Speak with an adviser 678.821.3508


Pregnant Workers Fairness Act Final Rules: What Employers Need to Know

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has published a Pregnant Workers Fairness Act final rule that will give new protections akin to disability accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act to pregnant workers and those who have recently given birth.

The rule, which takes effect June 18, will require employers to make reasonable accommodations for employees or applicants with known limitations related to pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions.

The new regulations apply to employers with 15 or more workers on their payroll. This is a significant new labor law and another source of potential lawsuits for employers.

Who is covered

Essentially, the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA) requires employers to make reasonable accommodations for these workers if they ask for it, particularly if they are temporarily unable to perform one or more essential functions of their job due to issues related to their pregnancy or recent childbirth.

Reasonable is defined as not creating an undue hardship on the employer. Temporary is defined as lasting for a limited time, and a condition that may extend beyond “the near future.” With most pregnancies lasting 40 weeks, that time frame would be considered “the near future.”

What’s required

Like what is required by the ADA, if an employee asks for special accommodation due to a covered issue under the PWFA, the employer is required to enter into an interactive process with the worker to identify ways to accommodate her.

The law requires employers to accommodate job applicants’ and employees’ “physical or mental condition related to, affected by, or arising out of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions.”

The condition does not need to meet the ADA’s definition of disability and the condition can be temporary, “modest, minor and/or episodic.”

The PWFA covers a wide range of issues beyond just a current pregnancy, including:

  • Past and potential pregnancies,
  • Lactation,
  • Contraception use,
  • Menstruation,
  • Infertility and fertility treatments,
  • Miscarriage,
  • Stillbirth, and
  • Abortion.

What’s a ‘reasonable accommodation’

The law’s definition of reasonable accommodation is similar to that of the ADA. The regulation lays out four “predictable assessments,” which would not be an undue hardship in “virtually all cases”. These would allow an employee to:

  • Carry or keep water nearby and drink, as needed;
  • Take additional restroom breaks, as needed;
  • Sit if the work requires standing, or stand if it requires sitting, as needed; and
  • Take breaks to eat and drink, as needed.

Employer rights

As mentioned, an employer may reject an accommodation if it would create an undue hardship, which is defined as a significant difficulty or expense.

Employers may ask for documentation under the PWFA if it is reasonable and the employer needs it to determine whether the employee or applicant has a covered condition and has asked for accommodation due to limitations the condition causes her.

If the worker is obviously pregnant, the employer may not require documentation.

The takeaway

Employers with 15 or more workers will need to add mentions of the new rule in their employee handbooks and train managers and supervisors about it, in order to keep from running afoul of the PWFA.

The ramping up period is short and it’s important that you have in place policies that require supervisors and managers to notify human resources if a worker asks for special accommodations.


Employers Push Preventive Care to Affect Costs, Staff Health

Chronic conditions and overall poor health are a key cost-driver of health care costs, which is hitting the pocketbooks of both individuals and employers.

There are a number of factors that are driving this, including poor lifestyle choices, poor diets, lack of exercise and hereditary issues. But another reason for Americans’ declining overall health is the cost of accessing health care, not keeping up with checkups and vaccinations and having a poor understanding of their health insurance coverage.

Employers are recognizing the effects their employees’ poor health is having on the insurance premiums they and their staff pay, and some are taking it into their own hands to help their workers through various programs that help them better utilize their benefits.

Declining health

Recent research from Arizent, parent company of Employee Benefit News, found that 65% of employers feel their staff are generally healthy, but only 35% of employers with less than 100 workers think the health of their employees has improved over the past few years, which they directly correlate with rising health plan premiums.

The survey also found that 40% of employers have seen an uptick in the use of sick days and medical leave by their staff. This may also be an outgrowth of the COVID-19 pandemic. Since then, managers have generally encouraged staff to stay home if they are ill to avoid spreading the love to other staff members.

“However, increased use of medical leave does hint at more serious health challenges popping up for workers,” the report says. “Moreover, approximately one-third of employers are seeing a rise in disability leave and the overall prevalence of chronic illnesses.”

This suggests that more employees need time off for their health. These may be warning signs of declining health among workers.

