May 16, 2012

Consumerism Can Keep Prevention Costs in Check

The old saying by Benjamin Franklin — “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure” — has been taken to heart by many employers that want to better control the cost of their health care benefits.

Now, new research suggests that companies that promote a culture of prevention may want to preach an additional adage to their employees: When seeking a health care screening, look before you leap.

Numerous past studies and experts have pointed to the power of prevention in reducing health care costs by treating ailments before they bloom into significant conditions. In recent testimony before a California state legislative committee, Alan Katz, executive vice president of SeeChange Health, noted that preventive screenings offer the best long-term strategy for reducing health care costs.

“Early-stage treatment of breast cancer costs, on average, nearly $14,000 per year, while late-stage treatment averages $61,000,” Katz told the committee, according to a report by the Society for Human Resource Management. Savings clearly can be realized from prevention, even if it means “increased utilization [of health care services] in the short term,” he said.

Not all preventive costs are equal, however. New research by Change Healthcare found that costs for some preventive exams can vary by as much as 700 percent, depending on where the patient seeks care. For instance, in an analysis of 15,000 consumers, the cost for a colonoscopy ranged from $786 to $1,819, according to a report on the study in USA TODAY.

The study cited a number of factors that can determine price, including whether a patient receives care in an urban or rural area; whether the patient visits a hospital, physician’s office or clinic; and whether the provider specializes in a particular test.

Companies can shield themselves from some of the high costs by educating their employees about this variance and actively helping them find the best options for the price, Change Healthcare President Doug Ghertner told USA TODAY.

Another key question that employees need to ask when seeking preventive care is: Is this test really necessary?

A number of procedures, such as some imaging scans, have long been criticized as overused and ineffective. Recently, a foundation affiliated with the American Board of Internal Medicine released a list created by doctor specialty groups that names 45 medical services as typically unnecessary, according to a report in The Wall Street Journal. For instance, the American College of Radiology said patients with uncomplicated headaches usually shouldn’t undergo an image scan. The same goes for those with general lower-back pain, the American College of Physicians recommended.

“We’re not saying they should never be done,” Dr. Christine Cassel, the foundation’s CEO, told the WSJ. “We’re saying these [screenings] are often unnecessary, and therefore the patients should ask the doctor, ‘Gee, do I need this?’”

UBA HR Elements

May 2012

May 11, 2012

Some Insurers Deny ER Coverage to Those Who Have Been Drinking

Up to half of the people who are treated at hospital emergency departments and trauma centers are under the influence of alcohol, experts say. That may be a sobering statistic, yet a recent study found that emergency departments can capitalize on this “teachable moment” to discourage problem drinking in the future.

But laws in more than half the states permit insurers to deny payment for medical services related to alcohol or drug use and that can derail hospitals’ best intentions, experts say. Faced with the prospect of not getting paid for care, some emergency department personnel may sidestep the problem by simply not testing patients’ blood or urine for alcohol.

In the study, published online in the Annals of Emergency Medicine in March, nearly 600 emergency department patients who were identified as hazardous or harmful drinkers (defined for men as drinking more than 14 drinks per week or more than four on any single occasion, and for women as more than seven weekly drinks or three on any one occasion) took part in a seven-minute interview. During the interview, an emergency department staff member discussed the link between a patient’s injuries and alcohol, as well as guidelines for low-risk drinking, and encouraged the patient to discuss what was stopping him from drinking less and to set a drinking goal.

Compared with those who received standard care, patients who took part in the sessions reduced their average number of weekly drinks significantly as well as their episodes of binge drinking and drinking and driving over the next 12 months.

“In the emergency department on a weekend, all the cases may be drug or alcohol related, and yet we don’t do” screening and intervention, says Gail D’Onofrio, the study’s lead author who is chair of emergency medicine at Yale University School of Medicine. “Our goal is to normalize this in the emergency department.”

Although some of the nearly 4,000 emergency departments screen patients for drug or alcohol use, it’s not required. Level 1 and 2 trauma centers, however, which are typically equipped to handle emergency patients suffering from serious injuries sustained, for example, in major car accidents, must screen for problem drinkers. Level 1 trauma centers must also be able to provide counseling.

Such screening and counseling can be effective, says Larry Gentilello, a trauma surgeon who has published studies on injury prevention and substance abuse.

“Most of the people who are injured don’t need to go into treatment,” he says. “They aren’t alcoholics or alcohol dependent. That’s why one counseling session can help them by talking about the risks of drinking.”

