House plans five-hour debate on healthcare repeal, WH warns veto
By Pete Kasperowicz
Source: thehill.com/blogs
The House will hold five hours of debate today and Wednesday on legislation that would completely repeal the 2010 healthcare law, which is being called up by Republicans in light of the Supreme Court's decision that the individual health insurance mandate is constitutional.
The House Rules Committee approved a rule late Monday setting out the lengthy debate on a bill that is expected to pass with Republican support, but very little if any Democratic support. The Repeal of Obamacare Act, H.R. 6079, was formally introduced by House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) on Monday.
Later Monday evening, the White House put out a statement saying President Obama would veto the bill if it were presented for his signature, something that won't happen given Senate opposition.
"The Administration strongly opposes House passage of H.R. 6079 because it would cost millions of hard-working middle class families the security of affordable health coverage and care they deserve," the statement said. "It would increase the deficit and detract from the work the Congress needs to do to focus on the economy and create jobs.
"The last thing the Congress should do is refight old political battles and take a massive step backward by repealing basic protections that provide security for the middle class, it added. "Right now, the Congress needs to work together to focus on the economy and creating jobs. Congress should act on the President's concrete plans to create an economy built to last by reducing the deficit in a balanced way and investing in education, clean energy, innovation, and infrastructure.
"If the President were presented with H.R. 6079, he would veto it."
Under the rule for the House bill, the House Committees on Education and the Workforce, Energy and Commerce, and Ways and Means will each control one hour of debate. House Committees on Budget, Judiciary and Small Business will each control 30 minutes.
Finally, Majority Leader Cantor and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and/or their designees will split the last 30 minutes of debate time.
The House is expected to start work on the bill by debating and approving the rule, which will take an hour early this afternoon. A final vote on passage on the bill itself is expected Wednesday.
IFEBP survey: More than 75% of sectors will provide health coverage in 2014
By Marli D. Riggs
July 2, 2012
Source: https://eba.benefitnews.com
Despite the differing reactions among U.S. business sectors to last week’s Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act Supreme Court ruling, 77% of surveyed organizations are very likely to provide health coverage in 2014, according to a recent survey by the International Foundation of Employee Benefits Plans.Following the Supreme Court’s decision, almost half (49%) of the organizations are shifting their attention to wellness, while 32% are focusing on consumer-driven health plans, 27% will shift costs to employees and 26% will focus on value-based health care, according to The Supreme Court ACA Decision Reaction Survey.
“We’re not surprised by these findings since our recent wellness survey told us that seven in 10 U.S. employers offer wellness programs,” says Paul Hackleman, IFEBP’s health care and public employer analyst.
Overall, the results were split when respondents identified which Supreme Court decision would have been most beneficial to their organization. The data showed that 46% felt the best possible decision for their organization would have been PPACA being thrown out, while 41% said the best decision was the law being upheld. Another 12% of organizations would have liked the individual mandate overturned, but the remainder of the health care law to stay intact.
Most organizations have been keeping current with the legislative aspects of PPACA and some are already prepared for provisions in the future. Of the respondents 78% are extremely or very far along in terms of complying with current PPACA provisions, while 60% are extremely or very far along with preparing for future provisions.
Further, organizations in states that have already implemented health care exchanges are generally more satisfied with the Court’s decision (47% to 35% of respondents in states that haven’t implemented), and are more prepared with current provisions (47% to 36%) and more likely to continue coverage in 2014 (56% to 42%).
The survey was administered on June 28 to measure organizations’ reactions to the landmark decision. Responses were received from 1,122 plan administrators, trustees and organizational representatives.
Businesses won't wait for elections before implementing health law
By Sam Baker
July 9, 2012
Source: thehilll.com/blogs/healthwatch
Most businesses waited for the Supreme Court before making plans to comply with President Obama’s healthcare law — but most aren’t waiting for November to see whether the law might be repealed.
A new survey from the consulting firm Mercer found that most businesses have not begun planning for requirements that will take effect in 2014, including the mandate requiring employers to provide health benefits to most workers.
Businesses said they were holding off on implementation until they knew whether the Supreme Court would strike down the healthcare law — the same approach many Republican governors have taken. But now that the court has upheld the law, only 16 percent of the employers in Mercer’s survey said they plan to wait for November and the prospect of legislative repeal.
