Employers Save Big on Wellness Programs
Source: benefitspro.com
Employers betting on wellness programs seem to be making the right call. They’re seeing $1 to $3 decreases in their overall health care costs for every dollar spent, finds a report from the International Foundation of Employee Benefit Plans.
“Without question, employers are beginning to understand the direct connection that wellness initiatives can have on both employee health and health care plan cost savings,” says Michael Wilson, Foundation CEO. “While the primary goal is reducing health costs, we’re also seeing other advantages from wellness initiatives, such as higher employee morale, increased productivity and reduced disability.”
The report also finds that wellness program incentives—such as insurance premium reductions and communications tools like web links and social networks—are used more by organizations that are achieving positive returns on their wellness investment.
Still, only 19 percent of organizations are measuring return on ROI on wellness programs, Wilson says.
IFEBP divided the respondents of the survey into two groups, the ROI group and the non-ROI group based on whether they measured and achieved positive returns.
Insurance premium reductions for participation in wellness programs accounted for the biggest difference between the two groups, with 49 percent of the ROI group providing this incentive as opposed to just 29 percent of the non-ROI group.
Other popular incentives included gift cards and non-cash incentives/prizes/raffles. Those in the ROI group were also more likely than their counterparts to attach incentives to specific types of initiatives such as health screenings (65 percent to 43 percent), health risk assessments (74 percent to 51 percent) and health care coaches/advocates (43 percent to 22 percent).
Participation among members of organizations in the ROI group increased dramatically when incentives are tied to health screenings and health risk assessments, the report shows.
Communication was another factor in achieving positive ROI. And, most organizations (74 percent) experiencing ROI are more likely to have a broader value-based health care strategy that offers initiatives such as health screenings, stress management programs, health risk assessments, and fitness and nutrition programs compared to just 45 percent of the non-ROI group.
“Determining ROI can be of great benefit for employers—leading to increased buy-in from organizational leaders and workers,” says Julie Stich, IFEBP’s director of research.
But she says it’s still not an easy process, as ROI can be “difficult to measure since health improvement may be influenced by a combination of factors and because it can take anywhere from three to five years to see cost-saving results.”
Roughly 650 people from the United States and Canada were surveyed in February.
Helping Employees Deal with Everyday Annoyances
Source: Benefitspro.com
When workplace annoyances hit, it makes the life of employees much harder, and often employees find themselves struggling to complete their work, says Carol Fitzgibbons, an HR expert at BPI Group, a global management and human resources consulting firm in Chicago.
Some of these workplace annoyances include slow decision-making decisions, unproductive processes and an endless stream of inefficient emails. While these annoyances might seem minor to an employer, they can build up overtime and cause employees begin to feel disengaged, Fitzgibbons says.
“The amount of effort an employee puts in and the amount they can actually get done because of these annoyances starts to get out of balance,” Fitzgibbons says. “The annoyances that exist in the organization just become bigger, and it starts to affect the employees’ desire to want to be there and be excited about things happening in the organization.”
Millennials are especially susceptible to workplace annoyances, Fitzgibbons says. In today’s workplace, millennials are looking to make an immediate impact on their organizations, but when these annoyances get in the way, it becomes much more difficult to stay on top of the more meaningful tasks.
“When you have so much coming at you that you can’t think or when it’s just so hard to get tasks done in an organizations, it’s very hard as an individual to feel like you’re having an impact and your work is making a difference,” Fitzgibbons says. “You have so much coming at you that you just can’t prioritize and don’t have time for any of your own personal development.”
Many millennials are also frustrated by workplace annoyances because they are new to the environment, Fitzgibbons says. For millennials, they haven’t been around long enough to understand that there is often a long corporate history of certain policies, processes and procedures, and changing these can be timely and costly.
“Millennials look at the processes and say that it shouldn’t be this hard,” Fitzgibbons says. “It’s hard to understand and appreciate that when you’re newer to the environment.”
However, a manager can take a millennial’s annoyance as a chance to examine the company’s situation with a fresh set of eyes, Fitzgibbons says. While fixing some annoyances might be out of the budget, such as implementing a new, more efficient IT system, a manager can look at ways to improve how various departments work together or what can be done to better the decision-making process.
