How employers can better support the caregivers in their workforces
How can you provide the best support for the caregivers in your workforce? From Employee Benefit News, this article discusses the responsibilities caregiving employees juggle, and why it's so important for employers to take those responsibilities into consideration when creating a healthy and stable work environment.
As more employees self-identify as caregivers for family members and friends, employers are starting to address the needs of workers who struggle to balance work while caring for others.
The numbers are staggering. One in six U.S. employees identify as a caregiver for a family member or friend, according to research by Family Caregiver Alliance. An AARP study found that U.S. businesses lose more than $25 billion annually in lost productivity due to absenteeism among full-time working caregivers, and that figure grows an additional $3 billion when part-time workers with caregiving duties are accounted for.
“Of today’s 40 million family caregivers, 24 million are juggling caregiving responsibilities and employment. By recognizing and supporting their needs, employers can improve productivity and foster a stable and healthy workforce,” says Nancy LeaMond, chief advocacy and engagement officer for AARP.
With that in mind, Northeast Business Group on Health and AARP have released a resource guide for employers who wish to ease the burden of the caregivers among their workforce. According to Supporting Caregivers in the Workplace: A Practical Guide for Employers, the authors recommend that employers create a corporate culture of awareness, draft workplace policies, benefits and programs, obtain the support of top executives and implement new services throughout the work force.
The guide also suggests employers offer paid sick days that can also be used for the care of a relative; in-house stress-reduction programs such as yoga, meditation; massage discounts and online or in-person coaching to assist in developing a care plan. Employers are also urged to offer digital tools to help employees manage their caregiving duties and provide legal and financial counseling for employees.
Employees who are preoccupied with the care and wellbeing of a parent, sibling or child have an impact on the workplace in both their quality of work and in potential medical claims.
“Trying to balance those responsibilities however large or small does have ramifications for the folks who are doing the caregiving,” says Candace Sherman, interim CEO of NEBGH. She says caregivers often feel lonely and isolated due to the demands placed on them and they often experience depression and anxiety when dealing with their caregiving roles.
“They're often spending their outside-of-work time providing care as opposed to socializing and oftentimes they neglect their own mental and physical well-being in favor of making sure that whomever they're caring for has what they need,” says Sherman. “Ultimately, that shows up in healthcare claims down the road.”
Fighting the stigma
By creating a culture of awareness around caregiver needs and responsibilities, employers may shake the resistance employees feel when identifying as caregivers.
“We found that there's a bit of a stigma in terms of folks raising their hand and saying ‘I'm a caregiver and I'm having some trouble,’” says Sherman. She adds that this impulse is similar to employees’ overall reluctance to admitting that they have a mental health issue.
“Employee caregivers might worry that if their colleagues know they're caring for someone, their manager will think ‘I've got this great new assignment but this person's overburdened right now,’” she says. “Or maybe they're up for a promotion and they feel they won't be considered because people know that they have other responsibilities outside of work.”
The caregiving guide recommends employers “ensure that managers at all levels are aware of the company’s policies regarding flex-time, leave policies and other benefits that caregiving employees can access, and should encourage them to openly support employees using these benefits.”
The guide also recommends that providing paid leave to these employees “might be the single most important consideration for employers when thinking about creating a caregiving-friendly workplace.”
Benefit administrators appear to be getting the message. Respondents of a July 2017 survey of benefits executives and managers from roughly 130 companies said that if they could roll out “two new policies, programs or benefits tomorrow to support caregivers, they would expand leave policies and coaching, wellness or support services designed to support caregiver well-being.”
The burden is not just on employers to act to improve the workplace for caregivers, they have to come to terms with their duties and the impact it has on their personal and work lives, says Sherman. Caregivers are slow to identify themselves as such because of cultural and societal roles that engrain our sense of family responsibilities.
“We have all been there or we’re close to people who have been there in terms of caring for someone who's ill or elderly. We are ingrained to view it as we're caring people and this is just something that we do, so people don't self-identify as caregivers,” Sherman says.
She adds, “But if you're a caregiver and you're balancing those responsibilities, they can range from checking in with a family member a couple of times a week or making a run for groceries or medications to much more intensive duties that occupy several hours a day.”
You can read the original article here.
Source:
Albinus P. (5 November 2017). "How employers can better support the caregivers in their workforces" [Web Blog Post]. Retrieved from address https://www.benefitnews.com/news/how-to-meet-the-needs-of-caregiver-employees?feed=00000152-18a5-d58e-ad5a-99fd665c0000
How to Inspire and Energize Your Workforce Every Day
In this article from the SHRM blog, Desda Moss brings up some fascinating points on how to energize your workforce, as well as provides some great examples of books and behavior. Dive in with us below.
- Listening is the highest rated inspirational behavior. We're not inspired as much when someone talks at us as we are when someone listens to us. Time spent crafting beautiful messages matters less than what happens when leaders are quiet. To be an inspiring leader, you have to listen fully, with an open mind.
- Small moments have the biggest impact. Most people recall their most inspired moments as times they were engaged in personal conversations where another person spoke authentically and focused on them. People can hold the words from an inspiring 10-minute conversation for their entire lives. Conversations create an inspirational trigger. For example, a conversation about purpose hits upon why we are at this moment in our lives and in our careers. These conversations transcend what we're doing in the here and now to reveal patterns that take us further, enhance our enjoyment, tap into our passion and spark in us the will to be in service to a larger cause.
- Identifying and vocalizing another person's potential is life-changing.People who inspire us notice and grow our potential—honestly, specifically and graciously. We are often unaware of the unique talents and value we bring. Having someone take the time to tell us is a powerful reminder and can open our minds to what's possible.
- People who inspire us are real, just like us. Contrary to common cultural myths that inspirational leaders are either charismatic iconoclasts or flawless, unflappable ideals, those who inspire us are actually relatable and down-to-earth. Truly inspirational leaders don't script their words, put on false airs or try to be perfect. They get through to us because they're authentic. To be more inspirational, you need to let any well-honed professional persona go. We connect with people on emotional terms. We want to see what they actually care about.
- Technology is killing inspiration. Distraction and distance are enemies of inspiration. One study found that just the appearance of a cellphone on the table during a conversation—even if silenced—reduces empathy. If you want to be inspiring, you need to get away from distractions, electronic or otherwise, and show up fully.
4 ways for advisers to protect and build business during fourth quarter
As the end of the year approaches, it's important for your business to thrive. In this article from Employee Benefit Advisors, Ron Goldstein addresses the fundamental ways to protect and build your business during your fourth quarter. Check it out below.
The fourth quarter is one of the busiest and most chaotic times for brokers. It is also the “make-or-break” period for protecting and building their respective books of business for the coming year.
It is wise for agents to move quickly during this busy season to help clients get a head start on health plan renewals, annual budgeting and more. Here are four tips for brokers to keep in mind:
1) Identify network disruptions. The time is now to proactively talk with clients about any network disruptions or problems they may have with their coverage. For instance, it is well-established that people want to see their own doctors, specialists, pharmacies and hospitals. But when they unexpectedly cannot — or when access requires expensive out-of-network and out-of-pocket costs — substantial upset will occur. The result can be a significant business threat for brokers. It is best, then, to identify any network “pain points” before the busy season is in full swing. This provides brokers with the needed time to work with clients to resolve any issues while also helping to assure that they are avoided and averted in the future.
The New York Stock ExchangeBloomberg News
2) Understand plan disrupters and alternatives. This may seem obvious, but it is a vital point worth driving home. Whether a plan is bronze, platinum or somewhere in between, there are often adjustments made from one year to the next. Agents need to be intimately familiar with any changes, whether significant or minor, that might disrupt a client’s existing coverage. This can include network modifications, premiums, copays and so forth. So, clearly understand any variations and be prepared to discuss alternative options based on a business owner’s needs and expectations.
