Build It and They Will Come? Group Health Plan Prevalence Doesn’t Always Drive Enrollment (Well, Except in CA)

With the new year steadily approaching, employers across the country are beginning to think about open enrollment. In the past, Group Health Plans seemed to prevail, but for the upcoming year, that will change. Check out this article from our partner, UBA Benefits, to learn how PPOs (Preferred Provider Organizations) are actually the new way to drive open enrollment engagement.


Though more expensive, PPOs still dominate the market overall in terms of plan distribution and employee enrollment. However, when you look regionally, PPO plans are most prevalent in the Central U.S., while CDHPs are most prevalent in the Northeast.

Prevalence of Plan Type by Region

Prevalence of Plan Type by Region

From an enrollment standpoint, PPO plans have the greatest enrollment in the West, and the least enrollment in the Northeast. HMO enrollment continues to drop across most of the country, but held steady in the Southeast, capturing 9.8% of the market in 2017. CDHP enrollment, meanwhile, is highest in the North Central U.S. at 46.3%, but grew in every region of the United States except the West, where it decreased to 14.7% of the market.

Enrollment by Plan Type by Region

Enrollment by Plan Type and Region

California is often different, which is why we look at them both as part of the overall West and as a separate entity. Looking at California alone, HMOs are king, followed by PPO plans, whereas, in the rest of the U.S., including the Western region, PPOs and CDHPs are the top two predominant plans. Similarly, although HMO enrollment continues to drop in general, HMOs account for nearly half of the plan types and plan enrollment in the state of California, at 50% and 48.9%, respectively.

You can read the original article here.


Would you like to have your own customized benchmark results? Look no further! Take this survey to get your stats. Taking the Benchmark Survey will help you effectively benchmark where you need to be in order to remain competitive, manage expenses in innovative ways, and do so with the confidence that options do exist should the plan ever become cost-prohibitive. Click here for more information.

 

Source:

Olson B. (9 November 2017). "Build It and They Will Come? Group Health Plan Prevalence Doesn’t Always Drive Enrollment (Well, Except in CA)" [Web blog post]. Retrieved from address http://blog.ubabenefits.com/build-it-and-they-will-come-group-health-plan-prevalence-doesnt-always-drive-enrollment-well-except-in-ca


HRL - Pills - Glass

2017 Health Plan Survey Shows Sharp Rise in Group Healthcare Premiums

With over 20,000 health plans entered into UBA's Health Plan survey, the results have never been more informative. After reading the post below on Group Healthcare Premiums, head on over to this page to take our benchmark survey for customized results fit to your company's needs.


I’m happy to report that this year’s UBA Health Plan survey achieved a milestone. For the first time, we surpassed 20,000 health plans entered—20,099 health plans to be exact, which were sponsored by 11,221 employers. What we were able to determine from all this data was that a tumultuous Presidential election likely encouraged many employers to stay the course and make only minor increases and decreases across the board while the future of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) became clearer.

There were, however, a few noteworthy changes in 2017. Premium renewal rates (the comparison of similar plan rates year over year) rose nearly 7%, representing a departure from the trend the last five years. To control these costs, employers shifted more premium to employees, offered more lower-cost CDHP and HMO plans, increased out-of-network deductibles and out-of-pocket maximums, and significantly reduced prescription drug coverage as six-tier prescription drug plans exploded on the marketplace. Self-funding, particularly among small groups, is also on the rise.

Percent Premium Increase Over Time

UBA has conducted its Health Plan Survey since 2005. This longevity, coupled with its size
 and scope, allows UBA to maintain its superior accuracy over any other benchmarking survey in the U.S. In fact, our unparalleled number of reported plans is nearly three times larger than the next two of the nation’s largest health plan benchmarking surveys combined. The resulting volume of data provides employers of all sizes more detailed—and therefore more meaningful—benchmarks and trends than any other source.

Read our breaking news release with survey highlights. For a detailed examination of the key findings, download UBA’s free 2017 Health Plan Survey Executive Summary. To benchmark your exact plan against others in your region, industry or size bracket, contact a UBA Partner near you to run a custom benchmarking report.

 

 

You can read the original article here.

 

Source:

Weber P. (30 October 2017). "2017 Health Plan Survey Shows Sharp Rise in Group Healthcare Premiums" [Web Blog Post]. Retrieved from address http://blog.ubabenefits.com/2017-health-plan-survey-shows-sharp-rise-in-group-healthcare-premiums

 

SaveSave


How to Inspire and Energize Your Workforce Every Day

In this article from the SHRM blog, Desda Moss brings up some fascinating points on how to energize your workforce, as well as provides some great examples of books and behavior. Dive in with us below.


What does it take to inspire others? In The Inspiration Code: How the Best Leaders Energize People Every Day (Amacom, 2017), Kristi Hedges, a leadership communications expert and author who coaches CEOs and senior executives, draws from in-depth research to highlight the tools and practices used by inspirational leaders. Her guide provides a targeted approach to igniting inspiration, relying on a framework informed by hundreds of interviews, survey data and communications studies.
With a methodology Hedges calls "The Inspiration Path," the book takes complex leadership concepts and translates them into actionable steps.
Here are five surprising findings about inspirational leaders, according to Hedges:
  • Listening is the highest rated inspirational behavior. We're not inspired as much when someone talks at us as we are when someone listens to us. Time spent crafting beautiful messages matters less than what happens when leaders are quiet. To be an inspiring leader, you have to listen fully, with an open mind.
  • Small moments have the biggest impact. Most people recall their most inspired moments as times they were engaged in personal conversations where another person spoke authentically and focused on them. People can hold the words from an inspiring 10-minute conversation for their entire lives. Conversations create an inspirational trigger. For example, a conversation about purpose hits upon why we are at this moment in our lives and in our careers. These conversations transcend what we're doing in the here and now to reveal patterns that take us further, enhance our enjoyment, tap into our passion and spark in us the will to be in service to a larger cause.
  • Identifying and vocalizing another person's potential is life-changing.People who inspire us notice and grow our potential—honestly, specifically and graciously. We are often unaware of the unique talents and value we bring. Having someone take the time to tell us is a powerful reminder and can open our minds to what's possible.
  • People who inspire us are real, just like us. Contrary to common cultural myths that inspirational leaders are either charismatic iconoclasts or flawless, unflappable ideals, those who inspire us are actually relatable and down-to-earth. Truly inspirational leaders don't script their words, put on false airs or try to be perfect. They get through to us because they're authentic.  To be more inspirational, you need to let any well-honed professional persona go. We connect with people on emotional terms. We want to see what they actually care about.
  • Technology is killing inspiration.  Distraction and distance are enemies of inspiration. One study found that just the appearance of a cellphone on the table during a conversation—even if silenced—reduces empathy. If you want to be inspiring, you need to get away from distractions, electronic or otherwise, and show up fully.
Hedges contends that inspirational communicators don't possess any rare qualities, only the will to sharpen their listening skills, spark purpose in others and build connections that lead to an engaged workforce.
You can read the original article here.
Source:
Moss D. (20 October 2017). "How to Inspire and Energize Your Workforce Every Day" [Web Blog Post]. Retrieved from address https://blog.shrm.org/blog/how-to-inspire-and-energize-your-workforce-every-day

4 ways for advisers to protect and build business during fourth quarter

As the end of the year approaches, it's important for your business to thrive. In this article from Employee Benefit Advisors, Ron Goldstein addresses the fundamental ways to protect and build your business during your fourth quarter. Check it out below.


