When Companies Should Invest in Training Their Employees — and When They Shouldn’t
Do you invest in training and development activities at your organization? According to an industry report, U.S. companies spent $90 billion in 2017 on training and development activities. Read on to learn more.
According to one industry report, U.S. companies spent over $90 billion dollars on training and development activities in 2017, a year-over-year increase of 32.5 %. While many experts emphasize the importance and benefits of employee development — a more competitive workforce, increased employee retention, and higher employee engagement — critics point to a painful lack of results from these investments. Ultimately, there is truth in both perspectives. Training is useful at times but often fails, especially when it is used to address problems that it can’t actually solve.
Many well-intended leaders view training as a panacea to obvious learning opportunities or behavioral problems. For example, several months ago, a global financial services company asked me to design a workshop to help their employees be less bureaucratic and more entrepreneurial. Their goal was to train people to stop waiting around for their bosses’ approval, and instead, feel empowered to make decisions on their own. They hoped, as an outcome, decisions would be made faster. Though the company seemed eager to invest, a training program was not the right way to introduce the new behavior they wanted their employees to learn.
Training can be a powerful medium when there is proof that the root cause of the learning need is an undeveloped skill or a knowledge deficit. For those situations, a well-designed program with customized content, relevant case material, skill-building practice, and a final measurement of skill acquisition works great. But, in the case of this organization, a lack of skills had very little to do with their problem. After asking leaders in the organization why they felt the need for training, we discovered the root causes of their problem had more to do with:
- Ineffective decision-making processes that failed to clarify which leaders and groups owned which decisions
- Narrowly distributed authority, concentrated at the top of the organization
- No measurable expectations that employees make decisions
- No technologies to quickly move information to those who needed it to make decisions
Given these systemic issues, it’s unlikely a training program would have had a productive, or sustainable outcome. Worse, it could have backfired, making management look out of touch.
Learning is a consequence of thinking, not teaching. It happens when people reflect on and choose a new behavior. But if the work environment doesn’t support that behavior, a well-trained employee won’t make a difference. Here are three conditions needed to ensure a training solution sticks.
1. Internal systems support the newly desired behavior. Spotting unwanted behavior is certainly a clue that something needs to change. But the origins of that unwanted behavior may not be a lack of skill. Individual behaviors in an organization are influenced by many factors, like: how clearly managers establish, communicate, and stick to priorities, what the culture values and reinforces, how performance is measured and rewarded, or how many levels of hierarchy there are. These all play a role in shaping employee behaviors. In the case above, people weren’t behaving in a disempowered way because they didn’t know better. The company’s decision-making processes forbid them from behaving any other way. Multiple levels of approval were required for even tactical decisions. Access to basic information was limited to high-ranking managers. The culture reinforced asking permission for everything. Unless those issues were addressed, a workshop would prove useless.
2. There is commitment to change. Any thorough organizational assessment will not only define the skills employees need to develop, it will also reveal the conditions required to reinforce and sustain those skills once a training solution is implemented. Just because an organization recognizes the factors driving unwanted behavior, doesn’t mean they’re open to changing them. When I raised the obvious concerns with the organization above, I got the classic response, “Yes, yes, of course we know those issues aren’t helping, but we think if we can get the workshop going, we’ll build momentum and then get to those later.” This is usually code for, “It’s never going to happen.” If an organization isn’t willing to address the causes of a problem, a training will not yield its intended benefit.
3. The training solution directly serves strategic priorities. When an organization deploys a new strategy — like launching a new market or product — training can play a critical role in equipping people with the skills and knowledge they need to help that strategy succeed. But when a training initiative has no discernible purpose or end goal, the risk of failure is raised. For example, one of my clients rolled out a company-wide mindfulness workshop. When I asked a few employees what they thought, they said, “It was interesting. At least it got me two hours away from my cubicle.” When I asked the sponsoring executive to explain her thought process behind the training, she said, “Our employee engagement data indicated our people are feeling stressed and overworked, so I thought it would be a nice perk to help them focus and reduce tension.” But when I asked her what was causing the stress, her answer was less definitive: “I don’t really know, but most of the negative data came from Millennials and they complain about being overworked. Plus, they like this kind of stuff.” She believed her training solution had strategic relevance because it linked to a vital employee metric. But evaluations indicated that, though employees found the training “interesting,” it didn’t actually reduce their stress. There are a myriad of reasons why the workload could have been causing employees stress. Therefore, this manager’s energy would have been better directed at trying to determine those reasons in her specific department and addressing them accordingly — despite her good intentions.
If you are going to invest millions of dollars into company training, be confident it is addressing a strategic learning need. Further, be sure your organization can and will sustain new skills and knowledge by addressing the broader factors that may threaten their success. If you aren’t confident in these conditions, don’t spend the money.
