Businesses offer benefit programs as a means to attract and retain quality employees.  Most offer medical, dental and vision policies.  Others offer life insurance and disability income protection.   Still, there are many low-cost ideas employers can embrace to enhance their programs.  To truly offer competitive vs. comparable benefits employers can improve a program by including simple, value-added perks.  As an introduction to this concept we reprint the following column with permission by its author, Kyle Lagunas, HR analyst at Software Advice.

Creative Benefits to Engage, Motivate, and Retain

Fact: A standard package of health, dental and vision insurance, some paid vacation, a modest life insurance policy is not “competitive.” Although attracting and retaining top talent continues to be a challenge for business leaders, most employers still boast of their competitive benefits offerings… which are really nothing special (“comparable,” even). And employers who continue to offer the same old benefits package will fall behind in attracting, motivating and retaining the best.

The lines between work and personal lives are blurring for many employees. They’re seeking balance between the two, and are finding value in the ability to choose the specific benefits that best meet their needs at this point in their lives. And employers are learning that, when chosen and implemented effectively, however, benefits can demonstrate leadership’s concern for the well-being of employees, reinforce cultural values, and foster deeper employee engagement.

According to James Berkeley, Director of Berkeley Burke International, however, there’s still a disconnect. “The decisions made regarding what benefits to offer are often based on subjective viewpoints, viewpoints that are far removed from the actual needs of employees.” Rather than assuming you know what your employees want, Berkeley suggests you ask them. Though answers will vary, many people are interested in more benefits in these areas:

Healthy Living and Wellness Benefits. Susan Combs, President of Combs & Company, “The biggest benefit that employees ask for is gym membership reimbursement.” Wellness programs like WalkingSpree–which creates walking clubs, assigns teams and creates competitions–are another great way to motivate and engage employees to live healthy (thereby reducing your health care costs).

Flexible Work Options. Telecommuting and other forms of flexible work options make employees healthier and happier.  And as Sara Sutton Fell, Founder and CEO of FlexJobs points out, studies show that, “Employers who offer flexible schedules and alternatives to the traditional nine-to-five not only see higher productivity, but also save on health-related benefits they already offer.” Stanford University conducted a big study that showed that telecommuters were four percent more productive than office workers, working more hours and taking a larger workload.

Commuting Relief Benefits. More and more are looking for commuting relief benefits from their employers. Incentivize carpooling; use services like Transit Chek so employees can purchase transit tickets with pre-tax dollars; Or promote healthy living and alternative commuting options by installing bike racks your the office.

Perks You Can Afford. Great perks aren’t just for the guys in Silicon Valley. Many companies–big and small–bring in a massage therapist who offers chair massages to employees. Convenient and relaxing, this perk costs the employer nothing and might just keep employees in the office longer. Others adopt reward programs like BetterWorks where employees are given an allowance to spend on discounted food from local restaurants, dry cleaning, gym memberships and more.

Clearing The Great Leadership Hurdle

By offering benefits that are actually competitive, an organization can set itself above the competition–and build a strong culture of engagement and motivation. But as Eddie Trieber, CEO of HRI, points out, “Getting there requires the support of leadership–and there are a few common concerns that need addressing.” Leaders are often focused on Costs, Immediate Benefit, and Employee Utilization. It’s up to you to deliver on these key points.

Address the issues of cost by reminding leadership how little (if anything) creative benefits cost the organization. It might also help to frame benefits in terms of investments–not costs–in new employee acquisition and retention. And educate your employees. Actively promoting offerings in your recruiting strategy. Use open enrollment to re-educate employees. Add FAQs and educational content to the employee self-service portals in your HRMS.

About the Author: Kyle Lagunas is the HR Analyst at Software Advice – which reviews products offered by various HR software vendors. Kyle reports on trends, technology, and best practices in human resources and recruiting.

Position: Associate Agency Producer
Salary: Commensurate with experience
Benefits: Medical, dental, life insurance, disability protection, AFLAC, paid vacation and holidays, 401(k)
Company: Reilly Benefits, Inc.

Job Description: The Associate Producer seeks to acquire clients who wish to purchase health and dental insurance plans.

