February 15, 2012

Why Not the Best?

 

Results from the National Scorecard on U.S. Health System Performance, 2011

“There have been encouraging improvements on several key performance indicators, as well as a number of instances where performance declined or failed to keep pace with the performance of leading nations, delivery systems, states, or regions.

The 2011 Scorecard finds that the U.S. as a whole scores only 64, compared with 67 in 2006 and 65 in 2008—well below the benchmarks. Average scores on each of the five dimensions of performance range from a low of 53 for efficiency to a high of 75 for quality of care.

 

Indicators That Show Promising Improvements

Information systems. The proportion of primary care physician practices that use electronic medical record (EMR) systems increased from 17% to 46% from 2000 to 2009. Still, the U.S. lags far behind the leading countries, where nearly all physicians now use EMRs.

Care for chronic conditions. Control of high blood pressure improved from 31% in 1999–2000 to 50% in 2007–2008 among national samples of adults with hypertension, a likely result of stepped- up awareness campaigns and preventive treatment targeting heart disease

and stroke. The best-performing health plans attained 75%.

Effective hospital care. Hospitals provided proven treatments to prevent surgical complications 96% of the time in 2009, an increase from 71% in 2004. Adherence to treatment standards for heart attack, heart failure, and pneumonia rose from 84% to 96%.

Preventable hospitalizations. Admission rates for heart failure and pediatric asthma each dropped by 13% from 2004 to 2007, a possible reflection of improved disease management. But rates continued to vary twofold to fourfold across hospital referral regions and states.

Preventable mortality. The rate of mortality amenable to health care—deaths that might have been prevented

with timely and effective care—improved 21% in the U.S. between 1997–98 and 2006–07. However, rates improved by 32%, on average, in 15 other industrialized nations.

 

Indicators That Show Significant Deterioration or No Improvement

Insurance and access. As of 2010, 81 million adults—representing 44% of all working-age adults were either uninsured sometime during the year or underinsured, meaning they were insured all year but had medical bills or  deductibles that were high relative to their incomes. This represents a 33% increase from 2003, when the total was 61 million.

Affordable care. As insurance premiums rose faster than wages, the share of working-age adults living in a state where group health insurance premiums averaged less than 15% of household income dropped from 57% in 2003 to just 4% in 2009.

 

Primary and preventive care. In 2008, 44% of non-elderly adults lacked a regular primary care provider. The vaccination rate for young children recovered in 2010 following a sharp decline caused by a vaccine shortage in 2009, yet one-quarter of children still lacked full protection against communicable diseases.

Rehospitalizations. Average rates of hospital readmissions within 30 days of discharge for selected conditions or procedures remained high—20% of discharged

Medicare patients in both 2003 and 2009. Rates in the highest-rate regions were 50% higher than those in the

lowest-rate regions. The Affordable Care Act will provide incentives for lowering readmission rates.

 

Medical Benefits—1/15/2012

 

February 15, 2012

Employers Go High-Tech with Benefit Information

Most employers say they understand the importance of benefit communications. Unfortunately, many struggle to translate that knowledge into actions.

Now more than ever, employers are turning to technology to make those communications easier and more effective.

A recent study by ADP found that 80 percent of polled employers said it is vital for employees to fully understand their benefit options, but only 60 percent of respondents said they were confident that their employees really get it, according to a PLANSPONSOR report.

Web portals have become a key tool in battling this gap, with 71 percent of midsize employers saying they have a devoted website for employee benefit communications, according to the ADP poll.

Emerging technologies, especially mobile devices, appear to be spurring interest in the use of technology-based benefit communications. The ADP survey found that participants estimated that about two in five employees use mobile devices in their work, and 39 percent of polled midsize companies said they provide mobile access to benefit information, according to the study.

Like mobile devices, social media tools and websites have seen an explosion of use over the past few years. As the social media phenomenon continues to blossom, so does its use as an internal communications tool by companies.