SOURCE: Carucci, R. (29 October 2018). "When Companies Should Invest in Training Their Employees – and When They Shouldn’t" (Web Blog Post). Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2018/10/when-companies-should-invest-in-training-their-employees-and-when-they-shouldnt
Interact Sensitively with Employees Addicted to Opioids
Opioid addiction is running rampant across the U.S. According to the National Institute of Drug Abuse, 8-12 percent of patients prescribed opioids develop an opioid use disorder. Read this blog post to learn more.
Employees who abuse opioids often are given a second chance by their employers. But well-meaning employers could wind up being sued for discriminating against those workers in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) if they don't handle the situation very carefully.
Opioid addiction has been rampant in the U.S. for some time. More than three out of five drug overdose deaths last year involved an opioid, and overdoses rose 70 percent in the 12 months ending September 2017, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
So what can HR professionals do about it? If a worker admits to the problem, the path is fairly clear. But if the employer merely suspects that an employee is addicted to prescription pain relievers but has no real proof, the employee should be treated like any other employee who is having attendance or performance issues, said Kathryn Russo, an attorney with Jackson Lewis in Melville, N.Y.
An employer should never accuse someone of having an addiction, because if the employer is wrong, the accusation could lead to an ADA claim, Russo cautioned. Although current drug use isn't considered an ADA disability, a history of drug addiction is. Moreover, someone using prescription drugs might have an underlying condition covered by the ADA.
If an employee admits to opioid abuse, or the problem is discovered through drug testing, the employer should discuss it with the employee to determine if he or she needs a reasonable accommodation, such as leave to obtain treatment, Russo said. The illegal use of drugs need not be tolerated at work, she added.
Reasonably accommodate the employee so long as there's no direct threat to the health and safety of himself or herself, or others, recommended Nancy Delogu, an attorney with Littler in Washington, D.C.
Drug Testing
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has opined that employers may ask about an employee's use of prescribed medicine or conduct a drug test to determine such use only if the employer has reasonable suspicion that its use will interfere with the employee's ability to perform the job's essential functions or will pose a direct threat.
Many employers are expanding their drug-testing panels to include semisynthetic opioids such as hydrocodone, hydromorphone, oxycodone and oxymorphone, in addition to traditional opioids such as heroin, codeine and morphine, Russo said. This is lawful in most states as long as the employer does not take adverse employment actions when drugs are used legally, she noted, which is why an employer should use a medical review officer in the drug-testing process. If the medical review officer concludes that the positive test result is the result of lawful drug use, the result is reported to the employer as negative.
Sometimes an employer will say it has reasonable suspicion that the employee came to work impaired by drug use and is considering a mandatory drug test. At that point, some employees will say the drug test would be positive and the test consequently is not necessary.
Discussions with Employees
If there are performance problems and the employee has admitted to opioid addiction, some employers tell employees that they can remain employed so long as they go through inpatient treatment. Delogu discourages that approach. Employers aren't workers' doctors, so they shouldn't be deciding whether someone needs a treatment program, she explained.
But if someone voluntarily seeks to enter an addiction-recovery program, that person may have legal protections under state law, said Wendy Lane, an attorney with Greenberg Glusker in Los Angeles. For example, California has a law requiring employers with 25 or more employees to reasonably accommodate alcohol and drug rehabilitation.
Delogu recommended that employers that believe there is a problem with substance abuse ask if the addicted employee needs assistance from the employee assistance program.
An employer can require that an employee who has violated a policy be evaluated by a substance abuse professional and complete treatment prescribed for them, without dictating what that treatment will be, she said. The employer may choose to forgo disciplinary action if an employee agrees to these terms and signs an agreement to this effect. The employer then would not have to be informed about the person's decided course of treatment, whether inpatient, outpatient or no treatment at all, she said. The employee typically will be subjected to follow-up drug testing to make sure he or she hasn't resumed the use of illegal drugs.
Many employers are willing to give employees with performance problems resulting from opioid addiction a second chance, she noted.
SOURCE: Smith, A. (1 November 2018) "Interact Sensitively with Employees Addicted to Opioids" (Web Blog Post). Retrieved from https://www.shrm.org/ResourcesAndTools/legal-and-compliance/employment-law/Pages/employees-addicted-to-opioids.aspx
8 scary benefits behaviors employees should avoid
Nothing is more scary to benefits professionals than employees failing to review their open enrollment materials. Continue reading for eight of the scariest benefit mistakes and tips on how you can correct them.
Halloween is already frightening enough, but what really scares benefits professionals are the ways employees can mishandle their benefits. Here are eight of the biggest mistakes, with tips on correcting them.
Participants don’t review any annual enrollment materials
Why it’s scary: Employees are making or not making decisions based on little or no knowledge.
Potential actions: Employers can implement a strategic communications campaign to educate and engage employees in the media and format appropriate for that employee class, or consider engaging an enrollment counselor to work with participants in a more personalized manner.