Mercer surveyed 4,000 businesses immediately following the high court’s decision.
The National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB), the country’s largest small-business organization, joined 26 state attorneys general in filing the legal challenge to the Affordable Care Act. Republicans consistently argue that the law will burden small employers and stifle new hiring.
But only 28 percent of the employers in Mercer’s survey said the new employer mandate will pose a “significant challenge.” The law requires many businesses to offer healthcare coverage or pay a penalty for all workers who buy coverage on their own, with help from the federal government.
“Employers with large part-time populations, such as retailers and healthcare organizations, are faced with the difficult choice of either increasing the number of employees eligible for coverage or changing their workforce strategy so that employees work fewer hours,” said David Rahill, president of Mercer’s Health and Benefits business.
Health Care Reform Update
The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to publish its decision on the legality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, or PPACA (also called health care reform, HCR and ACA), by the end of June. What they will decide is anyone's guess. Here are the possibilities (in no particular order), and a brief overview of what the decision would mean to employers that sponsor group health plans.
Entire Law is Constitutional
If the Court decides that all parts of the law are constitutional, employers will need to move forward with implementing the changes that the law requires. For 2012 and 2013, these include:
- Providing summaries of benefits coverage with the first open enrollment on or after Sept. 23, 2012
- Reporting the value of medical coverage on the 2012 W-2
- Reducing the maximum health flexible spending account (FSA) contribution to $2,500 (beginning with the 2013 plan year)
- Paying the Patient Centered Outcomes fee (due July 31, 2013)
Note: Details on these requirements are included in recent Employer Compliance Alerts.
Part of the Law is Constitutional and Part is Not
The Court could decide that the requirement that individuals obtain health coverage or pay a penalty (the "individual mandate") exceeds Congress' authority but that other parts of the law are permissible. They could then either specify which parts should stay and which should go, or they could send the case back to a lower court to determine the details. Either way, employer obligations to comply with the law would continue, and the actions needed for 2012 and 2013 would continue to apply.
Entire Law is Unconstitutional
The Court could decide that the entire law is flawed, in which case employers will not need to implement the changes that were to take effect for 2012 and later. There would be some uncertainty (and choices) with respect to the parts of the law that have already been implemented. Keep in mind that if the plan or policy has been amended or written to include the 2010 and 2011 changes, the plan document or policy will need to be revised to remove the changes -- the mere fact that the law is unconstitutional will not void the changes in the plan or policy.
Several carriers -- Aetna, Humana and UnitedHealthcare -- have stated that they will continue to administer their policies to include many of the changes that have already been implemented, even if that is not legally required. Employers that have self-funded plans will need to decide -- and those who have fully insured plans may need to decide -- if they want to roll back changes such as:
- Covering dependent children to age 26 (there will be tax issues with this unless the IRS provides a waiver)
- Elimination of lifetime and annual maximums for most benefits
- Elimination of pre-existing condition limitations for dependents under age 19
- First-dollar coverage for preventive care
- Excluding over-the-counter prescription drugs for health FSA and health savings account (HSA) coverage
The Supreme Court decision is unlikely to end the debate over PPACA, particularly with the fall congressional and presidential elections looming. If the Supreme Court upholds the law, House Republicans have pledged to introduce legislation to repeal it, but they likely do not have the votes in the current Congress to prevail.
Young Americans get Health Insurance, Still have debt
Source: eba.benefitnews.com
By Anna Yukhananov
June 11, 2012
Fri., June, 8, 20120 12:01am EDT WASHINGTON (Reuters) — Health care reform likely enabled about 6.6 million young adults to join their parents' health insurance plans last year, a report found on Friday, though problems with medical bills and debt remained an issue.
President Barack Obama's 2010 health care reform law allowed young adults — who previously had the nation's highest uninsured rate — to stay on their parents' private insurance plans through age 26.
This provision is perhaps the single most popular element of the Affordable Care Act, the nation's most sweeping healthcare legislation in nearly 50 years and Obama's signature domestic policy achievement.
Polls show Americans are sharply divided about the law ahead of a Supreme Court ruling on its constitutionality by the end of June.