The fourth quarter is one of the busiest and most chaotic times for brokers. It is also the “make-or-break” period for protecting and building their respective books of business for the coming year.

It is wise for agents to move quickly during this busy season to help clients get a head start on health plan renewals, annual budgeting and more. Here are four tips for brokers to keep in mind:

1) Identify network disruptions. The time is now to proactively talk with clients about any network disruptions or problems they may have with their coverage. For instance, it is well-established that people want to see their own doctors, specialists, pharmacies and hospitals. But when they unexpectedly cannot — or when access requires expensive out-of-network and out-of-pocket costs — substantial upset will occur. The result can be a significant business threat for brokers. It is best, then, to identify any network “pain points” before the busy season is in full swing. This provides brokers with the needed time to work with clients to resolve any issues while also helping to assure that they are avoided and averted in the future.

The New York Stock Exchange

The New York Stock ExchangeBloomberg News

2) Understand plan disrupters and alternatives. This may seem obvious, but it is a vital point worth driving home. Whether a plan is bronze, platinum or somewhere in between, there are often adjustments made from one year to the next. Agents need to be intimately familiar with any changes, whether significant or minor, that might disrupt a client’s existing coverage. This can include network modifications, premiums, copays and so forth. So, clearly understand any variations and be prepared to discuss alternative options based on a business owner’s needs and expectations.

3) Address client budgets. Remember to talk with employers about any budgetary changes to their business. Depending on the discussion, this can be the optimal time to kick-start a conversation about alternative defined-contribution options. For instance, perhaps there are opportunities to raise the fixed-dollar amount for employees and/or to explore value-added benefits such as dental, vision, life insurance and other ancillary offerings. On the flip side, you can consider basing your client’s contribution on a different plan option that may provide costs savings if they’re looking to try and reduce their healthcare expenditure. Either way, addressing budgets early on helps brokers ensure they are tailoring plans that best meet client needs.

4) Move off a Dec. 1 renewal period: Moving off of this date may help provide clients with a better open enrollment and underwriting experience. Many renewals get stacked up right before this deadline, putting more pressure on agent customer service. At the same time, it can be easy to get bogged down and rushed with multiple clients requiring quoting, enrollment, plan administration and more to meet looming deadlines. Beginning the renewal process earlier in the quarter provides brokers and their clients with plenty of time to work together to address and select the right plan offerings. Additionally, it may make sense to also explore a larger array of options and pricing advantageous to brokers and clients alike.

While the end of 2017 is ahead, the beginning to a successful 2018 is right now for brokers, agents and benefits professionals. Those who anticipate client needs early-on and take pre-emptive efforts now will be better positioned to lock-in and expand business for the coming year.

 

You can read the original article here.

Source:

Goldstein R. (20 October 2017). "4 ways for advisers to protect and build business during fourth quarter" [Web Blog Post]. Retrieved from address https://www.employeebenefitadviser.com/opinion/4-ways-for-employee-benefit-brokers-to-protect-and-build-business-during-fourth-quarter


HRL - Man - Working - Laptop

5 SIMPLE STEPS TO DEVELOPING A COMPETITIVE PAY PRACTICE

Have you struggled with employee engagement and building a competitive pay practice? Fortunately, HR Morning has provided us and you with this awesome article, including five simple steps toward a competitive pay practice. Read more below.


In today’s competitive environment, employees are more educated than ever before about the current salary rates in their location and industry. If you want your business to remain competitive, and retain top talent, you need to stay one-step ahead of your competition, and have a solid pay strategy that’s based on accurate salary data – not speculation.

Here are a few simple steps to get you closer to a compensation strategy that retains talent and keeps your company ahead of the curve.

1)      Get a Pulse on Your Market

After a series of wage declines in 2009 and 2010, a number of industries are now seeing continual salary growth across multiple industries and locations. If your company’s compensation plan is based on the trends in those leaner years immediately after the recession, it’s probably time to revisit your pay strategy. Or you may be at risk of losing talent to competitors who’ve more quickly adapted to shifts in the market. Keep an eye on the PayScale Index to keep track of quarterly trends in pay by location, industry and job category.

 

2)      Benchmark Your Job Positions

It’s great to have a pulse on the overarching pay trends in your industry and area, but it’s another thing to have confidence that you’re actually paying top employees at the right rates for their job. By engaging in at least once-per-year salary benchmarking, you’ll be able to identify employees who are at a “high flight risk” of turnover, and be able to make smarter decisions about where you allocate your labor budget. Download PayScale’s How to Perform Compensation Benchmarking and Salary Ranges whitepaper for more information.

 

3)      Develop a Compensation Plan

Often times, businesses fear that having a compensation plan will limit their ability to make good business decisions, so they skip building a compensation plan in favor of fewer rules and less structure. But without a formalized compensation plan, companies often miss an opportunity to structure their pay decisions in a way that support business goals. As companies grow, the costs of compensation continue to rise, and without a formalized plan in place, companies often experience problems with pay inequities, employee retention, and engagement. Simply put, it’s easier, and more cost-effective to take small steps toward developing a smart compensation plan now, than it is to alter your course later down the line.

 

4)      Identify Pay Inequities

Some people live by the motto, “What you don’t know won’t hurt you.” That’s a motto your organization cannot afford to live by when it comes to internal pay inequities. Without a formalized comp plan, it’s often common for pay inequities to develop across organizations and departments. Those pay inequities can most definitely hurt you and your organization in the form of heightened turnover, over payment, and even litigation. Learn how to identify and resolve these inequities with PayScale’s guide to pay inequities.

 

5)      Communicate Your Compensation Strategy

If you go through the process of creating a compensation plan, don’t forget to let your employees know about it. In theory, your compensation strategy should reiterate and support your business goals. So, it’s important to communicate to employees how their work aligns with the goals of the organization, and how their compensation reflects that. If you share with your employees, and make your investments in talent clear to them, you’ll be surprised by the positive effect it has on employee morale. Check out PayScale’s Four Tips for Communicating Your Compensation Plan to Employees to help you get started.

 

Need help developing a competitive compensation strategy, or maintaining salary ranges for your workforce? PayScale offers access to the largest online salary database in the world. With data that’s updated on a daily basis, and software designed to help you maintain salary ranges, benchmark jobs, and allocate raises, PayScale is the choice for businesses who value accuracy and ROI in their pay practices. Request a demo of PayScale compensation software to learn how PayScale’s fresh, detailed data can support good compensation planning.

 

Read the original article here.

Source:

HRMorning.com (N.D.). "5 SIMPLE STEPS TO DEVELOPING A COMPETITIVE PAY PRACTICE" [Web blog post]. Retrieved from address http://pbpmedia.staging.wpengine.com/5-simple-steps-to-developing-a-competitive-pay-practice/


Don't Put Up with the Bull of Bullying

Bullying plagues our nation - and not just in high school. Here is an excellent article from our partner UBA Benefits on how to spot and handle bullying in the workplace.


Read the original article here.