The extent to which so-called alcohol-exclusion laws deter emergency medical personnel from screening and counseling patients for alcohol or drugs is unknown.

The laws have a long history. Since 1947, more than 40 states have passed measures allowing health plans to refuse to pay for care if the patient’s injuries occurred while he was under the influence of alcohol or, in some states, drugs, say experts. As people came to understand alcohol addiction and the possibility of treatment, however, it became clear that the laws were counterproductive. In 2001, the National Association of Insurance Commissioners recommended against them.

Since then, at least 15 states have repealed or amended their laws and now prohibit exclusions of coverage for drinking or drugs, according to data from the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. Maryland and the District of Columbia are among them; Virginia’s law remains in place.

Regardless of state law, self-insured companies that pay their employees’ health care costs directly can refuse to cover employees for alcohol-related claims.

The laws have ensnared both problem and occasional drinkers.

Gentilello describes the case of a Seattle woman who was celebrating her 25th wedding anniversary and had a few glasses of champagne at dinner with her family. It was a rainy night and she was dressed up and wearing high heels. As she and her husband tried to hail a cab, she tripped on a curb, fell and broke her ankle. In the emergency department, her chart noted that she had a few drinks. Her insurer refused to pay. Washington subsequently adopted a prohibition on alcohol-related claims exclusions in 2004.

It’s unclear how frequently insurers continue to apply such laws to avoid paying claims. Susan Pisano, a spokeswoman for America’s Health Insurance Plans, a trade organization, says the group doesn’t know what member practice is. Cynthia Michener, a spokeswoman for Aetna, says that “to our knowledge” the company doesn’t apply such exclusions. Other insurers, including UnitedHealthcare and Humana, didn’t provide information about their practices.

But a professor who has written about such laws says there are indications that health plans continue to use them to deny payment.

“There are tons of these cases,” says Sara Rosenbaum, a professor of health law and policy at George Washington University’s School of Public Health and Health Services. “The only evidence we have suggests that these cases go on.”

“There’s no reason to think that insurers, eager to hold down costs, wouldn’t continue” to deny payment based on such exclusions, she adds.

By Michelle Andrews
Kaiser Health News
Original Published: April 30, 2012

May 10, 2012

Insurers Warm to ‘Virtual’ Care

Tired of feeling “like the walking dead” but worried about the cost of a doctor’s visit, Amber Young sat on her bed near tears one recent Friday night in Woodbury, Minn.

Amber Young recently logged onto an Internet site run by NowClinic Online Care, a subsidiary of health insurer UnitedHealthcare, and “met” with a doctor in Texas. After talking with the physician via instant messaging and then by telephone, Young was diagnosed with an upper respiratory illness and prescribed an antibiotic (Photo by Todd A. Buchanan for USA Today).
That’s when she logged onto an Internet site, run by NowClinic online care, a subsidiary of UnitedHealth Group (which also owns UnitedHealthcare), and “met” with a doctor in Texas.

After talking with the physician via instant messaging and then by telephone, Young was diagnosed with an upper respiratory illness and prescribed an antibiotic that her husband picked up at a local pharmacy. The doctor’s “visit” cost $45.

“I was as suspicious as anyone about getting treated over the computer,” said Young, 34, who was uninsured then. “But I could not have been happier with the service.”

‘Virtual’ Consultations: A Physician’s View

NowClinic, which started in 2010 and has expanded into 22 states, is part of the explosion of Web- and telephone-based medical services that experts say are transforming the delivery of primary health care, giving consumers access to inexpensive, round-the-clock care for routine problems — often without having to leave home or work.

Insurers such as UnitedHealthcare, Aetna and Cigna, and large employers such as General Electric and Delta Air Lines are getting on board, pushing telemedicine as a way to make doctor “visits” cheaper and more easily available. Proponents also see it as an answer to a worsening doctor shortage.

But some physician and consumer groups worry about the trend.

“Getting medical advice over a computer or telephone is appropriate only when patients already know their doctors,” said Glen Stream, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians. “Even for a minor illness, I think people are going to be shortchanged,” he said.

Carmen Balber, a spokeswoman for Consumer Watchdog in Santa Monica, Calif., is concerned that lower co-payments, and other incentives, will spur consumers to see doctors or nurses online just to save money. “People will choose the more economical option, even if it is not the option they want,” she said.

