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.”
Undercover investigators score PPACA subsidies
Originally posted July 23, 2014 by Kathryn Mayer on www.benefitspro.com.
Undercover investigators using fake identities were able to get health insurance and tax subsidies through the federal exchange under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, underscoring ongoing problems and security issues plaguing the health care law, officials said Wednesday.
The nonpartisan Government Accountability Office said they created 12 identities with fake citizenship and immigration statuses and phony income documents to test how easy (or difficult) it would be to get coverage and subsidies under the law.
The agency said 11 of the fake applicants were accepted, and the HHS-run exchanges rejected just one applicant because it lacked a Social Security number.
Though HealthCare.gov flagged some attempts as problematic, the fake applicants found more success on phone calls to call centers handling applications.
“For its 11 approved applications, GAO was directed to submit supporting documents, such as proof of income or citizenship; but, GAO found the document submission and review process to be inconsistent among these applications,” the agency said. “As of July 2014, GAO had received notification that portions of the fake documentation sent for two enrollees had been verified.”
Republicans jumped on the latest news, saying it was yet one more flaw in the faulty law.
“Ironically, the GAO has found Obamacare is working really well — for those who don’t exist,” said Senate Finance Committee Ranking Member Orrin Hatch, R-Utah.
The Obama administration said it was taking the report seriously and would work to strengthen the law’s verification process.
The GAO remarked that findings were “preliminary” and they weren’t jumping to any conclusions yet. The agency said it would release a more detailed report in the coming months.
Eight million people signed up for health plans using the exchanges under PPACA.
The GAO report follows PPACA’s latest hurdle: two conflicting court rulings out Tuesday regarding the legality of PPACA subsidies issued to enrollees in the federal exchange.
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.
5 Reasons to Make Friends with Your Competitors
Originally posted July 21, 2014 by Marla Tabaka on www.inc.com.
When I owned my coffeehouse (2001-2004) people frequently asked me if I hated Starbucks. I didn't. After all, Starbucks is responsible for re-introducing the culture of coffee in the United States and for establishing it in countries where the cafe culture never before existed. Starbucks put the romance into the coffee experience. Without those romantic notions consumers wouldn't have given a second look at my drive-thru, or stop by for a fireside chat over a delicious cuppa joe with their friends. Thank you Starbucks!
Still, the truth is that the coffee giant made it impossible for an independent coffee retailer like me to compete, so I didn't. Instead my business became what Starbucks is not. It too became a household name but for reasons far from its convenience and fast service.
Stop viewing your competition as the enemy and instead use it as the catalyst to brilliance. Instead of investing your precious energy into hating or envying your competitors use it to become the very best entrepreneur you can possibly be. Here's how.
Give your customers another reason to choose your brand.
I knew that my delicious, fair trade coffee wasn't enough to bring customers through the door so I gave more dimension to the consumer experience. I added open mic nights, brought in great bands, and did art shows and book signings. I even opened a private conference room to local businesses and organizations.
What can you offer in addition to your products or services? When you stand out from the competition by offering something of value that your competitors don't, you give your customers a better reason to choose your product or service. How can you help your customers go beyond a simple purchase and truly experience your brand?
Keep the price down to remain competitive.
When I purchased my coffeehouse I knew that I would have to bring down the cost of goods. It forced me to move outside of my comfort zone and negotiate with vendors. In many cases I found new suppliers, and I never stopped negotiating.
Don't get complacent about costs. Just because your suppliers have served you for years doesn't mean they can't do better. Also keep an eye out for new materials, parts, or products that will create a cost savings.
Innovate, innovate, innovate.
What sells today may not sell tomorrow. I've had too many entrepreneurs come to me for coaching because their once successful business became a cash drain.
Watch what your competition is doing to stay ahead and learn from their wins, as well as their failures. Don't get complacent! Don't get so caught up in the day-to-day operations that you neglect coming up with the next great idea. That's the mistake these entrepreneurs made and, sadly, it's often too late to breathe life back into the brand.
Upgrade your skills.
When you allocate all available cash and human energy to your business it's virtually impossible to invest in training and education for yourself. Keeping abreast of the latest technology and trends, and constantly honing your leadership skills will help you gain and maintain the competitive advantage.
Make a list of your weaknesses and make a plan to build upon the skills you need to overcome them. If you cannot acquire those skills yourself, then outsource or hire someone who can provide necessary skills to compete effectively.
Embrace new technology.
As technology improves and evolves the marketplace changes, sometimes drastically and often overnight. You must be ready to adapt or change according to industry trends and business in general, or your competition will leave you in their dust.