Source:

Mukhtar G. (19 September 2017). "Don't Put Up with the Bull of Bullying" [Web Blog Post]. Retrieved from address http://blog.ubabenefits.com/dont-put-up-with-the-bull-of-bullying

 

There’s no place for bullying and that’s especially true in the workplace, yet many employees bully their co-workers. So, how does this happen? It used to be that bullying was confined to the schoolyard, but now it’s spread to cyberbullying and workplace bullying. Now, if there’s a culture of bullying at an organization, often it’s repeated as people climb the corporate ladder even though they were bullied themselves when they held lower positions.

An article on the website Human Resource Executive Online titled, “How to Bully-proof the Workplace,” says that “80 percent of bullying is done by people who have a position of power over other people.” Let that number sink in. That means four out of five people in positions of power will bully their subordinates.

One possible reason for the high number is that bullying may be difficult to identify and the person doing the bullying may not even realize it. Either the bully, or the victim, could view the action as teasing, or workplace banter. However, when one person is continually picked on, then that person is being bullied. Likewise, if a manager picks on all of his or her subordinates, then that person is a bully.

It’s important for organizations to have policies in place to thwart bullying and not just for the toll it takes on employees. It also begins to affect productivity. Those being bullied often feel like their work doesn’t matter and their abilities are insufficient. Worse is that bullies tend to resent talented people as they’re perceived as a threat. So, bullies tend to manipulate opinions about that employee in order to keep them from being promoted.

Eventually, talented employees decide to work elsewhere, leaving the employer spending time and money to find a replacement. But the bully doesn’t care. It just means they get to apply their old tricks on someone who isn’t used to them.

At some point, someone will fight back. Not physically, of course, but through documentation. An employee who is being bullied should immediately document any and all occurrences of workplace bullying and then present those documents to someone in HR. Most likely, this will result in identification of the bullying, stoppage of it, counseling for both the bully and the victim, and, if not already enacted, policies to prevent it from happening again.

 

Read the original article here.

Source:

Mukhtar G. (19 September 2017). "Don't Put Up with the Bull of Bullying" [Web Blog Post]. Retrieved from address http://blog.ubabenefits.com/dont-put-up-with-the-bull-of-bullying


The Killjoy of Office Culture

Sometimes, negativity in the office is hard to avoid. Read this article for some helpful tips to take care of those who may be aiding in the negative atmosphere.


One of the latest things trending right now in business is the importance of office culture. When everyone in the office is working well together, productivity rises and efficiency increases. Naturally, the opposite is true when employees do not work well together and the corporate culture suffers. So, what are these barriers and what can you do to avoid them?

According to an article titled, “8 ways to ruin an office culture,” in Employee Benefit News, the ways to kill corporate culture may seem intuitive, but that doesn’t mean they still don’t happen. Here’s what organizations should do to improve their corporate culture.

Provide positive employee feedback. While it’s easy to criticize, and pointing out employees’ mistakes can often help them learn to not repeat them, it’s just as important to recognize success and praise an employee for a job well done. An “attaboy/attagirl” can really boost someone’s spirits and let them know their work is appreciated.

Give credit where credit is due. If an assistant had the bright idea, if a subordinate did all the work, or if a consultant discovered the solution to a problem, then he or she should be publicly acknowledged for it. It doesn’t matter who supervised these people, to the victor go the spoils. If someone had the guts to speak up, then he or she should get the glory. Theft is wrong, and it’s just as wrong when you take someone’s idea, or hard work, and claim it as your own.

Similarly, listen to all ideas from all levels within the company. Every employee, regardless of their position on the corporate ladder, likes to feel that their contributions matter. From the C-suite, all the way down to the interns, a genuinely good idea is always worth investigating regardless of whether the person who submitted the idea has an Ivy League degree or not. Furthermore, sometimes it takes a different perspective – like one from an employee on a different management/subordinate level – to see the best way to resolve an issue.

Foster teamwork because many hands make light work. Or, as I like to say, competition breeds contempt. You compete to get your job, you compete externally against other companies, and you may even compete against your peers for an award. You shouldn’t have to compete with your own co-workers. The winner of that competition may not necessarily be the best person and it will often have negative consequences in terms of trust.

Get rid of unproductive employees. One way to stifle innovation and hurt morale is by having an employee who doesn’t do any work while everyone else is either picking up the slack, or covering for that person’s duties. Sometimes it’s necessary to prune the branches.

Let employees have their privacy – especially on social media. As long as an employee isn’t conducting personal business on company time, there shouldn’t be anything wrong with an employee updating their social media accounts when they’re “off the clock.” In addition, as long as employees aren’t divulging company secrets, or providing other corporate commentary that runs afoul of local, state, or federal laws, then there’s no reason to monitor what they post.

Promote a healthy work-life balance. Yes, employees have families, they get sick, or they just need time away from the workplace to de-stress. And while there will always be times when extra hours are needed to finish a project, it shouldn’t be standard operating procedure at a company to insist that employees sacrifice their time.

 

You can read the original article here.

Source:

Mukhtar G. (14 September 2017). "The Killjoy of Office Culture" [web blog post]. Retrieved from address http://blog.ubabenefits.com/the-killjoy-of-office-culture


Data Note: Changes in 2017 Federal Navigator Funding

Are you looking for a run-down on Navigator programs and their funding? In this article from the Kaiser Family Foundation, we are offered an informative peak of the 2017 changes in federal Navigator funding within the Affordable Care Act (ACA).


Read the original article here.

Source:

Pollitz K., Tolbert J., Diaz M. (11 October 2017). "Data Note: Changes in 2017 Federal Navigator Funding" [Web Blog Post]. Retrieved from address https://www.kff.org/health-reform/issue-brief/data-note-changes-in-2017-federal-navigator-funding/

 

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) created Navigator programs to provide outreach, education, and enrollment assistance to consumers eligible for coverage through the Marketplaces and through Medicaid and requires that they be funded by the marketplaces.  For the past two years, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has funded Navigator programs in the 34 states that use the federal marketplace through a multi-year agreement that was expected to continue for the current budget year.  In August, CMS officials announced significant reductions to Navigator funding for the 2018 budget year.  These funding reductions coming so close to the start of the 2018 open enrollment period will affect the help many Navigators can provide to consumers seeking to enroll in coverage.

This data note analyzes funding changes and discusses the implications for Navigators and consumers.  It presents results of a Kaiser Family Foundation online survey of federal marketplace (FFM) Navigator programs conducted from September 22, 2017 – October 4, 2017 about 2017 funding awards (for the 2018 open enrollment period), the relationship between funding amounts and program performance, and the likely impact of funding changes on programs and the consumers they serve. It also includes insights from a roundtable meeting of more than 40 Navigators co-hosted by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and Kaiser Family Foundation held on September 15, 2017, as well as analysis of administrative data.

BACKGROUND

In 2015, CMS signed three-year agreements with Navigator organizations to provide consumer assistance to residents of federal marketplace states.  The multi-year agreements promoted continuity and experience among Navigator professionals.  Multi-year agreement also spared CMS and Navigators the time and expense involved in reissuing grants during critical weeks leading up to open enrollment.  Under the agreements, Navigator programs in the FFM states are required to set goals and report performance data throughout the year relating to specific duties and activities.

