Plan Now to Celebrate National Employee Benefits Day on April 2nd
Originally posted on https://www.ifebp.org/
According to the Employee Benefits Research Institute, almost nine in ten people don’t think they’ll have enough saved when they get to retirement. Study after study provides data pointing to the same conclusion: A crisis is coming. Are your plan participants prepared for it?
This year, the focus of National Employee Benefits Day is to increase awareness of the retirement crisis, and to help plan sponsors motivate participants to actively engage in their financial wellness.
To help make financial wellness more urgent for your participants, we have created a number of resources that will help cut through the clutter and provide simple tools to get them thinking about their future.
Get started with these helpful handouts that explain key terms for: Retirement Plans [PDF],Investments [PDF] and Credit [PDF].
Look Beyond Health Care Financing to Workforce Health
Originally posted February 26, 2014 by Thomas Parry on https://ebn.benefitnews.com
Employer focus on employee health care will expand in 2014 beyond financing health coverage to managing employee health. We expect to see employers focusing more strategically on workforce heath — in particular, how to build business impacts such as lost work time and performance into their overall assessment of best practices — and how to connect investments in health back to business goals.
However employers’ decisions have been determined by the Affordable Care Act, the reasons to continue investing in employee health and productivity remain, given their impact on employers’ bottom-line costs and top-line job performance. The evidence is clear: poor workforce health has a profound impact on companies, regardless of their industry or size.
Research by our organization, the Integrated Benefits Institute, has investigated financial productivity losses due to worker illnesses including depression, diabetes, low back pain, stress and metabolic conditions. Our findings highlight the necessity for employers to think beyond how health issues impact medical costs. Our research shows:
- Depression costs employers approximately $62,000 annually per 100 employees in lost work time and medical treatments.
- Employees with diabetes are 47% more likely to miss at least one day of work per month than workers with normal fasting blood glucose.
- Low-back pain costs employers $51,400 annually per 100 employees in lost productivity and medical treatments.
- Employees with metabolic syndromeare three times more likely to have a work-disabling event such as a heart attack or stroke.
- Stress at work contributes more to poor job performance than either stress at home or financial worries.
Over the course of the year, I’ll be sharing more of our findings related to these illnesses, and the benefits to organizations with a strong commitment to employee health and performance. Our research reveals that employees in organizations with a strong health culture report that they spend more time working, work more carefully and concentrate better than employees at organizations with poor cultures of health.
Workers with better work environments — such as favorable workloads, work-life balance, good relations with managers and fewer demands on their time — also report fewer sick days than those in less healthy workplaces.
Employers can take several steps to acting more strategically about investing in employee health:
1. Assess where you are. Use key metrics to know where your organization currently is and what you have achieved to date regarding employee health. Work with your benefits supplier partners to obtain data and determine your company’s performance relative to organizations, especially organizations within your industry.
2. Use comparisons to identify the greatest opportunities to improve employee health. Since organizations have limited resources, start by focusing on the biggest problems — and the biggest opportunities — facing your company.
3. Measure outcomes. Determine beforehand how you will track results — and track them beyond health care costs alone. Simply saying a program is successful isn’t enough to convince the CFO of the business case for health improvement — results must be measured quantitatively. Senior management is more responsive to requests for investment when HR professionals are able to demonstrate the value of programs in business-relevant terms with metrics demonstrating changes over time.
Employers will find that their investments in workforce health and performance will be most effective when integrated with a broader strategy that includes an understanding of how their organizations can positively or negatively influence workers’ health.
Study Shows Value of Benefits Begins to Erode for Employees
Originally posted February 27, 2014 on https://ifawebnews.com
While benefits remain a critical part of the overall employee experience, the perceived value of workplace benefits among employees who participate in both health and retirement plans is starting to erode, according to a new report by global insurance consultancy Mercer.
The trend was revealed in the latest edition of the Mercer Workplace Survey, a broadly cited study that measures attitudes and perceptions of benefit plan participants nationwide.
Mercer reports that despite the concern, the firm has identified ways to enhance both benefit delivery and choice, thereby improving employee perception of benefits.
With benefit coverage cost, reach and adequacy seeming to dominate U.S. news headlines, this drop in perceived value should be of major concern to employers, legislators, regulators and other concerned parties, Mercer suggests. The firm reports that a closer examination of the findings shows that the decreased value perception is being driven by concerns about rising out-of-pocket health costs. And, perhaps of most concern, workers under 50 years of age who say their benefits are “definitely worth it” in terms of what they pay out of pocket has dropped precipitously in just two years from 45% to 30%.
