by admin | May 23, 2017 | Benefit Management, Health & Wellness
Your wellness program seems to have it all – biometric screenings, lunch and learns, and weight loss challenges. So, why do you struggle with engagement, or to see any real results? While traditional wellness components are still a large part of plans today, emerging trends, coupled with generational differences, make for challenges when designing an impactful program.
As wellness programs begin to be viewed as a part of the traditional benefits package, the key differentiator is creating a culture and environment that supports overall health and well-being. Visible engagement and support from front-line and senior leadership drives culture change. By prioritizing health through consistent communication, resource allocation, personnel delegation, and role modeling/personal health promotion practices, employers gain the trust of their employees and develop an environment situated around wellness. When employees recognize the importance of wellness in the overall company strategy and culture, and feel supported in their personal goals, healthy working environments begin to develop, resulting in healthier employees.
Looking beyond traditional wellness topics and offering programs that meet the goals of your employees also leads to higher engagement. The American Heart Association CEO Roundtable Employee Health Survey 2016 showed improving financial health, getting more sleep, and reducing stress levels are key focus areas for employees as part of overall wellness. More so, employees see the benefits of unplugging and mentoring, two new topics in the area of overall well-being. While most employers feel their employees are over surveyed, completing an employee needs or preference survey will ensure your programs align with your employees’ health and wellness goals – ultimately leading to better engagement.
Wellness programs are not immune to generational differences, like most other facets of business. While millennials are most likely to participate and report that programs had an overall impact, they prefer the use of apps and trackers along with social strategies and team challenges. Convenience and senior level support are also important within this group. Generation X and baby boomers show more skepticism toward wellness programs, but are more likely to participate when the programs align with their personal goals. Their overall top health goal is weight loss. Ultimately, addressing the specific needs of your member population and providing wellness through various modalities will result in the greatest reward of investment.
Evaluation and data are the lynchpins that hold a successful program together. Consistent evaluation of the effectiveness of programs to increase participation, satisfaction, physical activity, and productivity – all while reducing risk factors – allow us to know if our programs are hitting the mark and allow for additional tailoring as needed.
By Jennifer Jones
Originally Posted By www.ubabenefits.com
by admin | May 19, 2017 | Benefit Management, HSA/HRA
In a world of insurance and acronyms, the term “HRA” is thrown around a lot, but it has a variety of meanings.
HRA can mean health reimbursement account, heath reimbursement arrangement, or health risk assessment, and all of those mean something different. I want to be clear that in the following article I am going to be discussing the use of health reimbursement accounts with fully insured health plans. We can leave the other meanings of HRA for another time.
An HRA can be “wrapped” with a high-deductible, fully insured health plan and this can lead to savings for an employer over offering a traditional health plan with a lower deductible.
Offering a high-deductible health plan and self-funding, the first $2,000, or $3,000, in claims on behalf of the employees can translate to significant savings because the employer is taking on that initial risk instead of the insurance carrier. Unlike a consumer-driven health plan (CDHP) that has a high deductible and can be paired with a health savings account (HSA) where an employer can contribute funds to an employee’s HSA account that can be used to pay for qualified medical expenses, an employer only has to pay out of the HRA if there is a claim.
With an HSA that is funded by the employer, the money goes into the HSA for their employees and then those funds are “owned” by the employee. The employer never sees it again. Under an HRA, if there are no claims, or not a high number of claims, the employer keeps those unused dollars in their pocket.
An HRA component to a health plan is subject to ERISA and non-discrimination rules, meaning everyone that is eligible should be offered the plan, and the benefits under the HRA should be the same for everyone enrolled. It is advisable that an HRA be administered by a third-party that pays the claims to the providers, or reimburse plan enrollees under the terms of the plan, in order to keep employees’ and their dependents’ medical information private from the employer as to avoid potential discrimination.
The HRA component of a health plan is essentially self-funded by the employer, which gives the employer a lot of flexibility and can be tailored to their specific needs or desired outcomes. The employer can choose to fund claims after the employee pays the first few hundred dollars of their deductible instead of the employer paying the claims that are initially subject to the high deductible. An employer can have a step arrangement, for example, the employer pays the first $500, the employee the second $500, the employer pays the next $500, and the employee pays the final $500 of a $2,000 deductible.
