by National Underwriter Company

A majority of large U.S. employers are planning to change their 2011 health care benefit programs in the wake of both health care reform and expected large health care cost increases, according to a new survey by the National Business Group on Health (NBGH).NBGH, Washington, found that 53% of employers taking part in its survey were still planning to make changes to their benefit plans despite uncertainty about how to comply with the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA).

Another 19% are going to scale back changes they had planned to make, while an equal number are making no changes. Remaining respondents were still undecided as they continued to review the final regulations.

Among employers that said they would be making specific changes to their health benefit plans to comply with the new law, 70% said they would remove lifetime dollar limits on overall benefits, while 37% said they would change to annual or lifetime limits on specific benefits.

Also, 26% would remove annual dollar limits on overall benefits, while 13% would remove pre-existing condition exclusions for children.

The survey, covering 72 of the nation’s largest corporations with more than 3.7 million employees, was conducted in May and June.

Health care reform has forced employers to assess their health care benefit strategies and decide whether to comply with the law or lose grandfathered status, said Helen Darling, president of NGBH. But they are still mindful that controlling rising costs is among their highest priorities.

“They have to foot the bill, not the government,” Darling commented.

Surveyed employers estimated their health care benefit costs would rise an average of 8.9% next year, compared with an average increase of 7% this year. To help control those increases, 63% plan to boost the percentage employees contribute to the premium, up from 57% who did so this year, while 46% plan to raise out-of-pocket maximums next year, compared with 36% this year.

Other survey findings:

—61% will offer a consumer-directed health plan (CDHP) in 2011.

—64% will offer is a high-deductible plan combined with a health savings account.

—Among employers offering a CDHP, 20% will move to a full replacement plan in 2011, from 10% this year.

—5% plan to drop retiree health coverage in 2011, while 60% are considering doing so.

—41% offer premium discounts for completing health assessments, while 22% offer premium discounts for participating in stop-smoking programs.

—25% plan to raise the copay or coinsurance for retail pharmacy prescription drug benefits, while 21% plan to do the same for mail-order pharmacy benefits.

A copy of the survey by NBGH can be found here

by GBS

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) provided a COBRA premium reduction for eligible individuals who were involuntarily terminated from employment through the end of May 2010. Due to the statutory sunset, the COBRA premium reduction under ARRA is not available for individuals who experience a qualifying event of involuntary termination of employment after May 31, 2010. However, individuals who qualified on or before May 31, 2010 may continue to pay reduced premiums for up to 15 months, as long as they are not eligible for another group health plan or Medicare.

On July 6, Assistant Secretary of Labor Phyllis C. Borzi issued a statement regarding the COBRA premium reduction under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA): For a copy of Assistant Secretary Phyllis Borzi’s statement, click on the following link:
http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/newsroom/2010/ebsa070610.html

The Unemployment Compensation Extension Act of 2010 signed by the President on July 22, 2010, did not include an extension of the COBRA premium reduction.

A model general notice and a model election notice for individuals with a qualifying event after May 31, 2010 can be obtained from the COBRA section on the DOL’s website at:
http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/COBRA.html

These notices are virtually unchanged from the pre-ARRA models provided by the DOL in 2004.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has issued a final regulation (75 FR 42575, July 22, 2010) concerning the use of electronic signatures and storage for Form I-9s.

Although the changes in the final rule are relatively minor, they provide clarification of some ambiguities contained in the initial rule. The primary changes implemented by this rule are as follows:

• employers must complete a Form I-9 by the third business (not calendar) day after an employee started work for pay;
• employers may use paper, electronic systems, or a combination of paper and electronic systems;
• employers may change electronic storage systems as long as the systems meet the performance requirements of the regulations;
• employers need not retain audit trails of each time a Form I-9 is electronically viewed, but only when the Form I-9 is created, completed, updated, modified, altered, or corrected; and
• employers may provide or transmit a confirmation of a Form I-9 transaction, but are not required to do so unless the employee requests a copy.

From aarp.org

In the past few years, a growing number of employers have added automatic features, especially automatic enrollment, to their 401(k) plans.  This national telephone survey of large employers with 401(k) plans was conducted in order to better understand large employer attitudes toward and experiences with two automatic 401(k) features: automatic enrollment and automatic escalation.