The Commonwealth Fund, a nonprofit organization that analyzes healthcare issues, polled 1,863 adults between the ages of 19 to 25 and found 47% of them joined or remained on their parents' plans between November 2010 and November 2011.
This would translate into about 13.7 million young adults in the broader population.
Of those, 6.6 million would likely not have been able to be on their parents' plans before the law's passage, as they were not enrolled in college full time or had already graduated. Most insurance plans already allow full-time college students to stay on their parents' plans.
The results compared to a U.S. government survey that last year found about 21.6 million young adults had private health insurance — either through their parents, their jobs or other means — which was 2.5 million higher than before the law was passed.
But the Commonwealth Fund also found 36% of young adults between the ages of 19 and 29 — a slightly bigger group — had trouble paying medical bills or said they were paying off medical debt. And among those without insurance, this group rose to 51%.
Sara Collins, one of the study's authors and vice president at the Commonwealth Fund, said some young people need maternity coverage, which is often expensive but may not be provided by insurance plans.
Young adults also have the highest rate of injury-related visits to the emergency room - even above children and the elderly — and may have other health conditions such as HIV or the human papillomavirus.
The survey, conducted online, has an average sampling error margin of 3 percentage points.
Bigger Changes May Be in Store for FSAs
A recent IRS clarification regarding contribution limits for some health flexible spending accounts (FSAs) comes at a time when the agency and Congress are seriously rethinking some of the other constraints to the accounts.
In late May, the IRS released a notice that clarified that the $2,500 annual contribution limit to FSAs that was imposed by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) is effective for plans that begin in 2013 -- meaning noncalendar-year plans in 2012-2013 do not have to comply, according to a post on the E is for ERISA website.
That change, however, may do little good for proactive employers with noncalendar-year plans that already made adjustments. The notice does not contain guidance about changing the contribution limit midyear, so it appears that employers that made changes to the contribution limits at the start of the 2012-13 plan year must stick with them, according to ftwilliam.com, a division of Wolters Kluwer.
This adjustment could be the first in a number of significant changes to rules governing FSAs. The IRS is considering a change to the "use-it-or-lose-it" rule, which requires participants to spend their FSA balance annually or lose the money, according to a report in Business Insurance. The report notes that the IRS acknowledges that the cap under PPACA "limits the potential for using health FSAs to defer compensation," and so a rework of the use-it-or-lose-it rule likely is due.
The U.S. House of Representatives also is stepping into the debate, as legislators recently passed a bill that would ease the use-it-or-lose-it rule, according to Business Insurance. The House bill allows workers to withdraw up to $500 in unused balances from the accounts, although the funds would be taxable.
The bill also abolishes an unpopular rule that restricts the purchase of over-the-counter medications with FSA money. Under the PPACA rule, tax-advantaged health accounts, including FSAs and health savings accounts, cannot be used to purchase over-the-counter medications without a prescription. The bill strikes that provision from the law, the Business Insurance report said.
However, the Obama administration already has pledged to veto the bill if it makes it through the Senate because the legislation also would eliminate a tax on makers of medical devices -- a tax that the administration sees as vital to funding the health care reform law, according to a Workforce online report.
Think Anyone Can Prepare Your Tax Return? Think Again!
by Source Blogger
The United States has a complex tax system. Some politicians have even declared that a “flat tax” would work in maintaining a consistent, marginal tax.
In the meantime, it is up to us to do our own taxes. Taxes to me, is another service that is provided that you can probably do yourself. Most tax preparers have software where they can submit the same, simple information you can enter into tax preparation platforms like Turbo Tax or Tax Act on your own.
Over the last decade, more and more individuals have been either doing their own taxes or having a friend do them (In 2010, professional tax preparers handled only about 60% of those returns)…. and staying away from all the price gouging that companies like HR Block and Jackson Hewitt impose, particularly if you are in financial need and require a rapid return. (Note: as of last year, Rapid Refunds were restricted by federal regulators at HR Block and capped at $1500 for Jackson Hewitt.)
My wife, who is not a certified tax professional, often does the tax returns for about 10-15 of her co-workers and various family members. Does this appear to be the trend now?