3) Address client budgets. Remember to talk with employers about any budgetary changes to their business. Depending on the discussion, this can be the optimal time to kick-start a conversation about alternative defined-contribution options. For instance, perhaps there are opportunities to raise the fixed-dollar amount for employees and/or to explore value-added benefits such as dental, vision, life insurance and other ancillary offerings. On the flip side, you can consider basing your client’s contribution on a different plan option that may provide costs savings if they’re looking to try and reduce their healthcare expenditure. Either way, addressing budgets early on helps brokers ensure they are tailoring plans that best meet client needs.
4) Move off a Dec. 1 renewal period: Moving off of this date may help provide clients with a better open enrollment and underwriting experience. Many renewals get stacked up right before this deadline, putting more pressure on agent customer service. At the same time, it can be easy to get bogged down and rushed with multiple clients requiring quoting, enrollment, plan administration and more to meet looming deadlines. Beginning the renewal process earlier in the quarter provides brokers and their clients with plenty of time to work together to address and select the right plan offerings. Additionally, it may make sense to also explore a larger array of options and pricing advantageous to brokers and clients alike.
While the end of 2017 is ahead, the beginning to a successful 2018 is right now for brokers, agents and benefits professionals. Those who anticipate client needs early-on and take pre-emptive efforts now will be better positioned to lock-in and expand business for the coming year.
You can read the original article here.
Source:
Goldstein R. (20 October 2017). "4 ways for advisers to protect and build business during fourth quarter" [Web Blog Post]. Retrieved from address https://www.employeebenefitadviser.com/opinion/4-ways-for-employee-benefit-brokers-to-protect-and-build-business-during-fourth-quarter
SaveSave
5 SIMPLE STEPS TO DEVELOPING A COMPETITIVE PAY PRACTICE
Have you struggled with employee engagement and building a competitive pay practice? Fortunately, HR Morning has provided us and you with this awesome article, including five simple steps toward a competitive pay practice. Read more below.
In today’s competitive environment, employees are more educated than ever before about the current salary rates in their location and industry. If you want your business to remain competitive, and retain top talent, you need to stay one-step ahead of your competition, and have a solid pay strategy that’s based on accurate salary data – not speculation.
Here are a few simple steps to get you closer to a compensation strategy that retains talent and keeps your company ahead of the curve.
1) Get a Pulse on Your Market
After a series of wage declines in 2009 and 2010, a number of industries are now seeing continual salary growth across multiple industries and locations. If your company’s compensation plan is based on the trends in those leaner years immediately after the recession, it’s probably time to revisit your pay strategy. Or you may be at risk of losing talent to competitors who’ve more quickly adapted to shifts in the market. Keep an eye on the PayScale Index to keep track of quarterly trends in pay by location, industry and job category.
2) Benchmark Your Job Positions
It’s great to have a pulse on the overarching pay trends in your industry and area, but it’s another thing to have confidence that you’re actually paying top employees at the right rates for their job. By engaging in at least once-per-year salary benchmarking, you’ll be able to identify employees who are at a “high flight risk” of turnover, and be able to make smarter decisions about where you allocate your labor budget. Download PayScale’s How to Perform Compensation Benchmarking and Salary Ranges whitepaper for more information.
3) Develop a Compensation Plan
Often times, businesses fear that having a compensation plan will limit their ability to make good business decisions, so they skip building a compensation plan in favor of fewer rules and less structure. But without a formalized compensation plan, companies often miss an opportunity to structure their pay decisions in a way that support business goals. As companies grow, the costs of compensation continue to rise, and without a formalized plan in place, companies often experience problems with pay inequities, employee retention, and engagement. Simply put, it’s easier, and more cost-effective to take small steps toward developing a smart compensation plan now, than it is to alter your course later down the line.
4) Identify Pay Inequities
Some people live by the motto, “What you don’t know won’t hurt you.” That’s a motto your organization cannot afford to live by when it comes to internal pay inequities. Without a formalized comp plan, it’s often common for pay inequities to develop across organizations and departments. Those pay inequities can most definitely hurt you and your organization in the form of heightened turnover, over payment, and even litigation. Learn how to identify and resolve these inequities with PayScale’s guide to pay inequities.
5) Communicate Your Compensation Strategy
If you go through the process of creating a compensation plan, don’t forget to let your employees know about it. In theory, your compensation strategy should reiterate and support your business goals. So, it’s important to communicate to employees how their work aligns with the goals of the organization, and how their compensation reflects that. If you share with your employees, and make your investments in talent clear to them, you’ll be surprised by the positive effect it has on employee morale. Check out PayScale’s Four Tips for Communicating Your Compensation Plan to Employees to help you get started.
Need help developing a competitive compensation strategy, or maintaining salary ranges for your workforce? PayScale offers access to the largest online salary database in the world. With data that’s updated on a daily basis, and software designed to help you maintain salary ranges, benchmark jobs, and allocate raises, PayScale is the choice for businesses who value accuracy and ROI in their pay practices. Request a demo of PayScale compensation software to learn how PayScale’s fresh, detailed data can support good compensation planning.
Read the original article here.
Source:
HRMorning.com (N.D.). "5 SIMPLE STEPS TO DEVELOPING A COMPETITIVE PAY PRACTICE" [Web blog post]. Retrieved from address https://pbpmedia.staging.wpengine.com/5-simple-steps-to-developing-a-competitive-pay-practice/
Dealing with acidic attitudes: Help for your managers
It's important to have positive attitudes at the top of your employee pyramid to promote positive attitudes all around the office. Take some time today to read this helpful blog post on acidic attitudes, and how to avoid them in your managers.
Every workplace has negative people who erode morale. They’re not always easy to pick out of a crowd, but they can do an amazing amount of damage over time.
Most of the time, these folks don’t make the big mistakes that call attention to themselves. They’re frequently pretty good at their jobs, so they’re not called on the carpet too often.
But like a virus running in the background of a computer program, their acidic personalities eat away at the goals – and ultimately the bottom line – of the company week after week, year after year.
Who are these people? They’re the employees who:
- continually find things to complain about and exaggerate the seriousness of co-workers’ mistakes
- spread gossip and start rumors that pit employees against each other
- talk behind co-workers’ backs, and
- undermine supervisors’ authority with a never-ending flow of criticism that stays under-the-radar so it’s rarely recognized and corrected.
It’s been said the only way to fix a bad attitude is through psychotherapy, religion or brain surgery. But it’s a rare manager who is a shrink, a minister and a neurosurgeon.
Still, every manager needs a strategy to deal with this constant drag on employee attitudes.
The stakes are too high to just let things slide.
Looking for answers – 4 key questions
So what’s to be done? The experts say managers should move away from the vague “bad attitude” discussion to the hard facts of employee behavior.
The key questions:
- What’s the impact of the employee’s behavior?
- How do the person’s actions differ from the standards set for overall employee behavior?
- What’s the effect of this individual’s behavior on the people who work with him/her?
- If this person acted according to our accepted standards, could it make a difference in morale and productivity?
Managers should identify the actions of negative people – and make it clear those actions will no longer be tolerated.
An example: A Midwestern company established a “no jerk” policy. It included the statement:
Each employee will demonstrate professional behavior that supports team efforts and enhances team behavior, performance and productivity.
Handling tough conversations with acidic employees
Establishing policy is a solid first step; it creates a good framework.
But managers need practical advice that gets results day to day on the front lines.