More than 60 percent of companies report that they make at least one social media tool available to some or all of their employees, according to new research by International Association of Business Communicators and Prescient Digital Media. The survey, published in Employee Benefit News, noted that among companies’ corporate intranets, the most popular social media features were blogs (75 percent), discussion forums (65 percent) and instant messaging (63 percent).

Toby Ward, president of Prescient Digital Media, told EBN that companies need to make a real commitment to planning and technology if they want these kinds of communications to stick.

“While the popularity of social media tools . . . is rising, only about one-quarter of frontline employees and executives alike rate their intranet social media as good or very good,” Ward said. “Without a proper plan, adequate investment and the requisite change management and communications, most intranet social media initiatives will fail.”

UBA—HRElements 1/2012

 For more information, call WBS at 208.336.8666

November 17, 2011

Employers Return Attention to Retirement Benefits

Employers Return Attention to Retirement Benefits

After years of enduring a sour economy, many employers with 401(k) plans now are looking ahead and trying to sweeten their plans to increase their recruitment and retention power.

For many, the first ingredient involves restoring the matching contribution — a benefit that many employers dumped when the downturn hit. Most employers have already taken this step, according to a new industry survey reported in Business Insurance. Three-quarters of employers that suspended a 401(k) match have restored it, according to a poll by Towers Watson. Seventy-four percent of those employers bumped the match back to its original total. Nearly a quarter of companies (23 percent) restored the match but at a lower rate this time around.

In addition to bringing back the match, employers can mix up plan types and help provide information and support to get employees’ retirement savings back on track.

For example, Roth 401(k)s, which allow employees to contribute after-tax funds, are getting serious looks from employers these days. A poll by The Profit Sharing/401(k) Council of America notes that 46 percent of employers offered this choice in 2010, compared with 18.4 percent in 2006, according to Workforce Management.

The Roth option may be attractive to many workers because those employees’ current tax bracket likely will rise as they get older and make more money, the report said. Under that scenario, Roth participants would see savings through a lower tax bill in retirement.

Companies also can encourage their employees to fatten their retirement prospects by encouraging smart investing and finding resources to help them make the right decisions, experts said. A number of industry surveys have shown that advice from investment professionals leads participants to save more and diversify their portfolios.

Luckily for employers, many plans and benefit advisors now offer personalized, full-service advising in addition to educational materials about general investing, according to a report in The Wall Street Journal.

A recent survey by the Plan Sponsor Council of America noted that 58 percent of profit-sharing and 401(k) plans offered investment advice in 2010. Also, the Department of Labor recently relaxed a rule allowing providers to offer advising services directly to employees rather than having to go through a third party.

Unfortunately, employees have been slow to take advantage of either the Roth option or investment advice. For instance, only 16 percent of employees select the Roth plan when it is offered, the Profit Sharing/401(k) Council of America reports. As for investment advice, only a quarter of employees take advantage of that feature when it is available, according to the WSJ report.

Despite these challenges, most companies — including small businesses — are renewing their commitment to their retirement benefits and are working to keep the benefit attractive.

“A few years ago we’d have small-business owners who wouldn’t put [retirement] high on the list of things that attract and retain employees,” Rich Linton of Bank of America Merrill Lynch told Employee Benefit News. Now, however, companies of all sizes are crafting their benefits package to help their employees secure their financial future, Linton said.

Employers Return Attention to Retirement Benefits

After years of enduring a sour economy, many employers with 401(k) plans now are looking ahead and trying to sweeten their plans to increase their recruitment and retention power.

For many, the first ingredient involves restoring the matching contribution — a benefit that many employers dumped when the downturn hit. Most employers have already taken this step, according to a new industry survey reported in Business Insurance. Three-quarters of employers that suspended a 401(k) match have restored it, according to a poll by Towers Watson. Seventy-four percent of those employers bumped the match back to its original total. Nearly a quarter of companies (23 percent) restored the match but at a lower rate this time around.