While the Mrs. seems to be doing a good job, what are some red flags you should look for when a tax preparer is referred to you? Just because they appear confident and ready to earn your business, should you let them?
5 Red Flags To Look For: Think Anyone Can Prepare Your Taxes? Think Again!
1) Lack Of Availability/Lack Of Integrity — Giving one access to your financial documents and exposing intimate details about your life, family, income, expenses, and deductions is not something you should take lightly. Take some time to meet this person in person and learn about them. You want to know about their background, experience… plus, you want to know what level of support you can expect if something goes wrong now… and 5 years from now!
If I’ve given documents to my tax preparer, I expect, he/she will have questions, need more clarification, or may even request supporting documentation. When that’s not the case, and when the preparer is anxious to rush to a filing, I’d worry!
Another concern is when the tax preparer wants to remain anonymous and your friend who recommended them wants to pick up your W-2′s and deliver them on your behalf.
Also, be weary if someone who works at a tax firm is scraping work on the side for their own benefit and either misrepresenting their company or misrepresenting what their role is.
2) Big Promises — The reality is many Americans actually end up owing money. If you haven’t evaluated my financial situation, how can you promise… anything?
This type of approach is insulting and a ploy to take advantage of people’s unfortunate naivety.
Sure, anyone can promise a BIG refund if they grossly manipulate the numbers, but the IRS will surely target these miscalculations and audit you!
3) Credentials — Oh, they don’t have any? May I have some references? I want to speak with clients you have worked with in the past.
You can avoid potentially serious issues by checking if your tax preparer has the correct identification. The IRS recently began assigning Preparer Tax Identification Numbers (PTINs), and if your tax specialist can’t provide one, you may be courting trouble by using an unlicensed preparer.
4) My Refund Is In YOUR Checking Account? — If a tax preparer insists that any refund check be made out to his or her company, or deposited directly into a bank account without your name on it, that’s a huge red flag that your refund may not find you when all is said and done.
5) Your Fee Is What Percentage Of My Return? — Reputable tax-prep firms charge a flat fee for their services, based on the size and scope of your tax return. If a preparer bases your fee on a percentage of your tax refund, that should be an immediate deal-breaker. That gives the preparer incentive to pump up your refund by any means possible, which can invite some mishandling of your financial information.
Bottom Line
Just because someone has done something for a long time, does not mean they do it well.
In the end, including claiming too many exemptions, failing to claim allowable tax credits and missing tax deductions that could have saved you money is YOUR responsibility. Your good name on the line (literally), it’s best to thoroughly review any tax specialist you’re thinking of bringing aboard.
People take a lot for granted when they are buying a home, a car, giving their money to a Financial Adviser, or getting their taxes done. Don’t be that person.
Source Blogger says: Be Careful!
Interest in health insurance exchanges grows
More say they would shop for coverage through a health insurance exchange
BY KATHRYN MAYER
More people looking to buy health insurance say they would shop for coverage through a health insurance exchange if they had the opportunity, according to a J.D. Power and Associates health plan study.
A majority of health plan members who purchase insurance on their own say they would likely use one of the state health insurance exchanges (55 percent), while 39 percent of those covered under an employer-sponsored program indicate they would shop for insurance through an exchange if it were available.
And more, the study finds there’s an increased level of interest in state-sponsored health insurance exchanges compared to last year. In 2012, 37 percent of health plan members say they wouldn’t likely use an exchange, compared with 50 percent in 2011 who expected to continue obtaining coverage at work.
The level of interest among those who obtain health insurance through work is an important implication for the future of employer-sponsored care, says Rick Millard, senior director of the health care practice at J.D. Power and Associates.
The study also finds substantial interest among health plan members in private health insurance exchanges, in which an employer might provide employees with vouchers for purchasing health insurance independently. Roughly 41 percent of employer-insured health plan members indicate they would use this approach if it were available.
Obesity declining? Fat chance
LAURAN NEERGAARD, AP Medical Writer
Source: Timesleader.com
WASHINGTON — The obesity epidemic may be slowing, but don’t take in those pants yet.
Today, just over a third of U.S. adults are obese. By 2030, 42 percent will be, says a forecast released Monday.