Managers need one-on-one coaching sessions to cover these points:
- Acknowledge the awkwardness. Managers can let employees know they’re providing feedback that’s difficult to discuss. It’s only human to feel that way.
- Keep it results-oriented. A phrase like “I’m bringing this up because it’s important you address this issue to be successful in your job” is helpful.
- Accentuate the positive. It’s a good idea to highlight the good things that are likely to happen when the person changes the disruptive behavior. On the other hand, if the person remains defiant, stressing the negative outcome if the person’s attitude doesn’t change can be effective, too.
It’s human nature to want to delay having a tough conversation with an employee with a bad attitude. But that only makes things worse.
And since it’s going to be a tough conversation, it’s recommended that supervisors prepare for the discussion.
Suggestions for handling the confrontation:
- Be specific about what you want. It’s a mistake to use general terms in a discussion about a specific behavior problem. For example, a manager says “I don’t like your attitude. I want you to change it.” That’s pretty safe, but it could mean anything.
Instead, the manager should say “It’s not helpful the way you talk about our customers behind their backs. It poisons the attitude of the others in customer service. From now on, if you can’t say something supportive of a customer, please don’t say anything at all.”
Managers should try to gather specific examples of negative things the employee has said in the past, and use those in the discussion for clarity. - Let people rant … a little. Once a manager has gotten through discussing the specific behaviors, it’s likely the other person is going to feel the need to blow off steam and maybe even mount a defense. To avoiding having people feel like they are on the witness stand, let them rant a bit.
It’ll help them feel like they are being heard – because they are. Then steer the conversation back to the results you want. - Try to use “we.” Work to get across the notion that the issue is a problem for everyone concerned. A manager can start by saying “We have a problem” or “We need to change.”
The helps the person realize the behavior is important, without finger-pointing. - Avoid overusing “you.” Putting all the responsibility on the employee is a conversational black hole that’s impossible to escape. The constant use of the word you, as in “You have a bad attitude and everyone knows it” is an invitation for a fight.
Instead, try “We need to talk about your attitude.”
The point here is, while it is OK to use the word “you,” using it continually in a negative way kills the conversation. - Avoid “however” and “but.” Some managers believe that if they lead with a compliment, it’s easier to wade into the problem. That conversation looks something like this: “You’ve done a pretty good job, but …” and then the manager lowers the boom.
That often angers people and leaves them thinking, “Why can’t he ever just say something positive and leave it at that?”
Consider substituting “and” for “but” and “however,” and the conversation is likely to go smoother, as in: “You’re doing a pretty good job and we need to talk about how to get you to show more respect for customers.” - Don’t feel as if you have to fill the silence. In a tense situation a manager may be tempted to fill every gap in the conversation. Don’t. Stay silent when there’s a lull. Obligate the other person to fill in the silence.
It’s surprising the amount of information a manager can get without ever asking a question … just by remaining silent.
You can read the original article here.
Source:
Gould T. (25 March 2015). "Dealing with acidic attitudes: Help for your managers" [Web blog post]. Retrieved from address https://www.hrmorning.com/managers-dealing-with-negative-attitudes/
An Early Look at 2018 Premium Changes and Insurer Participation on ACA Exchanges
Each year insurers submit filings to state regulators detailing their plans to participate on the Affordable Care Act marketplaces (also called exchanges). These filings include information on the premiums insurers plan to charge in the coming year and which areas they plan to serve. Each state or the federal government reviews premiums to ensure they are accurate and justifiable before the rate goes into effect, though regulators have varying types of authority and states make varying amounts of information public.
In this analysis, we look at preliminary premiums and insurer participation in the 20 states and the District of Columbia where publicly available rate filings include enough detail to be able to show the premium for a specific enrollee. As in previous years, we focus on the second-lowest cost silver plan in the major city in each state. This plan serves as the benchmark for premium tax credits. Enrollees must also enroll in a silver plan to obtain reduced cost sharing tied to their incomes. About 71% of marketplace enrollees are in silver plans this year.
States are still reviewing premiums and participation, so the data in this report are preliminary and could very well change. Rates and participation are not locked in until late summer or early fall (insurers must sign an annual contract by September 27 in states using Healthcare.gov).
Insurers in this market face new uncertainty in the current political environment and in some cases have factored this into their premium increases for the coming year. Specifically, insurers have been unsure whether the individual mandate (which brings down premiums by compelling healthy people to buy coverage) will be repealed by Congress or to what degree it will be enforced by the Trump Administration. Additionally, insurers in this market do not know whether the Trump Administration will continue to make payments to compensate insurers for cost-sharing reductions (CSRs), which are the subject of a lawsuit, or whether Congress will appropriate these funds. (More on these subsidies can be found here).
The vast majority of insurers included in this analysis cite uncertainty surrounding the individual mandate and/or cost sharing subsidies as a factor in their 2018 rates filings. Some insurers explicitly factor this uncertainty into their initial premium requests, while other companies say if they do not receive more clarity or if cost-sharing payments stop, they plan to either refile with higher premiums or withdraw from the market. We include a table in this analysis highlighting examples of companies that have factored this uncertainty into their initial premium increases and specified the amount by which the uncertainty is increasing rates.
Changes in the Second-Lowest Cost Silver Premium
The second-lowest silver plan is one of the most popular plan choices on the marketplace and is also the benchmark that is used to determine the amount of financial assistance individuals and families receive. The table below shows these premiums for a major city in each state with available data. (Our analyses from 2017, 2016, 2015, and 2014 examined changes in premiums and participation in these states and major cities since the exchange markets opened nearly four years ago.)
Across these 21 major cities, based on preliminary 2018 rate filings, the second-lowest silver premium for a 40-year-old non-smoker will range from $244 in Detroit, MI to $631 in Wilmington, DE, before accounting for the tax credit that most enrollees in this market receive.
Of these major cities, the steepest proposed increases in the unsubsidized second-lowest silver plan are in Wilmington, DE (up 49% from $423 to $631 per month for a 40-year-old non-smoker), Albuquerque, NM (up 34% from $258 to $346), and Richmond, VA (up 33% from $296 to $394). Meanwhile, unsubsidized premiums for the second-lowest silver premiums will decrease in Providence, RI (down -5% from $261 to $248 for a 40-year-old non-smoker) and remain essentially unchanged in Burlington, VT ($492 to $491).
As discussed in more detail below, this year’s preliminary rate requests are subject to much more uncertainty than in past years. An additional factor driving rates this year is the return of the ACA’s health insurance tax, which adds an estimated 2 to 3 percentage points to premiums.
Most enrollees in the marketplaces (84%) receive a tax credit to lower their premium and these enrollees will be protected from premium increases, though they may need to switch plans in order to take full advantage of the tax credit. The premium tax credit caps how much a person or family must spend on the benchmark plan in their area at a certain percentage of their income. For this reason, in 2017, a single adult making $30,000 per year would pay about $207 per month for the second-lowest-silver plan, regardless of the sticker price (unless their unsubsidized premium was less than $207 per month). If this person enrolls in the second lowest-cost silver plan is in 2018 as well, he or she will pay slightly less (the after-tax credit payment for a similar person in 2018 will be $201 per month, or a decrease of 2.9%). Enrollees can use their tax credits in any marketplace plan. So, because tax credits rise with the increase in benchmark premiums, enrollees are cushioned from the effect of premium hikes.