Funding amounts under the multi-year agreements have been determined annually — $60 million for the first budget year (which runs September through August), and $63 million for the second budget year.  CMS notified continuing programs of the grant amount available to them for the coming year in late spring; programs then submitted work plans, budgets, and performance goals based on that amount.  Once CMS approved these plans, final awards were made in late August.

In May 2017, continuing Navigator programs were notified of available third-year funding amounts, which totaled $60 million, with grants for most programs similar to the year-two funding amount. In June, programs submitted their work plans and budgets corresponding to these amounts. The Navigator programs expected final Notice of Awards (NOA) by September 1, 2017.

On August 31, one day prior to the end of the second budget period of the grants, CMS announced it would reduce Navigator funding by more than 40%. CMS issued a bulletin stating that funding for the third year would be based on program performance on its enrollment goals for the second budget period.  On September 13, 2017, two weeks into the third budget year of the grant, FFM Navigator programs received preliminary NOAs for third-year funding, which totaled $36.8 million, or 58% of the year-two awards. (See Appendix A for funding awards by program.)

2017 NAVIGATOR FUNDING REDUCTIONS

CMS notified Navigator program of their preliminary 2017 grant awards on September 13, 2017.  The full list of preliminary awards was obtained and released by a third party (see Appendix A). This section summarizes funding changes based on information from that list.

Funding changes at the state level for 2017 were uneven across states.  Three FFM states (Delaware, Kansas, and West Virginia) received no net reduction in year-three Navigator funding.  Among the other 31 FFM states, the funding reductions ranged from 10% in North Carolina to 80% or more in Indiana, Nebraska, and Louisiana (Table 1).

Table 1: 2016 Federal Navigator Funding Awards  and Preliminary 2017 Awards as of  September 13, 2017, by State
State 2016 Funding Award 2017 Preliminary Funding Award Percent Change
Alabama $1,338,335 $1,036,859 -23%
Alaska $600,000 $446,805 -26%
Arizona $1,629,237 $1,167,592 -28%
Delaware $600,000 $600,000 0%
Florida $9,464,668 $6,625,807 -30%
Georgia $3,682,732 $1,433,936 -61%
Hawaii $334,510 $185,143 -45%
Illinois $2,581,477 $1,792,170 -31%
Indiana $1,635,961 $296,704 -82%
Iowa $603,895 $226,323 -63%
Kansas $731,532 $731,532 0%
Louisiana $1,535,332 $307,349 -80%
Maine $600,000 $551,750 -8%
Michigan $2,228,692 $627,958 -72%
Mississippi $907,579 $382,281 -58%
Missouri $1,815,514 $729,577 -60%
Montana $495,701 $374,750 -24%
Nebraska $600,000 $115,704 -81%
New Hampshire $600,000 $456,214 -24%
New Jersey $1,905,132 $720,545 -62%
North Carolina $3,405,954 $3,061,034 -10%
North Dakota $636,648 $208,524 -67%
Ohio $1,971,421 $568,327 -71%
Oklahoma $1,162,363 $798,000 -31%
Pennsylvania $3,073,116 $1,988,501 -35%
South Carolina $1,517,783 $511,048 -66%
South Dakota $600,000 $236,947 -61%
Tennessee $1,772,618 $1,497,410 -16%
Texas $9,217,235 $6,110,535 -34%
Utah $902,681 $394,862 -56%
Virginia $2,187,871 $1,108,189 -49%
West Virginia $600,000 $600,000 0%
Wisconsin $1,338,306 $749,215 -44%
Wyoming $605,847 $183,654 -70%
Total $62,882,140 $36,825,245 -41%
Source: List of preliminary grant awards was obtained and released by a third party, not by CMS.

When the multi-year agreement was established, federal funding was allocated across FFM states based on the state’s share of the number of uninsured people, with a minimum amount ($600,000) reserved for each of the smallest states.  This allocation formula no longer seems to apply.  For example, total funding for Navigators in Indiana ($290,000) was less than that for Navigators in Alaska ($447,000) despite the fact that there are four times as many uninsured residents in Indiana compared to Alaska (422,000 vs 95,600 in 2016).  Similarly, funding for Navigators in Ohio was less than that for Navigators in Oklahoma ($568,000 vs $798,000) though there are more uninsured residents in Ohio (631,000 vs 409,000).1

Overall, the funding reductions varied widely across individual Navigator programs. The vast majority (82%) of Navigator programs experienced reductions, while 18% of programs saw their funding stay the same or increase compared to funding levels in 2016. Forty-nine percent of programs had their funding reduced by more than half and more than one-quarter experienced funding reductions of over 75% (Figure 1).

Figure 1: Changes in Navigator Program Funding, 2016-2017

NAVIGATOR PROGRAM FUNDING VERSUS PERFORMANCE

This section summarizes findings from the KFF Survey of FFM Navigators about 2017 funding changes and program performance on certain metrics during the second year of the multi-year agreement.  All Navigator programs were contacted, and 51% participated in the survey.

Navigators say the basis for 2017 funding decisions has not been clear.  Nearly half (49%) of respondents said that the rationale for the funding notice they received on September 13 was not provided at all, and another 40% said it was unclear (Figure 2).

Figure 2: Navigator Program Perception of Clarity of CMS Funding Rationale

The August 31 CMS bulletin indicated that funding for the Navigators would be based on performance against year-two “enrollment goals.” According to the bulletin, “a grantee that achieved 100 percent of its enrollment goal for plan year 2017 will receive the same level of funding as last year, while a grantee that enrolled only 70 percent of its enrollment goal would receive 70 percent of its previous year funding level, a reduction of 30 percent. The new funding formula will ensure accountability within the Navigator program.”

It is not clear what metric CMS used to determine funding levels since Navigators have been required to track a number of activities relative to goals, all of which could result in or contribute to enrollment in health coverage.  These include:

  • Number of consumers assisted with qualified health plan (QHP) selection/enrollment (including reenrollment);
  • Number of one-on-one interactions with consumers, including both general and specific inquiries; and
  • Number of consumers assisted with applying for Medicaid/CHIP, including referral of consumers in non-expansion states to the state Medicaid office;
  • Number of consumers reached through outreach and public education activities.2
NAVIGATOR-ASSISTED QUALIFIED HEALTH PLAN SELECTION METRIC

The number of consumers assisted with QHP selections is the most direct measure of marketplace enrollment tracked by Navigators, although as discussed below, it does not capture all marketplace enrollments that involved Navigator assistance.

There are two measures of Navigator-assisted QHP selections, one self-reported by the programs and one based on data collected by healthcare.gov – the Multidimensional Information and Data Analytics System, or MIDAS data.  The healthcare.gov online application includes a field where Navigator staff can enter their identification number for each consumer whom they assist. Navigators report that program staff have not been trained on this data entry and did not consistently enter it. Several weeks after the start of the fourth open enrollment period, some Navigator programs said they were encouraged by their CMS project officers to improve consistency of staff identification numbers on applications.  Some say they subsequently received reports from CMS staff during the project year comparing MIDAS and self-reported data on QHP selections that did not match – in some cases by a factor of two – and programs did not know why.  Other programs said they did not receive reports from CMS on their MIDAS data.  Navigators expressed concern about the accuracy of data counting QHP selections, especially if this will become the basis for future funding decisions.

