100% COBRA Subsidy in Effect Through Sept. 30

April 7, 2021

The recently enacted American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 includes a 100% COBRA subsidy for up to six months for employees laid off during the COVID-19 pandemic. The subsidy is in effect through September 30.

Due to the short ramping up period, it’s imperative that employers who have laid off workers, or who plan to do so, start preparing to notify them.

The Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act requires group health plans sponsored by employers with 20 or more employees to offer staff and their families the opportunity for a temporary extension of health coverage (called continuation coverage) after they have quit or been laid off for 18 months. The employees will usually be responsible for the entire premium.

Who is eligible?

Eligible individuals include:

Workers who were previously laid off or lost their benefits and became eligible for COBRA continuation coverage but chose not to purchase it, as long as they would still be eligible now. Example: A worker who was laid off in November 2020 but rejected the offer of COBRA coverage then.
Individuals who previously elected COBRA continuation coverage, but later dropped it, as long as they would still be eligible now. Example: A worker was laid off in August 2020, elected and purchased COBRA coverage, but dropped the coverage in January.
Individuals who were involuntarily terminated or experienced a reduction in hours, and who timely elect COBRA continuation coverage after April 1.

Individuals are not eligible for a subsidy:

If they voluntarily resigned from their job.
They become eligible for other employer coverage or Medicare.
They are beyond their maximum COBRA coverage period (which under federal law is 18 months, and under California law may be up to 36 months).

What’s covered

The subsidy applies to all health coverage that COBRA usually covers: health insurance, and dental and vision coverage too. Generally, the coverage that employers offer Assistance Eligible Individuals (AEIs) should be the same coverage in effect prior to their COBRA-qualifying events.

Individuals who qualify for the COBRA subsidy are not required to pay a premium.

The group health plan will cover the cost of the coverage, which will be reimbursed (including any administrative fee) by the U.S. government via a payroll tax credit.

Notice requirements

When notifying newly eligible individuals, the information can be included with the COBRA election notice or a separate notice that would come along with the election packet.

The notices must include:

Notification of the availability of subsidies.
A prominently displayed description of the AEI’s right to the subsidy and conditions.
The forms necessary to establish eligibility.
A description of the special election period.
A description of the qualified beneficiary’s obligation to notify the plan when they are no longer eligible for coverage.
Contact information of the plan administrator and any other person maintaining relevant information in connection with the subsidy.

Important: The Department of Labor is expected to provide model language for these notices by April 10.

What you should do

There are a number of steps employers need to take as the ramping up period is quite short:

Due to the short ramping up period, it’s imperative that employers who have laid off workers, or who plan to do so, start preparing to notify them.

Who is eligible?

Eligible individuals include:

Workers who were previously laid off or lost their benefits and became eligible for COBRA continuation coverage but chose not to purchase it, as long as they would still be eligible now. Example: A worker who was laid off in November 2020 but rejected the offer of COBRA coverage then.
Individuals who previously elected COBRA continuation coverage, but later dropped it, as long as they would still be eligible now. Example: A worker was laid off in August 2020, elected and purchased COBRA coverage, but dropped the coverage in January.
Individuals who were involuntarily terminated or experienced a reduction in hours, and who timely elect COBRA continuation coverage after April 1.

Individuals are not eligible for a subsidy:

If they voluntarily resigned from their job.
They become eligible for other employer coverage or Medicare.
They are beyond their maximum COBRA coverage period (which under federal law is 18 months, and under California law may be up to 36 months).

What’s covered

Individuals who qualify for the COBRA subsidy are not required to pay a premium.

The group health plan will cover the cost of the coverage, which will be reimbursed (including any administrative fee) by the U.S. government via a payroll tax credit.

Notice requirements

When notifying newly eligible individuals, the information can be included with the COBRA election notice or a separate notice that would come along with the election packet.

The notices must include:

Notification of the availability of subsidies.
A prominently displayed description of the AEI’s right to the subsidy and conditions.
The forms necessary to establish eligibility.
A description of the special election period.
A description of the qualified beneficiary’s obligation to notify the plan when they are no longer eligible for coverage.
Contact information of the plan administrator and any other person maintaining relevant information in connection with the subsidy.

Important: The Department of Labor is expected to provide model language for these notices by April 10.