Employees don’t enroll in the 401(k) or don’t know what investment options to choose
Why it’s scary: U.S. employees are responsible for much of their own retirement planning and often leave money on the table if there is an employer match.
Potential actions: Employers can offer auto-enrollment up to the matching amount/percent; consider partnering with a financial wellness partner, and provide regular and ongoing communications of the 401(k)’s benefits to all employees.
Employees don’t engage in the wellness program
Why it’s scary: The employee is potentially missing out on the financial and personal benefits of participating in a well-being program.
Potential actions: Employers need to continuously communicate the wellness program throughout the year through various media, including home media. Employers also should ensure the program is meeting the needs of the employees and their families.
Employees don’t update ineligible dependents on the plan
Why it’s scary: Due to ambiguity where the liability would reside, either the employee or the plan could have unexpected liability.
Potential action: Employers can require ongoing documentation of dependents and periodically conduct a dependent audit.
Employees don’t review their beneficiary information regularly
Why it’s scary: Life insurance policy proceeds may not be awarded according to the employee’s wishes.
Potential action: Employers can require beneficiary confirmation or updates during open enrollment.
Employees do not evaluate the options for disability — whether to elect a higher benefit or have the benefit paid post-tax
Why it’s scary: Disability, especially a short-term episode, is very common during one’s working life; maximizing the benefit costs very little in terms of pay deductions, but can reap significant value when someone is unable to work.
Potential action: Employers can provide webinars/educational sessions on non-medical benefits to address those needs.
Employees do not take the opportunity to contribute to the health savings account
Why it’s scary: The HSA offers triple tax benefits for long-term financial security, while providing a safety net for near-term medical expenses.
Potential actions: Employers can select the most administratively simple process to enroll participants in the HSA and allow for longer enrollment periods for this coverage.
Employees do not use all of their vacation time
Why it’s scary: Vacation allows an employee an opportunity to recharge for the job.
Potential actions: Employers can encourage employees to use their vacation and suggest when the workload might be more accommodating to time off for those employees who worry about workloads.
SOURCE: Gill, S. & Manning-Hughes, R. (31 October 2018) "8 Scary Benefits Behaviors Employees Should Avoid" (Web Blog Post). Retrieved from https://www.benefitnews.com/slideshow/8-scary-benefits-behaviors-employees-have?brief=00000152-14a5-d1cc-a5fa-7cff48fe0001
How to Handle Employee Requests for Time Off to Vote
Do you know how to handle employee requests for time off to vote? In some states, it is a requirement to give employees time off to vote. Read this blog post to learn more.
Many employees will be eligible to cast their ballot on Nov. 6, but will they have time to vote? Some states require employers to give workers time off to vote, and even in states that don't, some businesses are finding other ways to get employees to the polls.
With Election Day around the corner, employers should be mindful that, while no federal law provides employees leave to vote, many states have enacted laws in this area, said Marilyn Clark, an attorney with Dorsey & Whitney in Minneapolis. Depending on the state, employers may have to give workers notice about their voting rights and provide paid or unpaid time off to vote.
Even in states where there is no voting leave law, it is good practice to let employees take up to two hours of paid time off to vote if there isn't enough time for the employee to vote outside of working hours. "Encouraging and not discouraging employees should be the general rule," said Robert Nobile, an attorney with Seyfarth Shaw in New York City.
Encourage Employees
"Here in the United States, too many people don't vote because they don't have time due to jobs, child care and other responsibilities," said Donna Norton, executive vice president of MomsRising, an organization of more than 1 million mothers and their families. "Getting to the polls can be especially challenging for people in rural communities [or] single-parent households, and those who are juggling multiple jobs."
About 4 in 10 eligible voters did not vote in the 2016 presidential election, according to research conducted by Nonprofit VOTE and the U.S. Elections Project. And voter turnout has been historically lower for midterm elections, such as this year's, which are held near the midpoint of a president's four-year term, according to Pew Research Center.
"Businesses can help solve this problem by making sure that all employees have paid time off to vote," Norton said.
Some employers are offering solutions by making Election Day a corporate holiday, offering a few hours of paid time off for employees to vote and giving employees information about early and absentee voting, according to TheWashington Post.
Giving employees time off to participate in civic or community activities tends to improve worker performance, said Katina Sawyer, Ph.D., an assistant professor of management at George Washington University. Employers who are offering paid time off to vote will likely reap the benefits through improved employee attitudes and performance.
Know the Law
Employers in states with voting-leave laws should be familiar with the specific requirements, as some state laws have a lot of details. Even in states without such laws on the books, employers should check to see if there are any local voting leave ordinances in their cities.
Employers required to give workers time off to vote should plan for adequate work coverage to ensure that all employees can take time off, Clark said.
In many states, the employer may ask workers to give advance notice if they need time off and may require that workers take that leave at a specific time of the workday. In some states where leave is paid, employers might have the right to ask employees to prove they actually voted. Most states prohibit employers from disciplining or firing an employee who takes time off from work to vote.