That’s not nearly as many as experts had predicted before the once-rapid rises in obesity rates began leveling off. But the new forecast suggests even small continuing increases will add up.
“We still have a very serious problem,” said obesity specialist Dr. William Dietz of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Worse, the already obese are getting fatter. Severe obesity will double by 2030, when 11 percent of adults will be nearly 100 pounds overweight, or more, concluded the research led by Duke University.
That could be an ominous consequence of childhood obesity. Half of severely obese adults were obese as children, and they put on more pounds as they grew up, said CDC’s Dietz.
While being overweight increases anyone’s risk of diabetes, heart disease and a host of other ailments, the severely obese are most at risk — and the most expensive to treat. Already, conservative estimates suggest obesity-related problems account for at least 9 percent of the nation’s yearly health spending, or $150 billion a year.
Data presented Monday at a major CDC meeting paint something of a mixed picture of the obesity battle. There’s some progress: Clearly, the skyrocketing rises in obesity rates of the 1980s and ’90s have ended. But Americans aren’t getting thinner.
Over the past decade, obesity rates stayed about the same in women, while men experienced a small rise, said CDC’s Cynthia Ogden. That increase occurred mostly in higher-income men, for reasons researchers couldn’t explain.
About 17 percent of the nation’s children and teens were obese in 2009 and 2010, the latest available data. That’s about the same as at the beginning of the decade, although a closer look by Ogden shows continued small increases in boys, especially African-American boys.
Does that mean obesity has plateaued? Well, some larger CDC databases show continued upticks, said Duke University health economist Eric Finkelstein, who led the new CDC-funded forecast. His study used that information along with other factors that influence obesity rates — including food prices, prevalence of fast-food restaurants, unemployment — to come up with what he called “very reasonable estimates” for the next two decades.
Part of the reason for the continuing rise is that the population is growing and aging. People ages 45 to 64 are most likely to be obese, Finkelstein said.
Today, more than 78 million U.S. adults are obese, defined as having a body-mass index of 30 or more. BMI is a measure of weight for height. Someone who’s 5-feet-5 would be termed obese at 180 pounds, and severely obese with a BMI of 40 — 240 pounds.
The new forecast suggests 32 million more people could be obese in 2030 — adding $550 billion in health spending over that time span, Finkelstein said.
“If nothing is done, this is going to really hinder efforts to control health care costs,” added study co-author Justin Trogdon of RTI International.
Read why flexible benefits don’t always have to be online
By Steve Hemsley
Whether it is reading books on a Kindle or buying groceries online, the technology industry has long proclaimed we are heading for a paperless society.
When it comes to communicating and then administering something as important as flexible benefits, HR directors can find it hard to resist the temptation to switch to an online solution.
From a time-saving point of view, changing to a web-based system should make perfect sense, because one of the reasons for dumping paper is to shift some of the back office admin work onto the employee. And why wouldn't someone want to spend some of their free time looking at an online benefits portal? After all, 85% of employees rate benefits as 'important' or 'very important', according to the CIPD.
Yet any benefits program is only successful if it engages staff by making it clear what is being given, why, how benefits will work and when new ones will be introduced.
Charles Cotton, adviser for performance and reward at the CIPD, says at first glance technology may appear to make schemes easier to administer and communicate - and in some cases cheaper. But, he argues, HRDs must think carefully before committing to what could be a hefty, long-term investment.
"Ultimately, an employer must consider how having flexible benefits supports what it is trying to achieve and what it needs from its employees," says Cotton. "If the benefits scheme is relatively simple, then paper is perfectly fine and the HR team will not gain anything from switching to online. In fact, data can go missing or be incorrectly inputted and the HRD must decide if he or she is happy for the information sent electronically to be accessed by a third party." Even when paper folders are consigned to history, there still remains an administrative burden. The HR team must study and respond to the data reports being generated, for example.
Traditionally, HR has worked closely with the payroll and the internal communications teams to communicate flexible benefits.
A switch to online can complicate the working relationship, because the IT department and a third party technology provider become involved.
HRDs can also underestimate how long it will take to implement a technology solution (up to six months) and the ongoing costs involved during the length of a web-based contract (often three years or more).
Claire St Louis, HRD at digital marketing agency Essence, whose clients include Google and eBay, agrees with the CIPD and urges HRDs not to rush into technology for technology's sake.