Even with these concerns, participants overall see benefits as critically important. In fact, 93% agree with the statement “my health benefits are as important as my salary,” while 86% disagree with the statement “my benefits don’t matter much to me.”
“Year after year, we find our survey respondents ranking benefits as one of the most important components of their employment value proposition,” said Kerry Donoghue, partner, health and benefits business leader for Mercer’s benefits administration business. “We feel strongly, however, that there are some areas of concern that plan sponsors must take into account as they evaluate and design their benefit plans, particularly as it relates to discontent about rising out-of-pocket expenses and an overall level of relative dissatisfaction among younger employees.”
“Out-of-pocket expenses for employees are likely to continue to rise,” said Beth Umland, director of research for Mercer’s Health and Benefits business. “We’re seeing more cost-shifting and rapid growth in high-deductible consumer-directed health plans as employers are asked to cover more employees under health reform. So it’s critical for sponsors to explicitly communicate the value of the overall benefits program they provide and consider offering educational resources and tools to help participants better manage their health care spending. Giving employees more choice can also help build perceived value.”
Mercer encourages plan sponsors to address the erosion in perceived benefits by designing and implementing benefit plans that are more relevant and customizable to the individual participant. A full array of plan options, such as consumer-directed health plans and private exchanges, can give plan sponsors and their participants potential savings and greater flexibility that more closely aligns with their personal situation and lifestyles.
Is PPACA a Threat to Employer-Sponsored Plans?
Originally posted February 27, 2014 by Linda Bergthold on https://www.healthinsurance.org
If you are among the 60 percent of Americans who have health insurance coverage through your workplace, you may be worried about how the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare) is affecting your coverage.
There are so many rumors circulating about the impact of the new law on private companies that it is not surprising you may be concerned. First, there was a threat that employers would drop their full-time employees to part-time to avoid penalties in the law. Then we heard that they might drop your coverage altogether or raise your premiums because of the law. A few weeks ago, the Obama Administration delayed the implementation of the law forsome employers even longer.
Should any of this keep you awake at night?
To address some of these concerns, I asked Larry Levitt, the Senior Vice President for Special Initiatives at the Kaiser Family Foundation, to respond to some questions about employer-sponsored coverage. Larry has been working in health policy for over 25 years and was a Senior Health Policy Advisor in the Clinton Administration.
Are employers dropping health benefits?
Linda Bergthold: Despite all the dire warnings about medium- or large-size employers dropping their health insurance benefits or making significant changes, does it look like the Affordable Care Act is having that impact? Other than pure political pressure, why did the Administration delay the mandate for employers between 51 and 100 employees to provide insurance?
Larry Levitt: I always believed that the fear of larger employers dropping health benefits now or in the near future was highly exaggerated. The vast majority (93 percent) of firms with 50 or more employees already offer health coverage to their workers. They do so voluntarily to attract a quality workforce. That’s not likely to change anytime soon.
Over time, a small number of firms may drop health benefits. This is consistent with what the Congressional Budget Office has projected, showing a modest decline in employer coverage over time. Those that do drop benefits are likely to be smaller businesses not subject to the requirement to offer coverage or pay a penalty, and lower-wage firms where the tax exemption for employer-provided health benefits is lower and the availability of premium tax credits in exchanges under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) provide greater subsidies for their workers.
Ultimately, employers will likely make economic judgments about whether to offer benefits or not, balancing a variety of factors such as:
- The value of the tax exemption for employer-provided insurance, which is greater for higher-wage employees whose desires are likely to carry the most weight.
- The penalty for not offering coverage for medium and large firms.
- Perceptions about the attractiveness of insurance in exchanges vs. employer coverage.
One consequence of the problematic rollout of the exchanges is that employers are likely to be even more cautious about making changes in their offering of health benefits until they see how the new marketplace works over time.
For a variety of reasons, regulations for the employer requirement were issued very late, and there were some complicated details to work out around employer reporting. That led to a delay in the coverage requirement for one year, and a subsequent phase-in of the requirement for another year. This provides for a gradual transition in much the same way that the law phased-in the individual mandate.
Are they changing hourly requirements?
Linda Bergthold: There has also been a lot of hype about employers reducing employees to part-time status to avoid requirements of the ACA. Are you aware of any data that shows employers changing hourly requirements? If you are an employee working 35 hours a week, what can you expect?
Larry Levitt: The aggregate data show no systematic shift to part-time work, and the recent CBO report on the labor effects of the ACA said there is no compelling evidence that such a shift is occurring.