What you should do

There are a number of steps employers need to take as the ramping up period is quite short:

Coordinate with your COBRA administrator to ensure that you agree about who should identify eligible individuals and who will be sending out notifications.
If that is you, identify those individuals who may be eligible for the COBRA subsidy and who may be eligible to make a new election.
Prepare notification documents.
Notify all eligible individuals.

Uncategorized

Group Health Plans Must Cover COVID-19 Testing for Asymptomatic People

by Inoventive Solutions

March 30, 2021

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services announced in late February that private group health plans cannot deny coverage or impose cost-sharing for COVID-19 diagnostic testing, regardless of whether or not the patient is experiencing symptoms or has been exposed to someone with the disease.

The CMS said it had issued the new guidance to make it easier for people to get tested with no out-of-pocket costs if they are planning to visit family members or take a flight, for example. Up until now, some health plans have not covered testing if a person is not experiencing symptoms or has not come into contact with someone who is later confirmed as being infected with COVID-19.

The guidance covers the part of the Families First Coronavirus Response Act of 2020 that required that plans and issuers must cover COVID-19 diagnostic testing without any cost-sharing requirements, prior authorization or other medical management requirements. Still, many people were denied getting tests because they had no symptoms or hadn’t been exposed to someone infected with the virus.

According to the guidance:

“Plans and issuers must provide coverage without imposing any cost-sharing requirements (including deductibles, copayments, and coinsurance), prior authorization, or other medical management requirements for COVID-19 diagnostic testing of asymptomatic individuals when the purpose of the testing is for individualized diagnosis or treatment of COVID-19.

“However, plans and issuers are not required to provide coverage of testing such as for public health surveillance or employment purposes. But there is also no prohibition or limitation on plans and issuers providing coverage for such tests.”

Uncategorized

HHS Proposes Higher Cost-Sharing Limits for 2022

by Inoventive Solutions

March 23, 2021

The Department of Health and Human Services has proposed cost-sharing limits that would apply to all Affordable Care Act-compliant health insurance policies for the 2022 policy year.

The ACA imposes annual out-of-pocket maximums on the amount that an enrollee in a non-grandfathered health plan, including self-insured and group health plans, must pay for essential health benefits through cost-sharing.

This means that health plans are not allowed to require their enrollees to pay more than the maximum in a given year for health services.

The proposed 2022 out-of-pocket maximums are $9,100 for self-only coverage and $18,200 for family coverage. This represents an approximate 6.4% increase over 2021 limits. For 2021, the out-of-pocket maximums are $8,550 and $17,100, respectively.

Penalties to rise

Applicable large employers (ALEs) — employers with 50 or more full-time or full-time-equivalent workers who are required to offer their employees health insurance under the ACA — can face large penalties known as “shared responsibility” assessments if they have at least one full-time employee who enrolls in public marketplace coverage and receives a premium tax credit. There are two types of infractions with different penalty amounts:

The “play or pay” penalty — This can be levied when an ALE fails to offer minimum essential coverage to at least 95% of its full-time employees and their dependent children during a month, and at least one of its full-time employees receives a premium tax credit through a public marketplace.

The per-employee penalty will rise to $2,880 in 2022 from the current $2,700.

The “play and pay” penalty — An ALE can be hit by this penalty if it offers minimum essential coverage to at least 95% of its full-time employees but a full-time employee receives a premium tax credit because: (1) the employer-offered coverage is unaffordable or fails to provide minimum value, or (2) the employee was not offered employer-sponsored coverage.

For 2022, the maximum annual assessment for each full-time employee receiving a premium tax credit will be an estimated $4,320, up from the current $4,060.

Uncategorized

IRS Lets Employers Give Workers a Break on FSA Contributions, Health Plan Rules

by Inoventive Solutions

March 17, 2021

New guidance from the Internal Revenue Service allows employers to temporarily give their employees extra benefits leeway in making changes to their flexible spending accounts (FSAs) and health savings accounts (HSAs).

The guidance, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, also allows employees to make changes to their health plans outside of the traditional open enrollment period.

The COVID relief bill signed into law at the end of 2020 changed the tax law. The law ordinarily requires employees to make irrevocable plan choices before the first day of the plan year; later changes are normally permitted only under certain circumstances, such as a change in employee status.

However, 2020 was an abnormal year. For example, stay-at-home orders left employees with unused money in their dependent care FSAs because they unexpectedly did not have to pay for child daycare.

