by admin | Nov 7, 2017 | Benefit Management, Health Plan Benchmarking
The findings of our 2017 Health Plan Survey show a continuation of steady trends and some surprises. It’s no surprise, however, that costs continue to rise. The average annual health plan cost per employee for all plan types is $9,934, an increase from 2016, when the average cost was $9,727. There are significant cost differences when you look at the data by plan type.
Cost Detail by Plan Type
PPOs continue to cost more than the average plan, but despite this, PPOs still dominate the market in terms of plan distribution and employee enrollment. PPOs have seen an increase in total premiums for single coverage of 4.5% and for family coverage of 2.2% in 2017 alone.
HMOs have the lowest total annual cost at $8,877, as compared to the total cost of a PPO of $10,311. Conversely, CDHP plan costs have risen 2.2% from last year. However, CDHP prevalence and enrollment continues to grow in most regions, indicating interest among both employers and employees.
Across all plan types, employees’ share of total costs rose 5% while employers’ share stayed nearly the same. Employers are also further mitigating their costs by reducing prescription drug coverage, and raising out-of-network deductibles and out-of-pocket maximums.
More than half (54.8%) of all employers offer one health plan to employees, while 28.2% offer two plan options, and 17.1% offer three or more options. The percentage of employers now offering three or more plans decreased slightly in 2017, but still maintains an overall increase in the last five years as employers are working to offer expanded choices to employees either through private exchange solutions or by simply adding high, medium-, and low-cost options; a trend UBA Partners believe will continue. Not only do employees get more options, but employers also can introduce lower-cost plans that may attract enrollment, lower their costs, and meet ACA affordability requirements.
By Bill Olson
Originally Published By United Benefit Advisors
by admin | Nov 3, 2017 | Group Benefit Plans, HIPAA, Human Resources
Employers who are designing a health and welfare benefit plan for their employees often wonder about the rules relating to setting premiums for employees. Employers generally have significant flexibility in this part of their plan’s design. Common structures contemplated by employers include, but are not limited to:
- Charging all employees a flat amount for their health plan
- Charging employees a percentage of the premium for the health plan, with the percentage changing as employees move between tiers (self, self plus one, self plus family)
- Giving employees a set dollar amount that they can use to offset the cost of whatever plan and plan tier they enroll in
Employers are also interested in setting different contribution structures for different groups of employees. Sometimes this is due to a geographic difference between employees, job types, staff versus management, and more. Employers may wish to give lower-paid employees more employer-provided money; sometimes employers wish to give managers or executive staff more employer-provided money.
Employers should be aware that there are different nondiscrimination requirements to consider.
Generally, under HIPAA non-discrimination rules, employers have discretion when structuring their benefits plans and may make distinctions among employee populations regarding access to and the level of benefits offered. Plans may differ among employees only on “bona fide employment-based classifications” consistent with the employer’s usual business practice. Examples that would satisfy this requirement include salaried, hourly, full-time, part-time, type of job, geographic location, date of hire, division, subsidiary, business unit, and profit center distinctions.
If an employer’s proposed structure meets these basic HIPAA requirements, then the employer needs to review the applicable nondiscrimination requirements under Internal Revenue Code Section 125 (for cafeteria plans) and Section 105(h) (for self-funded plans). If the employer’s plan is subject to these rules, at a most basic level, the plan cannot favor highly compensated individuals. Sometimes an innocent plan design can lead to an employer failing the nondiscrimination requirements under Section 125 or 105(h) without the employer intentionally favoring the highly compensated employees. Many employers also erroneously assume that none of their employees fall into the “highly compensated” category, so the rules do not apply to them. As a best practice, any time an employer has a plan design with different levels of employer contributions, the employer should run the applicable testing to ensure its plan is compliant.
Under Section 125, benefit plans cannot discriminate in favor of highly compensated individuals or key employees.
By Danielle Capilla
Originally Published By United Benefit Advisors
by admin | Nov 1, 2017 | ACA, Compliance
Two tri-agency (Internal Revenue Service, Employee Benefits Security Administration, and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services) Interim Final Rules were released and became effective on October 6, 2017, and will be published on October 31, 2017, allowing a greater number of employers to opt out of providing contraception to employees at no cost through their employer-sponsored health plan. The expanded exemption encompasses all non-governmental plan sponsors that object based on sincerely held religious beliefs, and institutions of higher education in their arrangement of student health plans. The exemption also now encompasses employers who object to providing contraception coverage on the basis of sincerely held moral objections and institutions of higher education in their arrangement of student health plans. Furthermore, if an issuer of health coverage (an insurance company) had sincere religious beliefs or moral objections, it would be exempt from having to sell coverage that provides contraception. The exemptions apply to both non-profit and for-profit entities.
The currently-in-place accommodation is also maintained as an optional process for exempt employers, and will provide contraceptive availability for persons covered by the plans of entities that use it (a legitimate program purpose). These rules leave in place the government’s discretion to continue to require contraceptive and sterilization coverage where no such objection exists. These interim final rules also maintain the existence of an accommodation process, but consistent with expansion of the exemption, the process is optional for eligible organizations. Effectively this removes a prior requirement that an employer be a “closely held for-profit” employer to utilize the exemption.