If an employer has a young population that is healthy, they may want to use the HRA to pay for emergency room visits and hospital in-patient stays, but not office visits so they can help protect their employees from having to pay those “large ticket items,” but not blow their budget. While an employer with a more seasoned staff, or diverse population, may want to include prescription drugs as a covered benefit under the HRA, as well as office visits, hospital in-patient stays, outpatient surgery, etc. Or, if an employer needs to look at cost-saving measures, they may want to exclude prescriptions from being eligible under the HRA.
Keep in mind, all of these services are essential health benefits and would be covered by the insurance carrier under the terms of the contract, but an employer can choose not to allow the HRA to be used to pay for such services, leaving the enrollee to pay their portion of the claims. In any case, the parameters of what is eligible for reimbursement from the HRA is decided and outlined at the beginning of the plan year and cannot be changed prior to the end of the plan year.
If you are thinking about implementing a high-deductible health plan with an HRA for your employees, be sure you are doing it as a long-term strategy. As is the case with self-funding, you are going to have good years and bad years. On average, a company will experience a bad, or high claims, year out of every four to five years. So, if you implement your new plan and you have a bad year on the first go-round, don’t give up. Chances are the next year will be better, and you will see savings over your traditional low-deductible plan options.
With an HRA, you cap the amount you are going to potentially spend for each enrollee, per year. So, you know your worst-case scenario. While it is extremely unlikely that every one of your employees will use the entire amount allotted to them, it is recommended that you can absorb or handle the worst case scenario. Don’t bite off more than you can chew!
HRA administrators usually charge a monthly rate per enrollee for their services, and this should be accounted for in the budgeting process. Different HRA third-party administrators have different claims processes, online platforms, debit cards, and business hours. Be sure to use one that offers the services that you want and are on budget.
Another aspect of offering a high-deductible plan with an HRA that is often overlooked is communication. If an employee does not know how to utilize their plan, it can create confusion and anger, which can hurt the overall company morale. The plan has to be laid out and explained in a way that is clear, concise, and easy to understand.
In some cases, the HRA is administered by someone other than the insurance carrier, and the plan administrator has to make sure they enroll all plan enrollees with the carrier and the third-party administrator.
The COBRA administrator also has to offer the HRA as part of the COBRA package, and the third-party administrator must communicate the appropriate premium for the HRA under COBRA. Most COBRA enrollees will not choose to enroll in the HRA with their medical plan, as they are essentially self-funding their deductible and plan costs through the HRA instead of paying them out of their pocket, but many plan administrators make the mistake of not offering the HRA under COBRA, as it is mandated by law.
Offering a high-deductible plan with an HRA is a way for small employers to save over offering a low-deductible health plan, and can be a way for an employer to “test the waters” to see if they may want to move to a self-funded plan, or level-funded plan, in the future.
By Elizabeth Kay
Originally Posted By www.ubabenefits.com
by admin | May 12, 2017 | ACA
On May 4, 2017, the U.S. House of Representatives passed House Resolution 1628, a reconciliation bill aimed at “repealing and replacing” the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA). The bill, titled the “American Health Care Act of 2017” or “AHCA,” will now be sent to the Senate for debate, where amendments can be made, prior to the Senate voting on the bill.
It is widely anticipated that in its current state the AHCA is unlikely to pass the Senate. Employers should continue to monitor the text of the bill and should refrain from implementing any changes to group health plans in response to the current version of the AHCA.
The AHCA makes numerous changes to current law, much of which impact the individual market, Medicare, and Medicaid. Some provisions in the AHCA also impact employer group health plans. For example, the AHCA removes both the individual and the employer shared responsibility penalties. The AHCA also pushes implementation of the Cadillac tax to 2025 and permits states to waive essential health benefit (EHB) requirements.
The AHCA removes the $2,500 contribution limit to flexible health spending accounts (FSAs) for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2017. It also changes the maximum contribution limits to health savings accounts (HSAs) to the amount of the accompanying high deductible health plan’s deductible and out-of-pocket limitation. The AHCA also provides for both spouses to make catch-up contributions to HSAs.
