December 8, 2016
Incentives are a popular way to get employees to engage with wellness programs. But the carrots and sticks employers can use in wellness programs have changed recently, thanks to final rulings from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) on wellness program incentives.
A recent article in Financial Advisor explored the evolution of wellness programs in light of these EEOC rulings, which limit financial incentives to 30% of the cost of an individual’s health plan.
In spite of the limitations imposed by the rulings, wellness programs continue to proliferate. While penalties (sticks) are still used, they are less common than incentives (carrots), according to Jeff Levin-Scherz, north American leader of health management for Willis Towers Watson.
“Relatively few employers use penalties except for tobacco cessation,” Levin-Scherz told Financial Advisor. “Most employers express incentives as a reward rather than a penalty.”
For the complete article in Financial Advisor, click here.
December 6, 2016
Employers are increasing their focus on managing prescription drug spending, especially high-cost specialty medications used to treat chronic illnesses.
This finding comes from the 21st annual Willis Towers Watson Best Practices in Health Care Employer Survey, which surveyed 600 U.S. employers about their health program decisions and strategies.
“High price tags for specialty drugs are the main driver of employers more carefully examining their spending on pharmaceuticals and how they manage their employee pharmacy benefit programs,” said Nadina Rosier, North American pharmacy practice leader for Willis Towers Watson.
Previous Willis Towers Watson survey data revealed that nearly 90% of employers have identified managing pharmacy spending as their top priority over the next three years, so we will no doubt see more on this topic as employers seek solutions to manage cost.
For six common strategies employers are using to combat the rising cost of prescription drugs, see the complete press release from Willis Towers Watson here.
November 21, 2016
Do fitness wearables in the workplace really work? This was the question posed in a recent article in the Chicago Tribune.
Even as more employers are offering fitness wearables to their employees, the article pointed out that it remains to be seen how effective they are at helping them achieve better health outcomes or reduce health care costs.
According to Willis Towers Watson employer survey data, presented in the article, 31% of large employers now offer wearable fitness trackers to their employees; another 23% reported considering offering them in the next two years.
In addition to questions about effectiveness, there are also those who have privacy concerns and wonder about the ethics of rewarding employees for wellness program participation or penalizing them for failing to meet wellness goals.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has issued several rulings recently related to wellness programs and their administration. Fitness tracking devices fall under the guidance of these rulings, and employers are advised to stay up to date on rules to stay compliant.
To read the article in the Chicago Tribune, click here.
October 27, 2016
As the open enrollment period for employer-sponsored insurance approaches, there is one benefit that employers hope employees will take more advantage of: telemedicine.
Of the estimated 1.2 billion outpatient visits last year, just 1 million were conducted using telemedicine, according to Willis Towers Watson data.
Why haven’t employees flocked to telemedicine? According to a recent article in the Chicago Tribune, it’s possible they don’t understand it, don’t know it’s available, or are skeptical of getting a doctor’s opinion without physically being with a doctor. However, it isn’t because the service is more expensive: it’s not. The average telemedicine visit costs between $40 and $49 and some employers don’t require an employee contribution, covering 100% of the fee, said Willis Towers Watson senior consultant Dr. Allan Khoury, who was interviewed for the article. This compares favorably with a visit to a primary care doctor ($110) or a trip to the emergency room ($865).
Regardless of why employees are slow to adopt telemedicine, Dr. Khoury advises employers to figure it out and put in place strategies for accelerating adoption, starting with increased employee education. There’s a lot of money to be saved through telemedicine that won’t be realized until employees start using it.
To read the article in the Chicago Tribune, click here.
October 25, 2016
In a twist on the famous lament of Kermit the Frog, it ain’t easy being an HR professional for a multi-state employer. Ok, so that isn’t as catchy as the original. But the reality is multi-state employers must address the varying state and local laws governing employee benefits and that can be complicated and time consuming.
Take paid sick leave, for example. In a recent article on the topic in Human Resource Executive, Jackie Reinberg, senior consultant for Willis Towers Watson, said, “The issues most employers are really struggling with is that systems are not easily adjusted for all of the different localities. A number of them are keeping spreadsheets because they just do not have the bandwidth right now to update all of the systems.”
This is especially challenging because some state and local laws include part-time workers, expanding the number of employees employers need to take into consideration when designing a paid sick leave policy.
To complicate matters even more, starting next year federal law will require employers who contract with the federal government to provide 7 days of paid sick leave. The clock is ticking for multi-state employers to comply with the law and make other modifications to their sick leave policies that are affected by it.
To read the article in Human Resource Executive, click here.
October 20, 2016
Health benefits are a big part of attracting and retaining talent and employers are always on the lookout for benefits offerings that are attractive to potential new hires and appealing to their existing workforce.
One benefit that is gaining in popularity is adoption assistance. A recent article in Workforce reported that the hotel chain Hilton Corp. has added the benefit, including both a stipend to cover the expenses of the adoption process and a broader parental leave program. Both are slated to go into effect in January 2017.
