3 HSA Facts Employers Need to Know
Take a look at this informative article from Benefits Pro about what changes to HSAs means for employers by Whitney Richard Johnson.
Health Savings Accounts offer employers a way to help employees with health care costs without being as involved as they might be with, say, a Flexible Saving Account. But what are some other advantages?
And what are employers' responsibilities? Although employers will want to research more indepth about HSAs, here is a quick look at some basic HSA questions and answers:
#1: What are the advantages to an employer of offering an HDHP and HSA combination?
The benefits of offering employees an HDHP and HSA vary dramatically depending upon the circumstances. A major strength of offering an HSA program is flexibility.
Employers can be very generous and fully fund an HSA and also pay for the HDHP coverage. Alternatively, employers can also use the flexibility of the HSA to allow for the employer to reduce its involvement in benefits and put more responsibility onto the employee.
Generally, employers switch to HDHPs and HSAs to save money on the health insurance premiums (or to reduce the rate of increase) and to embrace the concept of consumer driven healthcare. The list below elaborates on strengths of HDHPs and HSAs.
Lower Premiums. HDHPs, with their high deductibles, are usually less expensive than traditional insurance.
Consumer-driven health care. Many employers believe in the concept of consumer-driven healthcare. If an employer makes employees responsible for the relatively high deductible, the employees may be more careful and inquisitive into their health care purchases. Combining this with an HSA where employees can keep unused money increases employees’ desire to use health care dollars as if they were their own money – because it is their own money.
Lower administration burden. Given the individual account nature of HSAs, much of the administrative burden for HSAs is switched from the employer (or paid third-party administrator) to the employee and the HSA custodian as compared to health FSAs and HRAs. This increased burden on the employee comes with significant perks: more control over how and when the money is spent, increased privacy, and better ability to add money to the HSA outside of the employer.
Tax deductibility at employee level. The ability of employees to make their own HSA contributions directly and still get a tax deduction is advantageous. Although it is better for employees to contribute through an employer, an employee can make contributions directly. An employer may not offer pretax payroll deferral or it may be too late for an employee to defer. For example, an employee that decides to maximize his prior year HSA contribution in April as he is filing his taxes can still do so by making an HSA contribution directly with the HSA custodian.
HSA eligibility. Becoming eligible for an HSA is a benefit that also stands on its own. Although not all employees will embrace HSAs, savvy employees that understand the benefits of HSAs will value a program that enables them to have an HSA.
#2: What are the employer responsibilities regarding employee HSAs?
If an employer offers pretax employer contributions, then the employer has the following responsibilities:
Make comparable contributions. If the employer is making a pretax employer contribution (nonpayroll deferral), it must do so on a comparable basis.
Maintain Section 125 plan for payroll deferral. If the employer allows pretax payroll deferral, then the employer must adopt and maintain a Section 125 plan that provides for HSA deferrals. This includes collecting employee deferral elections, sending the deferred amount directly to the HSA custodian, and accounting for the money for tax-reporting purposes.
HSA eligibility and contribution limits. Employers should work with employees to determine eligibility for an HSA and the employee’s HSA contribution limit. Although it is legally the employee’s responsibility to determine his or her eligibility and contribution limit, a mistake in these areas generally involves work by both the employer and the employee to correct. Mistakes are best avoided by upfront communication. Also, the employer does have some responsibility not to exceed the known federal limits. An employer may not know if a particular employee is ineligible for an HSA due to other health coverage but an employer is expected to know the current HSA limits for the year and not exceed those limits.
Tax reporting. The employer needs to properly complete employees’ W-2 forms and its own tax-filing regarding HSAs (HSA employer contributions are generally deductible as a benefit under IRC Section 106).
Business owner rules. Business owners generally are not treated as employees and employers need to review HSA contributions for business owners for proper tax reporting.
Detailed rules. There are various detailed rules that fall within the responsibility of the employer that are too numerous to list here but include items such as: (1) holding employer contributions for an employee that fails to open an HSA, (2) not being able to “recoup” money mistakenly made to an employee’s HSA, (3) actually making employer HSA contributions into employees HSAs on a timely basis, and (4) other detailed rules.
#3: How do employers switching from traditional insurance to HDHPs explain the change to employees?
Although there is no certain answer to this question, a straight-forward and honest approach to the change will likely work best.
Changing from traditional insurance to a high deductible plan with an HSA can be significant because employees likely face a higher deductible (although traditional health plan deductibles have been increasing to the point they are close to HDHPs).
Often the largest obstacle to the change is that employees feel something is being taken away from them. An employer that can show that the actual dollars contributed by the employer are level, or increased, versus the previous year helps a lot – especially if the employer makes a substantial HSA contribution for employees.
If the employer is making the change to reduce its health care expenses, then the employer will have to explain and justify that change to employees to get employees’ support for the change (e.g., the business is in a tough spot due to a difficult economy, etc.).