The AHCA provides for a “continuous health insurance coverage incentive,” which will allow health insurers to charge policyholders an amount equal to 30 percent of the monthly premium in the individual and small group market, if the individual failed to have creditable coverage for 63 or more days during an applicable 12-month look-back period. This provision is slated to begin in 2019, or in the case of a special enrollment period, beginning in plan year 2018. The AHCA also allows states to obtain a waiver and underwrite policies for individuals who do not maintain continuous coverage.
The AHCA would also return permissible age band rating (for purposes of calculating health plan premiums) to the pre-ACA ratio of 5:1, rather than the ACA’s 3:1. This allows older individuals to be charged up to five times more than what younger individuals pay for the same policy, rather than up to the ACA limit of three times more.
It is unknown at this time if the AHCA can pass the Senate, or what might be changed in the text of the bill in order to earn votes in an attempt to pass the bill.
By Danielle Capilla
Originally Posted By www.ubabenefits.com
by admin | May 3, 2017 | ACA, Benefit Management
A Summary of Benefits and Coverage (SBC) is four page (double-sided) communication required by the federal government. It must contain specific information, in a specific order, and with a minimum size type, about a group health benefit’s coverage and limitations. If an employer providing an SBC is a covered entity under the Section 1557 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), additional requirements apply.
On April 6, 2016, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), the Department of Labor (DOL), and the Department of the Treasury issued the final 2017 summary of benefits and coverage (SBC) template, group and individual market SBC instructions, uniform glossary of coverage and medical terms, a coverage example calculator, and calculator instructions.
The SBC is to be used by all health plans, including individual, small group, and large group; insured and self-funded; grandfathered, transitional, and ACA compliant. The new SBC must be used for plan years with open enrollment periods beginning after April 1, 2017. It will not be used for marketplace plans for the 2017 coverage year.
For fully insured plans, the insurer is responsible for providing the SBC to the plan administrator (usually this is the employer). The plan administrator and the insurer are both responsible for providing the SBC to participants, although only one of them actually has to do this.
For self-funded plans, the plan administrator is responsible for providing the SBC to participants. Assistance may be available from the plan administrator’s TPA, advisor, etc., but the plan administrator is ultimately responsible. (The plan administrator is generally the employer, not the claims administrator.)
Changes
The template includes a new “important question” that asks “Are there services covered before you meet your deductible?” and requires family plans to disclose whether or not the plan has embedded deductibles or out-of-pocket limits. This is reported in the “Why This Matters” column in relation to the question “what is the overall deductible?” and plans must list “If you have other family members on the policy, they have to meet their own individual deductible until the overall family deductible has been met” or alternatively, “If you have other family members on the policy, the overall family deductible must be met before the plan begins to pay.”
Tiered networks must be disclosed and the question “Will you pay less if you use a network provider?” is now included. The SBC also includes language that warns participants that they could receive out-of-network providers while they are in an in-network facility. The SBC also indicates that a consumer could receive a “balance bill” from an out-of-network provider.
The “explanatory coverage page” was dropped from the template.
The coverage examples provided clarify the “having a baby” example and the “managing type 2 diabetes” example, in addition to providing a third example of “dealing with a simple fracture.” The coverage example must be calculated assuming that a participant does not earn wellness credits or participate in an employer’s wellness program. If the employer has a wellness program that could reduce the employee’s costs, the employer must include the following language: “These numbers assume the patient does not participate in the plan’s wellness program. If you participate in the plan’s wellness program, you may be able to reduce your costs. For more information about the wellness program, please contact: [insert].”
The column for “Limitations, Exceptions, & Other Important Information” must contain core limitations, which include:
- When a service category or a substantial portion of a service category is excluded from coverage (that is, the column should indicate “brand name drugs excluded” in health benefit plans that only cover generic drugs);
- When cost sharing for covered in-network services does not count toward the out-of-pocket limit;
- Limits on the number of visits or on specific dollar amounts payable under the health benefit plan; and
- When prior authorization is required for services.