According to Jackie Reinberg, national practice leader of absence, disability management and life at Willis Towers Watson, who contributed to the article, adoption assistance stipends average $10,000, and can range from $5,000 to as high as $25,000.
Just 20% of employers offer it in 2016, according to the Society for Human Resource Management 2016 Employee Benefits Survey. But Reinberg expects widespread adoption (pun intended) of the benefit as employers modernize their benefits programs.
To read the article in Workforce, click here.
October 13, 2016
According to a new survey from Willis Towers Watson, employers are increasing their efforts to achieve better health outcomes for their employees at a lower cost by implementing value-based reimbursement and payment arrangements with health insurers and providers.
This finding comes from the 21st annual Best Practices in Health Care Employer Survey. The survey included responses from 600 U.S. employers between June and July 2016, who collectively employ 12.2 million full-time employees.
A recent article in Workforce highlighted findings from the survey and the strategies needed to implement them. Value-based strategies employers plan to use include establishing centers of excellence (COEs) for specialty services through health plans, separate providers, or third-party vendors; implementing high performance networks; and contracting directly with service providers to secure improved pricing.
When it comes to establishing centers of excellence, one big factor to consider is the region, according to Sarah Oliver, senior consultant and health care delivery leader for Willis Towers Watson.
“We’re seeing a movement looking at strategies on a regional basis,” said Oliver. “Depending how big the population is, employers are looking for locations where they have a higher concentration of employees in order to make meaningful impact if they do implement a center of excellence. All of this would be grounded in data and what the underlying issues are.”
For the complete release from Willis Towers Watson, click here.
For the article in Workforce on the findings, click here.
October 7, 2016
In July, the U.S. Equal Opportunity Employment Commission issued an informal discussion letter in response to requests for clarification of incentive limits for employer-sponsored wellness programs. The request came in the wake of long-awaited final EEOC rulings on employer-sponsored wellness programs, released in May, that placed limits on employer wellness programs, including incentive amounts employers can offer employees to participate in the programs. The final rulings stipulated that incentives could not exceed 30% of the total cost of a major medical plan, but left some questions unanswered, including how employers that offer multiple wellness plans should calculate the maximum incentive limit.
The July letter noted that “the EEOC concluded that where an employer offers more than one group health plan option, but enrollment in a particular [emphasis added] plan is not required to participate in a wellness program, the maximum incentive is based on the total cost of the lowest cost self-only coverage under a major medical group health plan that the employer offers.”
The motivation for employers to encourage participation is in wellness programs is to achieve better health outcomes for employees, which translates to lower health care costs and higher workforce productivity for employers.
Since the way wellness programs are administered and legislation related to wellness continue to evolve, employers should expect additional updated guidelines from the EEOC.
To read the entire informal discussion letter from the EEOC, click here.
October 5, 2016
A recent survey from Willis Towers Watson revealed that over a third (37%) of U.S. employers are changing plan designs to reduce employee out-of-pocket costs at the point of service. The same percentage of employers (37%) are lowering premiums contributions for low-income workers. By 2018, the number of employers taking these steps is expected to rise to 53% and 51%, respectively.
These findings come from the 21st Annual Willis Towers Watson Best Practices in Health Care Employer Survey, completed by 600 employers in June and July 2016.
In the face of continued cost pressures, employers have gradually increased the amount that employees pay for employer-sponsored health care. Increases have come in the form of larger premium contributions, higher copays and coinsurance, health plans with higher deductibles, and surcharges for coverage for working spouses eligible for health insurance from their own employers. Now, however, more employers are becoming concerned that health care is becoming unaffordable, especially for low-wage workers.
Other actions employers are taking to improve affordability include seeding health savings accounts (HSAs) tied to account-based health plans (ABHPs) to help employees close the gap created by the higher deductibles associated with such plans. Of employers that offer ABHPs, 85% are seeding HSAs with an average seed amount of $600 per year for employee-only coverage and twice that amount for employees with family coverage.
These steps employers are designed to ensure employees’ physical and financial health and well-being as well as on-the job productivity. The number of employers taking similar steps is expected to rise significantly over the next two years.
September 26, 2016
Some of the fastest-growing Medicare costs stem from doctors using new medical devices for testing and treatment in their offices, recent data shows.
According to a Wall Street Journal analysis, four of the top 10 fastest-growing Medicare services from 2012 to 2014 involved new medical devices being used by doctors in their offices, instead of in care settings where they might typically be used.
The appeal to doctors of using these new devices is clear: because of the way Medicare payments are structured, their use can be very lucrative. There is also the convenience factor for both doctors and patients. And in an era when technology offers sophisticated medical innovations small enough for use in doctors’ offices, it’s easy to see how doctors are tempted to use cool new devices.
But the consequences of doctors using more medical devices in their offices is an uptick in Medicare spending, to the tune of $135 million, according to Medicare billing records. While that amount of money is a drop in the bucket of total Medicare spending, if the trend continues, it could result in meaningful increases.
So while in-office testing and treatment has its advantages, it’s a trend that bears watching from a cost-benefit point of view.
To read the article in the Wall Street Journal, click here.