The temporary changes

Recognizing the current extraordinary situation, the new guidance makes several temporary changes:

Employers can permit employees to carry over unused funds from their 2020 FSAs to 2021, and from 2021 to 2022. Ordinarily, these accounts have a “use it or lose it” rule under which the employee forfeits unused funds at the end of the year.
If an employee contributed $5,000 to a dependent care FSA in 2020 but used only $3,000 because he or she worked from home, they can now carry the remaining $2,000 forward for use in 2021.
Alternatively, employers can extend the grace period for employees to spend unused FSA funds. Normally, employees have two and a half months from the end of the plan year to spend the money on qualifying expenses. The temporary rules permit employers to give them up to 12 months to do it.
Employers can allow certain employees to use dependent care FSA funds for care of children up to age 14. The normal cut-off age is 13.
Employers may allow employees to change their future contributions to 2021 FSAs mid-year, something that is ordinarily prohibited.
Employers may also permit employees to make mid-year health plan changes. Employees who did not enroll in the employer’s health plan during open enrollment will be able to do so.
Employees can change available plans, or they can drop coverage entirely if they can show that they have replacement coverage such as through a spouse’s employer.
If an employee changes from a high-deductible health plan to one with copayments or lower deductibles (or vice versa), employers can also permit them to switch mid-year between contributing to an HSA or an FSA. By law, an HSA must be coupled with an HDHP.
Lastly, they can allow employees who stop contributing to a health care FSA mid-year to receive reimbursements through the end of the plan year.

It is important to know that:

The law does not require employers to make these changes.
The changes expire for plan years starting in 2022 and later.

The pandemic has been difficult for employers and employees alike. These temporary changes will make it a little easier for both to cope.

Uncategorized

Generics and Biosimilars the Key to Reducing Drug Spending

by Inoventive Solutions

March 2, 2021

The soaring cost of new prescription drugs is becoming a major driver in overall health insurance price increases, and some of those drugs are so expensive that they are out of reach for the average patient.

When people can’t afford the drugs their doctor prescribes for their ailments, it can result in either severe financial strain (even for those with insurance) or, if they can’t buy the medication at all, serious consequences for their long-term health.

What’s driving these cost increases? Patients are paying more because of:

High launch prices of new brand biologics and specialty drugs. Specialty drugs are often used to treat complex, chronic conditions, and are among the most expensive medicines on the market.
Annual price increases of brand-name drugs that have no real competition.

While generic drugs are affordable for most people, brand-name drugs can cause serious financial pressure on most people. That’s not factoring in the fact that the cost of many popular brand-name drugs doubles every seven to eight years.

Per capita spending on specialty drugs increased by 55 % from 2015-2018 and their average cost hit $4,500 in 2018, according to a study by the American Association of Retired Persons.

According to the association’s report, brand-name medicines account for 77% of all spending on prescription drugs. The numbers are enough to make your head spin.

The answer

One way to tackle these skyrocketing prices is to increase patient access to more affordable generic or biosimilar pharmaceuticals that are approved by the Food and Drug Administration.

Using generics and biosimilars has proven to be the top way to reduce the cost of medicine outlays. For example, generic drugs can often cost 80 to 85% less than brand-name drugs, according to an analysis by the FDA. That’s usually the first option when trying to reduce a patient’s spending.

That gets more difficult when no generics exist, which is often the case for new drugs which still have their patent.

That’s where biosimilars come in. They can be affordable alternatives to expensive brand biologics, and more are coming to the market every year.

Between 2015 and 2020, the FDA approved 29 biosimilars. If the trend continues, the potential savings could reach $54 billion over the next 10 years, according to a study by the Rand Corporation.

The takeaway

The more biosimilars that come on the market, the less of a burden drug prices will be on those who need them most. Also, as more biosimilars become available, fewer people will opt for abandoning their prescriptions at the pharmacy due to cost.

In addition, when you are being prescribed drugs, you should always talk to your doctor about generic alternatives since 90% of them can be purchased for less than $20 for insured patients.

Uncategorized

CMS Approves Medicare Coverage of ‘Breakthrough’ Medical Devices

by Inoventive Solutions

February 23, 2021

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has issued new rules that require Medicare to cover medical devices that the Food and Drug Administration designates as “breakthrough” technology.

The rule paves the way for giving Medicare recipients access to the latest technologies four years after they receive market approval by the FDA. The move should greatly speed up the time by which these new devices are covered by Medicare, the approval process of which can be extremely slow.