“Managers need to set up an environment that allows employees to get their work done,” Fitzgibbons says. “They need to make sure that they’re providing employees with the information they need to be able to get their jobs done effectively and have an impact. It might be hard for the new person to come in and influence the processes, but managers can help them figure out how to manage these.”
Obese People Can Be Healthy
BY KATHRYN MAYER
Source: benefitspro.com
Here’s some news to justify having (and not caring about) some extra pounds: Being fat doesn’t necessarily mean you’re unhealthy.
New research finds that people can be obese yet physically healthy, while having no greater risk for heart disease or cancer than people of normal weight.
“It is well known that obesity is linked to a large number of chronic diseases such as cardiovascular problems and cancer. However, there appears to be a sub-set of obese people who seem to be protected from obesity-related metabolic complications,” lead study author Francisco Ortega said in a statement. “They may have greater cardio-respiratory fitness than other obese individuals, but, until now, it was not known the extent to which these metabolically healthy but obese people are at lower risk of diseases or premature death.”
Researchers analyzed data from 43,265 participants in the Aerobics Center Longitudinal Study, which was done between 1979 and 2003.
About 30 percent of the study participants were labeled obese. Of the obese, nearly half were considered “metabolically healthy.” Metabolic health is determined by several factors including high blood pressure, high triglycerides, low HDL cholesterol and high fasting glucose levels.
Researchers found that the metabolically healthy but obese participants had a 38 percent lower risk of dying than their metabolically unhealthy peers. There was also no risk difference between the metabolically healthy obese and the metabolically healthy normal weight participants.
The results were published this week in the European Heart Journal.
"Physicians should take into consideration that not all obese people have the same prognosis,” Ortega said. “Physicians could assess fitness, fatness and metabolic markers to do a better estimation of the risk of cardiovascular disease and cancer of obese patients. Our data support the idea that interventions might be more urgently needed in metabolically unhealthy and unfit obese people, since they are at a higher risk. This research highlights once again the important role of physical fitness as a health marker.”
90-Day Limit on Eligibility Waiting Period
Original article from United Benefit Advisors
Unlike the shared responsibility penalties (which will apply only to larger employers), the 90-day limit on eligibility waiting periods will apply to virtually all employer health plans - regardless of the employer's size and even if a plan remains "grandfathered" under health care reform. All employers should thus familiarize themselves with the guidance in Notice 2012-59.
Citing regulations issued in 2004, the agencies define a "waiting period" as "the period that must pass before coverage for an employee or dependent who is otherwise eligible to enroll under the terms of a group health plan can become effective." (Emphasis added.) Consistent with the italicized language, the agencies note that nothing in health care reform requires a plan to provide coverage to any particular category of employees. (Of course, as noted earlier, a large employer may incur a shared responsibility penalty if the exclusion of a full-time employee results in that employee receiving subsidized coverage through an Exchange.)
Much of Notice 2012-59 is devoted to explaining when the agencies will view an eligibility condition as being designed to avoid compliance with the 90-day waiting period limitation - and therefore a violation of this requirement. For instance, a plan may validly require that an employee be in an eligible job classification - such as hourly, salaried, or working at a specified location - in order to participate. And any period in an ineligible classification need not be counted against the 90-day limit. On the other hand, any eligibility condition that is based solely on the lapse of time may last no longer than 90 days.
So far, this is all clear enough. But the guidance then goes on to address certain harder cases. For instance, what if a plan conditions an employee's eligibility on working "full-time" (under either the 30-hour-per-week standard or otherwise) and an employee is hired on a variable hour or seasonal basis? Here, Notice 2012-59 refers to the "initial measurement period" concept outlined in Notice 2012-58. As explained above, this concept could allow for a period of up to twelve months (plus a brief administrative period) for a plan to determine whether an employee has satisfied this eligibility condition - even though such a period greatly exceeds 90 days.
What about a different type of eligibility condition, such as one offering coverage to part-time employees only after they have completed a total of 1200 hours of service? An example in Notice 2012-59 specifically approves of this approach, even though the employee in that example was therefore required to work nearly a year before entering the plan. Interestingly, however, the Notice appears to set a 1200-hour limit on such an eligibility condition, noting that the agencies would consider a requirement to complete more than 1200 hours to be designed to avoid compliance with the 90-day waiting period limitation.