She says technology can be a barrier to some staff understanding and engaging with the benefits on offer, especially in companies where employees do not work in front of computers, are on the road, on the shop floor or in various manual roles.
"Many companies wrap themselves up in HR processes, ultimately forgetting the reason why they are doing them," says St Louis. "Benefits are there to retain, motivate, attract and maintain competiveness and, in many cases, people-based internal communications and paper administration is still the right way to go."
Kuljit Kaur, head of business development at the Voucher Shop, says organizations must certainly not ignore the importance of internal communications and the power of having HR staff and specialists available to explain how and why particular benefits exist.
"People are naturally cynical and think there must be a catch when it comes to benefits. A more 'people-based' approach allows you to communicate why this is not the case," says Kaur. "Using real people as advocates of particular benefits to talk to other staff face-to-face works better than just sending an email telling people to log on to a website to view benefits. Technology assumes people will make the effort to find out more."
Even Matt Waller, CEO at online provider Benefex, accepts that for some organizations a paper system can be cheaper, remove reliance on involving third parties and enable more control internally. But, he points out that an online option allows data to be centralized and makes it easier to communicate benefits to large numbers of employees.
"For businesses that want a flexible benefit or total reward scheme to reach as many people as possible in the most time- and cost-efficient way, technology has to be the way forward," he says. "Benefit selection errors can be corrected more quickly and paper document hell is avoided when informing payroll and benefit providers."
Matt Duffy, head of online benefits at Lorica Consulting, backs him up, although he agrees that technology is not right for every organization. "Online is a simpler solution for an increasing number of companies, although when setting up a flex scheme there is less of a build phase with paper," he says. "However, what actually takes the time is devising the rules and working out who is eligible and what the rules are. Companies still have to do this, even with a paper system."
In reality, this is not a black and white issue between paper and internal communications or online. Most organizations now adopt a multi-channel approach, supporting an online system with various forms of offline communication.
Even at technology giant Telefónica O2, paper has not been abandoned completely. It supports its tailored online benefits system with leaflets posted to an employee's home address. There are also benefits roadshows.
Telefónica rewards manager Kirsty Read says offline communication uses simple messaging to draw people into the website, where they can discover more detailed information on complex areas such as salary sacrifice and tax.
"We have actually re-introduced the paper leaflet after a five years' absence," says Read. "Staff told us they wanted a range of different communications relating to benefits. If they receive a leaflet at home, they can start to think about their benefits and discuss them with their family."
A multi-channel approach is supported by Thomsons Online Benefits' MD, Chris Bruce. "This is about ensuring that even with an online solution, staff can still talk to real people at workshops and clinics and read paper benefit guides alongside the online content," he says.
While it can make sense for larger employers to move online, many SMEs are concerned about the cost of the technology and perceive it as complex."
Julia Turney, head of benefits management at Jelf Group, says a flexible benefits system can certainly work without technology, particularly in small companies that have simple salary exchange benefits without complicated calculations.
"The administration side of things tends to be the deciding factor for companies moving to an online system, but technology alone will not engage staff with benefits, even if it makes the HR department's job easier," says Turney.
Benefits consultancy Mercer has teamed up with software firm Sage Employee Benefits to develop packages for organizations with fewer than 100 staff. SMEs are offered an online portal, but employers still have access to Mercer's specialist advisers.
"Technology is not always the answer," says Matthew Forrest, head of services at Sage UK. "Many SMEs want to offer benefits and can do so with paper-based and telephone support. This product allows owners of small businesses to manage a flexible benefits package at an affordable price, shaped to their needs."
The technology providers' message that online is best does seem to be winning over SMEs, with an increasing number ditching their paper systems. This trend is likely to accelerate as benefits packages become more complex and employers prepare for the phased introduction of auto-enrolment pensions this year.
Law firm D Young has 180 staff in London and Southampton and switched from paper to a predominantly online system in June 2011, with the help of Thomsons Online Benefits. An employee survey in December revealed staff are more aware of the benefits available to them now than they were under the paper system.
"In the first year, we used paper-based marketing to communicate the online benefits system, but in year two we will do this online with an e-brochure," says D Young HR manager, Jennifer Mead.