Social media is a great example. Believe it or not I still hear from people who don't even have a social media presence and don't believe they need one. Last year I worked briefly with a caterer whose business took a nose-dive over a period of two years. We narrowed down the cause to a lack of online presence. Her closest competition added a customer-facing backend to their website and aggressively engaged in social media. But she simply refused to understand why this would make a difference and sadly, made no attempt to catch up with her competitors. Her doors are now closed.
Embrace competition and your whole world can change. This simple shift in your mindset will keep you engaged, aware, and in the lead.
Do or die: Make a plan and stick to it
Originally posted July 11, 2014 by Sandy Schussel on https://www.lifehealthpro.com. 
My friend and colleague, Steve Chandler, author of Wealth Warrior: The Personal Prosperity Revolution, places professionals into two categories: “Doers” and “Feelers.”
Doers come to work having planned out what needs to be done, and no matter how they’re feeling, they do what needs to be done.
What Feelers do, on the other hand, depends on how they feel at any given moment. They take their emotional temperatures throughout the day, checking in on themselves and figuring out what they feel like doing. Their financial securities, outcomes and lives are dictated by the fluctuation of their feelings. Their feelings will change constantly, of course, so it’s hard for Feelers to follow anything through to a successful conclusion, no matter how passionate they may be.
As Chandler puts it, “The success of Feelers depends on everything that can change their feelings… biorhythms, gastric upset, too strong a cup of coffee, an annoying call from home, a rude waitress at lunch, a cold, or constipation. Those are the dictating forces—the commanders—of a Feeler’s life and of his or her success.”
A Doer, however, has a plan and a system for her success, and she works the plan no matter how she feels. She knows in advance how much time she will spend on the phone and in the field, what new clients she will cultivate and which existing relationships she will strengthen. Regardless of her mood, she looks at any project lacking completion and asks, “What do I need to do?”
A Feeler may have a plan, too, but will only follow it on “sunny” days—when things are going well and she’s in the right mood. She will tell herself she just can’t make those calls right now because she wouldn’t be very effective unless she was feeling good about making them.
As Chandler explains, each of us has a Doer and a Feeler within us. While many of us vacillate between the two types, some may be predisposed to being either a Doer or a Feeler, and over time, some may even unconsciously commit to one type or the other.
If you recognize yourself as a Feeler and you’re not having the success you want, consciously commit to becoming a Doer instead. Set a goal, create a plan to reach it and have a daily system that you follow—no matter which way the wind is blowing.
Sandy Schussel is a speaker, business trainer and coach who helps sales teams develop systems to win clients. He is the author of The High Diving Board and Become a Client Magnet. For more information, go to www.sandyschussel.com.
Benefit package critical for small businesses
Originally posted July 11, 2014 by Alan Goforth on https://www.benefitspro.com.
Small businesses are taking a cautious approach to hiring, compensation and employee benefits, according to the 2014 Aflac WorkForces Report for Small Businesses. The study of businesses with three to 99 employees also found that benefits are a key component to employee hiring, retention and satisfaction.
Although 63 percent of small-business employees are extremely or very satisfied with their job, many believe there is room for improvement when it comes to their benefits packages. Only 12 percent are extremely satisfied with their benefits, while only 14 percent believe their benefits package meets their current family needs extremely well.
These numbers are vital to employers, because 50 percent of small-company employees said they are likely to seek a new job in the next year. Of that number, 57 percent said they probably would accept a job with slightly lower pay but better benefits. On the other side of the coin, 47 percent said improving their benefits packages is one thing their employers could do to keep them in their job.
"Employees at a small business might be satisfied with their pay, enjoy their company environment, their colleagues and the work itself, but that doesn't mean better benefits offerings elsewhere won't entice them to leave," said Teresa White, executive vice president and chief operating officer of Aflac Columbus. "These findings should alert small-business decision-makers that robust benefits, including voluntary insurance, are an important way to keep employees engaged, productive and loyal."
The study found that 85 percent of small-business employees consider voluntary benefits to be part of a comprehensive benefits program. Six in 10 workers at small companies see a growing need for voluntary insurance benefits today, driven by:
- Rising medical costs (71 percent);
- Increasing price of medical coverage (63 percent);
- Increasing deductibles and copays (58 percent); and
- Reduced number of benefits and/or amount of coverage by their employers (29 percent).
Small-business leaders are well aware of employee concerns and the importance of benefits. Although 84 percent said they either maintained or grew sales and revenues in 2013, they are concerned about taking care of employees and continuing their benefits options. This may be one reason why they hired at a slower pace than medium or large companies last year.