Responsibilities:
 Sales and marketing in the Maryland, VA, and Washington DC area
 Community outreach through traditional networking and through social media outlets
 Presentation of plan options and rate comparisons
 Assisting clients through the application process
 Communications to include explanation of benefits
 Tracking of policies in progress
 Lead generation and prospect management
 Additional marketing projects and responsibilities as assigned

Qualifications:
 Two or four year college degree
 Health/Life license desired but not required
 Computer skills: Microsoft Office (Word, Excel, and Outlook)
 Basic understanding of social media (Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter)
 Excellent communication skills, both written and verbal
 Strong presentation skills
 Strong organizational skills
 Fast learning skills

Reilly Benefits is a small insurance and employee benefits consulting agency, located in Southern Anne Arundel County, Maryland. The firm has an energetic and enjoyable company culture. We’re looking for a member who wishes to be part of a close working group, someone who will contribute thoughts and ideas as a means to strengthen the team. The position offers opportunity for advancement.

It depends upon the way you look at it.

A little known provision included in the healthcare law includes a new tax for health insurers.  Beginning in 2012, insurers will be required to pay $1 per member as a means to finance comparative effective research.  This fee rises to $2 in 2013.

The goal of comparative effectiveness research is to determine which procedures and approaches to health management achieve the most successful and cost effective results.  Does medicine A produce better results than medicine B?  Does one procedure outperform another procedure?  Do differences exist by geographic region?  By population segment?    By medical school?  By insurance company?

These are all of course good questions that should be answered, and a tax of dollar or two doesn’t sound so bad to pay for the research.  Understanding which medications and procedures produce the best and most cost effective results would provide enormous help in controlling health costs.

Now to be sure private industry already conducts comparative research.  But a general distrust of insurance companies and the inevitable pushback from plan participants (and from politicians) of any suggestion to change or limit choice diminishes the potential investment.  It’s driven by profit margin, many say.

Now Obamacare charges the duty to the federal government.  Makes sense.  After all, federal officials don’t make decisions based upon profit margins, right?  They have no interest in steering patients to specific hospitals or to replace higher cost medications with lower cost alternatives, do they?  They wouldn’t limit choice or procedures based upon cost, would they?

Comparative effectiveness is important.  It’s necessary.  And it’s integral to the survival of the U.S. healthcare system.  Insurance companies have pursued their own research for years.  Now the federal government will lead the way.  The question is this.  What will the government do with the research?

The passage of ObamaCare divided Congress and divided the country.   More recently it’s divided the judiciary.

As expected, dozens of lawsuits have been filed against the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act since its final passage in March of 2010.  The most-watched cases challenge the individual mandate, the idea the government can require a citizen to purchase a specific insurance plan or face a tax.

To date five district courts have ruled on the individual mandate.  Three courts have upheld the law, Eastern Michigan, District of Columbia, and Western Virginia.  And two courts have struck it down: Eastern Virginia, and Northern Florida.

Next up are the Courts of Appeal.   There have been two decisions so far with the Sixth Circuit upholding the Eastern Michigan case and the Eleventh Circuit agreeing with the Northern Florida court to strike down the law down.

Still to rule is the Fourth Circuit to settle the split decisions from the two Virginia cases.  And the District of Columbia Circuit will hear its appeal in September.

If you’re scoring, that’s four courts to uphold the mandate, three courts to strike it down, two appeals still pending.   The judiciary is split, some decided, ultimately undecided.   But do any of these lower decisions really matter?   After all, it was concluded with that fateful Christmas Eve vote in 2009 that the U.S. Supreme Court would decide the issue.   So, in the meantime, aren’t we just following process and reading headlines?

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act includes a provision to develop a federally sponsored long term care program known as the Community Living Assistance Services and Support Act(CLASS Act).  The law requires theDepartment of Health and Human Services to release details of the program by October 1, 2012.  The program will likely begin enrolling members in 2013.

Americans 18 and older and actively at work will be eligible to enroll.  Employers who elect to participate will automatically enroll workers but workers will have the ability to opt out.  With no exclusions for pre-existing conditions participation will be highly selective and the program will disproportionately attract unhealthy members.

The Congressional Budget Office estimated the monthly premium cost at $123 on average, yet according to a white paper released by The Cato Institute earlier this year premiums could actually be in the range of $180-$240.  Cost will dissuade participants as will a requirement that premiums be paid for five years before benefits become available.

Cash benefits will be paid directly to a qualified participant who experiences a loss of at least two activities of daily living (ability to eat, dress, bathe, etc).  Payments are expected to be no less than $50 per day on average and there is no provision to limit benefits on a lifetime basis.