Finally, Notice 2012-59 connects the 90-day limit on eligibility waiting periods to the shared responsibility penalties discussed in Notice 2012-58. It does so by noting that a large employer may require even a full-time employee to satisfy a waiting period of up to 90 days without thereby running the risk of incurring a shared responsibility penalty. Moreover, during that waiting period, the employee may qualify for subsidized coverage through an Exchange. In this way, the Notice closes an analytical gap in the statutory language.
What to Do Now
Although neither of the requirements discussed in this article will take effect until January 1, 2014, sponsors of employer health plans will want to begin planning for their implementation well before that date. In fact, any employer planning to use the look-back/stability period safe harbor for identifying full-time employees during 2014 must begin counting hours of service during 2013.
Moreover, the agencies have stated that this interim guidance will remain in effect through at least the end of 2014 - with any more restrictive guidance taking effect no earlier than 2015. Accordingly, employers can be certain that these are the rules that will apply during the first year the requirements are effective.
Guidance on "Full-Time" Employees
In guidance issued late last year (Notice 2011-36), the IRS first proposed a "look-back/stability period" safe harbor by which plan sponsors could determine whether ongoing (as opposed to newly hired) employees fall within the "full-time" category for purposes of the shared responsibility penalties. Under this safe harbor, a sponsor may track an employee's hours during a "standard measurement period" of 3 to 12 months. If an employee averages at least 30 hours per week during that period, he or she would be considered full-time during a subsequent "stability period" of at least six months (but no shorter than the measurement period). If an employee averages fewer than 30 hours per week, he or she would not be considered full-time during the subsequent stability period - even if he or she actually works 30 or more hours per week.
Earlier this year (in Notice 2012-17), the IRS proposed a similar - though slightly different - approach for determining whether a new employee meets this full-time threshold. (For this purpose, a "new" employee is defined as one who has not yet completed a standard measurement period.) If a new employee is reasonably expected to work at least 30 hours per week, he or she would be considered full-time as of the date of hire. However, if it cannot reasonably be determined whether a new employee is expected to meet this 30-hour threshold (thereby constituting a "variable hour employee"), the sponsor would be allowed to count the employee's actual hours during his or her first 3 months (or, in limited cases, 6 months) and then apply rules similar to those previously proposed for ongoing employees.
In response to numerous comments, the IRS has now extended to 12 months the maximum measurement period for newly hired employees. As a result, this "initial measurement period" could now be as long as the "standard measurement period" applicable to ongoing employees.
Moreover, Notice 2012-58 would allow plan sponsors to apply this 12-month initial measurement period not only to variable hour employees, but also to seasonal employees. And through at least the end of 2014, sponsors would be allowed to use any reasonable, good-faith definition of a "seasonal employee."
Notice 2012-58 also allows for an "administrative period" between any measurement period and its related stability period. This administrative period is intended to allow a plan sponsor to determine which employees are eligible for coverage, notify those employees of that fact, and then enroll them in the plan. In general, an administrative period may last for up to 90 days.
There are various constraints on this provision, however. For instance, to prevent a lengthy administrative period from creating a gap in coverage for an ongoing employee, any administrative period for an ongoing employee must overlap with the prior stability period. Accordingly, any ongoing employee who was considered full-time during the prior stability period must retain that status throughout the following administrative period.
Moreover, if a plan sponsor chooses to use an initial measurement period of 12 months, the subsequent administrative period must be shorter than 90 days. This is because the total combined length of an initial measurement period plus the subsequent administrative period may not exceed 13 months, plus any portion of a month remaining until the first day of the following month.
As a general rule, Notice 2012-58 requires that a plan use the same measurement period for all employees. Of course, a plan sponsor may - and probably will - use an initial measurement period that differs from the standard measurement period. The initial measurement period will likely run from each employee's date of hire, whereas the standard measurement period will not.
In either event, the Notice would allow for different measurement periods (and associated stability periods) in the following four circumstances:
- Collectively bargained versus non-collectively bargained employees
- Salaried versus hourly employees
- Employees of different entities
- Employees located in different states
Notice 2012-58 also provides guidance on rules to be followed when transitioning an employee from his or her initial measurement period to the plan's standard measurement period. Once an employee has been employed for an entire standard measurement period, he or she must be retested for full-time status using that standard measurement period. If the employee would be considered a full-time employee using that standard measurement period, he or she must be considered full-time during the associated stability period - even if the employee would not be considered full-time during the remainder of his or her initial stability period.
