less, but they’re also more engaged, and thus more productive. Better health can also keep them on the job longer, with better results and better job satisfaction. They’re less stressed, miss fewer days at work and don’t look for a new job as often; all those things add up to an 8 percent improvement in productivity.
All of that can translate, for most programs, to dollars and cents: a return on investment of approximately 3:1. It can, however, go as high as 6:1, thanks to reduced health care costs that result when workers are eating better, exercising more, and forestalling some of the conditions that can result in mega health care bills — and equally mega premiums.
Fiduciary Rollout: DOL to Extend a Hand
Original post employeebenefitadvisor.com
WASHINGTON -- As the dust begins to settle after the Department of Labor issued its hotly contested fiduciary regulation, one of the key officials who led the rulemaking initiative says that he anticipates issuing clarifying guidance on an ongoing basis as industry feedback trickles back on how the rules are working in practice.
“This is a major undertaking and that we need to be mindful of what impact it's having as people are implementing it,” said Timothy Hauser, a deputy assistant secretary at the Labor Department, on Tuesday at a policy forum hosted by the Investment Company Institute. “We need to have the courage to make changes and to be responsive as problems emerge. And I can assure you we have every intent of doing so."
The ICI is a trade group that has been sharply critical of the rulemaking process.
Rule opponents have argued that many firms would be more likely to abandon middle-income clients planning for retirement, rather than submit to the contractual provisions relating to best-interest advice. But Hauser noted that the department made changes as it redrafted the final rule, in a bid to make the provisions less burdensome.
FURTHER TWEAKS TO RULE
Hauser took pains to explain that that process is still ongoing, insisting that he will entertain further tweaks to the rule and will publish clarifying guidance, likely in a question-and-answer format on a "rolling basis."
"We did our level best, really, to try to find the legitimate concerns and objections people had to what we were doing and try to be responsive," Hauser said. "We'll continue to do that as we move forward."
At the same time, Hauser offered a strong defense of the rule and the underlying rationale for the department's effort to crack down on conflicted advice in the retirement sector.
"The basic idea, first and foremost, is that we want advice to be in the customer's interest rather than in the interest of the adviser," he said. "The basis for this project — the reason we undertook this in the first place — was our belief that there was a significant problem in this marketplace."
The department's solution: update its rules under the 1974 Employee Retirement Income Security Act to extend fiduciary obligations to financial professionals working with retirement savers and plans, a threshold that is generally met when an adviser makes an investment recommendation and in turn receives compensation, Hauser said.
Hauser acknowledged that the ERISA statute has a "strong default position against conflicts of interest," but pointed out that the new rule explicitly permits conflicts such as commissions and proprietary products, provided that advisers offer up-front disclosures and aver in a binding contract that they will act in their clients' best interests.
That so-called best interest contract exemption has been one of the chief complaints of industry critics. But Hauser was quick to remind his audience that the rule will have minimal impact on advisers who offer advice that is free of conflicts.
"[T]there's nothing in the natural order of things that requires people to receive conflicted compensation streams as a condition of giving advice," he said. "However, we also don't outlaw conflicted compensation streams. The firm can continue to get commissions, it can get 12b-1 fees, it can get revenue sharing, it can get the variety of third-party payments."
Hauser continued: "But there's a quid pro quo for that. There's a basic deal that you need to strike with your customer, by and large, if you want to do that, and the deal is simple. You have to make a commitment to the customer that you're going to act in their best interest, and it needs to be enforceable."
NOT FOR PUNITIVE ENFORCEMENT
Hauser also said the DoL is not looking at the rule as a vehicle for a punitive enforcement policy. Instead, he said that the department is hoping to serve as a resource for affected firms and to work with them in a collaborative spirit as they implement the new rules.
"Our primary efforts are not going to be about finding people to sue, it's going to be about helping people to comply," he said. "Any problems you're wrestling with, issues you're trying to deal with, operational issues you're confronting — we'd love to hear from you, we'd love to be able to give advice. I would much rather get advice out early rather than have you build entire systems only to have us say, 'Nah, we don't think that complies.' I think it's in all our interest to make this work."
Study Suggests Plan Transparency Doesn’t Reduce Costs
Original post benefitspro.com
“Transparency” and “choice” are keywords associated with health plan consumers these days. But there’s no guarantee those key words will lead to the keyword phrase “lower health plan costs.”
One survey of the employees of two large employers reports that, given transparency and choice, plan members did not reduce their costs, and even increased them a bit.
As reported in the Journal of the American Medical Association, a Harvard-led study of plan member choices showed that when employees spent more time reviewing plan options, they did not necessarily choose a cheaper plan. The study compared two groups of employees — one with a plan that included a price transparency/comparison tool, and another that did not.
The end result: The group with the transparency tool at its disposal spent slightly more (about $59 per member) on a plan in 2012 than in 2011. The control group with no tool spent about $18 more.
However, the study included a big caveat: “Only a small percentage of eligible employees” used the tool.