Besides taking more sick and leave time off, less healthy workers may also not be as productive, may have greater instances of presenteeism and cause group health premiums to grow.

What employers are doing

Focusing on preventive care — Overall, 89% of employers surveyed are taking steps to control health care costs, with a majority focusing on improving preventive care access. They are incentivizing preventive care in a number of ways, according to the Arizent survey:

  • 39% host vaccination sessions at the office,
  • 32% host educational talks or webinars about preventive care,
  • 31% host disease screenings,
  • 28% provide monetary incentives, and
  • 26% offer paid time off specifically for primary care appointments. 

Efforts are bearing fruit for employers that do the above, with 21% of them saying that the health of their staff has improved over the last few years.

Improving health care literacy — Studies have shown that most group health plan enrollees have a poor understanding of their insurance coverage, and how to use it. Many do not understand what deductibles, copays and coinsurance are and how they work.

Choosing the wrong plan can result in significant out-of-pocket layouts for care, which can further suppress a person’s financial ability to pay for it. Other studies have found that more and more Americans are skipping doctor’s appointments and forgoing necessary care due to the costs and their current health care debts.

The report said that if employers want their workers to pick the best care for the best price, they need to ensure their employees are knowledgeable about their coverage and how to choose the group health plan that best fits their health status. That requires that employers educate their workers better about their benefits.

The takeaway

The Arizent study suggests that by helping and encouraging employees to access prevent care and by educating their staff on their benefits, the efforts can pay off in a healthier workforce, and possibly affect premiums.

Employers may need to invest in educational resources and health care navigation tools to help employees better understand the true cost of their plans, beyond what they are paying in premium.


Cutting Through the Alphabet Soup of Dental Insurance Plans

When you look at the dental options for your employer-sponsored health plan, or if you’re just looking at the options available on the market, you may encounter the acronyms DMO and PPO (also known as a PDN), as well as indemnity plan, in the marketing literature.

These terms describe types of dental insurance plans. To pick the best plan for your own needs, you’ll need to know how each type is structured, and the advantages and disadvantages of each.


A dental maintenance organization is very similar in concept to a health maintenance organization, or HMO.

Essentially, DMOs are designed to reduce premiums and costs — at the expense of a certain amount of freedom when it comes to choosing your own dentist.

Under these plans, when you want to receive dental services, you must choose a primary care dentist. If you need to see a specialist, such as an orthodontist or endodontist, you must get a referral from your primary care dentist.

Both HMOs and DMOs attempt to save money and reduce expenses by restricting the number of care providers that the insurance company will allow in the plan.

Negotiators for the insurer approach dentists and clinics in the coverage area and ask them to reduce prices in exchange for a steady flow of referrals from the plan. The fewer providers in the network, of course, the more patients each dentist will receive, and the more valuable the DMO is to the dentist.

They also save money by reducing expenses on specialists. The primary care dentist acts as a “gatekeeper” to more advanced services, and ensures that any referrals to more advanced or specialized levels of care are legitimately medically necessary.

By using restricted networks, leveraging their bargaining power to obtain reduced fees and reducing unnecessary expenses on specialist care, the DMO plan is usually able to realize significant cost savings — and pass those savings along to consumers in the form of reduced, affordable premiums.

These plans are usually best for those who are sensitive to premium costs and who are indifferent about what dentists they can see under the plan.

The dental PPO, aka PDN

A dental preferred provider organization is much less restrictive than its DMO counterpart. You can normally visit any dentist you want who is willing to accept the insurance, and you don’t need a referral to see a specialist.

However, there still may be a network, and your out-of-pocket costs may be lower if you see dentists from within these networks.

You will still have to pay deductibles and copays, but the plan may reduce or waive them for dentists and clinics within the preferred network.

These types of plans may also be referred to as participating dental networks, or PDNs. Their premiums are generally low, but usually not as low as comparable DMO plans.

Indemnity plans

If you have an indemnity plan, you can generally see any dentist who is willing to accept the insurance. You don’t have to restrict yourself to practitioners in the network. If a dentist doesn’t accept direct payment from the insurance company, they may reimburse you directly for covered expenses after the fact.