In addition to bringing back the match, employers can mix up plan types and help provide information and support to get employees’ retirement savings back on track.

For example, Roth 401(k)s, which allow employees to contribute after-tax funds, are getting serious looks from employers these days. A poll by The Profit Sharing/401(k) Council of America notes that 46 percent of employers offered this choice in 2010, compared with 18.4 percent in 2006, according to Workforce Management.

The Roth option may be attractive to many workers because those employees’ current tax bracket likely will rise as they get older and make more money, the report said. Under that scenario, Roth participants would see savings through a lower tax bill in retirement.

Companies also can encourage their employees to fatten their retirement prospects by encouraging smart investing and finding resources to help them make the right decisions, experts said. A number of industry surveys have shown that advice from investment professionals leads participants to save more and diversify their portfolios.

Luckily for employers, many plans and benefit advisors now offer personalized, full-service advising in addition to educational materials about general investing, according to a report in The Wall Street Journal.

A recent survey by the Plan Sponsor Council of America noted that 58 percent of profit-sharing and 401(k) plans offered investment advice in 2010. Also, the Department of Labor recently relaxed a rule allowing providers to offer advising services directly to employees rather than having to go through a third party.

Unfortunately, employees have been slow to take advantage of either the Roth option or investment advice. For instance, only 16 percent of employees select the Roth plan when it is offered, the Profit Sharing/401(k) Council of America reports. As for investment advice, only a quarter of employees take advantage of that feature when it is available, according to the WSJ report.

Despite these challenges, most companies — including small businesses — are renewing their commitment to their retirement benefits and are working to keep the benefit attractive.

“A few years ago we’d have small-business owners who wouldn’t put [retirement] high on the list of things that attract and retain employees,” Rich Linton of Bank of America Merrill Lynch told Employee Benefit News. Now, however, companies of all sizes are crafting their benefits package to help their employees secure their financial future, Linton said.

HR Elements November 2011

 

 

October 12, 2011

Change in HRA Reporting Requirements

Last week, CMS announced a change to the Medicare secondary payer mandatory reporting requirements for Health Reimbursement Arrangements (HRAs).

Effective today, only HRA coverage that reflects an annual benefit level of $5,000 or more is to be reported. HRAs of an annual benefit amount of less than $5,000 are exempt from reporting. Funding deposit amounts rolled over from the previous year’s coverage must be included when calculating the current year’s annual benefit amount.

The new $5,000 threshold applies to all new or renewing HRA coverage which becomes effective on or after October 3, 2011. Plans reporting existing coverage will continue to do so at the present threshold until the employer’s HRA benefit period is renewed.

- NAHU, 10-3-11

October 5, 2011

Federal Health Care Reform Timeline Overview

Below is a timeline of key provisions and when they take effect. 

Effective in 2010:

• Grandfathered status declared.
• Dependents will be allowed to stay on parents’ policies until age 26 (if child doesn’t receive coverage from employer).  Limited exception for grandfathered health plan – do not have to cover adult dependents who have an offer of other employer coverage.
• Prohibitions on lifetime cost limits,
• Restriction on annual limits will be phased in through 2014.
• Insurers and plans are prohibited from making rescissions (without cause) and denying coverage to children under age 19 who have pre–existing conditions.
• Certain claim and appeal procedure requirements become effective, while other claim and appeal procedure requirements were delayed until 2011.

Effective in 2011: 

• Individuals prohibited from using HSA, FSA or MSA accounts to purchase over–the–counter medications.
  • Certain claim and appeal procedure requirements become effective.

Effective in 2012: 

• W-2 reporting begins (tracking in 2012 for W-2 to be issued January of 2013).
• Uniform Benefit Summaries
• 60-day advance notice of significant plan changes that occur during the plan year (i.e. not at renewal).
• Independent Review Organizations required for external reviews.

