Category Archives: Health Care
Employers look to consumer-driven plans to lower health costs
The rising cost of health care will soon be reflected even more substantially in employee cost-sharing. A new National Business Group on Health survey shows that large employers anticipate their health care benefit costs to climb 7.2% in 2012. To help control those increases ahead of health care reform’s Cadillac tax in 2018, the survey shows employers are planning to use a wide variety of cost-sharing strategies including CDHP premium boosts. Continue reading
Benefits of self-funded health plans
By Michelle M. Stimson
July 29, 2011
Due to the economic recession and the potential for increased health insurance costs brought about by health care reform, many employers are beginning to view self-funded health care plans as a more attractive option than fully insured plans. These employers recognize the advantages of self-funding, which include cost savings, increased cash flow and more flexibility in benefit decisions, administration and funding. Self-funded plans will be favored under health care reform because, while many provisions of health care reform apply both to fully insured and self-funded plans, there are many provisions of health care reform from which only self-funded plans are exempt. For example, self-funded plans will not have to comply with the new marketing, internet portal, enrollment and provider network and quality accreditation rules. This will mean direct cost savings to the plan, which will pass through to the employer. There are also many state mandates from which self-funded plans are still exempt.
Flexibility of Plan Design
One major advantage of self-funding is the control and flexibility of plan design. Under a self-funded health plan, the employer has the option of either duplicating its current fully insured plan design or redesigning and tailoring the benefits to meet the specific needs of the employer. Of course, as mentioned, health care reform has put some limitations on the extent to which an employer can influence the plan design, but for the most part, the employer has the freedom to eliminate benefits that result in plan abuses or high utilization.
Exemption From State-Mandated Benefits
As previously noted, another benefit of opting for a self-funded arrangement is an employer’s ability to opt out of state mandated benefits, although this benefit has been somewhat limited by health care reform. Since self-funded health care plans are governed by ERISA, they follow federal law and are not required to provide state-mandated benefits, which can be both expensive and unnecessary. Likewise, these employers can set their own limits on benefits where states would otherwise set the limits.
Control of Reserves
Employers sponsoring self-funded plans also enjoy the advantages of controlling reserves. In a fully insured plan, a substantial portion of the premium is held by the carrier as a state-required reserve for claims and inflation. Under a self-funded arrangement, the employer maintains and controls the reserves and has the ability to invest these funds. Moreover, there are no restrictions on reserves, and the employer retains them when claims do not materialize. Under a fully insured arrangement, if an employer’s claims experience is better than expected, only the insurer benefits financially.
Claims Experience
Even where an individual employer has a history of good claims experience, the insurance companies pass on a renewal based upon the entire pool of insureds. Thus, an employer is rated, not based upon its individual claims experience but upon those of other companies that have no relationship to that employer’s company or industry. A self-funded arrangement eliminates this component of maintaining a plan.
Premium Tax
In most states, there is no premium tax for self-funded plans. This results in an immediate savings because approximately two to four percent of an employer’s fully insured health care costs fund this premium tax.
Advantages of Advanced Preparation
It seems clear that health care reform will increase the already high cost of health insurance. With greater flexibility, fewer mandated benefits and potentially lower costs, now is the time for both large and small employers to consider shifting their fully insured plans to self-funded plans. Through innovative ideas and strategic planning, employers can examine their workforce and prepare for the changes coming in 2014.
Source: Employee Benefit News article used by permission.
Continue reading
Senators seek to end FSA ‘use it or lose it’ clause
Posted July 26, 2011 by By Kelley M. Butler at 10:00AM.
Although generally a highly rated and highly valued benefit, one of the most irksome realities of flexible spending accounts is that account holders must drain the funds at the end of every plan year or lose them altogether. However, a bipartisan Senate proposal aims to end the FSA “use it or lose it” rule.
Well, I guess the gridlocked way the debt ceiling talks are going, something ought to be bipartisan. Sheesh.
Late last week, Senators Ben Cardin (D-Md.) and Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.) introduced a bill that would allow consumers to pay taxes on and withdraw any remaining FSA funds. The bill has support in the House as well, introduced with bipartisan support this spring by Reps. Charles Boustany (R-La.) and John Larson (D-Conn.).
“It is time to modernize FSAs to eliminate this burdensome ‘use it or lose it’ rule,” Cardin said when he introduced the legislation. “It is both fair and sound health policy to allow FSA participates to cash-out remaining funds at the end of the plan year rather than forfeiting the balance to their employer.”
Source: Employee Benefits News article used by permission.
Continue reading
Gang of Six: Kill CLASS; Cut Social Security, Health Spending
One specific recommendation calls for eliminating the Community Living Assistance Services and Supports Act (CLASS Act) long term care program. The CLASS Act is supposed to create a voluntary, worker-funded LTC program. Critics have argued that the program would be actuarially unsound and eventually would have to charge higher and higher rates as healthier workers began to avoid it.
The proposal would encourage Congress to reform or replace the Medicare Sustainable Growth Rate formula and offset the cost with savings on other health care expenditures. A parenthetical note in the proposal seems to suggest that drafters believe that move could save $298 billion over 10 years.
The drafters say the government also should seek $202 billion in additional health savings while maintaining the essential health care services on which the poor and elderly depend.
Continue reading
Same-Sex Couples May Now Marry In New York — Impact On Employee Benefits And Other Employment Rights
Client Alert
June 30, 2011
Last week, Governor Andrew Cuomo signed historic legislation (the Marriage Equality Act) making New York the largest (and only the sixth) state to permit the marriage of same-sex couples.[1] The Marriage Equality Act also provides same-sex married couples with the same legal rights as their opposite-sex counterparts in New York. The law becomes effective on July 24, 2011, which is 30 days after it was signed.
The Marriage Equality Act
The Act amends New York State’s Domestic Relations Law to provide that same-sex couples may obtain a marriage license in New York, and that parties to a same-sex marriage shall be treated equally to opposite-sex married couples “in all respects under the law,” without any distinction. Although New York has for the past few years recognized same-sex marriages validly performed in other jurisdictions, such marriages could not be performed legally in New York, and the State only recognized the rights of same-sex married couples for limited purposes.
Important Exemption to the Act’s Requirements for Religious and Benevolent Organizations: In order “to ensure that [the Act] does not improperly intrude into matters of conscience or religious belief,” the Act preserves the current rights of a member of the clergy to choose not to solemnize any marriage. It also protects the rights of a religious organization to choose who may use its facilities for a marriage ceremony and who may rent its housing accommodations. A benevolent organization is also exempt from the State’s prohibitions against discrimination in public accommodation, so that it is not required to rent its halls for weddings of couples it chooses not to accommodate. The Act specifically provides that a religious or benevolent organization’s refusal to provide accommodations, facilities or privileges in connection with a same-sex marriage does not create a civil claim or cause of action.