One company in the process of switching to online is Sumitomo Electric Wiring Systems, based in Staffordshire. Its HR manager, Liz Brown, says the move from paper will take place on 1 April.
"We are introducing flex benefits and felt online was a more efficient and flexible option, as we wanted something people at our different UK sites could access easily," she says. "Until now, a paper system has been adequate for the salary sacrifice and other benefits we offered our 230 staff, because there was not much data to deal with."
The technology companies will vigorously fight their corner to demonstrate that organizations running benefits programs can miss out by not moving online. Savvy HRDs, however, will only switch from paper when the time is right.
Northern Rail: paper trail
Should Northern Rail retain the franchise to run train services across the north of England, it will look to move from a voluntary to a flexible benefits system, but it won't ditch paper.
This 50:50 joint venture between Serco Group and Abellio, formed in 2004, has 4,800 staff scattered across the north, and most employees are drivers, conductors or engineers and do not have access to company computers.
An employee survey in 2009 discovered a low satisfaction rate regarding its benefits scheme, which is a combination of voluntary benefits and an employee assistance plan (EAP), as well as salary sacrifice, free travel and a final salary pension.
Northern Rail compensations and benefits manager Paul Stephens(pictured left) says communication was an issue, so the company introduced a benefits booklet and increased coverage of the scheme in its staff magazine, Your Northern, sent to every worker's home address. There is a telephone helpline and benefits roadshows are held at different depots.
"The culture of our business is paper-based and people still like to receive hard paper copies of anything to do with their job," says Stephens. "The difficulty with a booklet is that things can change and the content can become out of date quickly, but staff like to get paper copies of their total rewards statements, for instance."
Despite its traditions, Northern Rail appreciates the advantages of moving some of the administration online when the flex scheme is introduced and it is working with benefits provider, Personal Group.
Stephens wants to encourage staff to check the internet at home, but many paper aspects - such as the magazine coverage as well as the telephone helpline - will remain.
"We fear we will lose the engagement levels we have generated since 2009 if we move everything online - and we cannot afford to do that," Stephens says.
Hilton Worldwide: engagement online
Sean Thomas, cluster HR director at hotelier Hilton Worldwide, says he could not run the company's benefits scheme without technology. In fact, he says it would be "a nightmare".
He is convinced paper-based schemes will die out within a few years and everything relating to employee benefits will be online, especially in large organizations.
Many of Hilton's thousands of staff globally are young and have an expectation of a technology solution. For the HR team, it makes administration simpler and the reports the online platform generates mean the scheme is more effective, according to Thomas.
"We can see from the click through rates what things people are interested in and what is not so popular and react to that in a timely fashion.
"I believe that without technology, communicating when the benefits window is open would be harder. We send regular emails, although we do support this with posters around the offices."
He says that, as a US-centric organization, the whole group has to adapt to ideas and technology coming out of the US designed to help the business.
"Without this technology, I do believe it would be much harder to communicate our benefits to staff and they would be much less engaged with them."
There can be confusion among employers about whether a flexible or voluntary benefits scheme is right for their organization. A flexible scheme lets employees choose the benefits package that best suits their lifestyle and personal circumstances. They may prefer tax-efficient benefits such as childcare vouchers or to make salary sacrifices to boost their pension.
Flexible or voluntary?
Flex is a good way to bring consistency across a group of companies, as part of a harmonization process, or to tailor benefits to staff if a workforce is diverse.
Staff can usually change their core benefits once a year, during what is known as a 'benefits window' and, whether it is a paper or an online solution, employees can see a menu of benefits and the price of each. They usually receive a 'total rewards statement' outlining their total remuneration.
An employer can make a scheme as flexible as it wants to, so staff feel valued. Ultimately, a well thought out flexible benefits package can help to retain and attract talent.
Companies often add additional voluntary benefits, which are products and services staff can buy, at a discount. The main difference between voluntary benefits - such as retail discounts or gym membership - and flexible benefits is that they are paid for by an employer allowance or benefits pot, or their own salary, through payroll.
Many employers use the tax and national insurance savings gained from introducing salary sacrifice benefits to fund the cost of administering a voluntary benefits discount program.