The survey’s key findings include the following:

• The vast majority (94%) of employers surveyed report that they are either “very familiar” or “somewhat familiar” with automatic enrollment in 401(k) plans.   While familiarity with automatic escalation is lower than familiarity with automatic enrollment, a majority (78%) of employers also report that they are familiar with automatic escalation.
• Although nearly all large employers with 401(k) plans are at least somewhat familiar with automatic enrollment, the majority have not adopted it for their own 401(k) plan.  Specifically, less than half (42%) of respondents report that their 401(k) plan includes automatic enrollment.  Fewer (28%) report that their 401(k) plans have an automatic escalation feature.
• The majority (58%) of employers with automatic enrollment report that they automatically enrolled only new hires when they first adopted automatic enrollment.  Just over one-third (35%) automatically enrolled all non-participating employees who were eligible for the plan.
• Of those employers who automatically enrolled only new hires at adoption, only about one in ten (11%) report that they have automatically enrolled all non-participating employees at least once since adopting automatic enrollment.
• Employers were most likely to identify the following as “major reasons” that companies offer automatic features: it helps employees save more for retirement (74%), it is easier to pass nondiscrimination testing (49%), and it demonstrates that we are a socially responsible company (35%)
• When asked why they do not have automatic enrollment for their 401(k) plan, employers without automatic enrollment most frequently cited employee-related challenges such as a concern that employees would not like automatic enrollment (30%), costs (20%), contentment with the status quo (14%), and a lack of information (10%).
• When employers without automatic escalation were asked to explain their reasons for not including this feature in their 401(k) plan, the most frequent responses also related to employees and included the company thinks employees would not like it (66%) and the company thinks employees would find it confusing (52%). Additionally, one-third of employers without automatic escalation (35%) indicated that the company is concerned about matching costs.
• Employers that automatically enroll only new hires were asked why they do not automatically enroll all non-participating employees who are eligible for the plan.  As with the reasons expressed for not having automatic features, employee-related challenges were also the reasons most frequently expressed for limiting automatic enrollment to new hires.

AARP commissioned Woelfel Research, Inc. to conduct this telephone survey of 806 large employers with 401(k) plans.  Partial funding was provided by Retirement Made Simpler, a coalition formed by AARP, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), and the Retirement Security Project (RSP).  For more information, visit www.RetirementMadeSimpler.org.  The survey was fielded from December 15, 2009, to February 24, 2010, and results were weighted by company size.  For more information on the survey, please contact S. Kathi Brown of AARP Research & Strategic Analysis at 202-434-6296.

More Information at http://www.aarp.org/work/retirement-planning/info-06-2010/auto401k.html

from CCH,Inc. and GBS

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has unveiled an innovative new on-line tool that will help consumers take control of their health care by connecting them to new information and resources that will help them access quality, affordable health care coverage. Called for by the Affordable Care Act, HealthCare.gov is the first website to provide consumers with both public and private health coverage options tailored specifically for their needs in a single, easy-to-use tool.

“HealthCare.gov helps consumers take control of their health care and make the choices that are right for them, by putting the power of information at their fingertips,” said HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. “For too long, the insurance market has been confusing and hard to navigate. HealthCare.gov makes it easy for consumers and small businesses to compare health insurance plans in both the public and the private sector and find other important health care information.”

HealthCare.gov is the first central database of health coverage options, combining information about public programs, from Medicare to the new Pre-Existing Conditions Insurance Plan, with information from more than 1,000 private insurance plans. Consumers can receive information about options specific to their life situation and local community.

In addition, the website will be a one-stop-shop for information about the implementation of the Affordable Care Act as well as other health care resources. The website will connect consumers to quality rankings for local health care providers as well as preventive services.

“This website is unlike any government website you have ever seen or used before,” said HHS Chief Technology Officer Todd Park. “It was developed with significant consumer input and is remarkably easy to navigate. This is despite the sheer volume of content it offers consumers: billions of health care choices through the insurance finder and more than 500 pages of new content, all of which is designed to grow with ongoing consumer feedback and as our health care system improves.”

As the health care market transforms, so will HealthCare.gov. In October, 2010, price estimates for health insurance plans will be available online. In the weeks and months ahead, new information on preventing disease and illness and improving the quality of health care for all Americans will also be posted. The website also includes a series of opportunities where users can indicate whether pages were helpful to them and we will continue to seek user feedback to grow and strengthen the site.

“People need to see what choices are offered, what options cost, and how coverage works in practice,” said Karen Pollitz, Deputy Director for Consumer Support, Office of Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight. “Today HealthCare.gov takes an important first step in that direction. In the coming months and years, we will add pricing and plan performance information so that consumers can see and understand and make meaningful choices about their health coverage.”

SOURCE: HHS press release, July 1, 2010.

from HRTechNews
This employer’s taken the concept of online background checks to a new level.

Candidates applying for jobs with the city of Bozeman, Montana, are asked to list “any and all” Web sites, chat rooms and social networking groups they use (“including but not limited to Facebook, Google, Yahoo, YouTube.com, MySpace, etc.”) – along with their usernames and passwords.

Many hiring managers Google applicants’ names or look for them on Facebook, but actually logging in to their personal profiles is something new entirely.

Why does Bozeman want that access? According to city attorney Greg Sullivan, it’s “to make sure the people that we hire have the highest moral character and are a good fit for the city,” The Consumerist reports.