| Table 1: Monthly Silver Premiums and Financial Assistance for a 40 Year Old Non-Smoker Making $30,000 / Year | ||||||||||
| State | Major City | 2nd Lowest Cost Silver Before Tax Credit |
2nd Lowest Cost Silver After Tax Credit |
Amount of Premium Tax Credit | ||||||
| 2017 | 2018 | % Change from 2017 |
2017 | 2018 | % Change from 2017 |
2017 | 2018 | % Change from 2017 |
||
| California* | Los Angeles | $258 | $289 | 12% | $207 | $201 | -3% | $51 | $88 | 71% |
| Colorado | Denver | $313 | $352 | 12% | $207 | $201 | -3% | $106 | $150 | 42% |
| Connecticut | Hartford | $369 | $417 | 13% | $207 | $201 | -3% | $162 | $216 | 33% |
| DC | Washington | $298 | $324 | 9% | $207 | $201 | -3% | $91 | $122 | 35% |
| Delaware | Wilmington | $423 | $631 | 49% | $207 | $201 | -3% | $216 | $430 | 99% |
| Georgia | Atlanta | $286 | $308 | 7% | $207 | $201 | -3% | $79 | $106 | 34% |
| Idaho | Boise | $348 | $442 | 27% | $207 | $201 | -3% | $141 | $241 | 70% |
| Indiana | Indianapolis | $286 | $337 | 18% | $207 | $201 | -3% | $79 | $135 | 72% |
| Maine | Portland | $341 | $397 | 17% | $207 | $201 | -3% | $134 | $196 | 46% |
| Maryland | Baltimore | $313 | $392 | 25% | $207 | $201 | -3% | $106 | $191 | 81% |
| Michigan* | Detroit | $237 | $244 | 3% | $207 | $201 | -3% | $29 | $42 | 44% |
| Minnesota** | Minneapolis | $366 | $383 | 5% | $207 | $201 | -3% | $159 | $181 | 14% |
| New Mexico | Albuquerque | $258 | $346 | 34% | $207 | $201 | -3% | $51 | $144 | 183% |
| New York*** | New York City | $456 | $504 | 10% | $207 | $201 | -3% | $249 | $303 | 21% |
| Oregon | Portland | $312 | $350 | 12% | $207 | $201 | -3% | $105 | $149 | 42% |
| Pennsylvania | Philadelphia | $418 | $515 | 23% | $207 | $201 | -3% | $211 | $313 | 49% |
| Rhode Island | Providence | $261 | $248 | -5% | $207 | $201 | -3% | $54 | $47 | -13% |
| Tennessee | Nashville | $419 | $507 | 21% | $207 | $201 | -3% | $212 | $306 | 44% |
| Vermont | Burlington | $492 | $491 | 0% | $207 | $201 | -3% | $285 | $289 | 2% |
| Virginia | Richmond | $296 | $394 | 33% | $207 | $201 | -3% | $89 | $193 | 117% |
| Washington | Seattle | $238 | $306 | 29% | $207 | $201 | -3% | $31 | $105 | 239% |
| NOTES: *The 2018 premiums for MI and CA reflect the assumption that CSR payments will continue. **The 2018 premium for MN assumes no reinsurance. ***Empire has filed to offer on the individual market in New York in 2018 but has not made its rates public. SOURCE: Kaiser Family Foundation analysis of premium data from Healthcare.gov and insurer rate filings to state regulators. |
||||||||||
Looking back to 2014, when changes to the individual insurance market under the ACA first took effect, reveals a wide range of premium changes. In many of these cities, average annual premium growth over the 2014-2018 period has been modest, and in two cites (Indianapolis and Providence), benchmark premiums have actually decreased. In other cities, premiums have risen rapidly over the period, though in some cases this rapid growth was because premiums were initially quite low (e.g., in Nashville and Minneapolis).
| Table 2: Monthly Benchmark Silver Premiums for a 40 Year Old Non-Smoker, 2014-2018 |
||||||||
| State | Major City | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | Average Annual % Change from 2014 to 2018 | Average Annual % Change After Tax Credit, $30K Income |
| California | Los Angeles | $255 | $257 | $245 | $258 | $289 | 3% | -1% |
| Colorado | Denver | $250 | $211 | $278 | $313 | $352 | 9% | -1% |
| Connecticut | Hartford | $328 | $312 | $318 | $369 | $417 | 6% | -1% |
| DC | Washington | $242 | $242 | $244 | $298 | $324 | 8% | -1% |
| Delaware | Wilmington | $289 | $301 | $356 | $423 | $631 | 22% | -1% |
| Georgia | Atlanta | $250 | $255 | $254 | $286 | $308 | 5% | -1% |
| Idaho | Boise | $231 | $210 | $273 | $348 | $442 | 18% | -1% |
| Indiana | Indianapolis | $341 | $329 | $298 | $286 | $337 | 0% | -1% |
| Maine | Portland | $295 | $282 | $288 | $341 | $397 | 8% | -1% |
| Maryland | Baltimore | $228 | $235 | $249 | $313 | $392 | 15% | -1% |
| Michigan* | Detroit | $224 | $230 | $226 | $237 | $244 | 2% | -1% |
| Minnesota** | Minneapolis | $162 | $183 | $235 | $366 | $383 | 24% | 6% |
| New Mexico | Albuquerque | $194 | $171 | $186 | $258 | $346 | 16% | 1% |
| New York*** | New York City | $365 | $372 | $369 | $456 | $504 | 8% | -1% |
| Oregon | Portland | $213 | $213 | $261 | $312 | $350 | 13% | -1% |
| Pennsylvania | Philadelphia | $300 | $268 | $276 | $418 | $515 | 14% | -1% |
| Rhode Island | Providence | $293 | $260 | $263 | $261 | $248 | -4% | -1% |
| Tennessee | Nashville | $188 | $203 | $281 | $419 | $507 | 28% | 2% |
| Vermont | Burlington | $413 | $436 | $468 | $492 | $491 | 4% | -1% |
| Virginia | Richmond | $253 | $260 | $276 | $296 | $394 | 12% | -1% |
| Washington | Seattle | $281 | $254 | $227 | $238 | $306 | 2% | -1% |
| NOTES: *The 2018 premiums for MI and CA reflect the assumption that CSR payments will continue. **The 2018 premium for MN assumes no reinsurance. ***Empire has filed to offer on the individual market in New York in 2018 but has not made its rates public. SOURCE: Kaiser Family Foundation analysis of premium data from Healthcare.gov and insurer rate filings to state regulators. |
||||||||
Changes in Insurer Participation
Across these 20 states and DC, an average of 4.6 insurers have indicated they intend to participate in 2018, compared to an average of 5.1 insurers per state in 2017, 6.2 in 2016, 6.7 in 2015, and 5.7 in 2014. In states using Healthcare.gov, insurers have until September 27 to sign final contracts to participate in 2018. Insurers often do not serve an entire state, so the number of choices available to consumers in a particular area will typically be less than these figures.
