What Americans think about health insurance & hiring practices
Originally posted July 25, 2014 by Lynette Gil on https://www.lifehealthpro.com
In a recent survey from Gallup, the majority (58 percent) of Americans said that they would justify charging higher health insurance rates to smokers. And about 39 percent said that they would justify raising health insurance rates to those significantly overweight.
Both percentages have gone down slightly since 2003, when Gallup asked these questions for the first time: from 65 percent for smokers having to pay higher rates and 43 percent for those significantly overweight.
The results are part of Gallup's July 7-10 2014 Consumption Habits survey, in which telephone interviews were conducted with a random sample of 1,013 adults, aged 18 and older, living in all 50 U.S. states and D.C.
The survey also asked participants if companies should be allowed to refuse to hire smokers or those significantly overweight. Most Americans agreed that there should not be discrimination against both. Only 12 percent said that companies should be allowed to refuse to hire people because they are significantly overweight (down from 16 percent in 2003); 14 percent said the same about smokers (up one percentage point from 13% in 2003).
Even though most Americans oppose “hiring policies that would allow companies to refuse to hire smokers or those who are significantly overweight,” it is unclear if those views are because they do not think smoking and obesity negatively affect workplace performance or they “simply reject discrimination of any kind in hiring,” the report says.
According to the report, smoking and being overweight are associated with higher health care costs, and even the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) allows for higher insurance premiums for smokers. Some would argue that allowing companies to refuse to hire smokers and people who are overweight, or charging them higher health insurance rates, might help encourage healthier lifestyles.
Revisiting Medical Loss Ratio Rebates
Originally posted July 5, 2012 by Bob Marcantonio on https://www.shrm.org
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA or ACA) requires insurers to report their Medical Loss Ratios (MLRs) to regulators and to meet certain MLR targets. If an insurer exceeds the minimum MLR, the insurer must issue a rebate to the policyholder. The first of these annual rebates is due in August 2012. How are rebates determined?
Rebates are determined according to the prior year’s MLR. Rebates issued in August 2012 will depend on 2011 performance and are not group or individual specific. They are calculated at the carrier and market segment (i.e., individual, small group and large group) level. In some instances the individual and small group markets may be merged.
The ACA defines a small employer as an employer having at least one but no more than 100 employees. However, it provides states the option of defining small employers as having at least one but not more than 50 employees in plan years beginning before Jan. 1, 2016.
Generally, if you have fewer than 100 employees (using the definition for full-time equivalents) you will be purchasing coverage in the small group market.
The MLR is calculated by dividing the medical expenses of the carriers’ segment by the net earned premiums. Medical expenses include claims and activities to improve health care quality as defined in the rules. Net earned premiums include premiums paid by the policyholder minus taxes, licensing and regulatory fees. The MLR threshold for large groups (51+ benefits eligible) is 85 percent and the threshold for small groups (50 or fewer benefit eligible employees) is 80 percent. Certain states have received exemptions until 2014 that allow the MLR to be lower than those levels. In the case of states having more stringent MLR requirements, those requirements supersede the lower federal requirements.
Below are answers to common questions about MLR rebates.
My plan’s paid loss ratio is less than the target. Do I get a rebate?
Not necessarily. Rebates are not issued based on a single plan’s performance. Rebates depend on the insurer’s performance in a given market segment as outlined above.
How will insurers issue rebates?
For group health plans, insurers must issue the rebates to the plan. The plan must then pay out the rebates to the plan’s participants. If a group health plan terminates after the plan year but before the insurer issues rebates and the insurer cannot locate the plan, the insurer must attempt to issue the rebates directly to participants.
Who may receive a rebate?
Only fully insured policyholders are eligible. A policyholder can be an individual or an employer-sponsored group health plan. In the case of a group health plan receiving a rebate, Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) regulations regarding fiduciary duty apply. If the rebate is small—$20 or less for a group health plan—the insurer does not need to issue the rebate to the plan.
What should you do if your group receives a rebate?
The Department of Labor (DOL) issued Technical Release No. 2011-04 outlining the proper handling of rebates. The release states that:
"If the participants and the employer each paid a fixed percentage of the cost, a percentage of the rebate equal to the percentage of the cost paid by participants would be attributable to participant contributions. Decisions on how to apply or expend the plan’s portion of a rebate are subject to ERISA’s general standards of fiduciary conduct. Under section 404(a)(1) of ERISA, the responsible plan fiduciaries must act prudently, solely in the interest of the plan participants and beneficiaries, and in accordance with the terms of the plan to the extent consistent with the provisions of ERISA.