Sullivan also said the city doesn’t look at “the things that the federal Constitution lists as protected things” (whatever that means).

The story drew a lot of attention and outcry from the media, potential Bozeman employees and HR pros. That’s not surprising, considering there’s a debate going on about whether hiring managers should even look at candidates’ profiles, let alone obtain log-in information.

Apparently all the press got the city rethinking that part of the application. In a recent press release, Bozeman announced it will “suspend its practice of reviewing candidates’ password protected internet information until the City conducts a more comprehensive evaluation of the practice.”

What do you think? Did the public overreact to Bozeman’s hiring practice, or was the negative response justified?

Should social networking profiles play any role in the background check process at all?

Let us know what you think in the comments section below.

from HRBenefitsAlert

Wellness programs come in all shapes and sizes. But regardless of plan design there are five common components that set the successful programs apart from the rest.

At their core, wellness programs require constant monitoring and periodic adjustments. The programs that get mediocre results are the ones that are left to run on autopilot. That’s why it’s crucial to:

1. Know thine enemy. You have to know what’s driving your biggest claim costs on your healthcare plan – both among employees and their dependents.
2. Create realistic expectations. With wellness, what an employer gets will almost always depend on how much it spends, how well it plans and how well it sustains communications with participants and the vendor.
3. Maintain strong communications. The wellness initiatives that achieve the greatest success are those which are communicated aggressively from the get go and are sustained. Repetition is your friend when doing employee education.
4. Integrate wellness with other benefits. Real-life experience has shown that you should consider your employee assistance programs (EAPs) an extension of the wellness program. You should also consider issues like absenteeism, disability and worker’s compensation to be pieces of the wellness puzzle.
5. Practice what you preach. The key to ensuring employee buy-in is for management to lead the program by setting a positive example. If senior managers are unwilling to participate and address their own health issues, don’t expect many employees to take the program seriously.

The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) recently issued an Administrative Interpretation (AI) clarifying its opinion that employees are entitled to take Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) leave for birth, bonding or to care for the child of a domestic partner or same-sex domestic partner, as well as other children for whom an employee has responsibility for day-to-day care or financial responsibility, even though the employee has no biological or legal relationship with the child. According to the DOL, the AI was issued in response to numerous inquiries from employers regarding when an employee with no legal relationship to a child is considered to be standing “in loco parentis” under the FMLA and, accordingly, entitled to leave. (The AI does not address an employee’s entitlement to take military-related leave under the FMLA, which is governed by different definitions.)

Although the DOL states that it is clarifying the definition of when an employee is considered to stand “in loco parentis,” this is the first time the agency has specifically stated that otherwise covered employees are entitled to take FMLA leave to care for the children of same-sex domestic partners.

Background

The FMLA allows an eligible employee to take up to 12 weeks of leave for the birth or placement of a child, to care for a newborn or newly placed child, or to care for a child with a serious health condition. The FMLA defines a “son or daughter” as a “biological, adopted or foster child, a stepchild, a legal ward, or a child of a person standing in loco parentis.”

The AI explains that Congress intended the definition of “son or daughter” to reflect the reality that many children in the Unites States today do not live in traditional “nuclear” families with their biological father and mother. Congress further stated that the definition was intended to be construed to ensure that an employee who has day-to-day responsibility for caring for a child is entitled to leave even if the employee does not have a biological or legal relationship to the child. Accordingly, Congress included the term “in loco parentis,” which is defined as “in the place of the parent” within the definition of “son or daughter.” The key in determining whether someone is “in loco parentis” is the intention of the person to assume the status of parent toward a child.

Interpretation

The DOL stated that whether an employee stands “in loco parentis” to a child is a fact issue dependent on multiple factors including:

• the age of the child;
• the degree to which the child is dependent on the person claiming to be standing “in loco parentis”;
• the amount of support, if any, provided; and
• the extent to which duties commonly associated with parenthood are exercised.

Further, the FMLA regulations define “in loco parentis” as including those with day-to- day responsibilities to care for and financially support a child. The AI interprets this regulation to require either day-to-day responsibilities for care or responsibility for financial support, but states that an employee is not required to show both factors to be considered standing “in loco parentis” for a child.

Thus, the AI states that employees with no legal or biological relationship to a child may nonetheless stand “in loco parentis” to a child and be entitled FMLA leave. Examples of persons who might fit the definition of “in loco parentis” include:

• an employee raising a child with the biological parent;
• same sex partners raising a child where the employee has no legal or biological relationship with the child;
• an employee who requests leave to bond with the adopted child of a same sex- partner; and
• a grandparent or other relative who has taken on the responsibility to raise a child but has not legally adopted the child.