| Table 3: Total Number of Insurers by State, 2014 – 2018 | |||||
| State | Total Number of Issuers in the Marketplace | ||||
| 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 (Preliminary) | |
| California | 11 | 10 | 12 | 11 | 11 |
| Colorado | 10 | 10 | 8 | 7 | 7 |
| Connecticut | 3 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 2 |
| DC | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| Delaware | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 (Aetna exiting) |
| Georgia | 5 | 9 | 8 | 5 | 4 (Humana exiting) |
| Idaho | 4 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 4 (Cambia exiting) |
| Indiana | 4 | 8 | 7 | 4 | 2 (Anthem and MDwise exiting) |
| Maine | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 |
| Maryland | 4 | 5 | 5 | 3 | 3 (Cigna exiting, Evergreen1 filed to reenter) |
| Michigan | 9 | 13 | 11 | 9 | 8 (Humana exiting) |
| Minnesota | 5 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 |
| New Mexico | 4 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 4 |
| New York | 16 | 16 | 15 | 14 | 14 |
| Oregon | 11 | 10 | 10 | 6 | 5 (Atrio exiting) |
| Pennsylvania | 7 | 8 | 7 | 5 | 5 |
| Rhode Island | 2 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2 |
| Tennessee | 4 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 3 (Humana exiting, Oscar entering) |
| Vermont | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| Virginia | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 6 (UnitedHealthcare and Aetna exiting) |
| Washington | 7 | 9 | 8 | 6 | 5 (Community Health Plan of WA exiting) |
| Average (20 states + DC) | 5.7 | 6.7 | 6.2 | 5.1 | 4.6 |
| NOTES: Insurers are grouped by parent company or group affiliation, which we obtained from HHS Medical Loss Ratio public use files and supplemented with additional research. 1The number of preliminary 2018 insurers in Maryland includes Evergreen, which submitted a filing but has been placed in receivership. SOURCE: Kaiser Family Foundation analysis of premium data from Healthcare.gov and insurer rate filings to state regulators. |
|||||
Uncertainty Surrounding ACA Provisions
Insurers in the individual market must submit filings with their premiums and service areas to states and/or the federal government for review well in advance of these rates going into effect. States vary in their deadlines and processes, but generally, insurers were required to submit their initial rate requests in May or June of 2017 for products that go into effect in January 2018. Once insurers set their premiums for 2018 and sign final contacts at the end of September, those premiums are locked in for the entire calendar year and insurers do not have an opportunity to revise their rates or service areas until the following year.
Meanwhile, over the course of this summer, the debate in Congress over repealing and replacing the Affordable Care Act has carried on as insurers set their rates for next year. Both the House and Senate bills included provisions that would have made significant changes to the law effective in 2018 or even retroactively, including repeal of the individual mandate penalty. Additionally, the Trump administration has sent mixed signals over whether it would continue to enforce the individual mandate or make payments to insurers to reimburse them for the cost of providing legally required cost-sharing assistance to low-income enrollees.
Because this policy uncertainty is far outside the norm, insurers are making varying assumptions about how this uncertainty will play out and affect premiums. Some states have attempted to standardize the process by requesting rate submissions under multiple scenarios, while other states appear to have left the decision up to each individual company. There is no standard place in the filings where insurers across all states can explain this type of assumption, and some states do not post complete filings to allow the public to examine which assumptions insurers are making.
In the 20 states and DC with detailed rate filings included in the previous sections of this analysis, the vast majority of insurers cite policy uncertainty in their rate filings. Some insurers make an explicit assumption about the individual mandate not being enforced or cost-sharing subsidies not being paid and specify how much each assumption contributes to the overall rate increase. Other insurers state that if they do not get clarity by the time final rates must be submitted – which has now been delayed to September 5 for the federal marketplace – they may either increase their premiums further or withdraw from the market.
Table 4 highlights examples of insurers that have explicitly factored into their premiums an assumption that either the individual mandate will not be enforced or cost-sharing subsidy payments will not be made and have specified the degree to which that assumption is influencing their initial rate request. As mentioned above, the vast majority of companies in states with detailed rate filings have included some language around the uncertainty, so it is likely that more companies will revise their premiums to reflect uncertainty in the absence of clear answers from Congress or the Administration.
Insurers assuming the individual mandate will not be enforced have factored in to their rate increases an additional 1.2% to 20%. Those assuming cost-sharing subsidy payments will not continue and factoring this into their initial rate requests have applied an additional rate increase ranging from 2% to 23%. Because cost-sharing reductions are only available in silver plans, insurers may seek to raise premiums just in those plans if the payments end. We estimate that silver premiums would have to increase by 19% on average to compensate for the loss of CSR payments, with the amount varying substantially by state.
Several insurers assumed in their initial rate filing that payment of the cost-sharing subsidies would continue, but indicated the degree to which rates would increase if they are discontinued. These insurers are not included in the Table 4. If CSR payments end or there is continued uncertainty, these insurers say they would raise their rates an additional 3% to 10% beyond their initial request – or ranging from 9% to 38% in cases when the rate increases would only apply to silver plans. Some states have instructed insurers to submit two sets of rates to account for the possibility of discontinued cost-sharing subsidies. In California, for example, a surcharge would be added to silver plans on the exchange, increasing proposed rates an additional 12.4% on average across all 11 carriers, ranging from 8% to 27%.
| Table 4: Examples of Preliminary Insurer Assumptions Regarding Individual Mandate Enforcement and Cost-Sharing Reduction (CSR) Payments |
|||||
| State | Insurer | Average Rate Increase Requested | Individual Mandate Assumption | CSR Payments Assumption | Requested Rate Increase Due to Mandate or CSR Uncertainty |
| CT | ConnectiCare | 17.5% | Weakly enforced1 | Not specified | Mandate: 2.4% |
| DE | Highmark BCBSD | 33.6% | Not enforced | Not paid | Mandate and CSR: 12.8% combined impact |
| GA | Alliant Health Plans | 34.5% | Not enforced | Not paid | Mandate: 5.0% CSR: Unspecified |
| ID | Mountain Health CO-OP | 25.0% | Not specified | Not paid | CSR: 17.0% |
| ID | PacificSource Health Plans | 45.6% | Not specified | Not paid | CSR: 23.2% |
| ID | SelectHealth | 45.0% | Not specified | Not paid | CSR: 20.0% |
| MD | CareFirst BlueChoice | 45.6% | Not enforced | Potentially not paid | Mandate: 20.0% |
| ME | Harvard PilgrimHealth Care | 39.7% | Weakly enforced | Potentially not paid | Mandate: 15.9% |
| MI | BCBS of MI | 26.9% | Weakly enforced | Potentially not paid (two rate submissions) | Mandate: 5.0% |
| MI | Blue Care Network of MI | 13.8% | Weakly enforced | Potentially not paid (two rate submissions) | Mandate: 5.0% |
| MI | Molina Healthcare of MI | 19.3% | Weakly enforced | Potentially not paid (two rate submissions) | Mandate: 9.5% |
| NM | CHRISTUS Health Plan | 49.2% | Not enforced | Potentially not paid | Mandate: 9.0%, combined impact of individual mandate non-enforcement and reduced advertising and outreach |
| NM | Molina Healthcare of NM | 21.2% | Weakly enforced | Paid | Mandate: 11.0% |
| NM | New Mexico Health Connections | 32.8% | Not enforced | Potentially not paid | Mandate: 20.0% |
| OR* | BridgeSpan | 17.2% | Weakly enforced | Potentially not paid | Mandate: 11.0% |
| OR* | Moda Health | 13.1% | Not enforced | Potentially not paid | Mandate: 1.2% |
| OR* | Providence Health Plan | 20.7% | Not enforced | Potentially not paid | Mandate: 9.7%, largely due to individual mandate non-enforcement |
| TN | BCBS of TN | 21.4% | Not enforced | Not paid | Mandate: 7.0% CSR: 14.0% |
| TN | Cigna | 42.1% | Weakly enforced | Not paid | CSR: 14.1% |
| TN | Oscar Insurance | NA (New to state) | Not enforced | Not paid | Mandate: 0%, despite non-enforcement CSR: 17.0%, applied only to silver plans |
| VA | CareFirst BlueChoice | 21.5% | Not enforced | Potentially not paid | Mandate: 20.0% |
| VA | CareFirst GHMSI | 54.3% | Not enforced | Potentially not paid | Mandate: 20.0% |
| WA | LifeWise Health Plan of Washington | 21.6% | Weakly enforced | Not paid | Mandate: 5.2% CSR: 2.3% |
| WA | Premera Blue Cross | 27.7% | Weakly enforced | Not paid | Mandate: 4.0% CSR: 3.1% |
| WA | Molina Healthcare of WA | 38.5% | Weakly enforced | Paid | Mandate: 5.4% |
| NOTES: The CSR assumption “Potentially not paid” refers to insurers that filed initial rates assuming CSR payments are made and indicated that uncertainty over CSR funding would change their initial rate requests. In Michigan, insurers were instructed to submit a second set of filings showing rate increases without CSR payments; the rates shown above assume continued CSR payments. *The Oregon Division of Financial Regulation reviewed insurer filings and advised adjustment of the impact of individual mandate uncertainty to between 2.4% and 5.1%. Although rates have since been finalized, the increases shown here are based on initial insurer requests. 1Connecticare assumes a public perception that the mandate will not be enforced. SOURCE: Kaiser Family Foundation analysis of premium data from Healthcare.gov and insurer rate filings to state regulators. |
|||||
Discussion
A number of insurers have requested double-digit premium increases for 2018. Based on initial filings, the change in benchmark silver premiums will likely range from -5% to 49% across these 21 major cities. These rates are still being reviewed by regulators and may change.
