Speak with an adviser 678.821.3508

START HERE
START HERE
""/
Uncategorized

Insulin Makers Cap Prices for Insured Individuals

by Inoventive Solutions
June 20, 2023

Three drugmakers, which account for roughly 90% of the insulin in the U.S. market, in March 2023 announced that they will cap the cost of insulin for people with private insurance plans.

That includes those on employer-sponsored group health plans and plans purchased on a government-run exchange. The changes mean some or many of your employees will see significant reductions in their pharmaceutical outlays, particularly if they have high copays or deductibles.

The moves come after the Inflation Reduction Act, signed into law in 2022, capped out-of-pocket insulin costs for seniors on Medicare at $35 per month. However, the law does not apply to people younger than 65 who also need insulin.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, an estimated 28.7 million people — or 28.5% of the population — were living with diagnosed diabetes in 2022, and chances are high that most employers have workers with the condition. Out of that population, 8.4 million use insulin, according to the American Diabetes Association.

Eli Lilly was the first company to announce, on March 1, that it would cap the cost of all its insulin products at $35 per month, with immediate effect.

On March 14, Denmark-based Novo Nordisk announced that it would lower the U.S. list price of some of its insulin products by up to 75%, putting the fast-acting insulins NovoLog and NovoLog Mix 70/30 at $72.34 for a single vial and $139.71 for a pen. The new pricing will take effect Jan. 1, 2024.

Finally, Sanofi two days later announced that it would cap the out-of-pocket cost of its most popular insulin, Lantus, at $35 per month for people with private insurance. This change also takes effect Jan. 1, 2024.

These changes will bring relief to millions of Americans, particularly after years of insulin makers jacking up their prices. A report on National Public Radio in 2022 noted that the cost of insulin had increased 600% in the past 20 years.

Another report found that some people with high-deductible health plans were paying $350 to $600 a month, for a medicine that costs $6 to make.

Next steps

There are moves afoot to force the industry to cap the price at $35 a month. Legislation has been introduced in Congress that would force drugmakers to cap their insulin price at that level.

You may want to circulate this news with your employees, so they are aware of the new pricing. A 2022 analysis by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that most people on private health insurance would benefit:

  • In the individual market, the median cost health plan enrollees pay for insulin is $62 per month. One-quarter of them pay $105 a month.
  • In the small group market, the median cost health plan enrollees pay is $54 per month, while one-quarter pay $83.
  • In the large group market, the median cost health plan enrollees pay is $54 per month, and one-quarter pay $77.
""/
Uncategorized

New Anti-Obesity Drugs Put Employers in a Quandary

by Inoventive Solutions
June 14, 2023

A surge in demand for pricey, new and highly effective anti-obesity medications could put a financial strain on employers who sponsor their employees’ health plans.

Employers have long offered coverage for certain weight loss tools, such as bariatric surgery if employees qualify for the drastic procedure that requires an operation. Other medications that have been on the market for some time have limited effect, don’t work for everyone and can have serious complications.

But a new class of drugs that has hit the market in the last few years has proven extremely effective in helping people lose weight. As a result, pharmaceuticals like Novo Nordisk’s weight-loss-specific Wegovy and Saxenda, and Ozempic — a diabetes medication from the same company — are now in high demand.

There’s one big catch: These drugs are very costly, putting employers in a quandary. They want to attract and retain high-quality talent, but they don’t want to break the bank on their employee benefits offerings.

A recent survey by the Obesity Action Coalition found that 44% of people with obesity would switch jobs if it meant gaining access to obesity treatment coverage. Likewise, 51% would stay in a job they didn’t like to have access to the coverage.

These findings are significant considering how much these drugs cost and the fact that once someone starts taking them, if they stop, they will usually start gaining weight immediately.

What are these drugs?

This class of pharmaceuticals, known as glucagon-like peptide agonists (GLP-1s), have shown to be highly effective in helping people lose excess weight.

Since news spread of how effective they are, demand for these medications has skyrocketed.

Just three years ago, few people had heard of these drugs and they were not often prescribed, but that’s all changed.

For example semaglutide, which is known under the brand names of Ozempic, Wegovy and Rybelsus, was the fourth-most prescribed drug in terms of total costs in 2021 at $10.7 billion, an increase of 90% from the year prior, according to a report in the American Journal of Health-System Pharmacy.

While many of these drugs are injectable, some like Rybelsus come in pill form.

Shocking costs

Experts warn that if more workers seek out these drugs, payer outlays will spike, resulting in higher group health plan premiums for employers.

The list price of Wegovy is $1,350 per package, which breaks down to about $270 per week — or $16,190 per year.

That said, obesity has its own significant costs and proponents of these medications point at the potential for reduced costs on the back end if people lose weight and keep it off.

Medical costs of obesity in the U.S. were $173 billion in 2019, according to the Centers for Disease Control.