Depending on the facts, the change will likely be an improvement for some employees and HSA eligibility provides benefits to all employees. Some specific benefits include the following:
Saving money. The HDHP is generally significantly less expensive. Depending upon the circumstances, this fact often saves not only the employer money but also the employee. Highlighting the savings will help convince employees the change is positive. Although an actual reduction of the employee’s portion of the premium expense may be unlikely given increasing health insurance premiums, explaining that without the change the employee’s portion of the premium would have increased by more will help reduce tension.
Tax savings. The HSA enables tax savings. For some employees these tax savings are significant.
Control. HSAs give individuals control over their money and accordingly their doctor and treatment choices.
Flexibility. An HSA is very flexible and allows for some employees to put aside a large amount and get a large tax benefit. For those that prefer not to do so, the HSA allows that as well. Plus, even better, the HSA allows employees to change their mind mid-year. If an employee believes they are not going to need any medical services, the employee needs to contribute only a minimum deposit to an HSA. If it turns out that the employee does incur some medical treatment, the employee can contribute at that time and still get the tax benefits. Employees are often frustrated by HSA rules because of some confusion, but when explained that the rules are very flexible they appreciate HSAs more.
Distribution reasons. HSAs allow for more distribution reasons than FSAs: namely to pay for health insurance premiums if unemployed and receiving COBRA, to pay for some health insurance premiums after age sixty-five, to use for any purpose penalty-free after age sixty-five, to carry forward a large balance, and more.
See the original article Here.
Source:
Johnson W. (2017 May 11). 3 HSA facts employers need to know [Web blog post]. Retrieved from address https://www.benefitspro.com/2017/05/11/3-hsa-facts-employers-need-to-know?kw=3+HSA+facts+employers+need+to+know&et=editorial&bu=BenefitsPRO&cn=20170514&src=EMC-Email_editorial&pt=Benefits+Weekend+PRO&page_all=1
6 Actions Employers Can Take to Boost Retirement Savings
Preparing your employees for their retirement has become a major responsibility for employers. From education to offering the right program for your employees to start saving, employers now more than ever must be prepared for everything involved with retirement. Take a look at this great article from Benefits Pro on what you can do to prepare yourself and your employees for retirement by Marlene Y. Satter.
Lots of people point to self-indulgent millennials or debt-beleaguered GenXers or negligent boomers as the reason for the retirement crisis and the cause of their own hardships.
But a Morningstar study instead points the finger at employers, and their disinterest in working harder to improve retirement plans so that they elicit the best response from employees.
A blog post from the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College highlights the study and points out that employers could improve retirement outcomes for their workers—if they were sufficiently interested in doing so—based on research already in hand.
Employers who offer 401(k)s to their workers made some progress, mostly, along the path of automatic enrollment, the blog post notes, during the early 2000s, with notable success: “Today,” it says, “nearly 90 percent of automatically enrolled employees stay where they are put, while only about half of workers sign up to save when 401(k) enrollment is strictly voluntary.”
But progress along those lines has ground to a halt, it points out, and because of the huge variations among 401(k) plans there are plenty of cracks in the private system through which employees are all too ready to fall—and employers apparently too ready to let them.
The Morningstar report points out that even when companies do use auto-enrollment, plans aren’t designed well enough to encourage an adequate level of savings—or, in fact, actually discourage it.
The report, titled “Save More Today: Improving Retirement Savings Rates with Carrots, Sticks, and Nudges,” highlights a number of ways in which plan features actually work against employees saving enough to actually retire on—but the flip side of that is that those features can be tweaked so that they work for the employee’s benefit, and turned into those carrots, sticks and nudges.
And it doesn’t even have to be expensive, since many employers are concerned about the outlay for a retirement plan and are often reluctant, at best, to add to it.
Here are 6 ways employers can encourage their employees to save more for retirement—and at limited, or no, additional cost.
6. Auto-enrollment.
If a company’s plan doesn’t have automatic enrollment, it should, since the results are so outstanding.
Lots of people fail to sign up, if “voluntary” enrollment is required, due to procrastination, preoccupation or other human failings—but if it’s an automatic feature, they get swept up and are saving for retirement almost before they know it.
Says the report: “[P]articipation rates are significantly higher in plans with automatic enrollment (compared to voluntary enrollment schemes).” It adds, “[E]arly research by Madrian and Shea (2001) noted a 48-percentage-point increase in 401(k) participation among new employees after the adoption of automatic enrollment.”
That’s a small action to have such a large effect.
5. Automatic reenrollment.
The marked effect of auto-enrollment on participation has a corollary: existing eligible employees aren’t usually included when the feature is added to a plan.
And this is not unusual.
In fact, the study cites two others that find the inclusion of “reenrollment”—adding existing employees to a plan—is “relatively uncommon,” with the studies finding only 15 percent or 12 percent of plans offering that opportunity.
However, adding “reenrollment” when an auto-enrollment feature is added can significantly boost the participation of existing employees.
4. Higher default savings rate.
An aggressive default savings rate will get employees saving more from the very beginning—and although employers say that workers will be reluctant to accept a rate of anywhere from 6–8–10 percent rather than the more common 3 percent, that’s contrary to study findings.