In the past, requested premiums have been similar, if not equal to, the rates insurers ultimately charge. This year, because of the uncertainty insurers face over whether the individual mandate will be enforced or cost-sharing subsidy payments will be made, some companies have included an additional rate increase in their initial rate requests, while other companies have said they may revise their premiums late in the process. It is therefore quite possible that the requested rates in this analysis will change between now and open enrollment.
Insurers attempting to price their plans and determine which states and counties they will service next year face a great deal of uncertainty. They must soon sign contracts locking in their premiums for the entire year of 2018, yet Congress or the Administration could make significant changes in the coming months to the law – or its implementation – that could lead to significant losses if companies have not appropriately priced for these changes. Insurers vary in the assumptions they make regarding the individual mandate and cost-sharing subsidies and the degree to which they are factoring this uncertainty into their rate requests.
Because most enrollees on the exchange receive subsidies, they will generally be protected from premium increases. Ultimately, most of the burden of higher premiums on exchanges falls on taxpayers. Middle and upper-middle income people purchasing their own coverage off-exchange, however, are not protected by subsidies and will pay the full premium increase, switch to a lower level plan, or drop their coverage. Although the individual market on average has been stabilizing, the concern remains that another year of steep premium increases could cause healthy people (particularly those buying off-exchange) to drop their coverage, potentially leading to further rate hikes or insurer exits.
Methods
Data were collected from health insurer rate filing submitted to state regulators. These submissions are publicly available for the states we analyzed. Most rate information is available in the form of a SERFF filing (System for Electronic Rate and Form Filing) that includes a base rate and other factors that build up to an individual rate. In states where filings were unavailable, we gathered data from tables released by state insurance departments. Premium data are current as of August 7, 2017; however, filings in most states are still preliminary and will likely change before open enrollment. All premiums in this analysis are at the rating area level, and some plans may not be available in all cities or counties within the rating area. Rating areas are typically groups of neighboring counties, so a major city in the area was chosen for identification purposes.
Absent federal action, states take the lead on curbing drug costs
What's your state's stance on the cost of prescription drugs? See how Maryland has moved forward in their decision making for drug prices, giving themselves the ability to say "no" in this article from Benefits Pro written by Shefali Luthra.
You can read the original article here.
Lawmakers in Maryland are daring to legislate where their federal counterparts have not: As of Oct. 1, the state will be able to say “no” to some pharmaceutical price spikes.
A new law, which focuses on generic and off-patent drugs, empowers the state’s attorney general to step in if a drug’s price climbs 50 percent or more in a single year. The company must justify the hike. If the attorney general still finds the increase unwarranted, he or she can file suit in state court. Manufacturers face a fine of up to $10,000 for price gouging.
As Congress stalls on what voters say is a top health concern — high pharmaceutical costs — states increasingly are tackling the issue. Despite often-fierce industry opposition, a variety of bills are working their way through state governments. California, Nevada and New York are among those joining Maryland in passing legislation meant to undercut skyrocketing drug prices.
Maryland, though, is the first to penalize drugmakers for price hikes. Its law passed May 26 without the governor’s signature.
The state-level momentum raises the possibility that — as happened with hot-button issues such as gay marriage and smoke-free buildings — a patchwork of bills across the country could pave the way for more comprehensive national action. States feel the squeeze of these steep price tags in Medicaid and state employee benefit programs, and that applies pressure to find solutions.
“There is a noticeable uptick among state legislatures and state governments in terms of what kind of role states can play in addressing the cost of prescription drugs and access,” said Richard Cauchi, health program director at the National Conference of State Legislatures.
Many experts frame Maryland’s law as a test case that could help define what powers states have and what limits they face in doing battle with the pharmaceutical industry.
The generic-drug industry has already filed a lawsuit to block the law, arguing it’s unconstitutionally vague and an overreach of state powers. A district court is expected to rule soon.
The state-level actions focus on a variety of tactics:
“Transparency bills” would require pharmaceutical companies to detail a drug’s production and advertising costs when they raise prices over certain thresholds. Cost-limit measures would cap drug prices charged by drugmakers to Medicaid or other state-run programs, or limit what the state will pay for drugs. Supply-chain restrictions include regulating the roles of pharmacy benefit managers or limiting a consumer’s out-of-pocket costs.
A New York law on the books since spring allows officials to cap what its Medicaid program will pay for medications. If companies don’t sufficiently discount a drug, a state review will assess whether the price is out of step with medical value.
Maryland’s measure goes further — treating price gouging as a civil offense and taking alleged violators to court.
“It’s a really innovative approach. States are looking at how to replicate it, and how to expand on it,” said Ellen Albritton, a senior policy analyst at the left-leaning Families USA, which has consulted with states including Maryland on such policies.
Lawmakers have introduced similar legislation in states such as Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Tennessee and Montana. And in Ohio voters are weighing a ballot initiative in November that would limit what the state pays for prescription drugs in its Medicaid program and other state health plans.
Meanwhile, the California legislature passed a bill earlier in September that would require drugmakers to disclose when they are about to raise a price more than 16 percent over two years and justify the hike. It awaits Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown’s signature.
In June, Nevada lawmakers approved a law similar to California’s but limited to insulin prices. Vermont passed a transparency law in 2016 that would scrutinize up to 15 drugs for which the state spends “significant health care dollars” and prices had climbed by set amounts in recent years.
But states face a steep uphill climb in passing pricing legislation given the deep-pocketed pharmaceutical industry, which can finance strong opposition, whether through lobbying, legal action or advertising campaigns.
Last fall, voters rejected a California initiative that would have capped what the state pays for drugs — much like the Ohio measure under consideration. Industry groups spent more than $100 million to defeat it, putting it among California’s all-time most expensive ballot fights. Ohio’s measure is attracting similar heat, with drug companies outspending opponents about 5-to-1.
States also face policy challenges and limits to their statutory authority, which is why several have focused their efforts on specific parts of the drug-pricing pipeline.
Critics see these tailored initiatives as falling short or opening other loopholes. Requiring companies to report prices past a certain threshold, for example, might encourage them to consistently set prices just below that level.
Maryland’s law is noteworthy because it includes a fine for drugmakers if price increases are deemed excessive — though in the industry that $10,000 fine is likely nominal, suggested Rachel Sachs, an associate law professor at Washington University in St. Louis who researches drug regulations.
This law also doesn’t address the trickier policy question: a drug’s initial price tag, noted Rena Conti, an assistant professor in the University of Chicago who studies pharmaceutical economics.
And its focus on generics means that branded drugs, such as Mylan’s Epi-Pen or Kaleo’s overdose-reversing Evzio, wouldn’t be affected.