"Ultimately, fostering an environment that generally encourages employees to exercise this important right is a good practice to mitigate the risk of a potential retaliation claim," Clark said.
Although state laws vary, "the general theme across the U.S. with respect to voting laws is that employees will be given time off to vote if there is insufficient time between the time the polls open and close within the state and the time employees start and finish work," Nobile said. "Typically, two to three consecutive nonworking hours between the opening and closing of the polls is deemed sufficient."
Some state laws provide unpaid leave to vote or do not address whether the leave must be paid. Oregon and Washington no longer have voting leave laws because they are "vote-by-mail" states.
In some states, such as California and New York, employers must post notices in the workplace before Election Day to inform employees of their rights. Employers might have to pay penalties if they don't comply.
The consequences for denying employees their voting rights can be harsh, with some states even imposing criminal penalties, Clark noted.
Create a Policy
At a minimum, employers should adopt a policy spelling out the voting rights available to employees under applicable laws, Clark said. For businesses that operate in states that don't have a voting-leave law, employers may still wish to adopt a policy outlining their expectations about time off for voting.
Multistate employers may elect to adopt a single policy that includes the most employee-friendly provisions of the state and local laws that cover them. "By taking this approach, employers avoid the administrative burden of adopting and promulgating multiple policies for employees working in different locales," Clark said. All voting-leave policies should be sure to include strong anti-retaliation provisions, which make clear that the employer will not take any adverse action against employees for exercising their voting rights.
"It's important to remember that the law sets the floor," said Bryan Stillwagon, an attorney with Sherman & Howard in Atlanta. "Companies with the happiest and most-engaged employees recognize that positive morale comes from doing more than what is required."
Nagele-Piazza, L. (29 October 2018) "How to Handle Employee Request for Time Off to Vote" (Web Blog Post). Retrieved from https://www.shrm.org/ResourcesAndTools/legal-and-compliance/state-and-local-updates/Pages/How-to-Handle-Employee-Requests-for-Time-Off-to-Vote.aspx
Dana Wilkie contributed to this article.
3 steps to negotiating a better employee benefit annual renewal
Do you know how to negotiate your annual employee benefits renewal? Employee benefits are commonly the second-highest expense for employers, coming in second behind employee payroll. Read on to learn more.
Employee benefits are typically the second-highest expense for employers — right behind payroll. But unlike payroll, benefits are difficult to budget for each year because the upcoming annual renewal rate can feel like a total mystery.
Not knowing what the renewal rate will be until the end of the plan year complicates the balance that employers must strike between offering rich benefits employees appreciate at a cost the finance team can live with. It doesn’t have to be that way.
Knowing how to approach the annual renewal with your health carrier, pharmacy benefits manager and other players can help the savvy employer save some money while maintaining the same level of benefits as before. The ticket is planning for the annual renewal all year long, which removes the mystery and leads to a predictable rate.
Here are three steps to negotiating the annual renewal with your carrier.
1. Create a good carrier relationship. A great way to gain control of what happens at the end of the benefit plan year is to set the tone from the beginning. This means outlining expectations before signing a contract and communicating wants and needs throughout the plan period. If you’ve developed a good relationship with your carrier, you should have an easier time coming to an agreement on the annual renewal rate.
Building good carrier relationships extends beyond the carrier you’re currently working with to others in the market. One way to maintain a good relationship is to avoid marketing to all carriers for the best rate before each renewal period. Carriers spend time and money responding to requests for proposal (RFPs); if they respond year after year without winning the business, they may lose interest when you are ready to move your benefits plan.
2. Get plan renewals early. Left unchecked, most carriers hold the benefit plan renewal rate as long as possible (60-75 days before the end of a contract). But receiving your carrier’s initial renewal rate earlier gives you more time to evaluate the renewal and negotiate the rate. (Yes, it’s true — you don’t have to accept the first number the carrier offers.) The best way to ensure your request for an early renewal rate is heard and followed is to discuss it before signing a contract.
By receiving your renewal rate approximately 120 days before the end of your contract, you have enough time to evaluate the rate together with your health and welfare benefits broker and underwriting team and then respond with another offer. And if you feel that another carrier can offer better rates, you can also market your benefits plan and still have time to switch carriers before the contract ends.
3. Offer a fair and reasonable rate. After you receive your annual renewal rate, work with your internal team and your benefits broker to begin negotiations. Importantly, this doesn’t mean countering with a number so low that the carrier finds it untenable and unreasonable. In that case, the insurer may not meet your demand and you’ll be forced to turn to other carrier options without having planned for that possibility.
Instead, respond with a fair and reasonable rate increase backed by data. The goal is to counter offer with a number that creates stability and predictability for renewals in the future.
Learning your renewal rate for each plan year can be stressful, but it doesn’t have to be. Getting information early, negotiating a fair rate and maintaining good carrier relationships can help you create a better annual renewal with better predictability and improved budgeting year after year.