The template and instructions indicate that qualified health plans (those certified and sold on the Marketplace) that cover excepted abortions (such as those in cases of rape or incest, or when a mother’s life is at stake) and plans that cover non-excepted abortion services must list “abortion” in the covered services box. Plans that exclude abortion must list it in the “excluded services” box, and plans that cover only excepted abortions must list in the “excluded services” box as “abortion (except in cases of rape, incest, or when the life of the mother is endangered).” Health plans that are not qualified health plans are not required to disclose abortion coverage, but they may do so if they wish.
By Danielle Capilla
Originally Posted By www.ubabenefits.com
by admin | Apr 28, 2017 | ACA, Benefit Management, Compliance
While the health care affordability crisis has become so significant, questions still linger—will private exchanges become a viable solution for employers and payers, and will they will continue to grow? Back in 2015, Accenture estimated that 40 million people would be enrolled in private exchange programs by 2018; the way we see this model’s growth today doesn’t speak to that. So, what is preventing them from taking off as they were initially predicted? We rounded up a few reasons why the private exchange model’s growth may be delayed, or coming to a halt.
They Are Not Easy to Deploy
There is a reason why customized benefits technology was the talk of the town over the last two years; it takes very little work up-front to customize your onboarding process. Alternatively, private exchange programs don’t hold the same reputation. The online platform selection, build, and test alone can get you three to six months into the weeds. Underwriting, which includes an analysis of the population’s demographics, family content, claims history, industry, and geographic location, will need to take place before obtaining plan pricing if you are a company of a certain size. Moreover, employee education can make up a significant time cost, as a lack of understanding and too many options can lead to an inevitable resistance to changing health plans. Using a broker, or an advisor, for this transition will prove a valuable asset should you choose to go this route.
A Lack of Education and a Relative Unfamiliarity Revolves Around Private Exchanges
Employers would rather spend their time running their businesses than understanding the distinctions between defined contribution and defined benefits models, let alone the true value proposition of private exchanges. With the ever-changing political landscape, employers are met with an additional challenge and are understandably concerned about the tax and legal implications of making these potential changes. They also worry that, because private exchanges are so new, they haven’t undergone proper testing to determine their ability to succeed, and early adoption of this model has yet to secure a favorable cost-benefit analysis that would encourage employers to convert to this new program.
They May Not Be Addressing All Key Employer and Payer Concerns
We see four key concerns stemming from employers and payers:
- Maintaining competitive benefits: Exceptional benefits have become a popular way for employers to differentiate themselves in recruiting and retaining top talent. What’s the irony? More options to choose from across providers and plans means employees lose access to group rates and can ultimately pay more, making certain benefits less. As millennials make up more of today’s workforce and continue to redefine the value they put behind benefits, many employers fear they’ll lose their competitive advantage with private exchanges when looking to recruit and retain new team members.
- Inexperienced private exchange administrators: Because many organizations have limited experience with private exchanges, they need an expert who can provide expertise and customer support for both them and their employees. Some administrators may not be up to snuff with what their employees need and expect.
- Margin compression: In the eyes of informed payers, multi-carrier exchanges not only commoditize health coverage, but perpetuate a concern that they could lead to higher fees. Furthermore, payers may have to go as far as pitching in for an individual brokerage commission on what was formerly a group sale.
- Disintermediation: Private exchanges essentially remove payer influence over employers. Bargaining power shifts from payers to employers and transfers a majority of the financial burden from these decisions back onto the payer.
It Potentially Serves as Only a Temporary Solution to Rising Health Care Costs
Although private exchanges help employers limit what they pay for health benefits, they have yet to be linked to controlling health care costs. Some experts argue that the increased bargaining power of employers forces insurers to be more competitive with their pricing, but there is a reduced incentive for employers to ask for those lower prices when providing multiple plans to payers. Instead, payers are left with the decision to educate themselves on the value of each plan. With premiums for family coverage continuing to rise year-over-year—faster than inflation, according to Forbes back in 2015—it seems private exchanges may only be a band-aid to an increasingly worrisome health care landscape.
Thus, at the end of it all, change is hard. Shifting payers’, employers’, and ultimately the market’s perspective on the projected long-term success of private exchanges will be difficult. But, if the market is essentially rejecting the model, shouldn’t we be paying attention?
By Paul Rooney, Originally Published By United Benefit Advisors