That should not be surprising. The employer requirement was delayed, so there has been no economic incentive to reduce worker hours. And, reducing hours is not always so easy. The work still needs to get done, so it could mean more disruption and greater costs associated with hiring and training.
That said, there have been anecdotal reports of some employers reducing work hours of some part-time workers in anticipation of the requirement to offer coverage to those working an average of 30 or more hours per week. That will no doubt continue to occur, though it’s unlikely to add up to many people in aggregate terms.
It’s also important to put all this in context. Employers that offer coverage have always had hour thresholds that determine eligibility for health benefits. All the ACA did was make those thresholds uniform. Any time you require such uniformity, there will be some amount of movement and change on the margin.
Shifting from a 30-hour threshold to 40 hours would largely undermine the employer requirement to offer coverage. It would be a relatively simple matter for employers to reduce work hours for employees not offered coverage to just below that 40-hour threshold with minimal disruption to their businesses. It’s certainly a reasonable debate as to whether employers should be required to offer coverage or pay a penalty, but such a significant change would have economic consequences, significantly reducing revenue to the federal government and raising costs.
Are mandated benefits driving up costs?
Linda Bergthold: Most employer-sponsored health benefit packages are quite comprehensive and already include almost all of the essential benefits required by the ACA. The exception might be rehabilitation and MH/SA (Mental Health/Substance Abuse) benefits that are not always included in every benefit plan. Is there any evidence that requiring essential benefits has driven up employer benefit costs?
Larry Levitt: With a few minor exceptions, such has habilitationand mental health parity in some cases, the essential benefits in the ACA are very similar to what employers already provide. In fact, states had a variety of options for setting benchmarks for the essential benefits, and in the vast majority of cases chose one of the largest existing small-business plans in the state, so the package is based in large part on what most employers were already providing.
There is some confusion, though, about what benefit rules apply to employers. Medium and large employers do not have to offer the essential benefits (although many already do, per above). Small-business insurance does have to include the essential benefits, but again, the effect is likely to be modest. And, small businesses that self-insure, which may be a growing trend — are not subject to the benefit requirements.
The private exchange trend
Linda Bergthold: Large-employee benefit firms like Mercer, Aon Hewitt and Towers Watson are all offering “private exchanges” to their large-employer clients. These exchanges give employees or retirees more choice of carriers and plans and ultimately propose to lower costs. How do you view the “private” exchange trend? Do you see a two-track exchange landscape – one for individuals and low -income citizens and the other for middle and upper class people with job-based benefits? What would the impact on the public exchanges be in that case?
Larry Levitt: These new private exchange share a name with the ACA but are really quite different. For example, there are nopremium subsidies for low- and middle-income enrollees in private exchanges.
These efforts are more part of a long-running discussion about the potential for employers to move towards a defined contribution approach for health insurance, much the way they did for pensionsthrough the shift to 401(k) plans. This may – with an emphasis on “may” – finally be happening for a variety of reasons. Maybe it’s the semantic similarity to the ACA exchanges. Maybe it’s a response to the long-term trend of health insurance costs rising faster than inflation and wages (even though we are at this moment in a period of historically low increases in premiums). Or, maybe it’s in anticipation of the so-called Cadillac plan tax, which will impose a40 percent tax on high-cost plans beginning in 2018 and will provide a strong incentive to reduce the cost and growth of employer-sponsored health benefits.
Private exchanges, like ACA exchanges, provide individual employees with a choice of health plans, though they also facilitate employers turning their contributions towards coverage into what is in effect a voucher, shifting the risk of rising costs to employees.
I don’t think private exchanges represent a two-track landscape any more than the reality that most people of working age will still get their insurance through employers, while some will be covered through Medicaid or ACA exchanges. And, the ACA will significantly equalize coverage across the population, so what kind of insurance people have access to will vary much less than it did historically.
The future of employer-based benefits
Linda Bergthold: What do you see as the future of our employer-based benefit approach? Will the economics of health reform ultimately force employers to drop this benefit and send employees to the public exchanges, which may turn out to provideless costly coverage?
Larry Levitt: There’s nothing inherently advantageous to our employer-based health insurance system, which is mostly an accident of history. Proposals from the right and the left have both advocated moving away from it.
However, employer-based coverage does do a remarkable job of pooling risk and facilitating people to sign up for coverage. And, any significant dropping of coverage by employers – which I don’t think is likely – would increase government expenditures for premium subsidies.