Yet there’s a good reason for this, noted Jeremy Greene, a professor of medicine and the history of medicine at Johns Hopkins University who is in favor of Maryland’s law.
Current interpretation of federal patent law suggests that the issues related to the development and affordability of on-patent drugs are under federal jurisdiction, outside the purview of states, he explained.
In Maryland, “the law was drafted narrowly to address specifically a problem we’ve only become aware of in recent years,” he said. That’s the high cost of older, off-patent drugs that face little market competition. “Here’s where the state of Maryland is trying to do something,” he said.
Still, a ruling against the state in the pending court case could have a chilling effect for other states, Sachs said, although it would be unlikely to quash their efforts.
“This is continuing to be a topic of discussion, and a problem for consumers,” said Sachs.
“At some point, some of these laws are going to go into effect — or the federal government is going to do something,” she added.
Kaiser Health News, a nonprofit health newsroom whose stories appear in news outlets nationwide, is an editorially independent part of the Kaiser Family Foundation. KHN’s coverage of prescription drug development, costs and pricing is supported in part by the Laura and John Arnold Foundation.
Source:
Luther S. (29 September 2017). "Absent federal action, states take the lead on curbing drug costs" [Web Blog Post]. Retrieved from address https://www.benefitspro.com/2017/09/29/absent-federal-action-states-take-the-lead-on-curb?page=2
How data analytics is changing employee benefit strategies
As technology continues to grow and expand, more employers are turning to digital platforms when it comes to managing their employee benefits program. With more access to technology, employers can use data accumulated from their employees to better personalize their employee benefits package to fit each individual's needs. Take a look at this column by Eric Helman from Employee Benefit Advisor and find out some more tips on how you can better leverage the data from an employee benefits program to fit your employees'es needs.
In the realm of employee benefits, surveys, focus groups and anecdotes about specific employee encounters with the benefits program typically drive the discussions about how that program should evolve in the future. Unlike the situation at Outback, it is difficult to “observe” how people actually consume benefits and tailor a program that is attractive to them.
Fortunately, recent developments in data analytics have unlocked the potential of using consumer behavior insights to drive employee benefits strategy.
Leading practitioners are beginning to leverage these developments to change the annual renewal process. The technologies that support data aggregation, normalization and reporting have been aggressively developed to support the provider and payer communities. Only now have these advancements been made available to employers and their advisers.
The most successful practitioners point to the value of standardized claims reporting based upon credible data. By combining current claims data with industry benchmarks and predictive analytics, employers gain insight into the ongoing performance of their benefit plans. They “see” for themselves what industry professionals have been telling them for years. Plan performance is based upon claims, both in terms of the number of units of healthcare consumed and the price of those units. In recent surveys, benefit professionals report the difficulty they have in convincing CFOs and CEOs to make the necessary changes to benefit programs. Standardized reporting from a credible analytics platform can greatly enhance the ability for benefit professionals to communicate their agenda.
But standardized reporting is not the panacea. Benefits are complex. And the relationship between risk and consumption of healthcare add to the complexity. Even in the best reporting environments where executives are well informed about the performance of their plans and how the key metrics compare to industry norms, they are often perplexed about what to do with the information. Advancements in the realm of “actionable analytics” are beginning to address this problem as well.
While artificial intelligence or AI is all the rage, the underlying concept of having a computer suggest a course of action based upon data is not a new idea. The new application to employee benefits is the ability to provide “suggestions” in the context of standardized financial reporting. The number of ideas to bend the cost curve are numerous. The challenge is matching these ideas with the appropriate populations, convincing decision makers to invest and engaging the appropriate cohorts of employees to take specific actions necessary to realize the return on investment for these initiatives.
New systems are now available to close the gaps on this execution continuum. The foundation for these new systems is a robust analytics platform. But actionable analytics build upon this foundation by evaluating the employer’s data to discern whether a specific cost-saving initiative might generate savings worthy of the investment. These new systems present the output of that analysis in an easy to understand graphical format for benefit consultants and HR professionals to effectively communicate the potential of cost savings initiatives to decision makers.
Targeted engagement maximizes compliance and ROI
Getting executives to commit to intentional actions to affect the rising costs of benefits solves one half of the problem. The second half of the problem is one of focus. Rather than attempting to engage all employees with generalized messaging, these new systems use analytics to focus their engagement on a specific cohort of individuals in order to drive the greatest impact. This focus allows for a concentration of resources on the targeted populations, resulting in increased compliance and larger return on investment. The best implementations are integrated with benefits administration platforms and can incorporate multiple initiatives simultaneously. Point solutions, from an engagement perspective, have been proven to result in single-digit compliance. The power of an integrated engagement solution allows for initiatives that, because they are both focused and automated, can be executed simultaneously.
Advancements in technology have created a new era in which the democratization of big data allows for non-technical professionals to access detailed information and convert that information into intelligence. According to a recent survey, more than 65% of employers confess they are not strategic when it comes to benefits cost management. In spite of the many cost savings ideas available, more than 40% say they are not engaging in any new initiatives in the upcoming year. While the future of healthcare reform is in doubt, the potential for actionable analytics to significantly change the trajectory of the employer’s benefits costs is certain.
See the original article Here.
Source:
Helman E. (2017 September 5). How data analytics is changing employee benefit strategies [Web blog post]. Retrieved from address https://www.employeebenefitadviser.com/opinion/closing-the-execution-continuum-on-employee-benefit-cost-savings
Avoid these 12 Common Open Enrollment Mistakes
Open enrollment season is right around the corner. Check out this great column by Alan Goforth from Benefits Pro and find out the top mistakes employers and HR have made during open enrollment and what you can do to avoid them.
Every employer or human resources professional has made mistakes during open enrollment.
Trying to accommodate the diverse needs of the workforce in a short timeframe against the backdrop of increasing options and often bewildering regulations, can be a challenge even in the best-run companies.
Avoiding mistakes is impossible, but learning from them is not. Although the list may be limitless, here are a dozen of the most common pratfalls during open enrollmentand how to avoid tripping over them.
1. Failing to communicate
"What we've got here… is failure to communicate." – Cool Hand Luke
This mistake likely has topped the list since open enrollment first came into existence, and it will probably continue to do so. That's because enrollment is a complex procedure, and few challenges are greater that making sure employers, employees, brokers and carriers are on the same page.
Employers have both a stick and a carrot to encourage them to communicate as well as possible. The stick is the Affordable Care Act, which requires all employers subject to the Fair Labor Standards Act to communicate with employees about their health-care coverage, regardless of whether they offer benefits.
As a carrot, an Aflac study found that 80 percent of employees agree that a well-communicated benefits package would make them less likely to leave their jobs
2. Neglecting technology
The integration of new technology is arguably the most significant innovation in the enrollment process in recent years.
This is especially important as younger people enter the workforce. Millennials repeatedly express a preference for receiving and analyzing benefits information by computer, phone or other electronic devices.
The challenge is to make the use of technology as seamless as possible, both for employees who are tech-savvy and for those who are not.
Carriers and brokers are making this an emphasis, and employers should lean on them for practical advice.
See the original article Here.
3. Over-reliance on technology
At the other end of the spectrum is the temptation to rely on technology to do things it never was meant to do.
"Technology is so prevalent in the enrollment space today, but watch out for relying on technology as the one thing that will make or break enrollment," says Kathy O'Brien, vice president of voluntary benefits and nation client group services for Unum in Chattanooga, Tennessee. "Technology is great for capturing data, but it won't solve every problem and doesn't change the importance of the other work you need to do."