Effective in 2013:

• FSA accounts are capped at $2,500.
• Medicare tax increase for individuals earning more than $200,000 (couples—$250k).
• Comparative Research Tax will be $1 per plan participant in 2013 and $2 per person thereafter.

Effective in 2014:

• Most changes affecting the broader population are effective beginning this year.
• Insurers prohibited from imposing any pre–existing condition exclusion.
• Rating on health status will be prohibited and insurers can only modify–vary premiums based on age, geography, family composition and smoking.
• Waiting periods cannot exceed 90 days.
• Individual mandate and employer mandate (i.e. pay-or-play penalties) become effective.
• Auto enrollment

EXCHANGES

• Health Care Reform creates state–based exchange for individuals as well as for small businesses. The exchanges must offer four possible benefit tiers.
• The minimum plan offered must provide a comprehensive set of services that cover at least 60 percent of the actuarial value of the covered benefits and limits the annual cost sharing and premiums.
• Small groups up to 100 employees (may be reduced to 50??) will be allowed access to exchange in 2014. In 2016 states can allow larger business to participate in the exchange.

GRANDFATHERED PLANS

• Beginning in 2014 there are additional compliance requirements for grandfathered plans:
• Allow dependents to stay on parents’ policy until age 26 (even if child receives coverage from employer).
• Waiting period cannot exceed 90 days.
• Eliminate the use of annual limits on benefits.

EMPLOYER MANDATES

There is much discussion about the so-called “Employer Mandates” especially because 26 states – including Idaho, have sued the federal government challenging the constitutionality of HCR. As the challenges wind through the court system, it is still important for employers to understand and plan to implement the HCR requirements.  HCR contains numerous requirements for employers in regards to the health care benefits they offer and “large” employers that don’t provide affordable and sufficient health coverage are subject to a penalty.

Employment Size

• Beginning in 2014, employers with at least 50 full–time employees (including full-time equivalents) may be subject to new penalties.
• Full–time employees include employees working 30 or more hours a week calculated on a monthly basis.

Full–time equivalents are included for purposes of determining employment size. To calculate these employees, combine the total monthly hours of

• part–time workers and divide by 120.

 

Employers Not Offering Coverage

Beginning in 2014, employers not offering coverage and those that have at least 50 full–time employees may face penalties.

IF an employer does not offer any health coverage to their full–time employees and any full–time employee receives a tax credit to purchase health insurance through an exchange,

THEN the employer must pay a penalty of $2,000 multiplied by the total number of full–time employees. Subtract the first 30 employees from the total number of full–time employees to calculate the penalty.

 

Employers Offering Coverage

Beginning in 2014 employers with at least 50 full–time employees and offering coverage may still face penalties.

IF an employer does offer health coverage to their full–time employees, but it is unaffordable (i.e. more than 9.5 percent of household income) or covers less than 60 percent of costs, and any full–time employee receives a tax credit to purchase health insurance through an exchange,

THEN the employer must pay a penalty of the lesser of $3,000 for each full–time employee receiving a tax credit or $2,000 for all full–time employees. Subtract the first 30 employees from the total number of full–time employees to calculate the penalty.

How do individuals qualify for the subsidy?

The subsidies are designed mainly for people without employer provided care, but are available to people whose employer coverage that is too expensive or doesn’t provide enough coverage. They must meet income threshold, pay more than 9.5% of their income toward plan, and the employer’s plan must cover less than 60% of coverage (see table on page 3).