While the ACA does not require a shift away from employer-sponsored insurance, it does provide some of the same benefits as breaking the tie between employment and health insurance coverage. People who lose their jobs will no longer lose their insurance in most cases, with expanded Medicaid coverage, guaranteed access to private insurance, and premium subsidies in exchanges.
This will largely eliminate the problem of “job lock” where people stay in a job simply because they fear losing their insurance. (Note that some people are still left out, in particular many poor adults in states that choose not to expand Medicaid.)
So, while there is some uncertainty around the future of employer-based health insurance under the ACA, there is now a safety net that didn’t exist before, if the availability of employer coverage declines.
In 2020, Workers Will Decide Health Benefits
Originally posted by Bill Toland February 09, 2014 on https://insurancenewsnet.com
By the end of the decade, the majority of American workers will be selecting their health benefits from an online menu of plans and paying for those benefits with a stipend from their employer, according to experts in the field.
If and when that day comes, it would mark a major shift for the nation's health care apparatus and a reversal of the method by which health insurance has been furnished to American workers for decades -- through a defined-benefits plan selected by an employer.
In 2020, private health "exchanges" will be the predominant way that health care benefits are delivered in this country, said Eric Grossman, a senior partner at Mercer and the exchange business leader in his company's benefits division.Mercer, based in New York with an office in Pittsburgh, is a global human resources, benefits and financial services consultant.
Mr. Grossman, like many other experts in the field, likens the transition in health insurance to the ongoing transition in retirement planning -- where once the "defined-benefit" pension was commonplace, now many companies offer "defined contributions" which employees can steer to a 401(k) or an investment mix of their choice.
That transition took two decades, but now, for anyone under the age of 35, employer-subsidized retirement -- where it still exists, that is -- generally means a defined contribution.
"Our prediction in health care is that a similar transition will happen, [but] it will happen more quickly," Mr. Grossman said.
Private health insurance exchanges -- some of which already exist -- work like this: Instead of an employer negotiating a standard benefits plan or two for its employees, companies instead make a defined cash contribution to employee accounts. Employees then use the cash to select from a menu of a half-dozen or so health plans, with varying price levels of coverage.
Exchanges are set up and managed by health insurers (such as Highmark), benefits consultants (such as Mercer), traditional benefits brokers and online brokers. Plans included in exchanges can be a mix of plans from regional and national insurers, depending on who is the sponsor. A Highmark exchange would offer only its own plans, for example, while a Mercer exchange would offer plans from several companies.
Businesses have dozens of plans to choose from within the exchange "universe" -- health as well as dental, vision and others -- but that list is whittled down to a handful before the plans are finally offered to employee groups.
These are called private, or closed, exchanges because the policies are available only to company employees -- not to the population at large, as is the case with the national and state-based marketplaces that came online Oct. 1 as part of the Affordable Care Act.
Right now, said Bill Brown, Highmark's manager of digital distribution, national marketplace penetration for private exchanges is about 3 percent and adoption rate among Highmark's client base is about the same. Large companies with more than 250 employees have been particularly cautious.
Highmark began offering large employers access to its "MyBenefits" exchanges Jan. 1.
"There's a lot of interest," Mr. Brown said. "But they're not ready to jump."
That's partly because, despite the 401(k) analogy, there's not much immediate cost savings in a health exchange, particularly for large groups. When big employers moved away from pensions and toward defined contributions, the point was to reduce immediate retirement costs and unload a major financial liability going forward. Today, less than 30 percent of Fortune 100 companies offer a defined-benefit retirement plan to new salaried employees.
But with health exchanges, big, self-insured employers that now pay all of their own medical claims will continue to do so. The impetus to move to an exchange, at least among larger employers, won't come from claims savings but rather the opportunity to offer a wider array of health plans to employees and to offload some of the benefits administration now handled by human resources departments.
The real savings will come for fully-insured small-and-mid-sized groups, Mr. Brown said.
They'll be able to offer far more variety to employees, and the entire process will happen online. "It really streamlines administration," he said.
If they "move onto [the] exchange, they get five medical options, four dental, four vision" plans, he said. Employees can choose the plan that is best for them and their family.
While the pension analogy is the one most commonly used to describe the shift, Mr. Brown said a comparison to the world of retail shopping might be more appropriate. Where once customers went to a store and were able to select from whatever the store had in stock, now they can go to Amazon.comand buy anything.
A decade or so ago, people might have been skeptical of the online shopping process, but not anymore -- at least, not in retail.