An unsustainable trend

It’s estimated that about 60% of large employers’ health plans cover one of these drugs, although with restrictions, including minimum body mass index (BMI) requirements and prior authorization.

Health plans may require enrollees who qualify for obesity care to first use other lower-priced anti-obesity drugs before they move to a GLP.

The American Gastroenterology Association recommends weight loss drugs for anyone who has a BMI over 30, or 27 if they have other medical complications, such as heart disease or diabetes. According to the CDC, 42% of Americans have a BMI over 30, which is considered clinically obese.

As the uptake of these drugs increases, employers and their health plans will need to make painful choices of to what extent the medications should be covered. Insurers are already considering ways to ensure that people who will most benefit from these drugs have access to them.

""/
Uncategorized

Bill Would Pave Way for Stand-Alone Telehealth Coverage

by Inoventive Solutions
March 7, 2023

A bipartisan group of House legislators in February reintroduced legislation from 2022 that would pave the way for employer-sponsored, stand-alone telehealth benefits plans.

The bill is important as the current law allowing health insurers to cover telehealth benefits sunsets at the end of 2024, which would be difficult for many patients and providers who have grown accustomed to telehealth visits with their physicians.

The legislation, however, takes a different approach by instead making telehealth benefits separate from a health plan.

A similar measure died in committee last year due to congressional inertia during an election year. The current legislation has bipartisan support with sponsorship by Rep. Angie Craig, D-Minnesota, Rep. Ron Estes, R-Kansas, Rep. Mikie Sherrill, D-New Jersey, and Rep. Rick Allen, R-Georgia.

The bill

The goal of the Telehealth Benefit Expansion for Workers Act would be to make stand-alone telehealth benefits separate, and not a replacement for a group health plan. Instead, employers would be able to offer them under a group health plan or group health insurance coverage as excepted benefits.

Excepted benefits are additional coverages that employers can, but are not required to, offer, like vision or dental insurance. Federal law dictates what qualifies as an excepted benefit, which necessitates the legislation to add telehealth services to the mix.

Telehealth benefits, under the legislation, would apply to all workers, even those who work part-time or seasonally.

Why is the legislation needed?

Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, health plans were unable to cover telehealth services under the law. But, when the outbreak first started, followed by lockdowns, telemedicine was sometimes the only option patients had to get face time with their physicians.

As a result, lawmakers enacted laws that allow health plans to cover patients’ video and phone visits with their doctors. Those laws were set to sunset 151 days after the COVID-19 public health emergency expires.

But the budget bill signed into law at the end of 2022 extends and expands telehealth flexibilities under the law through Dec. 31, 2024. Those flexibilities include:

  • Expanding originating sites to include any sites where patients are located, including their homes.
  • Extending coverage and payment for audio-only telehealth services.

What’s next

This measure has only just been introduced, but since it was crafted by Democrats and Republicans, and considering the eventual sunsetting of telehealth provisions, there is some urgency in getting permanent legislation on the books.

However, as telemedicine grows in use and popularity, elected representatives may feel pressured to make permanent the current law that allows health plans to cover video and telephone visits with their physicians.

"health
Uncategorized

Health Insurance Considerations for Workers Who Move Out of State

by Inoventive Solutions
February 3, 2022

One fallout from the COVID-19 pandemic has been an increase in the number of Americans who are working from home permanently.

With so many people being freed from the yokes of the office, many have chosen to move to other states for a variety of lifestyle or cost reasons. But while these arrangements can be a boon for workers, they can make it difficult when it comes to your workers’ group health insurance.

One of the main stumbling blocks is that most group plans are local or regional at best, as they contract with providers and hospitals in the area where an employer is located.

For employers that suddenly have staff now working far afield from their headquarters, securing health insurance coverage in other states can create headaches, particularly if they have contracted with a local or regional insurer.

And to make matters worse, some employees who are working remotely don’t bother telling their employers they are moving, which can render their coverage obsolete if they locate to a place out of their insurance policy’s coverage area.

Remote employees who fail to inform their employers when they relocate could suddenly find themselves in an area with no access to their insurer’s preferred network and they could have their claims denied if they seek out medical care. To avoid this issue, consider instituting a policy that they have to inform you of any move to another state.

What you can do

If all of your staff are working in a single location, city or state, there are usually plenty of options for group health insurance. But if you now have people working out of state, you have choices to make for how to get them covered.

Many national insurance companies don’t have the same type of network in every state, and even among those that do, health care providers may not offer the most cost-efficient networks for out-of-state employees.

Some carriers offer national group health plans that are available to employees in most states. If you now find yourself with employees who are scattered around the country, a national plan helps you avoid having to comply with different state regulations and finding carriers with good networks in other states.

In these types of plans, all of the employees in your organization receive the same group benefits regardless of where they live and work, and they all have access to the same quality coverage.

But there are just a handful of carriers that offer this type of group coverage. Talk to us if you want to know more.