The survey asked Navigators to provide both their goal and self-reported performance data for Navigator-assisted QHP selections as reported to CMS for the second budget period. Navigator performance relative to the goal was compared to the change in funding from 2016 to 2017.  Among programs that provided the performance data, findings include:

For 22.5% of programs, 2017 funding matches performance on the self-reported QHP selection metric (Figure 3).  Included in this group were:

  • 15.0% of programs that exceeded or met at least 95% of the goal and whose 2017 funds were not reduced; and
  • 7.5% of programs that did not meet the goal and had funding reduced by the same or similar percentage (+/- 5%).

For 77.5% of programs, 2017 funding does not reflect performance on the QHP selection metric.  Included in this group were:

  • 22.5% of programs that exceeded or met at least 95% of the goal and whose 2017 funds were reduced;
  • 27.5% of programs that did not meet the goal and had funding reduced by a greater percentage; and
  • 27.5% of programs that did not meet the goal and had funding changed by a smaller percentage.

Figure 3: Change in Navigator Funding Compared to Performance on QHP Selection Metric

The QHP selection metric tends to undercount enrollment that is connected to assistance provided by Navigators. Through the survey and at the roundtable, Navigators expressed concern that the QHP selection measure does not reflect the number of consumers whom they help and who ultimately enroll in marketplace health plans.  This metric, as defined by CMS, counts only those consumers who select a plan in the Navigator’s presence, a fraction of the total number of individuals who enroll in coverage and who were helped by Navigators.  For example, if a Navigator helped a consumer complete her application and reviewed plan choices, but the consumer went home to consider her options and made a final selection that evening, that visit could not be reported as a Navigator-assisted plan selection.3 According to the Kaiser Family Foundation 2016 Survey of Health Insurance Marketplace Assister Programs and Brokers, 18% of assister programs reported that nearly all consumers they helped who were determined eligible to enroll in a QHP made their plan selection during the initial visit. Thirty-five percent said they knew the final plan selection of all or nearly all such consumers whom they helped.

OTHER NAVIGATOR PERFORMANCE METRICS

Funding changes for 2017 also do not appear to align with performance on other metrics.  Navigators reported goals and performance data on other key metrics that relate to enrollment (Figure 4). Most programs met or exceeded these goals, so these metrics do not appear to be related to the funding reductions.  Among programs that answered these questions, Eight in ten programs (83%) met their goals for one-on-one consumers interactions, 71% met their goals for helping consumers enroll in Medicaid or CHIP, and three quarters met their outreach and education event goal.

Figure 4: Most Navigators Met Other Enrollment-Related Goals

One-on-one assistance: The most comprehensive measurement required by CMS is the number of consumers provided one-on-one assistance.  A one-on-one encounter can involve helping a consumer with any step along the process that ends with enrollment:  educating consumers about the availability of plans and assistance, completing a marketplace application for financial assistance, appealing a marketplace decision, reviewing and understanding plan options, or selecting a QHP.  Navigators also provide one-on-one assistance to consumers after they enroll so that they can remain covered.  Such help includes answering tax reconciliation questions, resolving premium payment disputes, and referring consumers for help with denied claims.  Once they have resolved the problem they came in with, many consumers leave and complete the enrollment process on their own.  The one-on-one assistance metric would also count consumers who are helped but who do not enroll in coverage.  On average, the number one-on-one encounters Navigators reported was 15 times higher than the number of QHP selections.

Medicaid/CHIP enrollment assistance or referrals: The ACA requires a “no wrong door” application process through which consumers can apply through the marketplace, using a single streamlined application, for either private health insurance subsidies or Medicaid/CHIP.  Navigators are required to help all consumers with the application.  Navigators from Medicaid expansion states noted that most consumers who sought help were ultimately determined Medicaid eligible.  At the roundtable, some commented that, when the August 31 bulletin was released, they assumed CMS would base funding on enrollment under both types of coverage.

Outreach and public education: Four years after implementation, the public’s understanding of ACA benefits and requirements remains limited.  For example, many consumers continue to be unaware that signups for private non-group health insurance, generally, must take place during open enrollment.4  Turnover in marketplace plans is high, as most participants need non-group coverage only while they are between jobs or other types of coverage.  Navigators report that consumers are less likely to seek, or be receptive to, information about the marketplace until they actually need it.

IMPACT OF NAVIGATOR FUNDING REDUCTIONS

This section summarizes findings from the KFF Navigator survey as well as insights from the Navigator Roundtable meeting on program changes that may result from the funding reductions.

Most Navigator programs say they will continue to operate in 2018 despite the funding reductions.However, three programs said they will terminate work for year-three.  These include two programs – one statewide and one nearly statewide5 – that had been the only Navigator service providers for consumers in most areas of their respective states.  Their decision to withdraw was based on the level and timing of funding reductions.  The September 13 NOA directed that no more than 10% of the grantee’s award could be spent by programs pending CMS review and approval of the final budget and work plan.  Because the preliminary award was announced two weeks into the plan year with final awards scheduled to be made as late as October 28, grantees were faced with maintaining staff payroll and other expenses for as long as two months without assurances they would be reimbursed. The terminating programs, both operated by nonprofits, determined this was not feasible.

Most programs report they will likely reduce their geographic service area and limit help to rural residents. Among programs whose funding was reduced, 45% of statewide programs and two-thirds of regional programs said it is somewhat or very likely they will have to limit the territory their program will serve in year three. Programs emphasized their inability to afford the same level of travel expenses and/or the cost of satellite offices that they had previously incurred in order to offer in-person help to consumers living farther away.  Consumers living in rural communities may be the most affected.  Most (55%) statewide Navigator programs and 72% of regional programs expect to limit services to rural residents this year (Figure 5).

Figure 5: Navigator Programs Reducing Geographic Service Area and Services in Rural Areas

Nearly all programs (89%) expect to lay off staff as a result of funding reductions (Figure 6).  Some programs expect to cut Navigator staff by 75% or more.  The KFF 2016 Assister Survey found that continuity among staff has been high to date.  One advantage of the multi-year agreement was to allow staff experience to grow over time.  To fill in the gaps left by staff lay-offs, some programs plan to rely more heavily on less experienced volunteers.

Figure 6: Navigator Program Response to Funding Reductions

Most Navigator programs expect to reduce services in other ways, as well.  Nearly all programs (81%) say they will likely reduce outreach and public education activities as a result of budget reductions.  In addition, 89% of programs say they will likely reduce spending on marketing and advertising. Nearly six in ten programs (57%) said they will likely reduce the number of months in which they offer Navigator assistance.  Some programs expect to close following open enrollment, others will cut back to a skeletal staff.  As a result, consumers who need assistance at tax time, or help with special enrollments or post-enrollment problems during the year, may have difficulty finding it.

Over four in ten programs say it is likely they will curtail help to consumers related to Medicaid.  At the roundtable, some discussed a strategy of pre-screening consumers during open enrollment to identify those likely eligible for Medicaid/CHIP.  These consumers might be asked to come back at a later date, if they do not have an immediate medical or coverage need, because Medicaid and CHIP enrollment is year round.  Other expressed concern that, if CMS bases future funding on QHP plan selections, Navigators in Medicaid expansion states could be disadvantaged.