Mr. Brown believes that will be proven true in health insurance: 14 years ago, Highmark test-launched an online ("paperless," the press release described it) defined-contribution platform called BlueChoice. "It kind of fizzled out. Nobody was ready at that time."
But they soon will be. Part of it is just the ubiquity of the Internet. Part of it is getting used to health care as a retail market. And part of it, said Mr. Grossman of Mercer, is getting people to separate work from health insurance. If people don't buy auto or mortgage insurance through their employers, why do they get health insurance that way?
"The mindset for decades was, for most people, 'My employer provides it,' " Mr. Grossman said, and employers have done so, and continue to do so, for competitive reasons. Employer-sponsored health insurance became the norm in the U.S. following World War II, driven by recruiting needs and labor unions.
That era is ending, and Mercer is of the opinion that the "employee is in the best position to decide the best plan," Mr. Grossman said.
Mr. Brown predicted that in the next 18 months, up to 40 percent of small employers will be offering benefits through some kind of exchange and up to a quarter of midsized companies will do the same.
"The one thing I'm waiting for is someone really big to make a move [to exchanges] -- Walmart, McDonald's," Mr. Brown said. "That's the tipping point. And the entire market is going to start to switch."
Five predictions for 2014: revolutionizing employee engagement
Originally posted January 29, 2014 by Keith Kitani on https://ebn.benefitnews.com
In 2013, the crucial parts of health care reform became a reality after months of debate and discussion, employers across the country revamped plans while consumers attempted to make sense of the complex and confusing new landscape. As we begin the New Year, educating employees about new benefit programs through innovative, digital communication will be absolutely crucial. Here are five predictions for what 2014 will bring:
Education will trump uncertainty – Health care reform created a massive opportunity for companies to re-think how they communicate about health plans. This will be the year for organizations to step up their communications to ease the uncertainty many felt in 2013.
The shift to digital – Smartphones and tablets are the new M.O. for consuming information. Employers will make the shift to communicate important content in digital formats available to employees anytime, anywhere.
The customized economy – Greater customization will emerge for engaging a company’s workforce and for influencing company culture. Companies will communicate with employees in the company's unique voice and style, and provide consistent and digestible messaging regardless of employee location or job function.
Employee engagement will be measured – With communications going digital, companies will have more concrete ways to measure employee sentiment, by tracking actual behavior. This new awareness will drive new initiatives to address and further improve employee engagement.
Wellness programs will become more prevalent – With more focus on high deductible health plans, due to HCR, wellness programs will become more mainstream to promote positive health, as well as to help companies attract and retain talent.
2014 will be the year when employers start to embrace more innovative ways to communicate with employees. Those employers who focus on employee education, leverage digital channels, and customize their communications appropriately will not only enjoy higher employee engagement but also a greater awareness of the level of that engagement. We see, time and time again, that engaged employees are more productive employees. Those companies who get employee engagement right will see it in their bottom line.
Kaiser Health Tracking Poll for January 2014
Originally posted January 30, 2014 on https://kff.org
January 1st may have been a monumental date for those working on and closely following the Affordable Care Act (ACA), but the latest Kaiser Health Tracking Poll finds little change in the public’s knowledge and views of the law. With enrollment in new coverage options underway, a majority of the public believes that only “some” of the ACA’s provisions have been put into place, while just about one in five think “most” or “all” of the law has been implemented. Awareness of the law’s individual mandate and health insurance exchanges has increased slightly since last year, but about four in ten of the public overall and half the uninsured remain unaware of other major provisions. For the third month in a row, overall views of the law remain at their post-rollout more negative levels (50 percent unfavorable, 34 percent favorable), though over half the public – including three in ten of those who view the law unfavorably – say opponents should work on improving the law rather than keeping up efforts to repeal it.
Among the uninsured – a key group for outreach under the law – unfavorable views now outnumber favorable views by roughly a 2-to-1 margin (47 percent versus 24 percent). This is a change from last month when 43 percent of the uninsured had an unfavorable view and 36 percent were favorable. More of those without coverage say the law has made the uninsured as a group worse off (39 percent) than better off (26 percent). Despite these views, large shares of the uninsured see health insurance as “very important” and say they need it, while four in ten say they’ve tried to get coverage in the past 6 months, and half expect to get it this year.
January 1st Didn’t Register With The Public
The latest Kaiser Health Tracking Poll finds that even after most of the ACA’s major provisions took effect on January 1, a large majority of the public (62 percent) continues to believe that only “some” provisions of the ACA have been put into place thus far. Only about one in five (19 percent) say “most” or “all” provisions have been implemented, up somewhat from 9 percent last March.