More Guidance on "Full-Time" Employees and 90-Day Waiting Period
Starting in 2014, larger employers (generally, those with 50 or more employees) may face "shared responsibility" penalties if any of their "full-time" employees receive subsidized health coverage through an "Affordable Insurance Exchange." At the same time, virtually all employer health plans will become subject to a 90-day limit on any eligibility waiting period. On August 31, the agencies charged with implementing health care reform issued additional guidance on both of these requirements.
In Notice 2012-58, the IRS outlines several safe-harbor methods for determining whether "variable hour" or seasonal employees fall within the "full-time" category (which is generally defined as working 30 or more hours per week). And in Notice 2012-59, the IRS explains how the maximum 90-day eligibility waiting period is affected by various types of eligibility conditions. (Notice 2012-59 was also issued in virtually identical form by both the Department of Labor - as Technical Release 2012-02 - and the Department of Health and Human Services.)
Unum: Higher Worker Satisfaction Linked to Effective Benefits Education
By Marli D. Riggs
August 20, 2012
Employee morale continues a slow but steady decline from 2008 levels, but the benefits enrollment season, vastly approaching, offers employers the chance to positively engage their employees, according to recent research from Unum.
The fourth annual survey of American workers, completed following the 2011 benefits enrollment period, finds that 28% say morale has declined since last year.
The survey, conducted online by Harris Interactive among more than 1,100 employed adults, also found that just 55% of workers would choose to stay with their employer if they were offered the same pay and benefits elsewhere – a 7-point drop since 2008.
More than 8 in 10 (82%) employees who rated their benefits education highly also rated the employer an excellent or very good place to work. Conversely, only 27% of employees who rated their benefits education as fair or poor also said their employer was an excellent or very good place to work.
“At the heart of the survey’s findings is a clear connection between effective benefits education and engaged employees,” says Nash. “When employers show their concern for their employees’ financial well-being, everyone benefits.”
And some 79% of those who rated their benefits education highly said they would choose to stay with their current employer even if they were offered the same pay and benefits elsewhere.
“In this climate, the need for effective benefits education is greater than ever,” says Barbara Nash, vice president of corporate research at Unum. “Our research shows that a good benefits education experience is a highly effective, low-cost way for employers to demonstrate their concern for employees and their well-being.”
The link between a positive benefit education experience and overall workplace satisfaction isn’t new, yet the research finds that employers continue to spend too little time and fewer resources on helping employees understand their benefits:
• 28% of employees who were asked to review their benefits in the past year said the benefits education provided by their employers is fair or poor.
• Half of those employees said they received printed information or brochures, down from 70% in 2008.
• More than a third of those employees were offered a chance to attend an information and question-and-answer session about benefits, down from 52% in 2008.
• The percentage of respondents who had access to a toll-free number to speak with a benefits adviser dropped sharply from 47% in 2008 to 29% in 2011.
Top 6 Tips for Educating your Benefits Department about 401(k) Plan Fees
BY PAULA AVEN GLADYCH
Source: benefitspro.com
Benefits departments need to come up with a set plan on how to respond to plan participants when they ask about their 401(k) plan’s fees, according to Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP.
According to the business law firm, fee disclosure regulations, which have now gone out to both plan sponsors and 401(k) plan participants, have caused some people to challenge their benefits departments. To meet these challenges, plan fiduciaries need to follow six simple rules for how they respond to participant questions about their fees.
1. They need to educate themselves about the different types of 401(k) plan fees, including investment costs, trustee or custodial expenses, transaction costs such as commissions and administrative and record-keeping fees.
2. The law firm also recommends companies compare their plan against other plans of the same size so they can respond to questions asking why the plan is so expensive.
3. Companies should take this opportunity to review their investment line up for performance relative to the fees they are paying. If the fees are too high, now is the time to go shopping. Keep in mind that some plans pay extra for better service, like access to a financial advisor.
4. Diversification is key. Make sure your menu includes retail, index and institutional class shares to lower investment costs.
5. The law firm also recommends that plan sponsors examine their revenue sharing arrangements with a critical eye. Many don’t realize that expenses paid through revenue sharing are actually being paid by the participants. Make sure you have picked the best investments for them, not the funds that pay the most revenue sharing and therefore limit your plan sponsor responsibility for fees.
6. Also, Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt recommend that companies look into new vendors. Put out a request for proposals to see if better alternatives are available.