 

OTHER PROVISIONS

• Notice to Employees: Effective March 1, 2013 or upon subsequent hire, employers must provide written notice to employees about exchange information, eligibility for tax credit or cost–sharing reduction and possible loss of employer contribution.
• Report on Health Insurance Coverage: Effective January 1, 2014 large employers must file report on health coverage and make information available to employees.
• Automatic Enrollment: Employers with more than 200 employees must automatically enroll full–time employees in health plan. Employers must provide employees adequate notice and opportunity to opt–out.
• Medicare Part D Creditable Coverage Notice: open enrollment is now October 15th.
  • CHIPRA Notice: 1st day of the plan year. Therefore, for calendar year plans, the notice must be sent by January 1,2012. All employees (not just group health plan participants) of an employer who maintains a group health plan in any of the 40 states which provide premium assistance must receive the CHIPRA notice. Employers do not have to supply the notice to employees who reside in the 10 states that do not offer premium assistance, but they may do so for administrative efficiency.
  • Notice of HIPAA Privacy Practices: should be provided to new enrollees.  Providing it at open enrollment or upon hire are the most common distribution methods.  However, employers tend to forget to update the notice and redistribute it every three years.
  • Open Enrollment Notices:

The following notices are generally distributed at open enrollment:

HIPAA special enrollment

HIPAA pre-existing exclusion (over 18)

NMHPA

WHCRA

Grandfathered Status (if applicable)

 

TAX CHANGES

Contained within HCR are tax changes not directly impacting health care which could impact future investment by individuals and employers. In total, the bill includes $437.8 billion in new taxes over the next 10 years.

Small Business Tax Credits

Employers eligible for the tax credit include firms with no more than 25 full time employees and annual average wages of less than $50,000. Employers must cover at least 50 percent of the total premium to be eligible. The credit is available to offset employer’s tax liability and is claimed on the employer’s tax return at the end of the year.

Phase I of tax credit: For tax years 2010 to 2013 eligible employers can receive a tax credits up to 35 percent of the employer contribution. The full credit will be available to employers with 10 or fewer employees and average annual wages of less than $25,000.

Phase II of tax credit: For tax years beginning in 2014 the credit is increased to 50 percent of the employer contribution and is available for only two consecutive tax years.

Notes: For calculating the number of FTEs and their wages, the term “employees” excludes seasonal workers (working no more than 120 days during the year).

In addition, the term “employees” excludes the following (as defined in the Internal Revenue Code): a self–employed individual, a 2 percent shareholder in an S–corporation, a 5 percent owner of an eligible small business, or someone who is a relation or dependent of these people. Thus, for example, the business will not receive a credit for small business owners or their family members.

Excise Tax

Beginning in 2018 the bill includes an excise tax on “Cadillac Plans”. 40 percent excise tax on health coverage in excess of $11,850/$30,950 (for construction industry). Vision and dental excluded from excises tax which is levied at insurer level and employer must aggregate and provide information to insurers indicating amount subject to the excise tax.

HSA, FSA, HRA Definition of Medical Expenses

Beginning in 2011 the bill changes the definition of medical expenses and prohibits over–the–counter purchase of medical products without a prescription.

Excise Tax on HSA & MSA Withdrawals

Beginning in 2011 the bill increases the tax on non–qualified HSA withdrawals from 10 percent to 20 percent and non–qualified Archer MSA withdrawals from 15 percent to 20 percent.

FSA Limits

Beginning in 2013 contributions to health FSAs are limited to $2,500.

Medicare Payroll Tax

In 2013 the bill increases the Medicare Part A (hospital insurance) tax rate on unearned income on earnings over $200,000/$250,000 and imposes a 3.8 percent tax on investment income for taxpayers with AGI in excess of $200,000/$250,000.

Other Taxes

Fee on drug manufactures, fee on insurance providers, tax on medical device manufactures, increase in medical expense deduction floor, limit compensation on insurance providers, excise tax on tanning beds, biofuel tax exclusion, codify economic substance doctrine, new fees to fund comparative research among others.

 

If you have any questions, please contact Western Benefit Solutions at 208.336.8666

 

August 23, 2011

HIPAA’s Revised EDI Standards Effective 1/1/12

 

HIPAA “covered entities” (including group health plans) need to assess their compliance efforts with HIPAA ‘s latest electronic data interchange (EDI) rules, which become effective January 1, 2012.  Small plans will have an extra year to comply with certain rules.