Only 6% of the population is expected to enroll according to estimates provided by the American Academy of Actuaries.  This number could be much lower given the voluntary nature of the program, the expense, and the five year vesting period.

The CLASS Act is doomed.  Low participation and adverse selection will render the program unsustainable.  The CBO is concerned it becomes “a new federal entitlement program with large, long-term spending increases that far exceed revenues.” and the bipartisanCommission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform suggests a repeal if the program cannot be “reformed” in short order.  Reform?  The healthcare law was supposed to be reform!  Repeal is better than reform, at least for the CLASS Act.

A notable letter to the editor, printed in The Capital (Annapolis, MD), Friday July, 15, 2011. Enjoy!

Just so I understand this correctly, we’re going to be “gifted” with a health care plan we are forced to purchase and fined if we don’t, which will cover approximately 10 million more people without adding a single new doctor.

It was written by a committee whose chairman says he doesn’t understand it, passed by a Congress that didn’t read it, and signed by a president who smokes.

At least we can take comfort in knowing that nothing can possibly go wrong, because the funding will be administered by a treasury chief who didn’t pay his taxes, overseen by a surgeon general who is obese, and financed by a country that’s already broke. Only in America.

Ken Barlow
Annapolis, MD

Maternity benefits are eligible events in most short term disability policies. They fall under the illness schedule as opposed to the injury or accident schedule (even if the pregnancy occurred accidentally!) Policies begin to pay claims after a waiting period for either type of event. Payments for injuries or accidents usually begin before illness events. For example, a policy may offer income payments as of the first day of an accident while the policy may require a one week wait before payment for an illness. Waiting periods differ from policy to policy.

Under most policies, maternity claims are generally payable for a maximum of six weeks from the date of the delivery. This is standard industry practice based upon general medical guidelines. Complicated deliveries and extenuating medical conditions can of course allow for an extension of claims.

Here’s a quick class. If a policy requires a one week waiting period before payments begin, and if a participant stops working on the actual day of the delivery, then the plan will begin the waiting period on the date of delivery, which leaves the participant with only five weeks of eligible claims left of the six available. But considering many doctors send participants home for bed rest before the expected date of delivery, the maximum benefit changes. This is because the waiting period begins on the day the member is sent home as opposed to the date of delivery. For example, if the plan requires a one week wait, and if a doctor sends the member home one week prior to the delivery date, then the member has the opportunity to satisfy the waiting period while at home before the delivery date. The policy will then still pay the industry standard maximum of six weeks once the delivery occurs.

Similarly, if a participant leaves work four weeks early for bed rest due to doctor’s orders the policy will then pay a maximum benefit of nine weeks of claims. This is because the member satisfies the one week waiting period starting from the date the member went home. Claims payments then begin three weeks before the delivery date while the member remains unable to work at home. Once the delivery occurs the policy will still pay the industry standard maximum of six weeks once the delivery occurs.

To simplify…. just remember that maternity claims are generally paid for six weeks from the date of delivery. The policy waiting period starts as soon as the member takes leave. If the leave occurs before the delivery date, then the member receives more weeks of payment. If the leave occurs on the delivery date, then the member receives fewer weeks of benefit.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) requires employers to report the value of employer-sponsored group health insurance on an employee’s annual W2 form.  The amount to be reported in box 12 is considered non-taxable, at least for the time-being.

The law originally required employers to report this information beginning with the tax year 2011, but the IRS has postponedimplementation.  Now, employers that file more than 250 W2 forms, measured by the preceding calendar year, are required to report the health cost beginning with tax year 2012 (reportable January 2013).  Employers that file fewer than 250 W2 forms are required to report the health cost beginning with tax year 2013 (reportable January 2014).

In calculating the total reportable cost, the employer will combine the portions of the annual premium paid by the employer and the employee.  The annual cost of dental or vision coverage is excluded unless such coverage is integrated with the health plan.  Costs associated with contributions to a health savings account (HSA), Archer medical savings account (MSA), or flexible spending account (FSA), are also excluded from the total.

While postponing this reporting requirement gives employers some breathing room, the beginning of tax year 2012 is just around the corner.  Larger employers must have a system in place to begin tracking and recording employee health plan costs by January.  Smaller employers have an additional year.   Time is short.  Are you prepared?

See IRS Notice 2011-28 Interim Guidance on Informational Reporting to Employees of the Cost of Their Group Health Insurance Coverage for more detail.