"With respect to these duties, the Department notes that a fiduciary also has a duty of impartiality to the plan’s participants. A selection of an allocation method that benefits the fiduciary, as a participant in the plan, at the expense of other participants in the plan, would be inconsistent with this duty. In deciding on an allocation method, the plan fiduciary may properly weigh the costs to the plan, the ultimate plan benefit, and the competing interests of participants or classes of participants provided such method is reasonable, fair and objective. For example, if a fiduciary finds that the cost of distributing shares of a rebate to former participants approximates the amount of the proceeds, the fiduciary may decide to allocate the proceeds to current participants based upon a reasonable, fair and objective allocation method.
"Similarly, if distributing payments to any participants is not cost-effective (e.g., payments to participants are of de minimis amounts, or would give rise to tax consequences to participants or the plan), the fiduciary may utilize the rebate for other permissible plan purposes including applying the rebate toward future participant premium payments or toward benefit enhancements."
When will insurers issue the rebates?
Under the regulations, the first rebates are due Aug. 1, 2012, although the precise dates of receipt may be before the deadline, depending on the insurer. Insurers will send written notices to subscribers informing them that a rebate has been issued. Plan administrators should be prepared to field questions from employees who receive such notices.
Additionally, insurers not issuing a rebate must send letters to subscribers explaining the MLR rule notifying their health insurer had a medical loss ratio that met or exceeded the requirements.
How much might the rebates be worth?
The not-for-profit Kaiser Family Foundation released statistics garnered from insurers’ filings to the National Association of Insurance Commissioners. In the large-group segment, total reported rebates are $541 million nationwide. Among the insurers, 125 reported they expect to issue rebates to large groups covering 7.5 million enrollees. Insurers in 14 states do not expect to issue rebates in 2012. The largest average per-enrollee rebates projected are in Vermont ($386), Nebraska ($248), Minnesota ($146), New York ($142) and North Carolina ($121).
Among large group enrollees, 19 percent are projected to receive rebates nationwide. Taken in total, the average annual rebate in the entire large group segment per year will be $14 per enrollee, according to rebate estimates based on insurer filings to the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC).
IRS releases draft of employer reporting form for health reform law compliance
Originally post July 25, 2014 by Matt Dunning on www.businessinsurance.com.
The Internal Revenue Service has issued draft versions of the reporting forms most employers will begin using next year to show that their group health insurance plans comply with the health care reform law.
The long-awaited draft forms, posted late Thursday afternoon to the IRS' website, are the first practical application of employers' health care coverage and enrollment reporting obligations under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act since the regulations were finalized in March.
The forms are the primary mechanism through which the government intends to enforce the health care reform law's minimum essential coverage and shared responsibility requirements for employers.
Beginning in 2015, employers with at least 100 full-time employees will be required to certify that benefits-eligible employees and their dependents have been offered minimum essential coverage and that their employees' contributions to their premiums comply with cost-sharing limits established under the reform law. Smaller employers with 50-99 full-time employees are required to begin reporting in 2016.
Additionally, self-insured employers will be required to submit documentation to ensure compliance with minimum essential coverage requirements under the reform law's individual coverage mandate.
“In accordance with the IRS' normal process, these draft forms are being provided to help stakeholders, including employers, tax professionals and software providers, prepare for these new reporting provisions and to invite comments from them,” the IRS said in a statement released Thursday.
The IRS said it expects to publish draft instructions for completing the reporting forms by late August and that both the forms and the instructions would be finalized later this year.
Last year, the Obama administration announced it would postpone implementation of employers' minimum essential coverage and shared responsibility obligations under the reform law for one year, largely due to widespread complaints about the complexity of the reporting requirements.
Though several months have passed since the administration issued a simplified set of information reporting rules, many employers have delayed preparations for meeting the requirements until the forms and instructions are available for review, said Richard Stover, a principal with Buck Consultants at Xerox in Secaucus, New Jersey.
“A lot of employers really haven't been doing anything about reporting requirements, even with the final regulations in place, because they were waiting for these forms,” Mr. Stover said. “This is something they've been anxious to see.”
Education heightens employee satisfaction with benefits, employers
Originally posted July 23, 2014 By Melissa A. Winn on https://eba.benefitnews.com
Employees are increasingly dissatisfied with their benefits, and therefore dissatisfied with their employers.