The EDI standards mainly affect insurers, third-party administrators and providers; however, health plan vendors may expect employers and/or health plans to send data using the new formats and code sets.  The current versions of the standards are the ASC X12 version 4010A1 for health care transactions and the NCPDP version 5.1 for pharmacy transactions.

The new versions are ASC X12 version 5010 for health care transactions and NCPDP version D.0 for pharmacy transactions.

David Larsen

HR/Benefits Attorney—WBS

 

August 15, 2011

Supreme Court Retools ERISA Remedies for Misleading Summary Plan Descriptions

 

In the case CIGNA Corp. v. Amara, the United States Supreme Court recently held that ERISA section 502(a)(1)(B) does not give a court authority to change the terms of a plan due to a misleading summary plan description (“SPD”), or to enforce the terms of an SPD as if it were part of the plan. Instead, that section provides a remedy only to enforce the actual terms of the formal plan document. However, the Court then opened a door for plaintiffs to seek equitable relief for inadequate or misleading disclosures in an SPD.

The Court essentially provided a road map for equitable remedies that may be available to plaintiffs under ERISA Section 502(a)(3) so the inadequate or misleading SPD governs.  Equitable relief will be left substantially to the discretion of lower court judges, and remedies may include reformation of the plan (where fraud or detrimental reliance can be shown) or substantial monetary “surcharges” against ERISA fiduciaries (where actual harm can be shown).

As a result, plan sponsors should carefully review their existing SPDs and other employee communications to ensure consistency with plan terms, especially when changes to the benefit design are implemented.  The information provided in the SPD should (i) be current, (ii) at least be sufficiently comprehensive to apprise the participants and beneficiaries accurately of their rights and obligations under the plan, (iii) be written in a manner that is calculated to be understood by the average plan participant, (iv) provide clarifying numerical examples and illustrations where appropriate and (v) not mislead or misinform plan participants.  These principles apply particularly in the case of disclosures regarding plan amendments that limit, restrict or reduce plan benefits.

David Larsen

HR/Benefits Attorney—WBS

 

August 15, 2011

New Account Executive Added to WBS Team

 

Western Benefit Solutions is pleased to announce the addition of Mundi Nelson to the WBS team as an Account Executive.  She has been in the health insurance industry for over ten years and has been a licensed broker since 2005.

Mundi brings great strengths to the table including customer service, communication and support as well as an extensive knowledge of the health care industry.  Mundi will be working with Cindy Smart-Tealey as an Account Executive.

CEO/Owner of WBS, Ron Osborne, said: “Mundi is an excellent addition to Western Benefits.  We look forward to her outstanding service for clients.”

WBS is Idaho’s largest employee benefit brokerage and consulting firm, based in Boise and Idaho Falls.  WBS specializes in mid-sized to large groups employee benefit brokerage.

For the last four years, WBS has been the only employee benefit brokerage firm headquartered in the northwest to be ranked as one of the top 10 largest and most productive Employee Benefit Brokerage Firms in the United States by the prestigious trade publication Business Insurance.

July 10, 2011

Tweaked Rules, Court Ruling Cast More Doubt on Impact of PPACA

 

The federal government continued to rework regulations stemming from the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) in June amid a key court ruling and a wave of studies that tried to forecast how employers will cope with the long-term effects of the law.

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) tweaked a regulation concerning internal claims appeals and external review for health care claims in group and individual plans, trimming the time beneficiaries will have to prepare an appeal, from 120 to 60 days, according to a report in Kaiser Health News.

HHS also reduced the types of denials that can be challenged and the amount of information that insurance companies must provide when a claim is denied.

However, the agency left a few key features of the regulation stand, including the requirement that self-insured employer plans must use at least two independent review organizations when handling appeals to health care claims.