When it comes to the individual elements of the law, awareness has increased slightly for two of the big ones: the individual mandate (81 percent now say it is part of the law, up from 74 percent last March) and the health insurance exchanges (68 percent, up from 58 percent). Still, large shares of the public – and even higher shares of the uninsured – remain unaware of some other major provisions of the law. For example, roughly four in ten adults overall, and about half of the uninsured, are not aware that the law provides financial help to low- and moderate-income Americans to help them purchase coverage, gives states the options of expanding their Medicaid programs, and prohibits insurance companies from denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions.
| FIGURE 2: Many Uninsured Remain Unaware Of Some Major ACA Provisions | ||||
| Total public | Uninsured, age<65 | |||
| To the best of your knowledge, would you say the health reform law does or does not…? | Yes, law does this | No/Don’t know | Yes, law does this | No/Don’t know |
| Require nearly all Americans to have health insurance or else pay a fine | 81 | 19 | 79 | 22 |
| Create health insurance exchanges or marketplaces where people who don’t get coverage through their employers can shop for insurance and compare prices and benefits | 68 | 31 | 62 | 38 |
| Provide financial help to low and moderate income Americans who don’t get insurance through their jobs to help them purchase coverage | 63 | 38 | 54 | 46 |
| Give states the option of expanding their existing Medicaid program to cover more low-income, uninsured adults | 58 | 42 | 49 | 51 |
| Prohibit insurance companies from denying coverage because of a person’s medical history | 54 | 46 | 48 | 53 |
On a more personal level, 44 percent of the public overall – including 66 percent of the uninsured –continue to say they don’t have enough information to understand how the law will impact their families.
Overall Views Remain Negative, But Public Wants Opponents To Work On Fixes Rather Than Repeal
Views of the law overall remain more negative than positive this month, with 50 percent saying they have an unfavorable view and 34 percent favorable, almost identical to the split in opinion since November. Still, more than half the public overall, including three in ten of those who view the law unfavorably, say opponents should accept that it’s the law of the land and work to improve it, while fewer than four in ten want opponents to keep up the repeal fight.
Most Continue To Say They Haven’t Felt An Impact From The ACA, But More Feel They’ve Been Affected Negatively Than Positively
At the same time, most Americans continue to report no personal experience with the law to date. Roughly six in ten say they haven’t been directly impacted by the law in a positive or negative way, though the share who perceive that they’ve been negatively impacted continues to be larger than the share who feel they’ve benefited (27 percent versus 15 percent). Those who feel they’ve been negatively impacted by the law are most likely to point to high costs of health care and insurance as the reason. With official data showing that only a very small share of the public overall have enrolled in the ACA’s coverage arrangements so far, these shares likely reflect people’s perceptions of being helped or harmed by the law, rather than actual experiences with new insurance options under the ACA.
Among The Uninsured, Unfavorable Views Outnumber Favorable By 2-to-1, And More Believe They’re Worse Off Under The Law Than Better
Among the uninsured – a key group targeted by the ACA – views of the law shifted negative this month. A quarter (24 percent) of those who currently lack coverage now say they have a favorable view of the law, while nearly twice as many (47 percent) have an unfavorable view and about three in ten (28 percent) decline to offer an opinion. In December, views among the uninsured were more evenly split (36 percent favorable, 43 percent unfavorable).
More than half of the uninsured (54 percent) say the law hasn’t made much difference for their families, and the share who feel they’re worse off as a result of the law is more than twice the share who feel they’re better off (30 percent versus 13 percent). When asked about the uninsured as a group, those without coverage are more likely to say the law has left this group worse off than better (39 percent versus 26 percent). We will continue to track these perceptions as more of the uninsured gain coverage.
Most Uninsured Say They Need Coverage; Four In Ten Have Tried To Get It In The Last 6 Months; Half Expect To Get It This Year
The survey also finds that most of the uninsured see health insurance coverage as very important (70 percent) and something they need (73 percent). Among those who currently lack coverage, four in ten say they have tried to get it in the past 6 months, including about one in five each who tried to get coverage from Medicaid (19 percent), directly from a private insurance company (19 percent), and through a state or federal health insurance exchange (18 percent).1
When told or reminded of the law’s requirement that most Americans obtain insurance or pay a fine, half the uninsured say they expect to get coverage, including about one in five (18 percent) who expect to purchase it themselves (either from a private insurance company or through an exchange), 8 percent who expect to get it from Medicaid, and 6 percent who expect to get coverage from an employer. A sizable share (17 percent of the uninsured overall) say they expect to get coverage but are unsure where.