Under the final rule, the CMS will use the data for these devices during the four years after the FDA approves them, to evaluate them based on clinical and real-world experiences. If the data shows they are effective, the CMS could move to approve them for coverage under Medicare.

The CMS said the rule was necessary because the current process hinders innovative technologies from getting to Medicare beneficiaries. Companies that make the breakthrough devices currently have to receive approval from the FDA and then receive approval for Medicare coverage, which costs them both time and funds.

Examples of breakthrough devices that were approved in 2020 include:

Innovative stents
Heart valve replacements
Advanced lab tests
Automatic defibrillator machines.

To further reduce the time it takes for Medicare to approve a device after FDA approval, the CMS has created a special “breakthrough” approval timeline that the FDA can use to approve innovative devices and potentially life-saving equipment.

Along with the expedited pathway to FDA approval, Medicare may automatically cover FDA-approved products for up to four years. After four years or the given timeframe for coverage, the CMS can reassess whether it will continue covering the device based on patient outcomes.

Qualifying requirements

Covered devices would have to fit Medicare statutory definitions of “reasonable and necessary” for treating patients. To that end, the final rule refines these definitions. Among the requirements, devices would have to be considered:

Safe and effective.
Not experimental or investigational.
Appropriate for Medicare patients, including the duration and frequency that is considered appropriate and whether it is covered by commercial insurers.

The new rule aims to nationalize what some state Medicare systems are already doing and avoid the possibility that a revolutionary new product may receive Medicare coverage in one state, but not another.

Making coverage of breakthrough products national also prevents the product manufacturers from having to approach individual Medicare administrative contractors for local coverage determinations, the CMS said in a press release.

The rule takes effect March 15 and is retroactive for two years before the effective date.

Uncategorized

EEOC Issues New COVID-19 Vaccination Guidelines for Employers

by Inoventive Solutions

February 16, 2021

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has affirmed that employers can mandate COVID-19 vaccines for employees, subject to some limitations.

The EEOC’s updated guidance offers direction regarding employer-mandated vaccinations, accommodations for employees who cannot be vaccinated due to a disability or sincerely held religious belief, and certain implications of pre-vaccination medical screening questions under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act.

Asking a patient pre-screening questions is a routine part of a vaccination. These questions may constitute a “medical examination” as defined by the ADA. An employer must be able to show that the inquiries are “job-related and consistent with business necessity” and that an unvaccinated employee could pose a direct threat to the health of others in the workplace.

The guidance does make clear that administration of a COVID-19 vaccination to an employee itself does not constitute a medical examination for the purposes of the ADA.

Urging employees to get the vaccine voluntarily or requiring them to submit proof that a non-contracted third party (physician, pharmacist or public health center) administered it may be a better alternative with fewer legal complications.

Reasonable accommodations

Some employees may be unable to get the vaccine for health or disability reasons. Other employees may have sincere religious objections to getting inoculated. In both cases, employers must make reasonable accommodations for the employees. The law permits them to exclude these employees from the workplace only if no reasonable accommodation is possible.

Employers and employees might not agree on what “reasonable accommodation” means. For this reason, employers should consult with human resources experts and carry employment practices liability insurance. Expert advice will help avoid these kinds of conflicts, and the insurance will pay for legal defense and settlement of resulting employee lawsuits.

Requiring employees to get vaccinated will also have implications for the employer’s obligations under state workers’ compensation laws. On the positive side, a vaccinated workforce should reduce the employer’s exposure to claims that an employee got the virus on the job.

On the negative side, some employees may experience adverse side effects. Since the vaccine would be a job requirement, the employee could make a claim for workers’ comp benefits due to the adverse reaction. In addition, the employer may have to pay the worker for the time spent getting vaccinated and for the cost of the injection.

What you can do

Employers can protect themselves by following these guidelines:

Follow federal and local health guidelines for the vaccine.
Vary the requirements depending on work conditions and locations, such as requiring vaccines for those who regularly interact with the public but making them optional for remote workers.
Accommodate employees unable to get the vaccine or resistant to it, to the extent you reasonably can without endangering other employees or the public.
Apply the requirements consistently to all employees.

No one wants to catch or spread this virus. Employers can help halt the spread by thoughtfully addressing the issue of vaccinating employees.

Uncategorized

Trimming Hours to Avoid Employer Mandate Can Land You in Hot Water

by Inoventive Solutions

February 9, 2021

Ever since the Affordable Care Act was enacted, critics of the law have said that employers would cut staff or reduce workers’ hours to avoid coming under the employer mandate requiring them to provide coverage for their staff.