In fact, says the study, “Roughly half of investors tend to accept the initial default savings rate regardless of level, up to 6 percent using empirical data and up to 12 percent based on the online survey.”
And that’s not all: it adds that “Participants who reject the default rate tend to select higher savings rates, on average, as default rates rise,” which means they are saving even more.
This can be particularly important since, the report says, many employers are more concerned with the participation rate than the savings rate—but the savings rate is what will save employees come retirement.
3. Mandatory auto-escalation.
Automatic escalation, the study reports, “is commonly offered in conjunction with automatic enrollment (e.g., 62 percent of plans offering automatic enrollment also offered automatic escalation according to Aon.”
But only a third to a half of plans actually offer it, despite its benefits—and 62 percent of those who do provide it on an opt-in, rather than an opt-out, basis.
That design is poor on two counts: not only does it not “sweep” everyone into an automatic increase in savings, people who have to opt in don’t always keep doing so.
Just 11 percent, the report says, stay in the plan when it is opt-in, compared with 68 percent who do so when it is opt-out.”
And then there’s the issue of whether the auto-escalation rate is set high enough. Since workers will often accept whatever the default is, setting the rate higher rather than lower would push them to save more and better prepare them for retirement.
2. Matching contributions.
Matching contributions are a thorny issue, since driving up the participation rate will require more in contributions.
As a result, employers might not only be reluctant to boost the participation rate too much, they’re not all that anxious to increase their matching contributions either.
But again, a tweak can change employee behavior without a large increase in cost.
One option is to stretch the match out further; for instance, matching 25 percent of the first 8 percent of employee deferrals instead of matching 50 percent of the first 4 percent employee deferrals. Another option is moving to a discretionary match approach.
1. In-plan advice.
Plans that provide employees with advice can also have a marked effect on savings behavior, with higher recommended savings levels from in-plan financial advisors.
In fact, 90 percent of participants who engaged an in-plan advice solution increasing their savings rates—by about 2 percentage points on average.
“Additionally,” the report says, “higher savings recommendations result in higher implemented savings levels (i.e., more is better).”
This is one area in which it’s not clear whether opting in or having to opt out is more effective.
Perhaps it’s that those who are willing to save more seek out guidance on how much to save.
See the original article Here.
Source:
Satter M. (2017 May 15). 6 actions employers can take to boost retirement savings [Web blog post]. Retrieved from address https://www.benefitspro.com/2017/05/15/6-actions-employers-can-take-to-boost-retirement-s?ref=hp-top-stories&page_all=1
Employee Expectations Changing the Workplace
Do you know what benefits your employees are looking for? Take a peek at this great article from Employee Benefits Adviser about how employers are starting to customize their employee benefits programs to fit each individual employee by Nick Otto.
If employers want to retain and attract talent, they’ve got to start thinking about one big benefit trend: Customization.
“It’s not about just medical, dental and vision anymore,” Todd Katz, executive vice president, MetLife said Monday following the release of MetLife’s 15th annual U.S. Employee Benefits Trends Study.
Nearly three-fourths (74%) of employees say that having benefits customized to meet their needs is important when considering taking a new job, and 72% say that having the ability to customize their benefits would increase their loyalty to their current employer.
Workers say benefits customization is even more important than the ability to work remotely. In fact, more than three-fourths (76%) of millennials say benefits customization is important for increasing their loyalty to their employers, compared to two-thirds (67%) of baby boomers.
“Today, our lives reflect our preferences,” Katz says. “We choose how our coffee is made, create personalized playlists and decide which apps we have on our phones. In all aspects of our lives, we can make choices to meet our unique needs. The same should apply when it comes to benefits.”
That’s particularly important for driving engagement and loyalty among millennials, he said, who comprise the largest generation in the workplace today. “Customization for them is inherent, and they want to know that their employers understand and are willing to address their specific needs.”
Not only is benefits customization important for employee satisfaction and retention, but so is helping employees with their holistic wellness — both health and financial — needs.
Nearly two-thirds of employees say that health and wellness benefits are important for increasing loyalty to their employer and 53% say the same about financial planning programs.
Every day, employees come to work with financial concerns, and in larger businesses, employees acknowledge that they sacrifice their health and are less productive. Close to a third of workers (30%) say they lay awake at night worrying about money, and 23% admit to being less productive at work because of financial stress.
“Looking across the work force, when you understand what’s on the minds of employees it’d be wonderful if the set of benefits is matched to address what is a drag on the minds of workers and their worries back at home,” Ida Rademacher, executive director, financial security program at The Aspen Institute, noted at MetLife’s symposium in Washington, D.C. on Monday.
She notes there are four elements to helping workers achieve financial well-being:
Financial security in the present: Employees having control over day-to-day and month-to-month finances
Financial security in the future: The ability to absorb a financial shock
Freedom of choice in the present: Financial freedoms to make choices and enjoy life
Freedom of choice in the future: The ability to be on track to meet financial goals
Despite the need for wellness education, many employers are falling short in their offerings.