SOURCE: Strain, M (24 October 2018) "3 steps to negotiating a better employee benefit annual renewal" (Web Blog Post). Retrieved from https://www.employeebenefitadviser.com/opinion/3-steps-to-negotiating-a-better-employee-benefit-annual-renewal?brief=00000152-1443-d1cc-a5fa-7cfba3c60000
Why employee performance management needs an HR tech overhaul
Are annual performance reviews necessary? A recent survey by Adobe reveals that 58 percent of people feel that performance reviews are not necessary. Continue reading to learn more.
According to a recent survey conducted by Adobe, 58% of people feel that performance reviews “are a needless HR requirement.” Adobe, in fact, no longer has an annual performance review process and instead has adopted an approach involving ongoing discussions between managers and employees that emphasize talent development and future productivity instead of formal ratings and rankings based on past performance.
Still, the vast majority of companies continue to persist with a backward-looking evaluation process that is time-consuming for managers, demotivating for employees and of negligible benefit to the business as a whole. They do this because, as Adobe’s survey respondents suspected, performance reviews are more about “compliance than customer service.”
Focusing on past performance is an industrial-era hangover from when employees were mainly required to hit targets in easily measurable, repetitive tasks. Although most people’s jobs have evolved to be more complex and creative since then, the process and the tools used to manage their efficacy and performance in those roles have not.
In many respects, HR is still a defensive function whose role is to protect the business from its own employees. This is reflected by HR technology that is built for compliance, rather than helping managers and employees become more productive.
HR’s on-premise or enterprise resource planning systems can track performance reviews to prove a dismissal was not unfair, rank employees to justify compensation distribution and demonstrate effective people management to the board or shareholders. What they can’t do is react positively to the ever-changing demands of the modern business world and help employees and managers meaningfully improve their skills to meet the challenges of tomorrow.
Performance management is changing — but HR tech is not
These days, a company’s and individual employee’s goals can change dramatically in the time between end-of-year reviews. Individual roles are more specialized and require frequent skill updates, while cross-functional teams have long since replaced the siloed departments that were standard just 10 years ago. In this environment, HR’s focus on past compliance is detrimental to future development.
Forward-thinking companies are changing the performance process to focus on development and continuous feedback that makes managers and employees more productive and engaged. The success of these trailblazers will encourage other businesses from a wide range of industries to follow suit.
This new model of performance management needs help from technology, but existing HR tech vendors are not keeping up. Their services are so embedded in the world of compliance, they cannot change to support the development needs of managers and employees. Fortunately, the solution already exists.
Creating a connected system of productivity
One of the key issues with performance reviews is that so much of the process involves looking back to gather the data. For managers, it is a huge time investment. For employees, end-of-year feedback about an issue that occurred months beforehand is too late to be useful.
The process seems doubly inefficient when you realize that real-time, instantly-actionable performance data is already available in productivity systems like JIRA and Salesforce that are used by different teams. The problem is HR’s defensive mindset has made it difficult to integrate existing internal or ERP systems with these tools.
Dedicated performance management services that connect to both HR systems and the departmental productivity tools can take HR technology out of its silo. This will create a connected system of productivity that uses real-time data alongside transparent and flexible goal-tracking to drive ongoing development conversations between managers and employees.
It’s time for HR to evolve from a defensive function to make a positive contribution to key business goals and become what HR analyst Josh Bersin calls the “chief of productivity.” This demands a shift from a performance review process based on compliance to a human-centered, development-focused experience.
Adopting new performance technology that integrates with widely-used productivity tools is a key step to ensuring everyone from employees to managers to HR can work on what matters most in order to meet today’s goals and tomorrow’s challenges.
SOURCE: Dennerline, D. (15 October 2018) "Why employee performance management needs an HR tech overhaul" (Web Blog Post). Retrieved from https://www.benefitnews.com/opinion/why-employee-performance-management-needs-an-hr-tech-overhaul?brief=00000152-14a7-d1cc-a5fa-7cffccf00000
8 ways to maintain HSA eligibility
Is your high-deductible health plan still HSA qualified? Ensuring your high-deductible health plan remains HSA qualified is no easy task. Read this blog post for eight ways employers can maintain HSA eligibility.
For employers sponsoring high-deductible health plans with health savings accounts, ensuring that the HDHP continuously remains HSA qualified is no easy task. One challenge in this arena is that most of the rules and regulations are tax-related, and most benefit professionals are not tax professionals.
To help, we’ve created a 2019 pre-flight checklist for employers.
With 2019 rapidly approaching and open enrollment season beginning for many employers, now’s a great time to double-check that your HDHP remains qualified. Here are eight ways employers can maintain HSA eligibility.