But employers that decided to go that route could find themselves in a costly legal trap thanks to precedent-setting case that has been cited often by judges when confronted with challenges.

Workers at Dave & Buster’s, a restaurant chain, in July 2015 filed a lawsuit in the Southern District of New York alleging that the national restaurant chain reduced their hours to keep them from attaining full-time status for the purpose of avoiding the requirement to offer them health coverage under the ACA’s employer mandate.

In February 2016, the federal judge in the case, in declining the employer’s motion to dismiss the case, cited its likely breach of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), which prohibits employers from interfering with a worker’s right to benefits.

This case is significant because many other employers have implemented similar strategies striving to limit work hours for certain groups of employees for the purpose of avoiding penalties under the ACA.

Some background

The ACA’s employer mandate generally requires large employers (those with 50 or more full-time workers or full-time equivalent employees) to offer affordable and minimum value health coverage to their full-time employees (employees who regularly work an average at least 30 hours per week).

Employers are not generally required to offer coverage to employees working less than 30 hours per week on average.

Since the employer mandate took effect, many employers have been moving employees to part-time status to avoid triggering penalties under the employer mandate.

Why the case is important

The Dave & Buster’s employees alleged that the company violated ERISA by cutting their hours. They cited Section 510 of ERISA, which prohibits employers from discriminating against any participant or beneficiary for exercising a right under ERISA or an ERISA benefit plan.

The workers alleged that by reducing employees’ hours to keep them below the 30-hour weekly average to qualify as a full-time employee, Dave & Buster’s interfered with the attainment of the affected employees’ right to be eligible for company health benefits.

Dave & Buster’s in October 2015 filed a motion to dismiss the case, but the Southern District of New York federal judge denied the motion in February 2016.

The law firm of McDermott Will & Emery in its blog highlighted the importance of the decision, stating, “The opinion focuses on ERISA Section 510 and holds that the plaintiff has a viable claim that reducing her work hours was done for the purpose of interfering with her right to benefits under the company health plan.

“Second, the opinion finds that the complaint successfully alleged the employer’s ‘unlawful purpose’ and intention to interfere with benefits, pointing to allegations that company representatives publicly stated that they were reducing the number of full-time employees to avoid ACA costs.”

The law firm noted that the decision has given plaintiff’s attorneys a model for filing similar complaints when employers reduce hours to avoid their obligations under the ACA.

It also noted that if judges in other cases deny employers’ motions to dismiss cases, it will put the employer in a more difficult position because the employees’ attorneys will be able to take discovery and depositions, and to compel document production.

Any signs or proof of reducing hours to avoid their obligations under the ACA will make defending the case even more difficult, McDermott Will & Emery wrote.

If you have trimmed hours to avoid the employer mandate, or if you are contemplating doing so, it’s best that you first discuss these plans with your company lawyer.

Uncategorized

How a New Law Affects Group Health Plans

by Inoventive Solutions

February 3, 2021

The newly enacted Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 contains a number of provisions that will affect group health plans, with most changes aimed at helping insured workers with flexible spending accounts (FSAs), cost transparency and surprise billing.

Some of the provisions are permanent while others are temporary, slated to run through the anticipated end of the COVID-19 pandemic. Here’s a look at the highlights that will affect employer-sponsored health benefits.

FSA carryover rules loosened

The new law authorizes employers to amend their cafeteria plans and FSAs to either:

Allow participating staff to carry over unused amounts from the 2020 plan year to the 2021 plan year (and from 2021 to 2022 as well), or
Provide a 12-month period at the end of the 2020 and 2021 plan years.

Under existing law, employers can only allow employees to carry over $550 from one plan year to the next.

The law also allows employees who stop participating in their FSA because they were terminated to continue receiving reimbursement from unused funds through the end of the year during which they stopped participating.

Finally, under the CAA, employees can change how much they set aside into their FSA mid-year (usually they can only change their contribution levels ahead of a new plan year).

In all of the above cases, employers must approve these changes and update them in their plan documents.

Health plan transparency

The CAA also bars “gag clauses,” which bar health insurers from entering into contracts that restrict a plan from accessing and sharing certain information. This is effective as of Dec. 27, 2020.

The goal of these new rules is to increase transparency in pricing and quality information for health care consumers and plan sponsors.