In addition, 57% of programs say they will likely limit time staff can devote to helping consumers with complex cases.  These cases include consumers experiencing identity proofing problems (for example, faced by young adults who have not previously filed income tax returns or established credit ratings).6  They also include consumers with income data-matching problems (for example, self-employed individuals who have difficulty estimating income for the coming year).  People who cannot resolve identity or other data verification problems within 90 days risk losing their marketplace coverage or subsidies.

Another 54% of programs say they will likely limit the number of limited English proficiency (LEP) consumers they can serve.  Programs often pay a premium for bi-lingual staff, an expense they may no longer be able to afford with reduced funding.

Consumers who need these kinds of assistance may have difficulty finding it elsewhere.  Many consumers seek help from other types of marketplace assister programs.  Federally qualified health centers (FQHCs) also receive funding from the federal government to provide in-person enrollment assistance, although the authorization for most federal funding expired September 30 and has yet to be extended.  In addition, Certified Application Counselor (CAC) programs provide in-person help in the marketplace, though are not paid by the marketplace.  The KFF 2016 Assister Survey found that all three types of programs play an important role in helping consumers.  They also tend to differ from Navigator programs in some key respects.  In particular, Navigator programs typically undergo a higher level of training; they are more likely to operate statewide, sponsor outreach and enrollment events, handle complex cases, and provide help throughout the year.

The KFF 2016 Assister Survey also found that agents and brokers are less likely than marketplace assister programs to serve consumers who need translation services, help with complex cases, and help with Medicaid applications. Brokers and agents are also less likely to help uninsured consumers, immigrants, and consumers who lack internet at home.

DISCUSSION

The Administration’s decision to reduce funding for Navigator programs comes at a challenging time for consumers who rely on coverage through the marketplaces. High-profile insurer exits from the marketplaces, rising premiums, and uncertainty over the federal commitment to funding the cost sharing subsidies are likely sowing confusion among consumers about whether coverage and financial assistance remain available. This confusion, coupled with a shortened open enrollment period, increases demand for the consumer education and in-person enrollment assistance Navigators provide. At a time when more help may be needed, the funding reductions are likely to reduce the level of in-person help available to consumers during this fall’s open enrollment and throughout the 2018 coverage year.

Navigator programs generally report that they do not understand the basis for the funding decisions, and our survey results suggest that there is not a clear link between funding and performance of programs relative to goals on the measures they are required to track and self-report. This ambiguity makes it difficult for programs to plan for the future.

Both the magnitude of the reductions and the timing has caused disruption to Navigator program planning and operations.  Programs plan to adopt various strategies in response to the reductions, including reducing their geographic service area and cutting services, such as outreach and assisting with complex cases. Three programs report they will terminate operations, leaving consumers in their states with very limited access to in-person help. While consumers may be able to turn to other assister programs or brokers, less in-person assistance will be available in some areas, especially for people with complex situations or who live in remote or rural communities.

 

Read the original article here.

Source:

Pollitz K., Tolbert J., Diaz M. (11 October 2017). "Data Note: Changes in 2017 Federal Navigator Funding" [Web Blog Post]. Retrieved from address https://www.kff.org/health-reform/issue-brief/data-note-changes-in-2017-federal-navigator-funding/


New Regulations Broadening Employer Exemptions to Contraceptive Coverage: Impact on Women


You can read the original article here.

Source:

Sobel L., Salganicoff A., Rosenzweig C. (6 October 2017). "New Regulations Broadening Employer Exemptions to Contraceptive Coverage: Impact on Women" [Web Blog Post]. Retrieved from address https://www.kff.org/womens-health-policy/issue-brief/new-regulations-broadening-employer-exemptions-to-contraceptive-coverage-impact-on-women/

The Trump Administration has issued new regulations that significantly broaden employers’ ability to be exempt from the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) contraceptive coverage requirement.  The regulation opens the door for any employer or college/ university with a student health plan with objections to contraceptive coverage based on religious beliefs to qualify for an exemption. Any nonprofit or closely-held for-profit employer with moral objections to contraceptive coverage also qualifies for an exemption. Their female employees, dependents and students will no longer be entitled to coverage for the full range of FDA approved contraceptives at no cost.

On October 6, 2017, the Trump Administration issued two new regulations greatly expanding the types of employers that may be exempt from the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) contraceptive coverage requirement.  These regulations are a significant departure from the Obama-era regulations that only granted an exception to houses of worship.  One of the regulations allows nonprofits or for-profit employer with an objection to contraceptive coverage based on religious beliefs to qualify for an exemption and drop contraceptive coverage from their plans.  The other regulation also exempts all but publicly traded employers with moral objections to contraception from rule. These new policies, effective immediately, also apply to private institutions of higher education that issue student health plans. The immediate impact of these regulations on the number of women who are eligible for contraceptive coverage is unknown, but the new regulations open the door for many more employers to withhold contraceptive coverage from their plans.

New regulations from the Trump administration greatly expand exemption from #ACA contraceptive coverage rule

Contraceptive coverage under the ACA has made access to the full range of contraceptive methods affordable to millions of women. This provision is part of a set of key preventive services that has been identified by the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) for women that must be covered without cost-sharing. Since it was first issued in 2012, the contraceptive coverage provision has been controversial. While very popular with the public, with over 77% of women and 64% of men reporting support for no-cost contraceptive coverage, it has been the focus of litigation brought by religious employers, with two cases (Zubik v Burwell and Burwell v Hobby Lobby)  reaching the Supreme Court. This brief explains the contraceptive coverage rule under the ACA, the impact it has had on coverage, and how the new regulations issued by the Trump Administration change the contraceptive coverage requirement for employers and affect women’s coverage.

How do the new regulations change contraceptive coverage requirements for employers?

Since they were announced in 2011, the contraceptive coverage rules have evolved through litigation and new regulations. Most employers were required to include the coverage in their plans. Houses of worship could choose to be exempt from the requirement if they had religious objections. This exception meant that women workers and female dependents of exempt employers did not have guaranteed coverage for either some or all FDA approved contraceptive methods if their employer had an objection. Religiously affiliated nonprofits and closely held for-profit corporations were not eligible for an exemption, but could choose an accommodation. This option was offered to religiously affiliated nonprofit employers and then extended to closely held for-profitsafter the Supreme Court ruling in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby. The accommodation allowed these employers to opt out of providing and paying for contraceptive coverage in their plans by either notifying their insurer, third party administrator, or the federal government of their objection. The insurers were then responsible for covering the costs of contraception, which assured that their workers and dependents had contraceptive coverage while relieving the employers of the requirement to pay for it.