1. Ensure in-network plan deductibles meet the 2019 minimum threshold of $1,350 single/$2,700 family.
To take the bumps out of this road, evaluate raising the deductibles comfortably above the thresholds. That way, you won’t have to spend time and resources amending the plan and communicating changes to employees each year that the threshold increases. Naturally, plan participants may not be thrilled with a deductible increase; however, if your current design requires coinsurance after the deductible, it’s likely possible on a cost neutral basis to eliminate this coinsurance, raise the deductible and maintain the current out-of-pocket maximum. For example:
| Current | Proposed | |
| Deductible | $1,350 single / $2,700 family | $2,000 single / $4,000 family |
| Coinsurance, after deductible | 80% | 100% |
| Out-of-pocket maximum | $2,500 single / $5,000 family | $2,500 single / $5,000 family |
This technique raises the deductible, improves the coinsurance and does not change the employee’s maximum out-of-pocket risk. The resulting new design may also prove easier to explain to employees.
2. Ensure out-of-pocket maximums do not exceed the maximum 2019 thresholds of $6,750 single/$13,500 family.
Remember that the 2019 HDHP out-of-pocket limits, confusingly, are lower than the Affordable Care Act 2019 limits of $7,900 single and $15,800 family. (Note to the U.S. Congress: Can we please consider merging these limits?) Also, remember that out-of-pocket costs do not include premiums.
3. If your plan’s family deductible includes an embedded individual deductible, ensure that each individual in the family must meet the HDHP statutory minimum family deductible ($2,700 for 2019).
Arguably, the easiest way to do so is making the family deductible at least $5,400, with the embedded individual deductible being $5,400 ÷ 2 = $2,700. However, you’ll then have to raise this amount each time the IRS raises the floor, which is quite the hidden annual bear trap. Thus, as in No. 1, if you’re committed to offering embedded deductibles, consider pushing the deductibles well above the thresholds to give yourself some breathing room (e.g., $3,500 individual and $7,000 family).
For the creative, note that the individual embedded deductible within the family deductible does not necessarily have to be the same amount as the deductible for single coverage. But, whether or not your insurer or TPA can administer that out-of-the-box design is another question. Also, beware of plan designs with an embedded single deductible but not a family umbrella deductible; these designs can cause a family to exceed the out-of-pocket limits outlined in No. 2.
Perhaps the easiest strategy is doing away with embedded deductibles altogether and clearly communicating this change to plan participants.
4. Ensure that all non-preventive services and procedures, as defined by the federal government, are subject to the deductible.
Of note, certain states, including Maryland, Illinois and Oregon, passed laws mandating certain non-preventive services be covered at 100%. While some of these states have reversed course, the situation remains complicated. If your health plan is subject to these state laws, consult with your benefits consultant, attorney and tax adviser on recommended next steps.
Similarly, note that non-preventive telemedicine medical services must naturally be subject to the deductible. Do you offer any employer-sponsored standalone telemedicine products? Are there any telemedicine products bundled under any 100% employee-paid products (aka voluntary)? These arrangements can prove problematic on several fronts, including HSA eligibility, ERISA and ACA compliance.
Specific to HSA eligibility, charging a small copay for the services makes it hard to argue that this isn’t a significant benefit in the nature of medical care. While a solution is to charge HSA participants the fair market value for standalone telemedicine services, which should allow for continued HSA eligibility, this strategy may still leave the door open for ACA and ERISA compliance challenges. Thus, consider eliminating these arrangements or finding a way to compliantly bundle the programs under your health plan. However, as we discussed in the following case study, doing so can prove difficult or even impossible, even when the telemedicine vendor is your TPA’s “partner vendor.”
Finally, if your firm offers an on-site clinic, you’re likely well aware that non-preventive care within the clinic must generally be subject to the deductible.
5. Depending on the underlying plan design, certain supplemental medical products (e.g., critical illness, hospital indemnity) are considered “other medical coverage.” Thus, depending on the design, enrollment in these products can disqualify HSA eligibility.
Do you offer these types of products? If so, review the underlying plan design: Do the benefits vary by underlying medical procedure? If yes, that’s likely a clue that the products are not true indemnity plans and could be HSA disqualifying. Ask your tax advisor if your offered plans are HSA qualified. Of note, while your insurer might offer an opinion on this status, insurers are naturally not usually willing to stand behind these opinions as tax advice.
6. The healthcare flexible spending account 2 ½-month grace period and $500 rollover provisions — just say no.
If your firm sponsors non-HDHPs (such as an HMO, EPO or PPO), you may be inclined to continue offering enrollees in these plans the opportunity to enroll in healthcare flexible spending accounts. If so, it’s tempting to structure the FSA to feature the special two-and-a-half month grace period or the $500 rollover provision. However, doing so makes it challenging for an individual, for example, enrolled in a PPO and FSA in one plan year to move to the HDHP in the next plan year and become HSA eligible on day one of the new plan year. Check with your benefits consultant and tax adviser on the reasons why.