These plans offer the most flexibility and freedom and the fewest restrictions on care. But they also have the highest premiums.

What’s best for you?

If it’s important for your staff to be able to choose their own dentist or access any specialist they like for covered services, they may want to lean towards the indemnity plan.

Meanwhile, DMOs generally offer the lowest monthly premiums and have low out-of-pocket costs for routine services like cleanings. But, their out-of-pocket costs may rise quite a bit if you need services beyond routine checkups and cleanings. Dentists may try to upsell additional work, which costs more out of pocket.

If you have staff that anticipates needing more extensive treatment, or access to the services of a specialist, they may wish to select a PPO-type plan.

You can talk to us about which plans are available and which might be the right fit for your workplace.


Biden Administration Clamps Down on Short-Term Health Insurance

The Biden administration has rolled back regulations that allow Americans to stay on short-term health insurance plans for up to three years while still satisfying the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate.

The new rules will limit these controversial plans to no more than four months and they require more disclosure on behalf of the insurers and agents that sell these plans to help consumers understand what they are buying.

These plans are not full-fledged health plans; they offer limited scope of coverage that caps insurance for many services, and they are not subject to ACA consumer protection rules that bar discrimination and guarantee coverage regardless of pre-existing conditions.

The ACA originally limited short-term plans to just three months to fill temporary gaps in coverage when someone is transitioning from one source of coverage to another. The Trump administration enacted new regulations that allowed people to stay on a plan for 12 months, with the option to renew for three years.

These plans have gotten a lot of bad press citing horror stories of people finding out their policies were virtually useless, leaving one man more than $43,000 in debt after his plan wouldn’t pay for his treatment after it deemed his cancer a pre-existing condition.

Critics say the plans are deceptively marketed and consumers are duped into buying health insurance that has stripped-down coverage. Proponents say that these plans serve a valuable purpose in helping people transition from one type of coverage to another.

Many people who have purchased these plans thought they were receiving comprehensive coverage but were surprised later when the insurance wouldn’t cover certain procedures or capped coverage.

Some common features of short-term plans are:

  • They often use health histories to determine who can get coverage.
  • They often exclude key service categories from covered benefits, such as maternity.
  • They can decline coverage due to pre-existing conditions.
  • They may limit or cap coverage both on a per-service or daily rate basis or in the aggregate (like capping total payments during the year at $100,000).
  • They are not required to cover the 10 essential health benefits that the ACA requires compliant plans to cover at no cost to the enrollee.

What the final rule does

The new regulations only apply to new plans that are launched on or after June 17, the day the final rule takes effect.

New plans that claim to be “short-term” health insurance will be limited to just three months, with renewal for a maximum of four months total, if extended.

Also, the final rule restricts how these plans may be marketed and requires new levels of disclosure. Plans will now be required to provide consumers with a clear disclaimer that explains the limits of what services they cover and how much they cover. 

It should be noted that the new rule does not affect fixed indemnity plans like critical illness, which pays a lump sum if someone is diagnosed with a covered illness. Other plans pay a pre-determined amount on a per-period or per-incident basis, regardless of the total charges incurred.

Plans might pay $200 upon hospital admission, for example, or $100 per day while a person is hospitalized to help with out-of-pocket costs.


Employee Mental Health Leave Requests Skyrocketing

If you’ve noticed a lot of employees asking for time off for a “mental health day,” you aren’t alone.

A recent study found that the number of mental health leave-of-absence requests has grown by a third since the COVID-19 pandemic. And, data from ComPsych, a provider of employee assistance programs (EAPs), shows that such leave requests have skyrocketed by more than 300% in the past six years.

Roughly seven out of 10 of leave requests for mental health reasons are from women — in part but not entirely because of the burden and added stress of childcare.

Poor mental health is a serious problem in the workplace. Stress, anxiety, depression and substance abuse lead to reduced focus and concentration, increased absenteeism and presenteeism, higher turnover costs, and more dangerous workplace accidents.

If you’re seeing a broad increase in the number of mental health-related absences, it’s a sure sign that something is wrong. It’s time to take action: 

1. Destigmatize mental health problems. Create a culture where it’s ok to discuss mental health issues, and to seek help.