Employers, however, say they’re getting mostly positive reviews.

“Our employees just love the convenience, the low cost and the efficiency,” said Lynn Zonakis, managing director of health strategy and resources at Delta Air Lines, which offers NowClinic to some employees for $10 a consultation.
“I was as suspicious as anyone about getting treated over the computer,” said Young, 34, who was uninsured as she waited for coverage to kick in at a new job. “But I could not have been happier with the service”.
The global telemedicine business is projected to almost triple to $27.3 billion in 2016, according to a recent report by BBC Research, a Wellesley, Mass., research firm.

“Virtual care is a form of communication whose time has come and can be instrumental in fixing our current state of affairs within the health care system,” said Robert L. Smith, a family doctor in Canandaigua, N.Y., and co-founder of NowDox, a telemedicine consulting firm.

Although the field developed more than 40 years ago as a way to deliver care to geographically isolated patients, its growth was slow. That’s changed in the past decade thanks to the development of high-speed communications networks and the push to lower health costs.

“It’s the wave of the future,” said Joe Kvedar, director of the Center for Connected Health, founded by Harvard Medical School.

Major obstacle

One major obstacle has remained, however: Many state medical boards make it difficult for doctors to practice telemedicine, especially interstate care, by requiring a prior doctor-patient relationship, sometimes involving a prior medical exam, said Gary Capistrant, senior director of public policy at the American Telemedicine Association, a trade group. “The situation seems to be getting worse, not better,” he said.

He cited a 2010 ruling by the Texas Medical Board that effectively blocks a physician from treating new patients from the patients’ homes via telemedicine. The only exception is if the patient has been referred by another physician who evaluated him or her in person. A first-time patient may get a virtual consultation in limited circumstances — if they go to a setting such as a clinic, EMS station or pharmacy that is equipped with diagnostic tools and staffed by a nurse or pharmacist who can help the physician make a physical evaluation.

“It’s about accountability,” said Dr. Humayun Chaudhry, CEO of the Federation of State Medical Boards. State boards insist on licensing doctors treating patients in their states so that if patients are injured, they have a state agency they can go to for help.

“We want to enable telemedicine to flourish, but at the end of the day we want patients protected,” Chaudhry said.

Some medical boards are loosening restrictions, he noted, citing nine, mostly rural, states, including Tennessee, Nevada and New Mexico, which in recent years passed rules to ease the licensing process.

Companies marketing telemedicine services say they are seeing strong demand. Bloomington, Minn.-based HealthPartners, a health system with four hospitals and 1.4 million health plan members, began an online service in fall 2010 that allows anyone in Minnesota or Wisconsin to consult a nurse practitioner for $40 or less.

Using an online interactive tool called Virtuwell, 23,000 patients have received a treatment plan often including a prescription, after answering questions about their condition and medical history.

Laurie Fedje, of Coon Rapids, Minn., tried Virtuwell last fall when her son, Noah, had a high fever and other flu symptoms and she did not want to go out in bad weather. She said it took her about 15 minutes to answer about 50 questions about her son’s health, such as whether he had ear pain, how long he had been sick and whether he had any allergies. Within a few minutes, she received an e-mail and a call from a nurse practitioner who diagnosed him with flu and sent a prescription.

“It was wonderful,” Fedje said.

Her employer, St. Paul-based Bethel University, covers the first three visits for free as an employee benefit.

About 80% of patients using Virtuwell have insurance, and many use the service as a covered benefit, said Kevin Palattao, a vice president at HealthPartners.

He notes that Virtuwell has turned away 45,000 prospective patients because they had problems that required in-person consultations, such as chest pain or multiple chronic conditions.

The most common problems treated online are routine sinus and bladder infections, pinkeye, upper respiratory illness and minor skin rashes, Palattao said.

UnitedHealth Group subsidiary OptumHealth, which operates the NowClinic, said it leaves it to physicians to determine if they can diagnose a patient via computer.

“This is not intended to replace the intimacy of the doctor-patient relationship,” said Chris Stidman, senior vice president.

The company would not disclose how many people have used the service or how many physicians it employs.

Testing at drugstores

Camp Hill, Pa.-based Rite Aid recently began testing NowClinic in several of its drugstores in Michigan and Pennsylvania. It’s a cheaper alternative to hiring doctors or nurse practitioners to work in store clinics.