Short of eliminating the healthcare FSA benefit entirely, consider prospectively amending your FSA plan document to eliminate these provisions. This amendment will, essentially, give current enrollees more than 12 months’ notice of the change. While you’re at it, if you still offer a limited FSA program, consider if this offering still makes sense. For most individuals, the usefulness of a limited FSA ebbed greatly back in 2007. That’s when the IRS, via Congressional action, began allowing individuals to contribute to the HSA statutory maximum, even if the individual’s underlying in-network deductible was less.
7. TRICARE
TRICARE provides civilian health benefits for U.S Armed Forces military personnel, military retirees and their dependents, including some members of the Reserve component. Especially if you employ veterans in large numbers, you should become familiar with TRICARE, as it will pay benefits to enrollees before the HDHP deductible is met, thereby disqualifying the HSA.
8. Beware the incentive.
Employers can receive various incentives, such as wellness or marketplace cost-sharing reductions, which could change the benefits provided and the terms of an HDHP. These types of incentives may allow for the payment of medical care before the minimum deductible is met or lower the amount of that deductible below the statutory minimums, either of which would disqualify the plan.
SOURCE: Pace, Z.; Smith, B. (22 October 2018) "8 ways to maintain HSA eligibility" (Web Blog Post). Retrieved from https://www.employeebenefitadviser.com/opinion/8-ways-to-maintain-hsa-eligibility
4 FAQs about 2019 Medicare rates
Some high-income enrollees of Medicare Part B may experience premium increases of 7.4 percent. According to Medicare managers, Medicare Part B premium increases will be held to about 1.1 percent for most enrollees in 2019. Read on to learn more.
Medicare managers announced last week that they will hold increases in Medicare Part B premiums to about 1.1 percent for most enrollees in 2019. For some high-income enrollees, however, premiums will rise 7.4 percent.
Medicare Part B is the component of the traditional Medicare program that covers physician services and hospital outpatient care.
Here’s a look at how the monthly Part B premiums will change, by annual income level:
- Individuals earning less than $85,000, and couples earning less than $170,000:$135.50 in 2019, from $134 this year.
- Individuals earnings $160,000 to $500,000, and couples earning $320,000 to $750,000: $433.40 in 2019, from $428.60 this year.
- Individuals earning $500,000 or more, and couples earning $750,000 or more: $460.50 in 2019, from $428.60 this year.
The annual Medicare Part B deductible will increase by 1.1 percent, to $185.
Another component of the traditional Medicare program, Medicare Part A, covers inpatient hospital bills.
Medicare managers use payroll taxes to cover most of the cost of running the Medicare Part A program. Few Medicare Part A enrollees pay premiums for that coverage. But, for the enrollees who do have to pay premiums for Medicare Part A coverage, the full premium will increase 3.6 percent, to $437 per month.
The Medicare Part A deductible for inpatient hospital care will increase 1.8 percent, to $1,340.
Why are high earners paying so much more for Medicare Part B?
Congress has been increasing the share of Medicare costs that high earners pay in recent years.
For 2018, the top annual income category for Medicare Part B rate-setting purposes was for $160,000 and over for individuals, and for $320,000 and over for couples. Premiums from those Medicare Part B enrollees are supposed to cover 80 percent of their Part B claims.
In the Balanced Budget Act of 2018, Congress added a new annual income category: for individuals earning $500,000 or more and couples earning $750,000 or more. Premiums from Part B enrollees in that income category are supposed to cover 85 percent of those enrollees’ Part B claims.
Who do these rate increases actually affect?
Medicare now has about 60 million enrollees of all kinds, according to the CMS Medicare Enrollment Dashboard.
About 21 million are in Medicare Advantage plans and other plans with separate premium-setting processes.
About 38 million are in the traditional Medicare Part A, the Medicare Part B program, or both the Medicare Part A and the Medicare Part B programs. CMS refers to the traditional Medicare Part A-Medicare Part B program as Original Medicare. The rate increases have a direct effect on the Original Medicare enrollees’ costs.
How do the Medicare increases compare with the Social Security cost-of-living adjustment (COLA)?
The Social Security Administration recently announced that the 2019 Social Security COLA will be 2.8 percent.
That means the size of the COLA will be greater than the increase in Medicare premiums for all Medicare enrollees other than the highest-income Medicare Part B enrollees and the enrollees who pay the full cost of the Medicare Part A premiums.
Why should financial professionals care about Original Medicare premiums?
For consumers who already have traditional Medicare coverage, the Part A and Part B premiums may affect how much they have to spend on other insurance products and related products, such as Medicare supplement insurance coverage.
For retirement income planning clients, Medicare costs are something to factor into income needs calculations.
Because access to Medicare coverage is critical to all but the very wealthiest retirees, knowledge about how to get and keep eligibility for Medicare coverage on the most favorable possible terms is of keen interest to many consumers ages 50 and older. Some consumers may like to get information about that topic from their insurance agents, financial planners and other advisors.