2. Establish an EAP. Workers can use this program to get confidential counseling treatment for a variety of issues. 

3. Invest in mental health training for managers. Your leaders need training on how to recognize and sensitively deal with workers experiencing mental health problems. 

4. Offer flexible work schedules. Many minor issues can be dealt with by allowing employees more control over their time and work-life balance. Working from home, flex hours, job-sharing programs and generous paid-time-off policies can all help employees manage their stressors before they become real mental health problems.

5. Create a less stressful workplace. Work to reduce unrealistic deadlines, spread the workload and maintain adequate staffing levels. Reassign or eliminate “toxic” managers.

6. Address the cost barriers to care. Many employees can’t afford to see a doctor or counselor, even with insurance. Studies show that one in four adults skips needed care or medications due to cost. Consider adding a direct primary care benefit, which allows workers and covered family members unlimited appointments with their primary care physician with no out-of-pocket costs. 

7. Offer mental health or sick day leave. Employers nationwide are responding to the employee mental health crisis by expanding their leave programs. In 2024, over 50% of organizations plan to add paid parental leave, paid mental health days and flexible time off programs. Additionally, 49% are adding bereavement leave, and 37% are adding paid caregiver leave as an employee benefit. 

The takeaway

Employers have a number of tools they can access to help employees who are dealing with stress and anxiety. Work can also be a cause of stress, so it’s important that your staff should feel comfortable approaching their supervisors or managers if they are having trouble coping.

You can’t prevent all mental health problems. But you can alleviate work stressors and provide support so that small problems don’t metastasize into mental health crises.


Study Pegs Group Benefits Return on Investment at 47%

A recent study has found that employers who offer health insurance coverage to their staff had an average return on investment (ROI) of 47%, meaning that for every $1 an employer spends, it will receive $1.47 in benefits.

The analysis by Avalare, a wellness plan provider, and commissioned by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, found that firms with 100 or more workers to whom they offer group health benefits gained from increased productivity, reduced direct medical costs (for self-insured firms), tax benefits and improved retention and recruitment.

The study confirms that offering health coverage does more than meet a basic need for your staff. Here’s how the 47% ROI is generated:


Improved productivity (53% of ROI)

Workplaces where group health benefits are offered have higher productivity thanks to reduced absenteeism and sick days taken, as well as less presenteeism. In addition, workers who maintain their health and have access to a health plan or wellness program when they need one are less sick, and hence more productive at work.


Tax benefits (23% of ROI)

Employers that offer group health benefits receive both federal and state income tax deductions, reducing their overall tax bills.


Reduced direct medical costs (19% of ROI)

Employers who offer group health plans in addition to associated wellness programs, tend to have healthier employee populations and spend less on direct medical costs. The analysis found that this combination of group health and wellness programs boosted overall ROI for employers.


Savings from employee retention (4% of ROI)

Another ROI driver is employee retention thanks to the savings involved in not losing employees to competitors. Providing health insurance reduces staff turnover, lowering how much employers have to spend on recruitment, onboarding and training. Add tens of thousands of dollars if you are paying for a new employee to relocate. 


Recruitment costs (0.3% of ROI)

Offering a solid group health plan can also drive down the cost of recruiting as it can positively influence a prospect’s interest in accepting an offer. While the value of recruitment benefits pales in comparison to other benefits, 9% of prospects base their decision to accept an offer on the group health benefits on offer.


The takeaway

While the study focused on health coverage, and to some part wellness programs, employers that go beyond just health insurance by creating and offering a balanced benefit program, have the greatest ROI.

Examples include retirement benefits like 401(k) plans, wellness plans, dental insurance, vision coverage, short- and long-term disability protection, critical illness coverage, accident coverage and employer-funded life insurance.

Before the COVID-19 pandemic, most businesses considered health benefits little more than a cost to be managed. But the value of health benefits is rapidly changing — and employers need to keep up with the changes and new offerings.

.The Avalere study reinforces what many companies know: Employer-provided coverage helps create a stronger workforce and gives businesses valuable benefits to provide to their employees.