This trend, according to new research released by Unum, highlights the correlation between employers’ benefit offerings and the ability to attract and retain top talent. What’s more, the survey found employees who receive education about their employee benefits tend to be more satisfied with their benefits — and ultimately their employers. Benefit advisers working with employers can stress the importance of benefits education on employee satisfaction and how that translates into better employee attraction and retention.
The survey results released Tuesday show employee satisfaction with their benefits continues to closely relate to satisfaction with their employer. More than three-quarters (77%) of those workers who rate their benefits package as “excellent” or “very good” also rate their employer as an excellent or very good place to work. By contrast, only 17% of employees who consider their benefits package to be fair or poor rate their workplace as excellent or very good.
Also, 79% of workers who rated the education around their benefits as excellent or very good also rated their employer as excellent or very good — compared with only 30% of those who said the education they received was fair or poor.
“This research underscores the value of an effective benefits education plan because when an employee understands their benefits, they tend to value them more and in turn may then value their employers more for providing access to them,” says Bill Dalicandro, vice president of the consumer solutions group at Unum.
The Unum research reiterates recent findings from the Aflac Workforces Report that small business employees are not only dissatisfied with their employer’s benefit offerings but also willing to take a pay cut to work for an employer offering better benefits.
Unum’s online survey of 1,521 working adults, conducted by Harris Poll, finds that only half (49%) of U.S. workers rate their employer as an excellent or very good place to work and less than half (47%) of employees who were offered benefits by their employer rated their benefits as excellent or very good. This is the lowest rating of benefits in six years of conducting the research.
The survey also shows employees do not feel they are getting the information they need about the benefits they’re being offered. Only 33% of employees who were asked to review benefits in the prior year rated the benefits education they received as excellent or very good – a drop from 2012 and a reversal to the upward trend in ratings since 2009. In addition, nearly three in 10 (28%) rated their benefits education as fair or poor.
“With health care reform and other changes in employee benefit plans, employees have so much information to digest right now,” explains Dalicandro. “Employers can play such a great role in helping their employees understand their options so they will feel comfortable making benefits decisions.”
Appeals court nixes subsidies for HHS exchange users
Originally posted July 22, 2014 by Allison Bell on https://www.lifehealthpro.com
A three-judge panel at the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals has issued a decision that could block efforts to expand access to private health coverage in states that decline to set up state-based insurance exchanges.
The judges ruled 2-1 in Jacqueline Halbig et al. vs. Sylvia Mathews Burwell et al. (Case Number 14-5018) that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has no authority under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) to provide premium tax credit subsidies for users of the PPACA public exchanges run by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
The subsidies have helped cut the amount QHP buyers pay out-of-pocket for premiums to an average of less than $50 per month.
PPACA created a premium tax credit subsidy for people who buy qualified health plan (QHP) coverage through the exchanges by adding Section 36B to the Internal Revenue Code (IRC).
PPACA lets HHS set up public exchanges in states that decline to set up their own exchanges. IRC Section 36B talks about providing credits to users of state-based exchanges and makes no mention of any credits to be provided for people who buy QHP coverage through the HHS-run exchanges, Circuit Judge Thomas Griffith writes in an opinion for the majority.
"The fact is that the legislative record provides little indication one way or the other of congressional intent, but the statutory text does," Griffith writes. "Section 36B plainly makes subsidies available only on exchanges established by states. And in the absence of any contrary indications, that text is conclusive evidence of Congress’s intent."
Griffith notes that Congress explicitly imposed some key PPACA commercial health insurance provisions, such as guaranteed issue and community rating requirements, on federal territories without providing full exchange subsidy funding for the territories.
PPACA implements some health insurance requirements, such as the community rating requirements, by making changes to the federal Public Health Services Act. HHS last week decided that, because the territories are not going to receive full PPACA expansion funding, the Public Health Services Act excludes territories from its definition of "state," and the PPACA insurance requirements seem to be destabilizing the territories' health insurance markets, the territories can be exempt from the PPACA rules that were set by changing the Public Health Services Act.
How Obamacare’s Progress Makes Expanding Coverage Harder
Originally posted July 21, 2014 by Drew Altman on https://blogs.wsj.com.
The Affordable Care Act’s success meeting its initial enrollment goals and the repair of HealthCare.gov seem to have calmed the political waters for Obamacare. But the job of enrolling the uninsured gets harder, not easier, because the remaining uninsured will generally be tougher to reach.