Resources
Officials at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the agency that runs Medicare, are preparing to publish the official 2019 Medicare rate notices in the Federal Register on Wednesday. A preview copy of the Part A notice is available here, and a preview copy of the Part B notice is available here.
SOURCE: Bell, A. (16 October 2018) "4 FAQs about 2019 Medicare rates" (Web Blog Post). Retrieved from https://www.benefitspro.com/2018/10/16/medicare-posts-2019-rates-pinches-high-earners-412/
Culture is key to attracting younger talent, but you can make it mutually beneficial
According to an article in Harvard Business Review, six in ten millennials are ready to change jobs at any moment, creating a great opportunity for recruitment. Read this blog post to learn how organizations can attract younger talent.
Millennials with jobs are more likely to be looking for a new job than any other generation in the workplace, according to a Harvard Business Review article by Brandon Rigoni and Amy Adkins. They report that six in ten millennials are ready to jump ship at any given time.
This is a challenge for keeping workers, but it’s also a golden opportunity for recruitment. For the most part, these are bright workers who are deconstructing the great American job search.
Firms can seize this opportunity by honing their HR brand to appeal to younger generations and balancing this with assessments that assure a good match with most new hires.
Compensation is still important, but millennials are looking for jobs that are in sync with their values and can help define who they are. Getting hired has become a matter of personal identity.
As an employer, you are being evaluated more than the candidates. How will your firm make the cut? And if you do, will you hire the right people?
Major corporations have overhauled their approach in the scramble for talent.
- General Mills began using virtual reality headsets to allow candidates to see themselves working inside General Mills, including using the company’s gym.
- Two Volvo engineers recently built a Baja racer for collegiate competitions to attract young engineers to the legacy truck builder.
- General Electric’s humorous “What’s the Matter with Owen” television campaign said bupkis about GE products. Instead, Owen touted the company’s geek chic HR brand as a bespectacled new employee being effusive about his job of programming life-changing technology to help people.
- McDonald’s eschews traditional media to engage 16 to 24-year-old candidates via Snapchat, offering “Snaplications” and video clips of young McDonald’s employees talking about their jobs.
Not everyone can serve up cold brew coffee in a corporate cafeteria. Still, there are practical steps most firms can take to enhance their HR brand for millennial and Gen Z values.
Does your organization operate with a high degree of transparency? Is it socially responsible? Do employees have paid leave for volunteer work? Are young team members valued and encouraged to contribute to relevant and visible projects and products?
Are there ways to present your products and services to be more relevant and important to society? For example, a textile manufacturer might not actually make exciting products anyone can buy, but its fabrics are used in the space program or to save lives in emergency rooms. Maybe a law firm has a pro bono clinic for low-income families.
Yes. HR needs to make your employer brand attractive to these talented but fickle job seekers, but this doesn’t mean that everyone who’s attracted to your organizational hipness is going to be cool for your company.
There are two tools to make sure both parties get what they want. The first is assessments.
Talent acquisition assessments greatly improve your odds of hiring an individual who is well matched to your company’s needs. The best are scientifically valid and EEOC compliant, focusing on the candidate’s motivation and likely work traits as compared to the job description. You’ll save a lot of money in not having to re-hire for a position.
The second tool is the “Shared Success Model,” which is a process hiring managers can establish that aligns individual development plans with organizational strategies to identify where overlap exists and where there may be gaps.
It has five components:
- Individual needs—What is important to the candidate, both professionally and personally? What aligns with their values and interests?
- Individual offer—What value does the organization bring to the candidate?
- Company needs—What does your organization require for success now and in the future? What do you need from your leaders and employees?
- Company offer—What is your corporate value proposition to the candidate? What opportunities do you provide? What culture do you provide?
- Plan—Analyze the gaps and overlap between each quadrant. Develop and implement a plan that balances your grid for shared success.
As younger candidates seek more of a cultural match, the Shared Success Model is a good way to make sure the culture you promise is a culture that supports your mission and business model.
SOURCE: Warrick, D. (8 October 2018) "Culture is key to attracting younger talent, but you can make it mutually beneficial" (Web Blog Post). Retrieved from https://www.benefitspro.com/2018/10/08/culture-is-key-to-attracting-younger-talent-but-yo/
5 ways employers can leverage tech during open enrollment
Are you leveraging technology advancements during open enrollment? Advances in technology are creating a more seamless and interactive healthcare experience for employees. Read on for five ways employers can leverage technology during 2019 open enrollment.
Technology continues to reshape how employers select and offer healthcare benefits to employees, putting access to information at our fingertips and creating a more seamless and interactive healthcare experience. At the same time, these advances may help employees become savvier users of healthcare, helping simplify and personalize their journey toward health and, in the process, help curb costs for employers.
The revolution can be important to remember during open enrollment, which occurs during the fall when millions of Americans select or switch their health benefits for 2019. With that in mind, here are five tips employers should be aware of during open enrollment and year-round.