We have the expertise to help you transform your health benefits and programs from an expense into an investment that will help both your organization and your staff thrive.


Four Admin Errors That Can Make Employers Overpay for Coverage

One often overlooked cost driver to your employee benefits plans is administrative errors and oversights that are the result of sloppy record-keeping and a lack of checks and balances among your account and human resources teams.

If you are not diligent in keeping up with outgoing employees, are not paying enough attention to admin details and checking billing for errors, and are not reviewing accounts regularly, you could be leaving money on the table unnecessarily and overpaying for your group health insurance and other employee benefits you offer.

The following are some of the most common administrative mistakes that could lead to overspending on your group health plan.

Failing to keep up with staffing numbers

If your human resources and accounting are not talking to each other, you risk failing to account for personnel that leaves and continuing to include them in the health insurance roster and paying their premium.

Obviously, this is typically not an issue in a small organization of 10 to 15 employees, but the more workers you have, the easier it is for one to slip through the cracks after they leave.

Consider having HR review personnel numbers monthly and updating your files to avoid this happening.

Failing to check for ‘age-outs’

Workers who have turned age 65 may not require your company health plan anymore, since they are eligible for Medicare. You can reduce health care administration and benefits costs substantially by keeping an eye out for age-outs each year.

Missing changes to plans

Before and during open enrollment it’s important to review all of the benefits plans that you offer — health, dental and vision coverage — to make sure there aren’t any changes that will increase the cost of any of the plans.

Sometimes a plan will introduce additional coverage that your employees may not need and, if you are not staying on top of changes, you may miss the opportunity to move them to another plan.

Admin mistakes by insurers

Administrative mistakes made by the insurers you contract with can be overlooked, forcing you to overpay for your employees’ coverage.

Your accounting and HR teams should regularly audit your insurers’ billings to check for errors and ask the companies to correct any that are found. One of the most common mistakes is for an insurer to have an incorrect employee count. But the carriers can make other mistakes in billing, too.

If you notice an increase in your monthly bill with no new staff additions, you may want to delve deeper.

The takeaway

By putting in place administrative controls and a regime for regular billing and personnel-count auditing, you can avoid mistakes that add to your employee benefits costs.

Keep an open line of communication with your insurers in case you need to work with them to address any issues that arise.


Report Details 3 Trends Driving Employers’ Health Care Costs

Pharmacy spending, high-cost claimants and newly developed anti-obesity drugs are expected to shape health benefits and affect the cost of care and health insurance for employers, according to a new report.

The “2024 Employee Health Trends” report by Springbuk, an online health intelligence platform, reflects concerns among employers and insurers about runaway drug costs due to increasingly expensive medications and new diabetes and anti-obesity drugs.

Also, the report looks at the effects of high-cost health plan enrollees, those who are high health care users either due to a chronic condition, cancer or an accident or illness that requires ongoing care.

One such employee enrolled in one of your group health insurance plans can result in massive costs that overshadow those of the rest of your workforce if you are a small or mid-sized employer.

High-cost claimants

According to Springbuk’s research:

  • One out of every 1,000 health plan enrollees is likely to account for total paid claims of $340,000.
  • Five out of every 1,000 members are likely to have total paid claims of over $140,000.
  • About one in five members in each high-cost category was in the same category in the previous year.

Common high-cost claim conditions include:

  • Various cancers
  • Multiple sclerosis
  • Heart disease
  • Cystic fibrosis
  • Sepsis
  • Joint degeneration
  • Chronic renal failure
  • Psoriasis
  • Adult rheumatoid arthritis
  • Inflammatory bowel disease.

Springbuk’s report recommends the following:

  • Understand the population at greatest risk of becoming high-cost claimants based on conditions, history of being a high-cost claimant and demographic information.
  • To reduce surgical costs, the health plan can push for expert/second opinions, partner with a center of excellence, engage in payment-bundling arrangements, and pursue risk reduction.
  • Employ risk-reduction programs like weight-loss programs to lower the risk of surgery for degenerative arthritis.
  • Use preauthorization, step therapy and incentives to promote the use of biosimilars to reduce the costs of specialty drugs.
  • Use price transparency tools to determine which facilities are less costly, but make sure to consider the quality of care.