Recent surveys show, roughly in line with expectations, that 8 million to 9.5 million fewer adults are uninsured compared with last year before the Affordable Care Act went into effect. Specific data are not yet available for uninsured children who probably got covered as well, and an earlier provision of the health-care law that allowed people to stay on their parents’ insurance up to age 26 is thought to have lowered the number of uninsured young adults by as many as 3 million.
But tens of millions of Americans are not yet covered.
Those who enrolled last year during the first open-enrollment season were more likely to want coverage and were best able to navigate the process to get it. After open enrollment this fall and the one after that, the uninsured will gradually become a smaller and different group. Increasingly, they will be people who have been without insurance for a long time or who have never had it; people who are even less familiar with insurance choices and components such as premiums and deductibles, as well as unfamiliar with the tax credits offered under the ACA. These people are more likely to be men, and minorities, and have limited education or language barriers. Increasingly they will fall into harder-to-reach high-risk groups, such as the homeless, who require very targeted outreach, and Hispanics who fear that seeking coverage could endanger undocumented relatives despite assurances from government that it will not.
On the plus side for the next open-enrollment season, many of the remaining uninsured waited out the first year but want insurance; a group of unknown size has been waiting to enroll this fall. Also, the penalties for not having insurance rise from the greater of $95 per adult or 1% of income this year to $325 or 2% of income next year. That is likely to motivate more of the remaining uninsured to enroll. Early studies show that the uninsured who have attained coverage are happy with what they got, and news will spread through family, friends and word of mouth to people who are uninsured, motivating some of them to seek coverage too.
As the job of reaching the uninsured gets tougher, the need will grow for targeted community-based outreach and enrollment services and, most of all, a realization that the remaining uninsured are a somewhat different group presenting new challenges.
Hobby Lobby ruling spilling over to corporate world
Originally posted July 10, 2014 by Alan Goforth on https://www.benefitspro.com.
Both proponents and opponents of the recent ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Hobby Lobby contraception case agree on at least one thing: The case may be settled, but how it will play out in the workplace is far from certain.
The court ruled that the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act prevents certain employers from being forced to pay for contraceptives they oppose for religious reasons. However, the definition of which types of corporations are excluded remains murky.
"Nobody really knows where it is going to go," said Richard Primus, professor of constitutional law at the University of Michigan. "I assume that many more businesses will seek exemptions, not just from the [Patient Protection and] Affordable Care Act, but from all sorts of things they want to be exempt from, and it will put courts in a difficult position of having to decide what is a compelling government interest."
About 50 lawsuits filed by corporations nationwide, which were put on hold during the Hobby Lobby appeal, must now be resolved or re-evaluated. "We don't know ... how the courts will apply that standard," Primus said.
The decision also has ramifications beyond the courtroom. Even closely held companies with sincere religious beliefs must carefully consider the potential marketplace ramifications of crafting health-care coverage according to religious beliefs.
"Many owners of companies don't want to distinguish the difference between what's good for them personally and what's good for their business," said John Stanton, professor of food marketing at Saint Joseph University in Philadelphia. "I believe that if a business owner believes something is the right thing to do — more power to them. That's his business. However, he's got to be ready for the negative repercussions."
Eden Foods of Clinton, Mich., a natural-foods manufacturer, has filed a lawsuit and is balancing religious beliefs and business concerns. Since Eden initially filed its lawsuit last year over mandates to cover birth control in PPACA, some customers have taken to social media to express disapproval and outrage, even threatening a social boycott. However, the corporation also has gained new customers who support its stance.
"It's very conceivable they could lose business," said Michael Layne, president of Marx Lane, a public relations firm in Farmington Hills, Mich. "And they could lose employees, too."
Experts agree that the myriad issues raised by the Hobby Lobby decision could take a while to play out. "I think there will be a rush of litigation in the next year or two," Primus said. "I think that the exemptions are likely to get broader before they are limited."
Major work needed before enrollment
Originally posted July 10, 2014 by Kathryn Mayer on www.benefitspro.com.
The fall open enrollment period needs some major work, as new analysis out Thursday finds low satisfaction and little results, with many consumers remaining “uninsured and underserved,” after the first shopping experience in the exchanges under the Patient Protection and Affordable Act.
The inaugural J.D. Power 2014 Health Insurance Marketplace Shopper Study, which looked at enrollment satisfaction among more than 1,600 consumers who shopped for coverage under PPACA November 2013 through April 2014, found that satisfaction during the first signup period averaged 615 on a 1,000-point scale.
The results indicate that health plans need to “retool” their efforts ahead of 2015 open enrollment, which begins Nov. 15.