It should be noted that the fact that a child has biological parents does not prevent a finding that the child is the “son or daughter” of an employee who lacks a legal relationship with the child because “neither the statute nor the regulations restrict the number of parents a child may have under the FMLA.” However, an employee who cares for a child while the child’s parents are on vacation would not be considered to be “in loco parentis” to the child. According to the Administrator, an employer who is not sure whether the employee is entitled to leave as standing “in loco parentis” should be satisfied with a simple statement asserting that the requisite family relationship exists.

Employers’ Bottom Line

Whether an employee’s relationship to a child is covered under the FMLA must be analyzed on a case by case basis. The fact that an employee provides either day-to-day care or financial support may be sufficient to establish an “in loco parentis” relationship where the employee intends to assume the responsibilities of a parent. Therefore, it is important to be aware of the broad interpretation the DOL gives this term and carefully analyze every request under the FMLA for leave to care for a child.

Included in the federal health care overhaul passed earlier this year, the small business health care tax credit can offset up to 35% of the insurance premiums that a small company pays to cover its employees this year, according to the federal Small Business Administration. The rate will increase to 50% in 2014. The U.S. Department of the Treasury recently released detailed guidance as to how a small business could take advantage of the credits.

Small businesses face unique challenges to providing health insurance for their employees, such as higher costs and fewer choices than those available to larger companies. Nationally, an estimated four million small companies might qualify for the tax credit, which is designed to help subsidize insurance coverage by about $40 billion over the next 10 years, according to the federal government. The tax credit can also be used to cover add-on dental, vision, and other limited insurance coverage. In Ohio, for example, an estimated 118,000 businesses that cover at least half of their employees’ health care costs would be eligible for the tax credit, according to the Ohio Department of Insurance.

According to the federal Small Business Administration, the health care bill would also benefit small companies by blocking dramatic premium increases when one employee gets sick.

The U.S. Department of the Treasury issued guidance designed to simplify eligibility information and allow companies to choose the most favorable method of determining worker hours in order to maximize the tax credit, which is available to companies with fewer than 25 employees.

Below are key elements of the program:

• Detailed Guidance. To help small businesses make employee benefit decisions with full knowledge and to provide a clear incentive to offer health insurance coverage, the new IRS Notice 2010-44 lays out detailed guidance on how a business can determine whether it is eligible and how large a credit it will receive.
• No Reduction Due to State Credits. Responding to a number of taxpayer questions about the interaction of the credit with state-level health care tax credits and subsidies, the guidance announces that the new tax credit will not be reduced by a state health care tax credit or subsidy (except in limited circumstances to prevent abuse of the credit). In particular, an employer that receives such a state tax credit or subsidy will also receive the full federal credit based on its entire contribution so long as the federal credit does not exceed the employer’s net contribution. According to lists compiled by the National Conference of State Legislatures, about 20 states offer these benefits.
• Dental and Vision Coverage Qualify. The guidance clarifies that small businesses can receive the credit not only for traditional health insurance coverage but also for add-on dental, vision, and other limited-scope coverage. The employer must meet the requirements for limited-scope coverage that are similar to those that apply for single coverage: the employer must offer to pay at least 50% of the premium.
• Employers Can Choose Most Favorable Method of Determining Hours Worked. Because the tax credit’s matching rate is highest for employers with 10 or fewer full-time equivalent employees (FTEs), the number of hours worked is an important factor in calculating the credit. The new guidance allows employers to choose among 3 different methods of determining hours to minimize their bookkeeping duties while receiving the maximum tax credit for which they are eligible. Employers can look at actual hours of service, or can use simple rules of convenience to estimate hours based on total days or weeks of service.
• Transition Relief for 2010 Formalized. Because the tax credit is effective for 2010 but was not enacted until March 23, 2010, some small businesses that are providing health insurance in 2010 may not meet all the requirements for a qualifying health insurance offer. To ensure that these businesses benefit from the credit, the Administration is providing special transition relief for tax year 2010. The transition rules simplify the requirements for what constitutes a qualifying health insurance offer while maintaining the core requirement that an employer make a significant contribution to the employee’s coverage. The transition relief was first mentioned in FAQs released on the IRS website on April 1, 2010, and has now been formalized in the new notice.

Guidance has been issued with regard to the new health care reform coverage for children up to age 26.  The Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA) has issued a fact sheet, a series of questions and answers, and an interim final regulation about the new requirements. Basically, the health care reform act signed by President Obama will allow children to remain on their parents’ health coverage up to age 26. This provision is effective for plan or policy years beginning on or after September 23, 2010. Plans and issuers must give children who qualify an opportunity to enroll that continues for at least 30 days, regardless of whether the plan or coverage offers an open enrollment period. This enrollment opportunity and a written notice must be provided not later than the first day of the first plan or policy year beginning on or after September 23, 2010.