At the stores, patients can pay $45 for a 10-minute teleconsultation with a doctor, or less if their employer has negotiated a reduced rate.

In a tiny office next to the pharmacy counter in one Harrisburg, Pa., Rite Aid, patients use a Web camera and microphone to talk to a doctor on a desktop computer, where they type in their symptoms, a brief medical history and their credit card information. A thermometer, blood pressure machine and scale are available nearby.

The physician sends an electronic prescription to the store that can be picked up minutes later.

On a recent afternoon when a reporter tested the service, there was a choice of only one doctor — Dr. Pardeep Shori, an internist in Irving, Texas, who is board-certified in family medicine.

Shori said he typically treats about a dozen NowClinic patients a day. While he is unable to look into a patient’s ears or throat, he noted, “The key thing you learn in medical school is that a lot of information comes from just listening.”

Young, the woman who talked to a NowClinic physician from her home in Woodbury, Minn., said she would use the service again even though she now has health insurance. She was impressed when the online doctor called her three days later to see how she was feeling.

“I’ve never had my own primary care doctor do that,” she said.

Kaiser Health News

By Phil Galewitz
KHN Staff Writer
MAY 06, 2012

May 10, 2012

CFA Facts About Disability Insurance

The Consumer Federation of America and Unum released a great PDF on facts about Disability Insurance which you can find right here on the WBS News Page below or follow the link here.

Facts About Disability – CFA UNUM

May 9, 2012

We Can’t Wait Update: Advancing Innovation in Health Care

From the electric light bulb to the Internet, American innovations have made lives better for people in this country and all over the world.

The kind of work we’ve done to advance technology, communication and so many other aspects of people’s lives is about to get a jump start in health care, thanks to today’s announcement of 26 Health Care Innovation Awards. The awards are part of our We Can’t Wait initiative.

“What America does better than anyone else is spark the creativity and imagination of our people,” said President Obama during his 2011 State of the Union address, and that’s exactly what the Health Care Innovation Awards aim to do. These awards provide our most creative minds—whether they’re health care professionals, technology innovators, community-based organizations, patients’ advocacy groups, or others—with the backing they need to build the strong, effective, affordable health care system of the future. These are 26 unique projects, tailored to the needs of patients by local doctors, hospitals, and other leaders in their communities.

These awards will save $254 million over the next three years by testing innovative approaches to improve the quality of health care and prevent disease and illness. And we’re just getting started. We’ll announce another round of innovation awards in June.

Awardees are chosen not only because they had innovative strategies to get health care to some of our hardest to reach populations, but also because their programs are expected to help expand the well-trained health workforce we need for a strong and resilient economy, which is essential for quality care.

One of these projects is Emory University’s example of ingenuity—a collaboration that trains health professionals and uses tele-health technology to link critical care units in rural Georgia to critical care doctors in Atlanta hospitals. The project aims to save money and improve the quality of care by reducing the need to transfer patients from rural hospitals to critical care units in Atlanta.

The Health Care Innovation Awards are investments in American innovation. These new awardees represent America at its best. We’re proud of the organizations that are part of this group, and—given the thousands of proposals that poured in when we first announced this program—we’re sure we’ve only scratched the surface of our ability to transform health care with this first set of awards.

HealthCare.gov

Health Care Blog

By Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services

Posted May 08, 2012

May 8, 2012

WBS Volunteers at IPTV

 

WBS enjoyed helping Idaho Public Television reach it’s contributions goals once again in 2012!

 

 

May 2, 2012

Proposed Regulations for Fees Assessed on Health Plans to Fund Patient-Centered Outcomes Research

 

On April 17, 2012, the U.S. Department of Treasury issued proposed regulations regarding fees that will be imposed on certain types of health plans to fund the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Trust Fund (the “Fund”). Of course, we are awaiting the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision on the constitutionality of PPACA this summer.

By way of background, PPACA established the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (the “Institute”) to assist the health care community in making informed health care decisions by advancing the quality and relevance of evidence-based medicine. PPACA added sections to the Internal Revenue Code to establish the Fund and to finance it by imposing fees on insurers of certain types of health coverage and on plan sponsors of self-insured health plans.