Getting the Word Out on the Positives of Employee Benefits
BY PAULA AVEN GLADYCH
Source: benefitspro.com
Employers who want to boost employee satisfaction with their benefits need to evaluate their employees’ current benefits experience and identify ways to improve the process through more effective communications and education.
A new study by The Guardian Life Insurance Company of America shows a strong relationship still exists between an employee’s benefits enrollment experience and their perceived value of the benefits that their employer offers.
According to the study, 70 percent of employees who were able to receive benefits communications in their preferred channels said they were very confident in their benefits selections versus just 57 percent of those who did not. Workers who were able to enroll in their preferred channel were significantly more satisfied with their overall benefits package (70 percent).
Thirty-seven percent of employers say their benefits communications are very effective in helping employees make the right benefits decisions, and only 34 percent of employees say that the benefits communications they receive are very effective.
“Employee benefits are not the easiest to understand to begin with and as healthcare continues to evolve with employees needing to take a greater role in the decision-making process, the right education and communication is critical,” said Elena Wu, vice president, Group Marketing and Learning Services at Guardian.
“As we gear up for the annual open enrollment period, it is important for employers to realize that the benefits selection process must be top-notch, and communicated effectively, in order to ensure the highest employee satisfaction possible.”
Preferences vary by employee, so single-focused communication efforts, such as only communicating benefits-related information via email, is not likely to have as great of an impact as a benefits communication plan that encompasses multiple channels, the study found, especially during the enrollment period.
Almost 20 percent of employees said they would like to receive benefits communications through six or more options.
When exposed to the same message through different mediums, employees said they are more likely to understand their options.
Eighty percent of workers appreciate being able to sign up for benefits online so they can enroll when and where they choose, and 9 in 10 workers say they are quite satisfied with the online enrollment experience.
The study shows that when employees have benefits communications delivered in the channels they prefer, and are able to enroll in the channel they prefer, they are more likely to make more informed enrollment decisions and ultimately feel more satisfied with their benefits.
This employee confidence in benefits choices then reflects well on their employers, leading to greater loyalty. Employees who are more confident and satisfied with their benefits selections have a higher perceived value of their company’s benefits.
These employees go on to have longer tenure with their current employers and are more likely to say that they plan to stay in their current positions, the study found. Although many factors can affect engagement, it is clear that an effort to enhance the employee’s benefits experience overall can play a major role in creating a positive outcome for not just the worker but also their employer.
The data from this study came from two separate Internet surveys conducted concurrently among 1,667 benefits plan participants and 1,071 benefits plan sponsors. Plan participant results were conducted among those age 22 or older who work full time for a company with at least five employees.
The plan sponsor survey was conducted among employee benefits decision makers, including business executives, business owners, human resources professionals, and financial management professionals. The Center for Strategy Research, a Boston-based, independent, market research firm, conducted the interviews from May-June 2012.
Life Insurance Awareness Month: Who Needs Life Insurance?
Source: Lifehappens.org
Life insurance may be one of the most important purchases you’ll ever make. In the event of a tragedy, life insurance proceeds can help pay the bills, continue a family business, finance future needs like your children’s education, protect your spouse’s retirement plans, and much more. This section can help you gain a better understanding of life insurance and its role within a sound financial plan, and answer many of your questions. You’ll find information and interactive tools to help you get a sense of how much and what kind to buy, plus information about how different life events, such as having children or buying a home, can affect your insurance needs. For those ready to consider a purchase, there’s advice for finding and working with an agent, and an agent locator search engine to help you find a qualified insurance professional in your area.
If someone will suffer financially when you die, chances are you need life insurance. Life insurance provides cash to your family after your death. This cash (known as the death benefit) replaces your income and can help your family meet many important financial needs like funeral costs, daily living expenses and college funding. What’s more, there is no federal income tax on life insurance benefits. 