Four in ten of those without coverage say they expect to remain uninsured, with most of these saying they don’t think they’ll be able to find an affordable plan. As noted above, many of the uninsured remain unaware of the additional options available to them under the ACA, including the insurance exchanges, subsidies, and expanded Medicaid in some states.
A Quarter Of The Public Overall Report A Change In Their Insurance Situation In The Past 6 months, Including One In Ten Who Attribute It To The ACA
As we pointed out in this Data Note [hyperlink], national public opinion polls aren’t the best vehicle for measuring the experiences of the small group of people who’ve actually gained coverage through the ACA so far. One thing we can do on the Kaiser Health Tracking Poll is to measure people’s perceptions about changes in their insurance situation and what role they think the law has played in those changes. This month’s poll finds a quarter (24 percent) of the public reports that they’ve had a change in their health insurance situation in the past 6 months, and four in ten of these (10 percent of the public overall) believe this change was a result of the health care law.
Among the 10 percent who perceive that their insurance status has changed as a result of the ACA, twice as many believe it was a change for the worse rather than for the better. However, about half this group currently has coverage through an employer, and most report that the change in their coverage was a change from one plan to another, suggesting that many of them may be attributing regular changes in insurance coverage to the law.
| FIGURE 11: Perceptions And Demographics Of Those Who Believe They Had A Change In Insurance Status As A Result Of The ACA | |
| Among the 10% who had a change in insurance status and believe it was a result of the ACA | |
| Would you say the change in your health insurance situation was a change for the better or a change for the worse? | |
| Better | 29% |
| Worse | 61 |
| No difference/Don’t know/Refused | 10 |
| Which best describes the change in your health insurance situation? | |
| Changed plans | 45 |
| Lost or dropped coverage | 14 |
| Got health insurance after being uninsured | 15 |
| Costs went up (vol.) | 12 |
| Some other change | 10 |
| Current health insurance status/type | |
| Insured (NET) | 92 |
| Employer | 50 |
| Self-purchase | 19 |
| Medicare | 6 |
| Medicaid | 13 |
| Other coverage | 3 |
| Uninsured | 6 |
| Don’t know/Refused | 2 |
More Report Seeing News Stories About Negative Rather Than Positive Impacts On People
This month’s poll also examined views of the media environment surrounding the ACA, and finds the majority say coverage of the law is focused more on politics and controversies (56 percent) rather than on how the law might impact people (6 percent), shares that have held steady since last fall. When it comes to personal stories in the news, about half the public (47 percent) reports hearing at least one story in the last month about an individual or family who was impacted by the law, with about twice as many saying they saw more stories about people being harmed (27 percent) as saying they saw more stories about people being helped (13 percent).
1. Multiple responses were allowed, since people may have tried to get coverage from more than one source in the past 6 months
3 takeaways for employee benefits industry from Obama’s State of the Union address
Originally posted January 29, 2014 by Julie Stich on https://ebn.benefitnews.com
Following President Obama’s fifth State of the Union address, the International Foundation of Employee Benefit Plans closely examined the key takeaways that will affect the employee benefits industry.
No. 1: The Affordable Care Act is here to stay and opponents will face a difficult, if not impossible, task to repeal it legislatively. However, the door is still open to make changes and improvements to the existing law.
No. 2: The ACA still needs many more “young invincibles” to sign up in order to keep costs low for others.
No. 3: Apprenticeship and other job training programs are going to be a major focus for the administration in 2014. Led by Vice President Biden, these efforts will work to mobilize business leaders, community colleges, mayors and governors, and labor leaders to increase funding and the number of innovative apprenticeships in America.
Without a doubt, the Affordable Care Act has had the most significant impact on the employee benefits industry in decades and even though the president’s address maintained a light focus on the issue, it will continue to affect our industry and raise questions with the public and employers for the foreseeable future. In addition, the president’s announcement of a major initiative to support apprenticeship and other job training programs has the opportunity to provide our industry with many benefits and needed resources.
Top 3 voluntary products poised for takeoff in 2014
Originally posted January 06, 2014 by Caitlin Bronson on https://www.ibamag.com
As small businesses and individuals consider their healthcare strategies within the context of the Affordable Care Act, several industry research bodies suggest voluntary benefits and services will emerge as a boom market for producer sales in the next five years.
According to the Towers Watson 2013 Voluntary Benefits and Services Survey, the importance of voluntary products in a company’s rewards strategy will grow 27% in that timeframe, while nearly 90% of producers surveyed by Eastbridge Consulting Group said they expect sales of voluntary benefit plans to increase.