Policies and Plans Subject to the Fee

The following health insurance policies are subject to the fee: any accident or health insurance policy (including a policy under a group health plan) issued with respect to individuals residing in the United States, including certain prepaid health coverage arrangements (including a hospital or medical service policy or certificate, hospital or medical service plan contract, or health maintenance organization contract). Health insurance policies that are not subject to the fee include: (i) any insurance policy if substantially all of its coverage is of excepted benefits (e.g. accident or disability-only plans or limited-scope dental or vision plans); (ii) any group policy issued to an employer specifically to cover employees who are primarily working and residing outside of the United States (e.g. an expatriate health plan or policy); and (iii) stop loss and indemnity reinsurance policies.

The following self-insured health plans are subject to the fee: a plan that provides for accident or health coverage if any portion of the coverage is provided other than through an insurance policy, and the plan is established or maintained by a plan sponsor for the benefit of employees or former employees, members or former members, or other eligible individuals. Self-insured health plans that are not subject to the fee include: (i) a self-insured plan if substantially all of its coverage is of excepted benefits (e.g. accident or disability-only plans or limited scope dental or vision plans); and (ii) an employee assistance program, disease management program or wellness program, if the program does not provide significant benefits in the nature of medical care or treatment.

The proposed regulations clarify that HSAs and Archer medical savings accounts are not subject to the fees. However, retiree-only medical plans may be subject to the fees.

Who is the Plan Sponsor of a Self-Insured Health Plan?

A plan sponsor includes a single employer, employee organization, two or more employers, a voluntary employees’ beneficiary association (VEBA) or a multiple employer welfare arrangement (MEWA). In the case of a plan established or maintained by a single employer, the plan sponsor is the employer. If a plan is maintained by two or more employers, the plan sponsor is the employer identified as such in the plan’s documents (e.g. the plan document or summary plan description). If no identification or designation of a plan sponsor has been made, then each plan sponsor that maintains the plan is responsible for the portion of the fee that is attributable to such employer’s own employees.

Multiple Self-Insured Plans Offered by the Same Plan Sponsor

For purposes of calculating the fee, two or more arrangements that meet the definition of a health plan subject to the fee may be treated as one self-insured health plan if they have the same plan year and are established or maintained by the same plan sponsor.

Example 1. If a plan sponsor maintains one self-insured arrangement providing for medical benefits and another self-insured arrangement providing for prescription drug benefits, and both have the same plan year, the two arrangements may be treated as one self-insured health plan.

Example 2. If a plan sponsor maintains a health reimbursement arrangement (HRA) that is integrated with another self-insured health plan that provides for medical coverage, and both have the same plan year, the HRA and medical plan may be treated as one self-insured health plan. Note: If the HRA is integrated with an insured group health plan, both would be subject to separate fees.

Calculation of the Fee

An annual fee is imposed for policy or plan years ending on or after October 1, 2012, and before October 1, 2019 (i.e. seven full plan years). The amount of a fee for a policy or plan year is equal to (Average Number of Lives Covered) x (Applicable Dollar Amount).

The applicable dollar amount is $1 for policy or plan years ending on or after October 1, 2012, and before October 1, 2013. The applicable dollar amount then increases to $2 and will be adjusted based on percentage increases in projected per capita National Health Expenditures released by the Department of Health and Human Services.

For employers with fully-insured health plans, insurers will calculate and pay the fee based on one of the four methods allowed to determine the average number of lives covered under the policies it issues.

For self-insured health plans, calculating the average number of lives can be done by any one of the following three methods:

• Actual Count: Determined by adding the total number of lives covered for each day of the plan year and dividing the total by the number of days in the plan year.
• Snapshot: Determined by adding the total number of lives covered on one date in each quarter of the plan year (or more dates if an equal number of dates are used for each quarter) and dividing the total by the number of dates on which a count was made. The date or dates for each quarter must be the same (e.g. first day of the quarter, last day of the quarter, or first day of each month). When applying the Snapshot method, the number of lives covered on a date may equal the sum of the actual number of lives covered on the designated date (the snapshot count method) or the sum of the number of participants with self-only coverage on the designated date, plus the product of the number of participants with coverage other than self-only coverage on the date and a factor of 2.35 (the snapshot factor method).
• Form 5500: Determined based on the number of reportable participants for the Form 5500, Annual Return/Report of Employee Benefit Plan, that is filed for the plan for that plan year.

If a plan’s coverage is limited to self-only coverage, the average number of lives equals the sum of total participants covered at the beginning plus the total participants covered at the end of the plan year, divided by 2. For plans providing coverage that is not limited to self-only coverage, the Form 5500 does not identify whether the coverage is self-only or family (or some other non-self-only coverage). Therefore, the number of participants reported on the Form 5500 would then be converted to covered lives by multiplying the number of participants on each date (i.e. beginning and end of plan year) by a factor of 2.