Most Americans need life insurance. To figure out if you need life insurance, you need to think through the worst-case scenario. If you died tomorrow, how would your loved ones fare financially? Would they have the money to pay for your final expenses (e.g., funeral costs, medical bills, taxes, debts, lawyers’ fees, etc.)? Would they be able to meet ongoing living expenses like the rent or mortgage, food, clothing, transportation costs, healthcare, etc? What about long-range financial goals? Without your contribution to the household, would your surviving spouse be able to save enough money to put the kids through college or retire comfortably? The truth is, it’s always a struggle when you lose someone you love. But your emotional struggles don’t need to be compounded by financial difficulties. Life insurance helps make sure that the people you care about will be provided for financially, even if you’re not there to care for them yourself. To help you understand how life insurance might apply to your particular situation, we’ve outlined a number of different scenarios below. So whether you’re young or old, married or single, have children or don’t, take a moment to consider how life insurance might fit into your financial plans.
You’re Married
When you’re married, you share everything with your significant other, including your financial obligations. Many people mistakenly believe that they don’t need to think about life insurance until they have children. Not true. What it one of you were to die tomorrow? Even with the surviving spouse’s income, would that person be able to pay off debts like credit-card balances and car loans, let alone cover the monthly rent and utility bills. If you’re planning to have children, you’ll want to buy life insurance right away and not wait until the mom-to-be is pregnant. Some companies won’t issue a policy to a woman during her pregnancy. Since health complications sometimes arise, they’ll want to wait until after the baby is born to issue the policy. Buying insurance before a baby is on the way helps avoid this potential problem.
You’re Married With Kids
Most families depend on two incomes to make ends meet. If you died suddenly, could your family maintain their standard of living on your spouse’s income alone? Probably not. Life insurance makes sure that your plans for the future don’t die when you do.
You’re a Single Parent
As a single parent, you’re the caregiver, breadwinner, cook, chauffeur, and so much more. Yet nearly four in ten single parents have no life insurance whatsoever, and many with coverage say they need more than they have. With so much responsibility resting on your shoulders, you need to make doubly sure that you have enough life insurance to safeguard your children’s financial future.
You’re a Stay-At-Home Parent
Just because you don’t earn a salary doesn’t mean you don’t make a financial contribution to your family. Childcare, transportation, cleaning, cooking and other household activities are all important tasks, the replacement value of which is often severely underestimated. Surveys have estimated the value of these services at over $40,000 per year. Could your spouse afford to pay someone for these services? With life insurance, your family can afford to make the choice that best preserves their quality of life.
You Have Grown Children
As the years go by, you may feel your need for life insurance has passed. But just because the kids are through college and the mortgage is paid off doesn’t necessarily mean that Social Security and your savings will take care of whatever lies ahead. If you died today, your spouse will still be faced with daily living expenses. What if your spouse outlives you by 10, or even 30 years, which is certainly possible today. Would your financial plan, without life insurance, enable your spouse to maintain the lifestyle you worked so hard to achieve? And would you be able to pass on something to your children or grandchildren?
You’re Retired
Did you know that depending on the size of your estate, your heirs could be hit with a large estate tax payment after you die (45% of your estate). The proceeds of a life insurance policy are payable immediately, allowing heirs to take care of estate taxes, funeral costs, and other debts without having to hastily liquidate other assets, often at a fraction of their true value. And life insurance proceeds are generally income tax free and can be arranged to avoid probate. Finally, if your insurance program is properly structured, the proceeds from your life insurance policy won’t add to your estate tax liability.
You’re a Small Business Owner
Besides taking care of your family, life insurance can also protect your business. What would happen to your business if you, one of your fellow owners, or perhaps a key employee, died tomorrow? Life insurance can help in a number of ways. For instance, a life insurance policy can be structured to fund a “buy-sell” agreement. This would ensure that the remaining business owners have the funds to buy the company interests of a deceased owner at a previously agreed upon price. That way, the owners get the business and the family gets the money. To protect a business in case of the death of a key employee, “key person insurance,” payable to the company, provides the owners with the financial flexibility needed to either hire a replacement or work out an alternative arrangement.
You’re Single
Most single people don’t need life insurance because no one depends on them financially. But there are exceptions. For instance, some single people provide financial support for aging parents or siblings. Others may be carrying significant debt that they wouldn’t want to pass on to family members who survive them. Insurability is another reason to consider life insurance when you’re single. If you’re young, healthy and have a good family health history, your insurability is at its peak and you’ll be rewarded with the best rates on life insurance. If you anticipate a need for life insurance down the road (e.g., you’re the marrying type) and you can fit the premiums into your budget, it might make sense to lock in coverage while you’re young and single. Doing so can eliminate the worry of having to qualify for coverage when you’re older and maybe not as healthy as you once were.