Pharmacy spending

Between 2020 and 2023, the average per member per month pharmacy spend increased 38% from $86 to $119. Two of the biggest contributors to the rapidly rising drug spending are specialty drugs and brand-name medications used in the treatment of chronic conditions.

According to the report, the top 10 conditions contributing to health plan drug spending are:

  • Diabetes
  • Psoriasis
  • Inflammatory bowel disease
  • Adult rheumatoid arthritis
  • Asthma
  • Multiple sclerosis
  • Obesity
  • Other inflammation of the skin
  • Migraine headache
  • Attention deficit disorder.

Since the majority of drug spending is related to chronic conditions, strategies focused on their main causes can help rein in spending. These include:

  • Healthy diet and lifestyle coaching,
  • Weight-loss courses and counseling,
  • Free gym memberships and other programs that emphasize the importance of exercise, and
  • Smoking cessation services.

Other recommendations:

  • Target brand-name drugs and specialty drugs in your cost-containment strategies.
  • Take steps to ensure members taking specialty and high-cost brand-name drugs are using generic formulations and biosimilars where available, provided the net cost is lower.
  • Understand the PBM contract.
  • Consider whether engaging with a clinical program partner that focuses on pharmacy savings opportunities would be cost-effective.
  • Medications or bariatric surgery may be considered for members who are not able to achieve or sustain weight loss.

One thing to consider about these medications is that they are helping your employees control their conditions and preventing complications or progression of the illness, thereby reducing other health care costs.


More than 41% of Americans are considered clinically obese, defined as having a body mass index of 30 or more. Obesity is linked to a number of health conditions, which are all costly to treat, including diabetes, gastrointestinal disorders, heart disease, cancer and musculoskeletal disorders.

Enter highly expensive GLP-1 drugs, originally designed to treat diabetes, with one of their main side effects being that those who take them eat less and shed weight. As a result, demand for these pharmaceuticals has boomed, but not all health plans cover them.

Overall plan outlays for treating obesity jumped 40% in 2023 from the year prior, driven largely by an eye-popping 138% explosion in drug spending.

You can take steps to reduce these outlays for treating obesity by using step therapy, which entails first starting a program that is focused on diet, exercise and behavioral modifications. If those efforts fail, traditional weight-loss medications may be considered before moving to GLP-1 drugs or bariatric surgery.

Consider partnering with a clinical program that addresses obesity.


J&J Sued Over Contracting with PBM that Overcharged Health Plan, Enrollees

A new area of potential liability for employers was recently opened when a class-action suit was filed against Johnson & Johnson, accusing it of mismanaging its pharmacy benefit manager plan, resulting in the health plan and its enrollees overspending millions of dollars on medications.

Health plans contract with PBMs to tamp down pharmaceutical costs, but reports have shown that they often send enrollees to pharmacies they own and which overcharge for medications sometimes by thousands of percent.

PBMs have been drawing increasing flak from states attorneys general as well as Congress and state houses, where multiple measures that would rein them in are in play.

If the lawsuit is successful, it could leave both self-insured and insured employers exposed to lawsuits by disgruntled employees who are forking out significantly more than they should.

The case

The class action, filed Feb. 5 in the US District Court for the District of New Jersey, accuses J&J of breaching its fiduciary duty under ERISA when it mismanaged its employee health plan by paying its PBM, Express Scripts Inc., inflated prices for generic specialty drugs that are widely available at a much lower cost.

The employees suing J&J cite a number of examples of how the company’s plan overpaid for prescription drugs. One of the most egregious examples cited in the lawsuit was an instance when the plan paid more than $10,000 for a 90-pill generic drug to treat multiple sclerosis, which can be purchased without insurance on different retail and online pharmacies for $28 and $77.  

“The burden for that massive overpayment falls on Johnson and Johnson’s ERISA plans, which pay most of the agreed amount from plan assets, and on beneficiaries of the plans, who generally pay out-of-pocket for a portion of that inflated price,” the plaintiffs wrote.