As of 2015, 10% of nonprofits with 5,000 or more employees had elected for an accommodation without challenging the requirement. This approach, however, has not been acceptable to all nonprofits with religious objections.1 In May 2016, the Supreme Court remanded Zubik v. Burwell, sending seven cases brought by religious nonprofits objecting to the contraceptive coverage accommodation back to the respective district Courts of Appeal. The Supreme Court instructed the parties to work together to “arrive at an approach going forward that accommodates petitioners’ religious exercise while at the same time ensuring that women covered by petitioners’ health plans receive full and equal health coverage, including contraceptive coverage.”2

On October 6, 2017, the Trump Administration issued new regulations greatly expanding eligibility for the exemption to all nonprofit and closely-held for-profit employers with objections to contraceptive coverage based on religious beliefs or moral convictions, including private institutions of higher education that issue student health plans (Figure 1).  In addition, publicly traded for-profit companies with objections based on religious beliefs also qualify for an exemption. There is no guaranteed right of contraceptive coverage for their female employees and dependents or students. Table 1 presents the changes to the contraceptive coverage rule from the Obama Administration in the new Interim Final regulations issued by the Trump Administration.

Figure 1: Employers Objecting to Contraceptive Coverage: Exemptions and Accommodations Under the Trump Administration Regulations

The accommodation will be available to employers that previously qualified for the accommodation.  They now will also have the choice of an exemption. The federal departments issuing the regulations posit that these new rules will have limited impact on the number of women losing contraceptive coverage.   However, it is not clear how many employers previously utilizing the accommodation will now opt for an exemption, resulting in the loss of contraceptive coverage for their employees and dependents.  In addition, there are also an unknown number of organizations that were not previously eligible for either the accommodation or exemption that may now opt for an exemption. These new regulations create two new categories of employers who can now qualify for an exemption or can voluntarily chooses an accommodation:  1) publicly traded for-profit companies with a religious objection and 2) nonprofit and closely held for-profit employers who have a moral objection to contraceptives, a considerably larger pool of employers than when the exemption was available only to those who were employees of a house of worship or who were eligible for an accommodation in the past.

Table 1: Summary of Changes in the Contraceptive Coverage Regulations for Objecting Entities
  Obama Administration
August 2012 to October 5, 2017
Trump Administration
Effective October 6, 2017
What types of contraceptives must plans cover without cost-sharing? At least one of each of the 18 FDA approved contraceptive methods for women, as prescribed, along with counseling and related services must be covered without cost-sharing. No change
Are any employers “exempt” from the contraceptive mandate?
  • Religious institutions defined as “houses of worship”
  • Grandfathered plans
  • No notice to employees is required. Women workers and female dependents must pay for their own contraceptives.
  • Religious institutions defined as “houses of worship”
  • Grandfathered plans
  • Nonprofit or  for-profit employers (including publicly traded companies), insurers, or private colleges or universities that issue student insurance plans with a religious objection to contraceptive coverage
  • Nonprofit or closely held for-profit employers, insurers, or private colleges or universities that issue student insurance plans with a moralobjection to contraceptive coverage
  • Notice is only required if the plan previously included contraceptive coverage. Women workers and female dependents must pay for their own contraceptives.
Who pays for contraceptive coverage for employees of organizations receiving an exemption?
  • The cost of contraceptives is borne by women workers and female dependents.
  • There is no guarantee of contraceptive coverage for employees of an exempt organization.
  • The employer may choose to cover some methods, but has no obligation to cover all 18 FDA methods without cost sharing
No change

What type of employers may seek an “accommodation” to avoid paying for contraceptives in their plans?  
  • Closely held for-profit corporations and religiously affiliated nonprofits with religious objections to contraception can opt out of providing and paying for contraceptive coverage
  • Notice must be provided to either their insurer, third party administrator, or the federal government of their objection.
  • Women workers and female dependents receive no cost contraceptive coverage.
  • Any entity (except for houses of worship) eligible for an exemption can choose the accommodation instead of the exemption.
  • Notice must be provided to either their insurer, third party administrator, or the federal government of their objection.
  • Women workers and female dependents receive no cost contraceptive coverage.
Who pays for contraceptive coverage for employees of organizations receiving an accommodation?
  • Insurance companies of firms obtaining an accommodation must pay for contraceptive coverage.
  • Third-party administrators (TPA) of self-funded health plans must cover the costs of contraceptives for employees. The costs of the benefit are offset by reductions in the fees the TPA pays to participate in the federal exchange.
No change
When can entities change from an accommodation to an exemption? N/A
  • When an employer or private college or university currently using the accommodation opts for an exemption, the revocation of contraceptive coverage will be effective on the first day of the first plan year that begins 30 days after the date of the revocation or 60 days notice may be given in a summary of benefits statement.
  • The issuer or third party administrator is responsible for providing the notice to the beneficiaries.

How has the contraceptive coverage rule affected women?

Contraceptive use among women is widespread, with over 99% of sexually-active women using at least one method at some point during their lifetime.3 Contraceptives make up an estimated 30-44% of out-of-pocket health care spending for women.4 Since the implementation of the ACA, out-of-pocket spending on prescription drugs has decreased dramatically (Figure 2). The majority of this decline (63%) can be attributed to the drop in out-of-pocket expenses on the oral contraceptive pill for women.5 One study estimates that roughly $1.4 billion dollars per year in out-of-pocket savings on the pill resulted from the ACA’s contraceptive mandate.6  By 2013, most women had no out-of-pocket costs for their contraception, as median expenses for most contraceptive methods, including the IUD and the pill, dropped to zero.7

Figure 2: The Contraceptive Coverage Policy Has Had a Large Impact on Out-Of-Pocket Spending in a Short Amount of Time

This provision has also influenced the decisions women make in their choice of method. After implementation of the ACA contraceptive coverage requirement, women were more likely to choose any method of prescription contraceptive, with a shift towards more effective long-term methods.8  High upfront costs of long-acting methods, such as the IUD and implant, had been a barrier to women who might otherwise prefer these more effective methods.  When faced with no cost-sharing, women choose these methods more often9, with significant implications for the rate of unintended pregnancy and associated costs of childbirth.10

Finally, decreases in cost-sharing were associated with better adherence and more consistent use of the pill. This was especially true among users of generic pills.  One study showed that even copayments as low as $6 were associated with higher levels of discontinuation and non-adherence,11 increasing the risk of unintended pregnancy.

Do states with no-cost contraceptive coverage laws allow exemptions to objecting entities?

The federal standards under Affordable Care Act created a minimum set of preventive benefits that applied to most health plans regulated by the federal government (self-funded plans, federal employee plans) and states (individual, small and large group plans), including contraceptive coverage for women with no cost-sharing.  States have also historically regulated insurance, and many have had mandated minimum benefits for decades. State laws, however, have more limited reach in that they only apply to state regulated fully insured plans, do not have jurisdiction over self-funded plans, where 61% of covered workers are insured.12 In self-funded plans, the employer assumes the risk of providing covered services and usually contracts with a third party administrator (TPA) to manage the claims payment process. These plans are overseen by the Federal Department of Labor under the Employer Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and are only subject to federally established regulations.13  The ACA sets a minimum standard of coverage for preventive services for all plans. However, state laws regulating insurance, including contraceptive coverage, can require fully insured plans to provide coverage beyond the federal standards.

Eight states have strengthened and expanded the federal contraceptive coverage requirement (CA, IL, MD, ME, NV, NY, OR, VT).  Another 20 states have contraceptive equity laws that require plans to cover contraceptives if they also provide coverage for prescription drugs but they do not necessarily require coverage of all FDA-approved contraceptives or ban cost-sharing (Figure 3).