HHS also announced an end of waivers for limited, or “mini-med” health care plans after Sept. 22, according to Business Insurance. Many of the plans do not meet the requirements of minimum dollar coverage amounts created by PPACA. Companies that have already received waivers can still file for extensions, provided they apply by Sept. 22. The waivers will last through the end of 2013, as long as plan sponsors meet certain requirements and keep the government and their employees informed about the plan.

Meanwhile, the Department of Labor (DOL) made its own change to a PPACA regulation, reversing the requirement that health care plans must notify urgent-care patients of coverage decisions within 24 hours. The DOL decided to keep that requirement at the current 72 hours after it reconsidered the “cost and benefits” of the 24-hour deadline.

While agencies were busy retooling these PPACA rules, a federal appellate court in Ohio handed the Obama administration a key victory by ruling that the health care reform law’s requirement that all Americans purchase health insurance is not unconstitutional, according to a report in the Los Angeles Times.

While most experts think the Supreme Court will be the ultimate decider of PPACA’s fate, the decision by the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals signaled a significant victory for the Obama administration because one of the judges who upheld the constitutionality of the law was a conservative and a former law clerk for Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.

In the court of public opinion — at least among employers — the full fallout from PPACA remains a mystery, and several conflicting studies released in June do little to clear the air.

Research published in the McKinsey Quarterly indicated that 30 percent of employers say they are sure or likely to end their employer-sponsored health plans after the main provisions of PPACA take effect after 2014, according to a FoxNews.com report. That figure jumps to 50 percent among employers who are “very aware” of the law.

Reform supporters questioned the results, citing previous studies that showed a much smaller number of employers who expect to dump health care insurance. Also, a recent study by the Urban Institute suggested that PPACA might actually increase the number of small employers that offer coverage. The institute projects the law will generate a 10 percent increase in the number of employers with 100 or fewer employees that offer health care insurance because of tax incentives and stabilization of the health care market.

July 2011 HR Elements, United Benefit Advisors

July 1, 2011

Agencies Target Businesses in Immigration Efforts

 

Federal and state governments are revving up the effort against illegal immigration and are increasingly putting businesses in the crosshairs.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) recently sent notices to 1,000 employers nationwide alerting them that they aim to examine their records for hiring of undocumented workers, according to a CNNMoney.com report. An ICE official said the action, known as an I-9 audit, covers employers of various sizes in every state, with an emphasis on businesses that involve “critical infrastructure and key resources.”  ICE’s action raises the total of I-9s to more than 2,300 this year, surpassing the 2010 total of 2,196.

Members of Congress also are aiming at businesses that hire illegal immigrants with a new House bill that would require employers to use an Internet-based system to check the legal status of new employees, according to Human Resource Executive Online.

Called E-Verify, the federal system currently is voluntary, except for a limited number of government contractors. Four states — Arizona, Mississippi, South Carolina and Utah — require employers to use it or face penalties.

The Legal Workforce Act of 2011, if enacted, would require governments and large employers in industries outside agriculture to use the system within six months and small employers to comply within two years, depending on workforce size.

Many business leaders and industry experts oppose the bill, saying that E-Verify is susceptible to fraud and that the six-month deadline and other requirements are unrealistic for most companies.

“This law is a bad idea; it puts a lot of burden on small employers who don’t have the technology to keep up with E-Verify changes,” Sarah Buffett, an attorney with Moore & Van Allen in Charlotte, N.C., told HROE.

Courts also are weighing in regarding illegal immigrants and labor laws. A Florida appeals court recently reaffirmed that an employer cannot deny workers’ compensation benefits to an injured employee based on that worker’s legal status. In HDV Construction Systems Inc. and Gallagher Basset Services Inc. v. Luis E. Aragon, the employer and the insurer denied benefits to Aragon after he was injured on the job because he was an undocumented worker. A workers’ comp judge said the company could not use that defense because it knew or should have known that Aragon was an illegal immigrant. The state’s 1st District Court of Appeal upheld that decision. It also struck down a decision by the lower court that would have limited the benefits after a period of time.

July 2011  HR Elements, United Benefit Advisors