Only a third of employers (33%) say they are very likely to offer wellness benefits and just 18% currently offer financial planning programs. At the same time, only 36% of employers say wellness benefits and financial planning programs are valuable to their employees, according to the study.
“Employees are looking to their employers to help them with their overall wellness needs, whether it’s through gym memberships to stay healthy or financial education programs to plan for their futures,” says MetLife’s Katz. “As employees have more non-traditional workplace options available to them, it will become increasingly important that employers prioritize holistic wellness to drive employee engagement and loyalty in this new era.”
This may be why retention is the top priority among employers. When asked to rank their top benefits priorities, more employers (83%) chose retaining employees as an important benefits objective than increasing employee productivity (80%) and controlling health and welfare benefit costs (79%). More so, over half of employers (51%) say that retaining employees through benefits will become even more important in the next three to five years.
“Benefits historically were used for attraction and retention, but there now much more strategically important than they have ever been,” added Randy Stram, senior vice president, group, voluntary & worksite benefits at MetLife. “A diverse employee base, uncertainty regulatory environment and the changing digital landscape are adding to the increase complexity of managing benefits for employers.”
See the original article Here.
Source:
Otto N. (2017 April 19). Employee expectations changing the workplace [Web blog post]. Retrieved from address https://www.employeebenefitadviser.com/news/employee-expectations-changing-the-workplace?feed=00000152-1377-d1cc-a5fa-7fff0c920000
The Effects of Ending the Affordable Care Act’s Cost-Sharing Reduction Payments
Take a look at this interesting article by Kaiser Family Foundation and see how the cost-sharing mandate under the ACA will be affected in the AHCA.
Controversy has emerged recently over federal payments to insurers under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) related to cost-sharing reductions for low-income enrollees in the ACA’s marketplaces.
The ACA requires insurers to offer plans with reduced patient cost-sharing (e.g., deductibles and copays) to marketplace enrollees with incomes 100-250% of the poverty level. The reduced cost-sharing is only available in silver-level plans, and the premiums are the same as standard silver plans.
To compensate for the added cost to insurers of the reduced cost-sharing, the federal governments makes payments directly to insurance companies. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates the cost of these payments at $7 billion in fiscal year 2017, rising to $10 billion in 2018 and $16 billion by 2027.
The U.S. House of Representatives sued the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services under the Obama Administration, challenging the legality of making the cost-sharing reduction (CSR) payments without an explicit appropriation. A district court judge has ruled in favor of the House, but the ruling was appealed by the Secretary and the payments were permitted to continue pending the appeal. The case is currently in abeyance, with status reports required every three months, starting May 22, 2017.
If the CSR payments end – either through a court order or through a unilateral decision by the Trump Administration, assuming the payments are not explicitly authorized in an appropriation by Congress – insurers would face significant revenue shortfalls this year and next.
Many insurers might react to the end of subsidy payments by exiting the ACA marketplaces. If insurers choose to remain in the marketplaces, they would need to raise premiums to offset the loss of the payments.
We have previously estimated that insurers would need to raise silver premiums by about 19% on average to compensate for the loss of CSR payments. Our assumption is that insurers would only increase silver premiums (if allowed to do so by regulators), since those are the only plans where cost-sharing reductions are available. The premium increases would be higher in states that have not expanded Medicaid (and lower in states that have), since there are a large number of marketplace enrollees in those states with incomes 100-138% of poverty who qualify for the largest cost-sharing reductions.
There would be a significant amount of uncertainty for insurers in setting premiums to offset the cost of cost-sharing reductions. For example, they would need to anticipate what share of enrollees in silver plans would be receiving reduced cost-sharing and at what level. Under a worst case scenario – where only people eligible for sharing reductions enrolled in silver plans – the required premium increase would be higher than 19%, and many insurers might request bigger rate hikes.
While the federal government would save money by not making CSR payments, it would face increased costs for tax credits that subsidize premiums for marketplace enrollees with incomes 100-400% of the poverty level.
The ACA’s premium tax credits are based on the premium for a benchmark plan in each area: the second-lowest-cost silver plan in the marketplace. The tax credit is calculated as the difference between the premium for that benchmark plan and a premium cap calculated as a percent of the enrollee’s household income (ranging from 2.04% at 100% of the poverty level to 9.69% at 400% of the poverty in 2017).
Any systematic increase in premiums for silver marketplace plans (including the benchmark plan) would increase the size of premium tax credits. The increased tax credits would completely cover the increased premium for subsidized enrollees covered through the benchmark plan and cushion the effect for enrollees signed up for more expensive silver plans. Enrollees who apply their tax credits to other tiers of plans (i.e., bronze, gold, and platinum) would also receive increased premium tax credits even though they do not qualify for reduced cost-sharing and the underlying premiums in their plans might not increase at all.
We estimate that the increased cost to the federal government of higher premium tax credits would actually be 23% more than the savings from eliminating cost-sharing reduction payments. For fiscal year 2018, that would result in a net increase in federal costs of $2.3 billion. Extrapolating to the 10-year budget window (2018-2027) using CBO’s projection of CSR payments, the federal government would end up spending $31 billion more if the payments end.