Such studies can offer some value to the overall discussion of reducing health costs. However, this study’s small focus (employees of two companies), when it took place (before comparison tools had truly entered the health plan lexicon), and the relatively few folks who used it, probably suggests that perhaps it could be used as the starting point for a broader study based upon more recent data.
5 Crucial Wellness Strategies for Self-Funded Companies
Original post careatc.com
Instead of paying pricey premiums to insurers, self-insured companies pay claims filed by employees and health care providers directly and assume most of the financial risk of providing health benefits to employees. To mitigate significant losses, self-funded companies often sign up for a special “stop loss” insurance, hedging against very large or unexpected claims. The result? A stronger position to stabilize health care costs in the long-term. No wonder self-funded plans are on the rise with nearly 81% of employees at large companies covered.
Despite the rise in self-insured companies, employers are uncertain as to whether they’ll even be able to afford coverage in the long-term given ACA regulations. Now more than ever, employers (self-insured or not) must understand that wellness is a business strategy. High-performing companies are able to manage costs by implementing the most effective tactics for improving workforce health.
Here are five wellness strategies for self-insured companies:
Strategy 1: Focus on Disease Management Programs
Corporate wellness offerings generally consist of two types of programs: lifestyle management and disease management. The first focuses on employees with health risks, like smoking or obesity, and supports them in reducing those risks to ultimately prevent the development of chronic conditions. Disease management programs, on the other hand, are designed to help employees who already have chronic disease, encouraging them to take better care of themselves through increased access to low-cost generic prescriptions or closing communication gaps in care through periodic visits to providers who leverage electronic medical records.
According to a 2012 Rand Corporation study, both program types collectively reduced the employer’s average health care costs by about $30 per member per month (PMPM) with disease management responsible for 87% of those savings. You read that right – 87%! Looking deeper into the study, employees participating in the disease management program generated savings of $136 PMPM, driven in large part by a nearly 30% reduction in hospital admissions. Additionally, only 13% of employees participated in the disease management program, compared with 87% for the lifestyle management program. In other words, higher participation in lifestyle management programs marginally contributes to overall short-term savings; ROI was $3.80 for disease management but only $0.50 for lifestyle management for every dollar invested.
This isn’t to say that lifestyle management isn’t a worthy cause – employers still benefit from its long-term savings, reduced absenteeism, and improved retention rates – but it cannot be ignored that short-term ROI is markedly achieved through a robust disease management program.
Strategy 2: Beef Up Value-Based Benefits
Value-Based Benefit Design (VBD) strategies focus on key facets of the health care continuum, including prevention and chronic disease management. Often paired with wellness programs, VBD strategies aim to maximize opportunities for employees make positive changes. The result? Improved employee health and curbed health care costs for both employee and employer. Types of value-based benefits outlined by theNational Business Coalition on Health include:
Individual health competency where incentives are presented most often through cash equivalent or premium differential:
- Health Risk Assessment
- Biometric testing
- Wellness programs
Condition management where incentives are presented most often through co-pay/coinsurance differential or cash equivalent:
- Adherence to evidence-based guidelines
- Adherence to chronic medications
- Participation in a disease management program
Provider Guidance
- Utilization of a retail clinic versus an emergency room
- Care through a “center of excellence”
- Tier one high quality physician
There is no silver bullet when it comes to VBD strategies. The first step is to assess your company’s health care utilization and compare it with other benchmarks in your industry or region. The ultimate goal is to provide benefits that meet employee needs and coincide with your company culture.
Strategy 3: Adopt Comprehensive Biometric Screenings
Think Health Risk Assessments (HRAs) and Biometric Screenings are one and the same? Think again. While HRAs include self-reported questions about medical history, health status, and lifestyle, biometric screenings measure objective risk factors, such as body weight, cholesterol, blood pressure, stress, and nutrition. This means that by adopting a comprehensive annual biometric screening, employees can review results with their physician, create an action plan, and see their personal progress year after year. For employers, being able to determine potentially catastrophic claims and quantitatively assess employee health on an aggregate level is gold. With such valuable metrics, its no surprise that nearly 51% of large companies offer biometric screenings to their employees.
Strategy 4: Open or Join an Employer-Sponsored Clinic
Despite a moderate health care cost trend of 4.1% after ACA changes in 2013, costs continue to rise above the rate of inflation, amplifying concerns about the long-term ability for employers to provide health care benefits. In spite of this climate, there are still high-performing companies managing costs by implementing the most effective tactics for improving health. One key tactic? Offer at least one onsite health service to your population.
I know what you’re thinking: employer-sponsored clinics are expensive and only make sense for large companies, right? Not anymore. There are a few innovative models out there tailored to small and mid-size businesses that are self-funded, including multi-employer, multi-site sponsored clinics. Typically a large company anchors the clinic and smaller employers can join or a group of small employers can launch their very own clinic. There are a number of advantages to employer-sponsored clinics and it is worthwhile to explore if this strategy is right for your company.