Employers that object to providing contraception on the basis of sincerely held religious beliefs or moral objections, who were previously required to offer contraceptive coverage at no cost, and that wish to remove the benefit from their medical plan are still subject (as applicable) to ERISA, its plan document and SPD requirements, notice requirements, and disclosure requirements relating to a reduction in covered services or benefits. These employers would be obligated to update their plan documents, SBCs, and other reference materials accordingly, and provide notice as required.
Employers are also now permitted to offer group or individual health coverage, separate from the current group health plans, that omits contraception coverage for employees who object to coverage or payment for contraceptive services, if that employee has sincerely held religious beliefs relating to contraception. All other requirements regarding coverage offered to employees would remain in place. Practically speaking, employers should be cautious in issuing individual policies until further guidance is issued, due to other regulations and prohibitions that exist.
By Danielle Capilla
Originally Published By United Benefit Advisors
by admin | Oct 26, 2017 | Benefit Management, Benefit Plan Tips, Tricks and Traps, Human Resources
Fall. With it comes cooler temperatures’, falling leaves, warm seasonal scents like turkey and pumpkin pie, and Open Enrollment. It goes without saying; employees who understand the effectiveness of their benefits are much more pleased with those packages, happier with their employers, and more engaged in their work. So, as your company gears up for a new year of navigating Open Enrollment, here are a few points to keep in mind to make the process smoother for both employees and your benefits department. Bonus: it will lighten the load for both parties alike during an already stress-induced season.
Communicate Open Enrollment Using a Variety of Mediums
Advertise 2018 benefit changes to employees by using a variety of mediums. The more reminders and explanation of benefits staff members have using more than one mode of media, the more likely employees will go into Open Enrollment with more knowledge of your company’s benefit options and when they need to have these options completed for the new year.
- Consider explainer videos to simplify the amount of emails and paperwork individuals need to review come Open Enrollment time. These videos can increase the bottom line as well, eliminating the high cost of print material.
- Opt for placards placed throughout your high-traffic areas. Communicate benefit options and remind employees of Open Enrollment dates for the new year by posting in such areas as the lobby, break room and bathroom stalls.
- Choose SMS texting. Today, over 97% of individuals use text. Ninety-eight percent of those that use text open messages within the first three minutes of receiving them; 6-8 times higher than the engagement rate for email. Delivering a concise message to employees’ mobile devices creates more touch points along the Open Enrollment journey. The key, however, is making it quick so as to entice your employees to take action.
- Promote apps and in-app tools. Push notifications and apps like Remind 101 can help drive employee engagement during Open Enrollment season simply by providing short messages reminding them to enroll. Notifications like these can also be tailored to unique employee groups based on location, job level, eligibility status and more.
Utilize Mobile Apps and Web Portals for Open Enrollment
Now that your company has communication down pat for Open Enrollment, simplify the arduous task employees have of enrolling for the coming year by going paperless. Utilize web portals through benefit brokers and companies like ADP to eliminate the hassle of employees having to fill out paperwork both at renewal, and at the time of hire. With nearly three quarters of individuals in the United States checking their phone once an hour and 90% percent of this time is spent using one app or another as a main source of communication, mobile apps can make benefits engagement much easier due to the anywhere/anytime accessibility they offer.
The personal perks for employees are great too! Staff members with a major lifestyle event can make benefit adjustments quickly with the ease of mobile apps. Employees recognize this valuable and time-saving trend and enjoy having this information at their fingertips.
Open Enrollment season can be a stressful time but hopefully these tips will help for a smoother transition into the next year for your business. Simple things like using explainer videos, placing reminders in high traffic areas and utilizing mobile apps and text messaging can save time and stress in the long run for your employees and benefit department.
by admin | Oct 20, 2017 | ACA
On the evening of October 12, 2017, President Trump announced that cost sharing reductions for low income Americans in relation to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) would be stopped. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has confirmed that payments will be stopped immediately. While there is no direct impact to employers at this time, UBA will continue to educate employers about changes in the law and its Health Plan Survey will continue to track group health plan rates over time as insurance companies potentially seek to recoup lost revenue. It is anticipated at least some state attorneys general will file lawsuits to block the ending of the subsidy payments, with California Attorney General Xavier Becerra stating he is prepared to file a lawsuit to protect the subsidies.
Background
Individuals with household modified adjusted gross incomes (AGI) in excess of 100 percent but not exceeding 400 percent of the federal poverty level (FPL) may be eligible for cost-sharing reductions for coverage purchased through health insurance exchanges if they meet a variety of criteria. Cost-sharing reductions are limited to coverage months for which the individual is allowed a premium tax credit. Eligibility for cost-sharing reductions is based on the tax year for which advanced eligibility determinations are made by HHS, rather than the tax year for which premium credits are allowed. In 2015, cost-sharing subsides reduced out-of-pocket (OOP) limits:
- Less than 100 percent but not exceeding 200 percent of FPL: OOP limits reduced by two-thirds
- Greater than 200 percent but not exceeding 300 percent of FPL: OOP limits reduced by one-half
- Greater than 300 percent but not exceeding 400 percent of FPL: OOP limits reduced by one-third
After 2015, the base percentages were shifted based on a percentage of average per capita health insurance premium increases. The cost-sharing reduction is paid directly to the insurer, and is automatically applied when eligible individuals enroll in a silver plan on the Marketplace or Exchange.
The cost-sharing reduction is not the same as the “advance premium tax credit” which is also available to individuals with household modified AGIs of at least 100 percent and not exceeding 400 percent of the FPL.
By Danielle Capilla
Originally posted by www.UBABenefits.com