This assumes that insurers would be willing to stay in the market if CSR payments are eliminated.
Methods
We previously estimated that the increase in silver premiums necessary to offset the elimination of CSR payments would be 19%.
To estimate the average increase in premium tax credits per enrollee, we applied that premium increase to the average premium for the second-lowest-cost silver plan in 2017. The Department of Health and Human Services reports that the average monthly premium for the lowest-cost silver plan in 2017 is $433. Our analysis of premium data shows that the second-lowest-cost silver plan has a premium 4% higher than average than the lowest-cost silver plan.
We applied our estimate of the average premium tax credit increase to the estimated total number of people receiving tax credits in 2017. This is based on the 10.1 million people who selected a plan during open enrollment and qualified for a tax credit, reduced by about 17% to reflect the difference between reported plan selections in 2016 and effectuated enrollment in June of 2016.
We believe the resulting 23% increase in federal costs is an underestimate. To the extent some people not receiving cost-sharing reductions migrate out of silver plans, the required premium increase to offset the loss of CSR payments would be higher. Selective exits by insurers (e.g., among those offering lower cost plans) could also drive benchmark premiums higher. In addition, higher silver premiums would somewhat increase the number of people receiving tax credits because currently some younger/higher-income people with incomes under 400% of the poverty level receive a tax credit of zero because their premium cap is lower than the premium for the second-lowest-cost silver plan. We have not accounted for any of these factors.
Our analysis produces results similar to recent estimates for California by Covered California and a January 2016 analysis from the Urban Institute.
See the original article Here.
Source:
Levitt L., Cox C., Claxton G., (2017 April 25). The effects of ending the affordable care act's cost-sharing reduction payments[Web blog post]. Retrieved from address https://www.kff.org/health-reform/issue-brief/the-effects-of-ending-the-affordable-care-acts-cost-sharing-reduction-payments/
Why Technology is Key to Financial Wellness Success
Are you trying to help your employees become successful and financial stable? Here is a great article from Employee Benefits News on how employers are figuring out that technology is key to helping their employees achieve success in their financial well-being by Kathryn Mayer.
Financial literacy is an increasingly desirable benefit for employees. But many employers don’t offer budgeting assistance, and a majority of workers are reluctant to let their company get involved in their financial business.
Dean Harris realized that in order to make financial wellness appealing to both employers and employees, he had to design technology that delivered flexible, multi-layered and comprehensive financial education in a way that’s enjoyable for the user — and ensures privacy. The chief technology officer of iGrad — a technology-driven financial wellness education company — created and maintains the iGrad and Enrich platforms, which deliver choices to make financial wellness the backbone of any benefit program. The product aims to offer financial wellness benefits with minimal cost and time to the employer.
“Financial literacy empowers workers to take control of something they feel is out of their control,” says Harris, a 2017 recipient of an EBN Benefits Technology Innovator Award. “By offering more information and knowledge, they are better equipped to make the right financial choices that promise to have far-reaching positive effects.”
By applying data analysis on the behavior of the user both within the platform and with regard to his approach to money, the platforms offer responsive content and recommendations. As the user’s skills and knowledge increase, the algorithm adjusts accordingly to provide newer and more relevant content leading to increased engagement and learning possibilities.
Technology is vital in achieving financial goals, Harris says, in part because it provides employees the privacy they desire.
“Financial literacy is a delicate subject. Most people are not comfortable discussing their finances —especially not with their employer,” Harris explains. “The online financial literacy platform offers the personalized and self-guided learning that will help them without exposing their personal financial information to their employer.”
Furthermore, topics addressed through the platform provide “interest, engagement and learning” for employees, Harris says. And employers “gain the benefit of a newly focused and re-energized workforce without having to drill down into areas that are too personal.”
“Ultimately, technology has made it possible for everyone to gain access to the help they need while maintaining privacy and discretion,” Harris says.
See the original article Here.
Source:
Mayer K. (2017 May 9). Why technology is key to financial wellness success [Web blog post]. Retrieved from address https://www.benefitnews.com/news/why-technology-is-key-to-financial-wellness-success
Employees Want Money More than Perks
Have you been trying to leverage your employee benefits as a way to attract and retain talent? Take a look at this great article from Benefits Pro about how employees still value money over the perks of employee benefits Marlene Y. Satter.
There’s plenty of talk these days about all sorts of employee benefits that might help to attract and retain top talent — but when push comes to shove, it’s the dollar sign that has the most influence.
That’s according to a Paychex.com survey, which finds that in the employment conversation, money still talks the loudest. It’s not that people don’t want or like other benefits, such as health insurance, vacations and 401(k)s, but what they really want, what they really, really want is cold hard cash in the form of bonuses and raises. Regular bonuses, they say, are the most important job incentive.
However, asked about the benefits they do receive, survey respondents list a range of benefits, including health care, dental insurance, 401(k)s, casual dress days and free snacks, but bonuses only come in at eighth place. Least important to them of all are “nomadic days” — days on which they can work away from the office at the location of their choice.