Strategy 5: Leverage Mobile Technology
With thousands health and wellness apps currently available through iOS and Android, consumers are presented with an array of digital tools to achieve personal goals. So how can self-insured companies possibly leverage this range of mobile technology? From health gamification and digital health coaching, to wearables and apps, employers are inundated with a wealth of digital means that delivering a variation of virtually the same thing: measurable data.
These companies curate available consumer health and wellness technology to empower employers by simplifying the process of selecting and managing various app and device partners, and even connecting with tools employees are already be using.
Conclusion:
Self-insured companies have a vested interest in improving employee health and understand that wellness is indeed a business strategy. High-performing companies are able to manage costs by implementing the most effective tactics for improving workforce health including an increased focus on Chronic Disease Management programs; strengthening value-based benefit design; adopting comprehensive biometric screening; exploring the option of opening or joining an employer-sponsored clinic; and leveraging mobile technology.
EEOC Issues Final Rules on Employee Wellness Programs
From the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
WASHINGTON, DC--The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) today issued final rules that describe how Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Title II of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) apply to wellness programs offered by employers that request health information from employees and their spouses. The two rules provide guidance to both employers and employees about how workplace wellness programs can comply with the ADA and GINA consistent with provisions governing wellness programs in the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, as amended by the Affordable Care Act (Affordable Care Act).
The rules permit wellness programs to operate consistent with their stated purpose of improving employee health, while including protections for employees against discrimination. The rules are available in the Federal Register at Regulations Under the Americans with Disabilities Act and Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA). EEOC also published question-and-answer documents on both rules today, available at Q&A ADA Wellness Final Rule and Q&A GINA Final Rule, and two documents for small businesses Facts on ADA and Wellness and Facts on GINA and Wellness.
Many employers offer workplace wellness programs intended to encourage healthier lifestyles or prevent disease. These programs sometimes use medical questionnaires or health risk assessments and biometric screenings to determine an employee's health risk factors, such as body weight and cholesterol, blood glucose, and blood pressure levels. Some of these programs offer financial and other incentives for employees to participate or to achieve certain health outcomes.
The ADA and GINA generally prohibit employers from obtaining and using information about employees’ own health conditions or about the health conditions of their family members, including spouses. Both laws, however, allow employers to ask health-related questions and conduct medical examinations, such as biometric screenings to determine risk factors, if the employer is providing health or genetic services as part of a voluntary wellness program. Last year, EEOC issued proposed rules that addressed whether offering an incentive for employees or their family members to provide health information as part of a wellness program would render the program involuntary.
The final ADA rule provides that wellness programs that are part of a group health plan and that ask questions about employees’ health or include medical examinations may offer incentives of up to 30 percent of the total cost of self-only coverage. The final GINA rule provides that the value of the maximum incentive attributable to a spouse’s participation may not exceed 30 percent of the total cost of self-only coverage, the same incentive allowed for the employee. No incentives are allowed in exchange for the current or past health status information of employees’ children or in exchange for specified genetic information (such as family medical history or the results of genetic tests) of an employee, an employee’s spouse, and an employee’s children.
The final rules, which will go into effect in 2017, apply to all workplace wellness programs, including those in which employees or their family members may participate without also enrolling in a particular health plan.
“The EEOC received comments on both rules from a broad array of stakeholders and considered them carefully in developing this final rule,” said EEOC Chair Jenny R. Yang. “The Commission worked to harmonize HIPAA’s goal of allowing incentives to encourage participation in wellness programs with ADA and GINA provisions that require that participation in certain types of wellness programs is voluntary. These rules make clear that the ADA and GINA provide important safeguards to employees to protect against discrimination.”
Program Design
Both rules also seek to ensure that wellness programs actually promote good health and are not just used to collect or sell sensitive medical information about employees and family members or to impermissibly shift health insurance costs to them. The ADA and GINA rules require wellness programs to be reasonably designed to promote health and prevent disease.
Protecting Confidentiality
The two rules also make clear that the ADA and GINA provide important protections for safeguarding health information. The ADA and GINA rules state that information from wellness programs may be disclosed to employers only in aggregate terms.
The ADA rule requires that employers give participating employees a notice that tells them what information will be collected as part of the wellness program, with whom it will be shared and for what purpose, the limits on disclosure and the way information will be kept confidential. GINA includes statutory notice and consent provisions for health and genetic services provided to employees and their family members.
Both rules prohibit employers from requiring employees or their family members to agree to the sale, exchange, transfer, or other disclosure of their health information to participate in a wellness program or to receive an incentive.
The interpretive guidance published along with the final ADA rule and the preamble to the GINA final rule identify some best practices for ensuring confidentiality, such as adopting and communicating clear policies, training employees who handle confidential information, encrypting health information, and providing prompt notification of employees and their family members if breaches occur.
EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the EEOC is available on its web site at EEOC.gov.