“No doubt that ensuring a technologically error-free experience, along with streamlining the online enrollment process will be most impactful to future marketplace shoppers,” said Rick Johnson, senior director of the health care practice at J.D. Power. “While the uninsured are now a smaller group, they continue to be underserved, just as they were prior to the exchanges, and continue to need more information delivered in an easy-to-understand and personal way.”
J.D. Power found that many shoppers began the enrollment process but had problems completing their plan purchase at the time of the survey primarily due to three reasons:
- A combination of technical problems experienced during the enrollment process (40 percent);
- The application process taking too long (19 percent); and
- The website not having enough information about the plans to make a selection (18 percent).
Additionally, 49 percent of shoppers who didn’t complete enrollment did not choose a plan during their initial shopping experience because they had not yet decided which plan they wanted.
The technical problems for HealthCare.gov have been well-documented.
The survey found that satisfaction was higher among those enrollees who got in-person help from brokers and navigators.
When shoppers used a navigator — a certified agent or broker used by 17 percent of shoppers — during the shopping process, satisfaction rose to a score of 631 compared to 611 for those who didn’t use a navigator.
Though it was the least common way to sign up for a health plan, in-person enrollment had a higher satisfaction rate at 715 points. Online enrollment had a satisfaction score of just 597 while selecting a plan on the phone had a score of 623.
That’s in line with previous research from the Urban Institute and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, which found that brokers are the highest-ranked of all information sources on PPACA and enrollment help by consumers.
But that finding also means carriers and brokers have more work to do, too, in working to engage consumers. J.D. Power said that “health insurance companies and the exchanges should continue to find ways to personalize the insurance shopping experience for consumers.”
“When the dust finally settles later in 2014 and in 2015, for health insurance providers to thrive in this new environment, they will need to retool their marketing, information and enrollment efforts toward a new generation of uninsured to serve their needs,” Johnson said.
Employer-Sponsored Health Care Facts of Life
Originally posted May 23, 2014 by Donna Fuscaldo on https://smallbusiness.foxbusiness.com.
High deductible health insurance plans are a fact of life, particularly for the employees of small businesses. But it doesn’t have to hurt morale or loyalty among workers. There are ways small business owners can help defray some of the costs if high deductible insurance plans are all they can offer.
“With the Affordable Care Act there is clearly a movement toward higher deductible plans,” says Barry Sloane, CEO of Newtek, a health insurance agency for small businesses. “Unfortunately higher deductibles are a fact of life whether you live in New York or Nebraska.”
In an effort to keep costs down and incentivize employees to curb some of the unnecessary visits to the doctor or specialists, employers of all sizes are making high deductible plans an option, and in some cases the only one.
That’s particularly true with small business owners who can barely afford to offer health insurance, let alone plans with low deductibles and limited cost sharing. As a result, experts say the era of high deductible health insurance plans and more of the burden being passed on to the employee is here and will likely stay. That change in the way health care is offered to employees can breed resentment and anger among workers, which in turn can have a negative impact on the overall business.
But there are things small business owners can do to reduce the burden. One way, according to Kevin Luss, owner of Luss Group, is to offer employees a medical bridge policy to neutralize the deductible and other out-of-pocket costs employees face.
At Luss Group, brokers work with employers to create a health plan that limits the cost sharing for the least frequent things like hospitalization, surgeries and outpatient procedures and with the savings, a medical bridge policy is taken out to insure employees from high deductibles associated with those expensive but less frequent medical needs. There are numerous ways to design the plan, but one option could be if one of the employees is admitted to the hospital he or she gets a lump sum of $3,000 in addition to a daily amount for the length of the admission. In that case, an employee who has a $5,000 deductible would only pay part of that out of pocket because the medical bridge policy covers the rest.
“The employer saves money by offering high deductible plans and uses part of the savings for the bridge plan,” says Luss. “These plans aren’t very expensive and in the long rung the employer saves money.” The rules and what is offered varies state by state.
For many small businesses footing the bill for a medical bridge policy isn’t an option, but they can offer it as a supplemental choice for employees. According to Nancy Thompson, senior vice president and director of sales at CBIZ Benefits and Insurance, employers who are providing high deductible plans can also offer the option of hospital indemnity and critical illness insurance, which will defray some of the costs associated with the high deductible plan. While it will cost employees more money, albeit not a lot, in exchange they’ll get one-on-one counseling with a benefits consultant, so they are making the right choices when it comes to their healthcare.