A plan sponsor must use a single method to determine the average number of lives covered under the plan for the entire plan year. However, a plan sponsor is allowed to apply a different method from one plan year to the next.

There is also a special rule for FSAs and HRAs. If a plan sponsor does not maintain a covered self-insured health plan other than an FSA, which is not an excepted benefit, or an HRA, then the plan sponsor may assume one covered life for each employee with an HRA or FSA. The plan sponsor is not required to include any spouse, dependent or other beneficiary of the participant.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, the proposed regulations provide that a plan sponsor may use any reasonable method to determine the average number of lives covered under the plan for the first plan year that begins before July 11, 2012, and ends on or after October 1, 2012.

Procedural Rules for Payment of Fee

Plan sponsors and insurers must report these fees on Form 720 (Quarterly Federal Excise Tax Return). Generally, excise taxes are reported and paid quarterly on Form 720. However, the proposed regulations state that plan sponsors and insurers may report and pay the fees once per year, on July 31, in accordance with the instructions for Form 720. No semimonthly deposits are required. The Internal Revenue Service will be revising the current Form 720 and related instructions to reflect these fees. Form 720 may also be filed electronically.

 David Larsen, WBS In house Human Resource / Benefits Attorney

May 1, 2012

Hotter Economy Can Spark Retention Challenges

 

Although a recent report on U.S. job growth has left many observers disappointed, other economic signs are prompting employers to re-evaluate their benefits and retention strategies to avoid a potential talent exodus.

The Department of Labor reported that the nation added 120,000 jobs in March, down from the previous three months that saw 200,000 or more new jobs. Still, the stock market is up for the year, and U.S. employees appear to be more secure in their jobs. The Randstad employee confidence index — which measures how confident workers feel about their job security and the economy — rose in March to the highest level since October 2007, according to Workforce magazine.

An improving economy, however, has a dark side: Talented but unhappy employees will seek better opportunities elsewhere, experts say.

“There is a storm brewing,” said Lynne Sarikas, executive director of the MBA Career Center at Northeastern University, in a recent Human Resource Executive online report. “Many people will be looking to make a change once they perceive improvement and stability in the job market. This will have a significant impact on their employers.”

More movement in the job market can spur hotter competition among employers for good talent. In addition to competitive wages, robust employee benefits can help employers keep their best workers happy and productive — and employers are taking notice. A recent study by MetLife found that 90 percent of companies say they don’t plan to cut employee benefits in the near future, according to a report by CCH. A large majority (91 percent) of those polled expressed confidence that benefits work as retention tools.

While health, dental, vision and other stalwarts in the retention toolbox remain central to many companies’ overall offerings, employers may want to consider additional choices to sweeten the benefits pot.

For instance, companies that want to pull in younger workers may want to investigate defined benefit (DB) retirement plans, according to new research. A recent study by Towers Watson, reported in PLANSPONSOR, noted that 63 percent of workers younger than 40 said in 2011 that they chose their current employer because it offered a DB plan, compared with only 28 percent in 2009.

Education benefits are paying off for some companies, as well. United Parcel Service is sponsoring a program that pays up to $3,000 per year in tuition reimbursement for part-time employees. Executives say the program has spawned talented leaders who have stuck with the company.

“Enhancing the skills and knowledge base for our employees is a fundamental element of our success, and correlates directly with our policy to promote from within,” Susan Rosenberg, UPS public relations manager, told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

HR Elements April 2012

April 27, 2012

(SBCs) Summary and Benefits Coverage FAQs

The federal government recently released a new set of frequently asked questions (FAQs) that provide additional guidance on the summary and benefits coverage (SBC) rules from the health care reform law.

The FAQs explore when, how and to whom the SBC should be delivered. Regulators kept the Sept. 23 deadline for distribution but noted in the FAQs that the government would focus more on providing guidance than enforcement in the first year of the requirement.

The full PDF can be found by clicking here

The link to the Employee Benefits Security Administration Page can be found here: http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/faqs/faq-aca8.html

HR Elements, April 2012

March 22, 2012

Affordable Care Act FAQs

 

Please go here to view WBS’ Industry Information page for informative PDFs as well as the March 2012 Affordable Care Act FAQs