Figure 3: Many States Have Contraceptive Coverage Requirements

Many of the 28 states that have passed contraceptive coverage laws (both equity and no-cost coverage) have a provision for exemptions, but the laws vary from state to state and only apply to fully insured plans.  This means that there may be a conflict between the state and federal requirements when it comes to religious exemptions.  In some states with a contraceptive coverage requirement, some employers who are eligible for an exemption under federal law will not qualify for an exemption under state law (Table 2). Employers in those states will have to have to meet the standards established by their state even though they may qualify for an exemption based on the new federal regulations.  This conflict may set the stage for future litigation.

Table 2: State Requirements for No-Cost Contraceptive Coverage
StateDate Effective Applies to Coverage required without cost sharing Exemptions allowed
  Private plans Medicaid With RX all FDA approved OTC Vasectomy Religious Moral
CaliforniaJanuary 2015 X MCOs X Narrowly defined nonprofit religious employers None
IllinoisJanuary 2017 X X X
except male condoms
Any employer, or insurer with a religious objection Any employer, or insurer with a moral objection
MarylandJanuary 2018 X X X X X Religious organizations if the coverage conflicts with the organization’s bona fide religious beliefs and practices None
MaineJanuary 2019 X X Narrowly defined nonprofit religious employers None
NevadaJanuary 2018 X X X Insurers affiliated with a religious organization None
New YorkAugust 2017 X X Narrowly defined nonprofit religious employers* None
OregonAugust 2017 X X X Narrowly defined nonprofit religious employers None
VermontOctober 2016 X X – and all other public health assistance programs X X None None
NOTES: *Requires the insurer to offer a rider to policyholders so that women will have contraceptive coverage.
SOURCE: Kaiser Family Foundation analysis of state laws and regulations.

Conclusion

The Trump Administration’s new regulations substantially expand the exemption to nonprofit and for-profit employers, as well as to private colleges or universities with religious or moral objections to contraceptive coverage. It is unknown how many of these employers and colleges will maintain coverage through the accommodation as before and how many will now opt for the exemption leaving their students, employees and dependents without no-cost coverage for the full range of contraceptive methods. As a result of the new regulation, choices about coverage and cost-sharing will be made by employers and private colleges and universities that issue student plans. For many women, their employers will determine whether they have no-cost coverage to the full range of FDA approved methods.  Their choice of contraceptive methods may again be limited by cost, placing some of the most effective yet costly methods out of financial reach.

You can read the original article here.

Source:

Sobel L., Salganicoff A., Rosenzweig C. (6 October 2017). "New Regulations Broadening Employer Exemptions to Contraceptive Coverage: Impact on Women" [Web Blog Post]. Retrieved from address https://www.kff.org/womens-health-policy/issue-brief/new-regulations-broadening-employer-exemptions-to-contraceptive-coverage-impact-on-women/


Employer Premiums Rise Nearly 7% in 2017; Employees Absorb More of the Health Insurance Cost

On October 26th, UBA released the following press release on the UBA Health Plan Survey:


Increased prescription drug costs for employees with 5- and 6-tier plans; increased out-of-network deductibles and out-of-pocket maximums, especially for singles; self-funding on the rise

Premium renewal rates (the comparison of similar plan rates year over year) for employer sponsored health insurance rose an average of 6.6%—a significant increase from the five-year average increase of 5.6%, according to the 2017 United Benefit Advisors (UBA) Health Plan Survey, released today. Two states saw record premium increases: Connecticut saw a 24% increase in premiums in 2017, up to $655 from $530; New York also saw a large increase of 14%, up to $712 in 2017 over $624 in 2016.

On the other side, some states saw decreases in premiums, such as Arizona and Washington which saw 2% and 10% decreases, respectively.

Percent Premium Increase Over Time

Average employee premiums for all employer-sponsored plans rose from $509 in 2016 for single coverage to $532 in 2017 and from $1,236 to $1,272 for family coverage (a 4.5% and 3% increase respectively). Average annual total costs per employee increased from $9,727 to $9,935. However, the employee share of total costs rose 5% from $3,378 to $3,550, while the employer’s share rose less than 1%, from $6,350 to $6,401.

“Premiums have been holding relatively steady the last few years. And while this year’s increases are not astronomical, their departure from the trend does warrant attention. To mitigate these rising costs, employers are shifting more premium onto employees, offering more lower-cost consumer directed health plans (CDHPs) and health maintenance organization (HMO) plans, increasing out-of-network deductibles and out-of-pocket maximums, and leveraging continued extensions on the ability to “grandmother,” says Peter Weber, President of UBA. “We’ve also seen reductions in prescription drug coverage to defray increasing costs even further.”

Prescription Drug Plans—For a second year, prescription drug plans with four or more tiers are exceeding the number of plans with one to three tiers. Almost three-quarters (72.6%) of prescription drug plans have four or more tiers, while 27.4% have three or fewer tiers. Even more surprising is that the number of six-tier plans has surged, accounting for 32% of all plans, when only 2% of plans were using this design only a year ago.

“While employers chose to hold contributions, copays and in-network benefits steady, they dramatically shifted prescription drug costs to employees. By increasing tiering and adding coinsurance (vs. copays), employers were able to contain costs,” says Weber.

Out-of-Pocket Costs—Median in-network deductibles for singles and families across all plans remain steady at $2,000 and $4,000, respectively. Single out-of-network median deductibles saw a 13% increase in 2016, and a 17.6% increase in 2017, from $3,400 to $4,000. Both singles and families are facing continued increases in median in-network out-of-pocket maximums (up by $560 and $1,000, respectively, to $5,000 and $10,000).

Self-Funding—The number of employers using self-funding grew 48% for employers with 25 to 49 employees in 2017 (5.8% of plans), and 13.4% for employers with 50 to 99 employees (9.3% of plans).

Overall, 12.8% of all plans are self-funded, up from 12.5% in 2016, while almost two-thirds (60.9%) of all large employer (1,000+ employees) plans are self-funded.

“Self-funding has always been an attractive option for large groups, but we see self-funding becoming increasingly desirable to all employers as a way to avoid various cost and compliance aspects of health care reform,” says Weber. “For small employers with healthy populations, self-funding may be particularly attractive since fully insured community-rated plans under the ACA don’t give them any credit for a healthy group.”

The 2017 UBA Health Plan Survey Executive Summary is available now at http://bit.ly/2017UBASurvey. For interviews, contact Carina Sammartino, Media Relations, csammartino (at) hrmarketer.com or 760-331-3547.

About the 2017 UBA Health Plan Survey
The 2017 UBA Health Plan Survey contains the validated responses of 20,099 health plans and 11,221 employers, who cumulatively employ over two and a half million employees and insure more than five million total lives. While other surveys primarily target large employers, the focus of the UBA survey is to report results that are applicable to the small and mid-size companies that represent the overwhelming majority of the nation’s employers, while also including a mix of large companies in rough proportion to their actual prevalence, nationally. This is an important distinction compared to other national surveys.

You can read the original article here.

Source:

Mukhtar G. (26 October 2017). "Employer Premiums Rise Nearly 7% in 2017; Employees Absorb More of the Health Insurance Cost" [Web Blog Post]. Retrieved from address http://blog.ubabenefits.com/news/employer-premiums-rise-nearly-7-in-2017-employees-absorb-more-of-the-health-insurance-cost