4. Succumbing to inertia
It can be frustrating to invest substantial time and effort into employee benefit education, only to have most of the staff do nothing.
Yet that is what happens most of the time. Just 36 percent of workers make any changes from the previous enrollment, and 53 percent spend less than one hour making their selections, according to a LIMRA study.
One reason may be that employees don’t feel assured they are making the right decisions.
Only 10 percent felt confident in their enrollment choices when they were done, according to a VSP Vision Care study. One good strategy for overcoming inertia is to attach dollar values to their choices and show where their existing selections may be leaving money on the table.
5. Cutting too many corners
One of the most difficult financial decisions employers make each year is deciding how much money to allocate to employee benefits.
Spending too much goes straight to the bottom line and could result in having to lay off the very employees they are trying to help. Spending too little, however, can hurt employee retention and recruiting.
Voluntary benefits offer a win-win solution. Employees, who pick up the costs, have more options to tailor a program that meets their own needs.
In a recent study of small businesses, 85 percent of workers consider voluntary benefits to be part of a comprehensive benefits package, and 62 percent see a need for voluntary benefits.
6. Not taking a holistic approach
"Holistic" is not just a description of an employee wellness program; it also describes how employers should think about employee benefit packages.
The bread-and-butter benefits of life and health insurance now may include such voluntary options as dental, vision and critical illness. Employers and workers alike need to understand how all of the benefits mesh for each individual.
Businesses also need to think broadly about their approach to enrollment
"Overall, we take a holistic approach to the customer’s enrollment program, from benefits communication to personalized benefits education and counseling, as well as ongoing, dedicated service," says Heather Lozynski, assistant vice president of premier client management for Colonial Life in Columbia, South Carolina. "This allows the employer to then focus on other aspects of their benefits process."
7. Unbalanced benefits mix
Employee benefits have evolved from plain vanilla to 31 (or more) flavors.
As the job market rebounds and competition for talented employees increases, workers will demand more from their employers.
Benefits that were once considered add-ons are now considered mandatory.
Round out the benefits package with an appealing mix of standard features and voluntary options with the objective of attracting, retaining and protecting top-tier employees.
8. Incomplete documentation
Employee satisfaction is a worthy objective — and so is keeping government regulators happy.
The Affordable Care Act requires employers who self-fund employee health care to report information about minimum essential coverage to the IRS, at the risk of penalties.
Even if a company is not required by law to offer compliant coverage to part-time employees, it still is responsible for keeping detailed records of their employment status and hours worked.
As the old saying goes, the job is not over until the paperwork is done.
9. Forgetting the family
The Affordable Care Act has affected the options available to employers, workers and their families.
Many businesses are dropping spousal health insurance coverage or adding surcharges for spouses who have access to employer-provided insurance at their own jobs.
Also, adult children can now remain on their parents' health policies until they are 26.
Clearly communicate company policies regarding family coverage, and try to include affected family members in informational meetings.
Get to know more about employees' families — it will pay dividends long after open enrollment.
10. Limiting enrollment options
Carriers make no secret about their emphasis on electronic benefits education and enrollment.
All things considered, it is simpler and less prone to copying and data-entry errors.
It would be a mistake, however, to believe that the high-tech option is the first choice of every employee.
Be sure to offer the options of old-fashioned paper documents, phone registration and face-to-face meetings. One good compromise is an on-site enrollment kiosk where a real person provides electronic enrollment assistance.
11. Letting benefits go unused
A benefit is beneficial only if the employee uses it. Too many employees will sign up for benefits this fall, forget about them and miss out on the advantages they offer.
Periodically remind employees to review and evaluate their available benefits throughout the year so they can take advantage of ones that work and drop those that do not.
In addition to health and wellness benefits, also make sure they are taking advantage of accrued vacation and personal days.
Besides maximizing the return on their benefit investment, it will periodically remind them that the employer is looking out for their best interests.
12. Prematurely closing the 'OODA' loop
Col. John Boyd of the U.S. Air Force was an ace fighter pilot. He summarized his success with the acronym OODA: Observe, Orient, Decide and Act. Many successful businesses are adopting his approach.
After the stress of open enrollment, it's tempting to breathe a sigh of relief and focus on something else until next fall.
However, the close of enrollment is a critical time to observe by soliciting feedback from employees, brokers and carriers.
What worked this year, and what didn't? What types of communications were most effective? And how can the process be improves in 2017?
"Make sure you know what is working and what is not," said Linda Garcia, vice president for human resources at Rooms to Go, a furniture retailer based just outside Tampa. "We are doing a communications survey right now to find out the best way to reach each of our 7,500 employees. We also conduct quarterly benefits surveys and ask for their actual comments instead of just checking a box."
Source:
Goforth A. (2017 Aug 22). Avoid these 12 common open enrollment mistakes [Web blog post]. Retrieved from address https://www.benefitspro.com/2017/08/22/avoid-these-12-common-open-enrollment-mistakes?ref=hp-in-depth&page_all=1
6 employee benefits trends in 2017
2018 is almost upon us. More employers are beginning to start their search for new talent next year. If you are in the process of hiring check out this great article put together by Marlene Y. Satter from Benefits Pro and find out the top employee benefit trends for attracting new talent in 2017.
Employers looking to attract the best new employees need to look closely at their benefits offerings.
That’s according to a CBS report that highlights the six trends in benefits that are of the most interest to prospective employees. With millennials having outpaced GenXers as the largest demographic in the workplace, the report says, “it has become abundantly clear over the course of the last half decade that millennials have very different career priorities than their predecessors.”
With that in mind, here are six types of benefits employers might want to consider, if they’re not already on offer.
Flex hours are high on the list for millennials, who regard life/work balance as very important. In fact, according to a PwC study, it’s more important to them than financial compensation. Flexible schedules provide a way for employers to give that balance to employees, allowing them to work hours other than 9-to-5, or from home part of the week. As a result, the report says, employees will have better job satisfaction and be more likely to stay.
Workplace wellness programs are another way to provide a perk that pays off for both employer and employee — and not necessarily at a high cost, the report says. Not only do such programs foster a strong sense of team unity that will help drive job satisfaction and productivity, they also cut health care costs.
Continuing education not only gives employees a leg up, but also provides employers with better-trained staff who are able to cope with modern challenges and less likely to jump ship in search of a more congenial workplace. While the report concedes that most small and midsize businesses don’t have the budget to provide postgrad tuition to employees, that doesn’t mean that companies can’t focus on such investments in language and software certification classes.
Digital health care solutions enable masters of the cyber world in the workforce to reach out to health practitioners via mobile devices and computers, resulting in faster and more personalized treatment. In addition, the report says, “digital health programs are also incredibly cost effective and are estimated to save billions in medical costs over the next four years.”
Fringe benefits and perks — even if not on the scale of big-budget Silicon Valley companies — are another way to woo millennial employees. Public transportation passes, reimbursing employees for yoga classes and massage sessions and providing free lunches or snacks, can give recruiting an edge over companies that do nothing along these lines, the report points out.
Last but not least, there’s a bigger budget of vacation days. Employers may think that’s too expensive, but employee burnout is responsible for 50 percent of employee churn— and the cost of replacing even an entry-level employee can cost a company up to 50 percent of his or her annual salary. The money spent on extra vacation to avoid burnout could be more than offset by the losses of not doing so. Plus, the knowledge that well-rested employees are more productive will also help to counter the down time that might be caused by those additional days off.
See the original article Here.
Source:
Satter M. (2017 September 5 ). 6 employee benefits trends in 2017 [Web blog post]. Retrieved from address https://www.benefitspro.com/2017/09/05/6-employee-benefits-trends-in-2017?page=2&page_all=1