While the most common voluntary products like vision, dental and disability will continue to see stable sales, however, Towers Watson said the following three are the ones to watch in 2014.
If you’re not already offering these plans, now may be the time to make a concentrated push for clients looking to expand their rewards strategy in a cost-effective way.
Critical Illness
Small businesses with fewer than 50 employees are not required to offer employee medical coverage under the Affordable Care Act, but many are looking to provide some sort of benefit plan to attract and retain quality workers.
As such, Towers Watson expects affordable medical benefits like critical illness or accident insurance to increase in sales in the upcoming two years. In a survey of small business employers, Towers Watson found 8% plan to introduce a critical illness plan in 2014 and another 13% are considering such a plan in 2015.
Accident plans are already popular, but another 9% of survey respondents said they are considering adding one by 2015.
This tallies with the experience of Tye Elliott, vice president for core broker sales with Aflac.
“Critical illness and accident plans have been thought of as secondary, but that’s not the case anymore,” Elliot said. “Small businesses want to invest in their employees, but they want to do it practically. At a very small out-of-pocket cost, [critical illness benefits] are amazing in terms of the loyalty that builds among your clients.”
Financial Counseling
Nearly 20% of small businesses told Towers Watson they were considering adding financial counseling benefits within the next two years, particularly during this fall’s 2014 enrollment season.
Towers Watson expects employers will want to increase workers’ retirement and personal finance knowledge as the burden of financial planning falls increasingly to individuals, who pay as little as $5 to $20 a month for such benefits.
Financial counseling can even be paid solely by employees through payroll deferral, meaning no cost for employers and increased ease and peace of mind for workers.
Identity Theft Protection
With widely publicized cyber breaches like the ones that afflicted Target and Snapchat this holiday season, identity theft protection is going to be a hot item in 2014.
In fact, a recent poll from LifeLock indicated nearly 60% of producers have fielded requests from commercial clients on identity protection benefits.
Like other voluntary packages, identity theft protection is available at a generally low cost to employers. Average coverage ranges from $7 to $20 a month, with most policies offering coverage of up to $1mn.
Greg Meyer of N.C.-based Worksite Benefit Advisors said the real market for producers is in small- to medium-sized businesses, as larger employers are often targeted directly by vendors. An effective pitch from an educated agent could do wonders.
“Brokers really need to show employers the impact that ID theft plays on lost productivity caused by ID theft of an employee,” Meyer said. “If you have an employee whose identity is stolen on the road, this not only impacts that company’s corporate credit card account, it impacts productivity because the road warrior will be off the road coping with the stress and drama that goes along with trying to recover and recoup his or her credit.”
According to Towers Watson, 20% of small businesses are considering adopting identity theft protection policies by 2015.
Most workers happy with their benefits, salaries
Originally posted December 20, 2013 by Amanda McGrory-Dixon on https://ebn.benefitnews.com
When it comes to their health benefits, most employees say they’re happy with their current offerings and lack interest in altering their balance of benefits and wages, according to a new survey by the Employee Benefit Research Institute.
Specifically, 12% of respondents say they are extremely satisfied with their plans, 39% of respondents say they are very satisfied, and 37% of respondents say they are somewhat satisfied. Just 10% responded in a negative fashion. Since the survey was first initiated, the number of respondents who report feeling happy with their benefits has generally been high.
“By far, health insurance, in particular, continues to be the most important employee benefit to workers,” says Paul Fronstin, director of EBRI’s Health Research and Education Program and author of the survey.
The survey also finds that there is uncertainty whether employers will still offer health insurance for employees in the future because of the Affordable Care Act; however, benefits are a key factor in choosing a job.
“While there may be a lot of questions about the future of the American health insurance system, the majority of those who have health coverage like the plan they have,” says Ruth Helman of Greenwald and Associates, co-author of the report.
If changes to tax preferences for employment-based health coverage were implemented, making benefits taxable, 39% of respondents report that they would keep their current amount of coverage. This is nearly at the same level of 40% in 2012, though up from 31% in 2011.
According to the survey, most respondents agree they would like more choices in health plans; however they are not sure that they could choose health insurance, much less the best plan, using an objective rating system, which is included in the exchange system.
Instead, 35% of respondents say they prefer to keep receiving health insurance from their current plans while 45% of respondents report that they would rather choose their insurance and have their employers pay what they are paying now for that coverage. Another 21% say they would prefer their employers give them money to spend on health insurance as they please.