“Employees are going to experience gaps in coverage that they haven’t in the past,” says Thompson. “The right supplemental product is paramount when you go to a high deductible plan.”
Hand in hand with offering high deductible plans is providing the ability for employees to use pretax dollars for medical costs, which is where health savings accounts come into play. With a health savings account, funds contributed aren’t taxed and the money accumulated can be rolled over to the next year. Some employers who contribute to health savings accounts can increase their contribution to offset any bad feelings from offering a high deductible plan, says Sloane.
Another option, according to Richard Mann, Chief Product Officer at PlanSource, is offering a defined contribution toward benefits. Basically it’s a predetermined amount the employer agrees to contribute to each employee’s benefits spending.
“This helps employers control spending because the amount is fixed, but allows employees to use the amount in whatever way they think is best,” says Mann.
At the end of the day, knowledge may be the best way a small business owner can help their employees with their health-care costs. The whole idea behind these high deductible health plans is to get people to think before they get that test done or have blood drawn.
According to Sloane, arming employees with all the information about the plan, ensuring they know which doctors are in network and out of network, and all the benefits associated with the plan (including preventive care), can go a long way in keeping out of pocket costs down. It’s also a good idea to give employees access to the actual costs of health-care services, adds Mann. Knowing, for example, that the cost of a MRI can vary by as much as $1,000 will make employees more savvy consumers of health care, he says.
“It’s very valuable for the business to make an investment in the HR department and educate their staff as to how to keep claims down,” notes Sloane. “People need to pay more attention to health care. It’s not as simple as it used to be.”
Do You Have an Employee Wellness Plan?
Originally posted May 19, 2014 by Bridget Miller on https://hrdailyadvisor.blr.com.
Employee wellness plans have been gaining popularity in recent years, and with good reason: they can benefit both employees and employers. An employee wellness program is simply a program that intends to promote the health and well-being of employees. This can be accomplished in a variety of ways, but the key is that the program has a goal of improving employee health.
The benefits for employees are fairly obvious:
- The potential for improved health
- Support in the form of encouragement, goals, or even team activities
- A focus on healthier choices
- Maybe a reduction in cost
But the benefits for employers are sometimes overlooked. This is unfortunate because employers actually stand to benefit a great deal as well. Here are just a few examples:
- Improved employee health can mean fewer absences for illness and higher employee productivity levels.
- Investing in employees can improve employee morale. Over time, this can even reduce turnover.
- Healthier employees often cost less to insure over time.
These benefits are there regardless of company size or industry. Every organization can benefit.
Starting an Employee Wellness Program
Starting an employee wellness program can be quite simple. (Of course, it can be quite involved too, depending on how far the employer wants to go with the program.) Here are some examples of easy ways to get started focusing on employee health:
- Provide health screenings. Examples include blood pressure or Body Mass Index (BMI) screenings.
- Provide food fact sheets. Simply having access to more information can allow employees to make healthier choices.
- Start employee fitness groups. Examples include walking groups or even sport team creation to compete in local leagues.
- Conduct individual health-risk assessments (i.e., questionnaires that help assess overall health and risk factors at an individual level). These are usually administered by a third party and come with personalized reports on health risk factors.
- Give away health-related promotional items. Examples include pedometers or water bottles.
- Remove on-site food that does not promote good health; replace it with healthier options. This can be implemented in many areas, such as vending machines, cafeterias, catering for meetings, break room options, etc.
- Provide information on the health benefits of quitting smoking.
- Distribute other wellness-oriented communications, such as health-related newsletters.
- Conduct training sessions on health or wellness-related topics.
- Allow longer lunch breaks to give time for exercise.
- Provide discounts on health insurance or otherwise reduce the cost.
Of course, employee wellness programs can also be implemented on a much broader scale, too. Here are some more in-depth examples:
- Adding an on-site fitness center or partnering with a nearby fitness center to offer free employee memberships; and
- Sponsoring employee contests. (Be sure to follow the latest guidelines under the Affordable Care Act when it comes to participation and rewards.)
Be aware that there are some rules governing wellness programs, particularly when a bonus or discount is based on an actual change in health status (e.g., lower blood pressure or cholesterol) as opposed to simply participating in an activity (e.g., a health screening).
No matter what type of employee wellness programs you implement, be sure to have a plan to communicate the program details to employees. Getting employees excited and involved is the first step to gaining the benefits. Focus on the benefits for the employees in all communications and make it easy to participate, even offering incentives where appropriate.