Asked their salaries and which benefits they’d gladly give up in exchange for more money, there are quite a few — with low-cost benefits the most disposable. Millennials, perhaps unsurprisingly, make the least money at less than $47,000 a year, while boomers come in second (despite their longevity on the job) at just over $49,000 annually; GenXers are the best paid, at an average of more than $53,000.
And they all know the value of a buck. The top five most expendable benefits named are free coffee or snacks; casual dress days; company events or outings; discounts on company products; and discounts on other products. In fact, such “benefits” may actually backfire if companies think offering them instead of merit-based compensation or bonuses to induce greater productivity.
There’s certainly a disconnect between what employees say they value most and what employers believe are the most valuable options, with employees saying the most important to them are monetary bonuses, additional paid vacation time, and health and dental insurance.
Bosses, on the other hand, think employee morale benefits more from paid vacations, bonuses and finally paid maternity leave and vision and dental insurance.
To show how out of touch employers can be, employers rate health care just above lunch breaks in terms of morale-boosting importance, despite its value to employees.
Considering that low-wage jobs are associated with higher rates of employee turnover, the study points out that providing employees with a salary increase could cut the costs associated with recruitment and training.
Of course, smaller companies tend to offer fewer, and less expansive, benefits than larger companies, with employers of fewer than 100 more likely to offer employees casual dress days or free snacks than they are to provide them with the considerably more important benefit of health insurance. But on the flip side, smaller companies are also more likely to offer bonuses than are larger companies, and indeed employees rank those bonuses above health care, dental insurance, and 401(k) plans in importance.
And the benefits on offer could depend on the age of the boss, with millennials more willing to offer employees commission and sales bonuses, paid gym memberships and student loan reimbursement while Gen Xers hit on all cylinders in offering bonuses, paid maternity leave and on-site health and wellness services.
Boomers, alas, seem stuck in the dark ages when it comes to modern benefit offerings, reluctant to see the benefit of such perks as bonuses, nomadic days and paid maternity leave; in addition, they’re really resistant to such things as student loan reimbursement and paid professional development.
See the original article Here.
Source:
Satter M. (2017 April 28). Employees want money more than perks [Web blog post]. Retrieved from address https://www.benefitspro.com/2017/04/28/employees-want-money-more-than-perks?ref=hp-news&page_all=1
An Employer’s Guide to Navigating the ACA’s Strong Headwinds
Check out this great article from United Benefit Advisors (UBA) by Michael Weiskirch on how employers should continue to monitor the healthcare debate between the ACA and the AHCA.
One might describe the series of events leading to the death of the American Health Care Act (Congress’s bill to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act) as something like a ballistic missile exploding at launch. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) repeal debate began nearly a decade ago with former President Barack Obama’s first day in office and reemerged as a serious topic during the 2016 presidential election. Even following the retraction of the House bill, repeal of the ACA remains a possibility as the politicians consider alternatives to the recent bill. The possibility of pending legislation has caused some clients to question the need to complete their obligation for ACA reporting on a timely basis this year. The legislative process has produced a great deal of uncertainty which is one thing employers do not like, especially during the busy year end.
While the “repeal and replace” activity is continuing, it is imperative that employers and their brokers put their noses to the grindstone to fulfill all required reporting requirements. To accomplish this, employers will need brokers that can effectively guide them through this tumultuous season. We recommend that employers ask their brokers about their strategies for
- Implementing the employer shared responsibility reporting
- Sending all necessary forms to the employer’s employees
- Submitting the employer’s reporting to the IRS
- Closing out the employer’s 2016 filing season
Employers should also inquire about any additional support that the broker provides. They should provide many of the services that we at Health Cost Manager provide to our clients: They should apprise their clients of the latest legislative updates through regular email communication and informational webinars. Brokers should also bring in experts in the field that have interacted with key stakeholders in Washington. And most important, they should remain available during this uncertain period to answer any questions or concerns from clients.
We know employers would prefer not to have to comply with these reporting obligations – many have directly told us so. We understand this requires additional work on their part to gather information for the reporting and increased compliance responsibility. Knowing how stressful the reporting season can be for employers, brokers should go out of their way to help their clients feel confident that they can steer through the reporting process smoothly. The broker’s role should be to take as much of the burden off the employer’s shoulders as possible to enable them to reach compliance in the most expedient manner possible. Sometimes this involves stepping in to solve data or other technical issues, or answering a compliance-related question that helps the client make important decisions. It’s all part of helping employers navigate through the ACA’s strong headwinds during these uncertain times.
Audit-proof your company with UBA’s latest white paper: Don’t Roll the Dice on Department of Labor Audits. This free resource offers valuable information about how to prepare for an audit, the best way to acclimate staff to the audit process, and the most important elements of complying with requests.
See the original article Here.