“No prudent fiduciary would agree to make its plan and beneficiaries pay a price that is two-hundred-and-fifty times higher than the price available to any individual who just walks into a pharmacy and pays out-of-pocket,” they added.

It further accuses J&J of agreeing to terms under which plan beneficiaries were financially incentivized to obtain their prescriptions from the PBM’s own mail-order pharmacy, even though that pharmacy’s prices are routinely higher than the prices at other pharmacies.

The case accuses the company of:

  • Failing to regularly put PBM services out to bid.
  • Failing to negotiate favorable terms with PBMs and continually supervise PBM’s actions to ensure that the plan is reducing costs and maximizing outcomes for beneficiaries.
  • Failing to periodically attempt to renegotiate PBM contracts.
  • Failure to independently assess the PBM’s formulary placement of each prescription drug and closely supervise PBM’s formulary management to ensure the plan is paying only reasonable amounts for each prescription drug.
  • Improperly steering plan participants towards their PBM’s mail-order pharmacy, even though that pharmacy’s prices were routinely higher than what retail pharmacies charge for the same drugs.

The fallout

Legal observers say employers that offer their employees group health insurance that includes one of the nation’s large PBMs, could be targeted.

The driving argument would be that employers have been warned through news reports of how PBMs have been accused of not being transparent about their negotiated prices, and how they often pocket rebates that could be used to lower the plan’s and enrollees’ outlays.

Most at risk are employers that are in self-insured or level-funded plans. It’s not clear yet how much liability insured employers may have, but they too could be accused of choosing health plans for their employees that contracted with PBMs that allegedly overcharge for medications.


Benefits in a Multi-generational Workplace

With multiple generations working side-by-side in this economy, the needs of your staff in terms of employee benefits will vary greatly depending on their age.

You may have baby boomers who are nearing retirement and have health issues, working with staff in their 30s who are newly married and have had their first kids. And those who are just entering the workforce have a different mindset about work and life than the generations before them.

Because of this, employers have to be crafty in how they set up their benefits packages so that they address these various needs.

But don’t fret, getting something that everyone likes into your package is not too expensive, particularly if you are offering voluntary benefits to which you may or may not contribute as an employer.

Think about the multi-generational workforce:

Baby boomers – These oldest workers are preparing to retire and they likely have long-standing relationships with their doctors.

Generation X – These workers, who are trailing the baby boomers into retirement, are often either raising families or on the verge of becoming empty-nesters. They may have more health care needs and different financial priorities than their older colleagues.

Millennials and Generation Z – These workers may not be so concerned about the strength of their health plans and may have other priorities, like paying off student loans and starting to make plans for retirement savings.

Working out a benefits strategy

If you have a multi-generational workforce, you may want to consider sitting down and talking to us about a benefits strategy that keeps costs as low as possible while being useful to employees. This is crucial for any company that is competing for talent with other employers in a tight job market.

While we will assume that you are already providing your workers with the main employee benefit – health insurance – we will look at some voluntary benefits that you should consider for your staff:

Baby boomers — Baby boomers look heavily to retirement savings plans and incentives, health savings plans, and voluntary insurance (like long-term care and critical illness coverage) to protect them in the event of a serious illness or accident. 

You may also want to consider additional paid time off for doctor’s appointments, as many of these workers may have regular checkups for medical conditions they have (64% of baby boomers have at least one chronic condition, like heart disease or diabetes).

Generation X — This is the time of life when people often get divorced and their kids start going to college. Additionally, this generation arguably suffered more than any other during the financial crisis that hit in 2008. You can offer voluntary benefits such as legal and financial planning services to help these workers.

Millennials and Generation Z — Some employee benefits specialists suggest offering these youngest workers programs to help them save for their first home or additional time off to bond with their child after birth.

Also, financially friendly benefits options, such as voluntary insurance and wellness initiatives, are two to think about including in an overall benefits package.

Voluntary insurance, which helps cover the costs that major medical policies were never intended to cover, and wellness benefits, including company-sponsored sports teams or gym membership reimbursements, are both appealing to millennials and can often be implemented with little to no cost to you.

1 2 3 20 21