In addition, there are new requirements for health plan ID cards for enrollees, and they will be required to include the following information starting with the 2022 plan year:

Deductibles that are applicable to their coverage
Out-of-pocket maximum limits
Phone number and website address that enrollees can access for assistance.

Surprise billing

The CAA also created the No Surprises Act, which will, starting with the 2022 plan year, cap a plan enrollee’s cost-sharing obligations for out-of-network services to the plan’s applicable in-network cost-sharing level for the following three categories of services:

Emergency services performed by an out-of-network provider or facility, and post-stabilization care if the patient cannot be moved to an in-network facility;
Non-emergency services performed by out-of-network providers at in-network facilities, including hospitals, ambulatory surgical centers, labs, radiology facilities and imaging centers; and
Air ambulance services provided by out-of-network providers.

The takeaway

With so many changes, employers who sponsor group health plans for their workers need to have a plan to make sure they and their health plans comply.

What to do now: If you offer FSAs to your staff and want them to be able to carry over funds from 2020 to 2021, and next year as well, you will need to make those changes to your plan documents.

Employers that sponsor group health plans should review their agreements with their health insurers and ensure that their plan contractors include language indicating that the contract complies with the prohibition on gag clauses.

What to prepare for: Starting with the 2022 plan year, employers should check with us or their insurer to make sure that the transparency changes are reflected in their plan documents and that their employees’ health plan cards also include the changes required by the new law.

Plans should also reflect the new rules created by the No Surprises Act.

Uncategorized

Demand for Voluntary Group Benefits Grows During Pandemic

by Inoventive Solutions

January 20, 2021

As the COVID-19 pandemic drags on and many Americans see unmet needs outside of their health insurance, more and more workers are increasingly signing up for the voluntary benefits their employers offer.

While many workers in the past had skipped on voluntary benefits, they have grown concerned that a good group health insurance plan may not be enough to provide all the coverage they need.

It’s important for employers to react to this trend as the pandemic has put many people on edge about how they can continue to pay the bills if they are laid up with COVID-19, and especially if they have long-haul symptoms that have plagued some people for months after first getting sick.

Employers who fail to upgrade offerings could see higher turnover and more difficulty in retaining and attracting talent.

More employers have added these insurance products to their voluntary benefit offerings. According to a recent Aflac survey, more than 80% of employers are looking at offering insurance plans that cover costs associated with coronavirus or a future pandemic.

Also, many insurers are actively developing new plans and enhancing existing plans that pay benefits for prevention, diagnosis and treatment of a variety of virus strains.

Extra peace of mind

Voluntary benefits offer both employers and employees added peace of mind in uncertain times. These plans serve a dual role: In addition to helping pay expenses health insurance doesn’t cover, they also serve as a financial safety net if covered illnesses arise as complications of the coronavirus.

There are a number of plans that can provide coverage that would be outside the scope of health insurance, including:

Hospital indemnity insurance – This is a supplemental plan designed to pay for the costs of a hospital admission that may not be covered by other insurance. It will cover out-of-pocket expenses like medical copays, deductibles and regular expenses, such as food, rent and utilities.
Critical illness insurance – These plans pay out in the event of covered critical illnesses. This insurance can help alleviate financial worries during a serious illness by providing a lump-sum cash payment to the insured person when they’re diagnosed with a specific critical illness. The benefit provides cash at a time when it may be needed most.
Life insurance – In case the unthinkable happens.
Disability insurance – These plans pay benefits when insureds are unable to work due to covered illnesses or injuries. If you have disability insurance and become injured or sick and lose your ability to work, you’ll get paid monthly disability insurance benefits to cover your lost income.
Disability insurance can be bought individually, but many employers offer long-term and short-term disability insurance as part of an employee benefits package, like health insurance.

The pandemic has highlighted the need for these and other employee benefits that take care of the whole individual, rather than focusing on just health insurance.

Executives at insurers that offer these products say that as Americans struggle to balance their work and home lives, particularly if they work from home as a result of the pandemic, they are looking to their employers for more support to help cover holes in their benefits.

The key: Education

If employers have too many voluntary benefit offerings and don’t do a good job of explaining how they complement each other, it can only lead to confusion among their employees. And if they are confused, the chance that they will opt for any of the plans is greatly diminished.

That’s why education about the products, and how if set up properly they can provide a powerful level of protection for a variety of events, is crucial. If you’re interested in expanding the voluntary benefits you offer your employees, now is the time. We can help you get the ball rolling and help educate your staff on their choices and why they are important.