Source:
Weiskirch M. (2017 April 13). An employer's guide to navigating the ACA's strong headwinds [Web blog post]. Retrieved from address https://blog.ubabenefits.com/an-employers-guide-to-navigating-the-acas-strong-headwinds
Starting Early is Key to Helping Younger Workers Achieve Financial Success
Starting early is the best way to ensure dreams for life after work are realized, but when TIAA analyzed how Gen Y is saving for retirement, it found 32 percent are not saving any of their annual income for the future.
Knowing the importance of working with young people early in their careers to educate them about the merits of saving for a secure financial future, here are some approaches tailored to Gen Y participants:
- Encourage enrollment, matching and regular small increases – Enrolling in an employer-sponsored retirement plan is a critical first step for Gen Y participants. Contributing even just a small amount can make a big difference, especially since younger workers benefit most from the power of compounding, which allows earnings on savings to be reinvested and generate their own earnings.
Encouraging enrollment also helps younger workers get into the habit of saving consistently, and benefit from any matching funds. Emphasize the benefits of employer matching contributions as they help increase the amount being saved now, which could make a big impact down the line. Lastly, encourage regular increases in saving, which can be fairly painless if timed to an annual raise or bonus.
- Help younger workers understand how much is enough – We believe the primary objective of a retirement plan is offering a secure and steady stream of income, so it’s important to help this generation create a plan for the retirement they imagine. Two key elements are as follows:
- Are they saving enough? TIAA’s 2016 Lifetime Income Survey revealed 41 percent of people who are not yet retired are saving 10 percent or less of their income, even though experts recommend people save between 10 to 15 percent.
- Will they be able to cover their expenses for as long as they live? Young professionals should consider the lifetime income options available in their retirement plan, including annuities, which can provide them with an income floor to cover their essential expenses throughout their lives.
Despite the important role these vehicles can play in a retirement savings strategy, 20 percent of Gen Y respondents are unfamiliar with annuities and their benefits.
- Provide access to financial advice – Providing access to financial advice can help younger plan participants establish their retirement goals and identify the right investments. By setting retirement goals early, and learning about the appropriate investments, Gen Y participants can position themselves for success later on.
The good news is TIAA survey data revealed Gen Y sees the value financial advice can provide, with 80 percent believing in the importance of receiving financial advice before the age of 35.
- Understand the needs of a tech-savvy and digitally connected generation – It’s important to meet this generation where they are—on the phone, in person or online. We’ve learned that this generation expects easy digital access to their financial picture, and we offer smartphone, tablet and smartwatch apps in response.
- Engage Gen Y with digital tools - Choose ones that educate in a style that does not preach and allows them to take action. One way to reach Gen Y on topics such as retirement, investing and savings is through gaming.
We’ve found that the highest repeat users of our Financial IQ game are ages 24-34, and that Gen Y is significantly more engaged with the competition, with 50 percent more clicks.
- Engage Gen Y with digital tools - Choose ones that educate in a style that does not preach and allows them to take action. One way to reach Gen Y on topics such as retirement, investing and savings is through gaming.
Perhaps more than any other generation, Gen Y needs to understand the importance of saving for their goals for the future even if it’s several decades away. Employers play an integral role in kick-starting that process: first, by offering a well-designed retirement plan that empowers young people to take action; and second, by providing them with access to financial education and advice that encourages them to think thoughtfully about their financial goals—up to and through retirement.
See the original article Here.
Source:
McCabe C. (2017 April 14). Starting early is key to helping younger workers achieve financial success[Web blog post]. Retrieved from address https://www.benefitspro.com/2017/04/14/starting-early-is-key-to-helping-younger-workers-g?ref=hp-in-depth&page_all=1
Employers and the ACA – Its Status Quo for Now
With the passing of the AHCA, the ACA is now the norm for employers' healthcare. Find out what employers need to know about ACA and how it will affect them in the future in this interesting article from Think Hr by Laura Kerekes.
The Trump administration’s effort to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act (ACA) through legislation failed last month when House Republicans were unable to push their proposal forward. The proposed bill, called the American Health Care Act, would have eliminated most of the ACA’s taxes and fees on health plans along with removing penalties on large employers that did not offer coverage to their full-time workers. It is unclear whether Congressional leaders will make another attempt to legislate major changes in the ACA this year. Meanwhile, federal agencies under President Trump’s direction may begin to take steps to revise regulations that do not require changes in law.
The situation certainly has caused some confusion among employers, so it is important to note that, as of now, nothing has changed. The ACA’s existing rules for group health plans, required notices, and employer reporting duties remain in effect. Applicable large employers (ALEs), generally entities that employed an average of 50 or more full-time-equivalent employees in the prior year, are still subject to the ACA’s employer mandate or so-called “play or pay” rules.
As a reminder, here is a brief summary of the key ACA provisions that require action by employers:
Notices:
- Employer Exchange Notice: Provide to all employees within 14 days of hire.
- Summary of Benefits and Coverage (SBC): For group medical plan, provide SBC to eligible employees at enrollment and upon request.
Health Plan Fees:
- Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI): For self-funded group health plans, pay small annual fee by July 31 based on prior year’s average participant count.
- Transitional Reinsurance Program (TRP): For self-funded plans that provided minimum value in 2016, annual fee was due by January 15, 2017 (or by January 15 and November 15, 2017 if paying in two installments).
Reporting:
- W-2 Reporting: Report total cost of each employee’s health coverage on Form W-2 (box 12). This is informational only and has no tax consequences. (Employers that filed fewer than 250 Form W-2s for prior year are exempt.)
- Forms 1094 and 1095: ALEs only: Report coverage offer information on all full-time employees. Self-funded employers only (regardless of size): Report enrollment information on all covered persons.
Employer Mandate (“Play or Pay”): ALEs only. To avoid the risk of penalties, determine whether each employee meets the ACA definition of full-time employee and, if so, offer affordable minimum value coverage on a timely basis.
In summary, employers are advised to continue to comply with all ACA requirements based on the current rules.
On a related note, the ACA imposes several requirements on group health plans, whether provided through insurance or self-funded by the employer. Insured plans also are subject to the insurance laws of the state in which the policy is issued. In many cases, provisions matching the ACA are now embedded in state insurance laws. So future changes in the ACA, if any, may not apply to group medical policies automatically. Depending on the state and the type of change, additional legislation at the state level may be needed to enact the change.
See the original article Here.
Source:
Kerekes L. (2017 April 14). Employers and the ACA - it's status quo for now [Web blog post]. Retrieved from address https://www.thinkhr.com/blog/hr/employers-and-the-aca-its-status-quo-for-now/
3 Aspects of the GOP Healthcare Plan that Demand Employers’ Attention
The House of Representatives last week passed the American Health Care Act (AHCA) bill to begin the process of repealing the ACA. Find out what this new legislation means for employers in the great article from Employee Benefits Adviser by Daniel N. Kuperstein.
The extremely emotional journey to repeal (more appropriately, to “change”) the Affordable Care Act reached a significant milestone this week: The Republican-led House of Representatives passed an updated version of the American Health Care Act. While more than 75% of the provisions of the ACA remain intact, the AHCA gutted or delayed several of the ACA’s taxes on employers, insurers and individuals.
So what does this mean for employers?
First off, it’s important to remember that this new bill is not law just yet. The House version of the bill now heads to the Senate, where there’s no guarantee that it will pass in its current form; the margin for victory is much slimmer there. Only three “no” votes by Senate Republicans could defeat the bill, and both moderate and conservative Republican lawmakers in the Senate have expressed concerns about the bill. In other words, employers don’t have to do anything just yet, but it’s still beneficial to understand the major changes that could be coming down the pike.
As employers know from working over the last seven years to implement provisions of the ACA, there will be a million tiny details to work through if the AHCA becomes law.
But for now, we see three major aspects that demand employers’ attention.
There will be more emphasis on health savings accounts
Under the AHCA, health savings accounts will likely become far more popular — and more useful. The HSA contribution limits for employers and individuals are essentially doubled. Additionally, HSAs will be able to reimburse over-the-counter medications and allow spouses to make catch-up contributions to the same HSA. Of course, with this added flexibility comes increased responsibility — there will be a greater need for employees to understand their insurance.
There will be more flexibility in choosing a benchmark plan
For larger employers not in the small group market, the AHCA creates an opportunity to choose a benchmark plan that offers a significantly lower level of benefits to employees.
Currently, the ACA provides that employer-sponsored self-insured health plans, fully-insured large group health plans, and grandfathered health plans are not required to offer EHBs. However, these plans are prohibited from imposing annual and lifetime dollar limits on any EHBs they do offer. For purposes of determining which benefits are EHBs subject to the annual and lifetime dollar limits, the ACA currently permits employers sponsoring these types of plans to define their EHBs using any state benchmark plan. In other words, employers are not bound by the essential health benefits mandated by their state and can pick from another state’s list of required benefits.
Under the AHCA, we may see a big change to how the rules on annual and lifetime limits work. Notably, nothing in the AHCA would prohibit employers from choosing a state benchmark plan from a state that had obtained an AHCA waiver, which would allow the state to put annual and lifetime limits on its EHBs. This means that, if one state decides to waive these EHB requirements, many employers could decide to use that lower-standard plan as their benchmark plan. Of course, while choosing such a benchmark plan may benefit an organization by lowering its costs, such a move may have a negative impact on its ability to recruit and retain the best talent.
There will be a greater need to help employees make smart benefits decisions
The most important aspect of this for employers is to understand the trend in health insurance, which is undeniably moving in the direction of consumerism.
The driving philosophy behind this new Republican plan is to place more responsibility on individuals. However, this doesn’t mean employers can throw a party and simply wish their workers “good luck” — employers need to think at a macro level about what’s good for business. In a tightening labor market in which so many talented people consider themselves free agents, smart employers will focus on helping employees to make smart decisions about their health insurance.
See the original article Here.
Source:
Kuperstein D. (2017 May 5). 3 aspects of the GOP healthcare plan that demand employers attention [Web blog post]. Retrieved from address https://www.employeebenefitadviser.com/opinion/3-aspects-of-the-gop-healthcare-plan-that-demand-employers-attention