One option is to find local coverage for employees in specific locations, but if you don’t have many employees in that region, you may not be able to find preferable rates for their group coverage.

If that is too difficult, you can set up a taxable stipend that your employees could use to purchase their own health insurance. A stipend is a fixed amount of money paid to an employee in addition to their basic salary, designed to cover whatever extra costs the employer allows, such as health insurance, internet and other expenses.

The takeaway

As more U.S. companies have workforces spread across many states, health insurance needs to be on the top of the list of considerations.

The health insurance you choose will depend largely on your budget and coverage preferences, and what is available to your staff in the state they are working in.

"covid19"/
Uncategorized

Long-Haul COVID Can Be Covered Under ADA

by Inoventive Solutions
January 18, 2022

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has issued guidance stating that employees suffering from “long COVID-19” may be protected under workplace disability discrimination statutes.

The guidance states that someone suffering from impairments resulting from long-haul COVID-19 symptoms can be considered “disabled” under the Americans with Disabilities Act and entitled to the same treatment as other disabled workers. But not in every case.

The EEOC emphasized that long-haul COVID symptoms can vary greatly from person to person and that eligibility would have to be determined on a case-by-case basis.

Employers should read the guidance, posted on the EEOC’s website on Dec. 14, to ensure they stay on the right side of the law if they are confronted with a worker who is battling COVID-19 symptoms for more than a few weeks and they ask for special accommodation under the ADA.

According to the guidance, a person infected with COVID-19 who is asymptomatic “or who has mild symptoms similar to those of the common cold or flu that resolve in a matter of weeks — with no other consequences — will not have an actual disability within the meaning of the ADA.”

But for those who have COVID-19 symptoms lasting more than a few weeks, and depending on their specific symptoms, a worker may have a “disability” if the illness is affecting them in any of the following ways:

Physical or mental impairment — The EEOC states that COVID-19 is a physiological condition affecting one or more body systems, which would be considered a disability under the ADA.

Substantially limiting a major life activity — “Major life activities” include both major bodily functions, such as respiratory, lung or heart function, and major activities, such as walking or concentrating. COVID-19 has been known to cause these issues. An impairment need only substantially limit one major bodily function or other major life activity to be substantially limiting.

Examples of COVID-19 cases that may be considered a disability under the ADA include:

  • An employee who experiences ongoing but intermittent multiple-day headaches, dizziness, brain fog and difficulty remembering or concentrating, which their doctor attributes to the coronavirus.
  • Someone who received supplemental oxygen for breathing difficulties during initial stages of treatment and continues to have shortness of breath, associated fatigue and other virus-related effects that last for several months.
  • Someone with heart palpitations, chest pain, shortness of breath and related effects due to the virus that last for several months.

What to do

As a result of this guidance, an employee experiencing long-haul COVID with symptoms that could be considered a disability may ask for reasonable accommodation for work. To determine if the employee is eligible, the employer and the employee must enter into an interactive process.

The employer can ask the worker to provide backup documentation about their disability or need for reasonable accommodation, such as notes from doctors outlining restrictions. The employer can also request that the employee sign a limited release allowing the employer to contact the employee’s health care provider directly.

If the worker doesn’t cooperate in providing the information, the employer can deny the accommodation request.

"COVID-19
Uncategorized

Health Plans Dropping Out-of-Pocket Cost Waivers for COVID-19 Treatment

by Inoventive Solutions
May 4, 2021

As the light at the end of the pandemic tunnel gets brighter, more health insurers are ceasing to offer cost-sharing waivers for COVID-19 treatment.

After legislation was enacted in 2020 that required health insurance companies to cover COVID-19 tests and vaccines, many insurers voluntarily waived all deductibles, copayments and other costs for insured patients who fell ill with COVID-19 and needed hospital care, doctor visits, medications or other treatment.

Not all health insurers extended these waivers to their enrollees, but many did.

Insurers are still required to provide free COVID-19 testing and vaccinations to their enrollees. That’s because federal guidance requires them to waive such costs.

Also, guidance issued in February after President Joe Biden assumed office, reinforced the Trump administration rule about waiving cost-sharing for testing. Biden’s guidance took an extra step, saying that it applies even in situations in which an asymptomatic person wants a test before traveling or seeing a relative.

Almost 90% of individual and group health plans enrollees were in plans that waived cost-sharing for COVID-19 treatment, according to the Peterson-KFF Health System Tracker.

What insurers are now doing

However, starting in late 2020, more and more insurers have quietly been dropping those waivers. For example:

  • UnitedHealthcare started curtailing its waivers in November.
  • Anthem stopped its cost-sharing waivers on Jan. 31.
  • Cigna stopped offering cost-sharing waivers for COVID-19 treatment on Feb. 15.
  • Aetna ceased offering deductible-free inpatient COVID-19 treatment waivers on Feb. 28.

Not all insurers are doing this though. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota extended eligibility for telehealth benefits and COVID-19 treatment waivers through the end of 2021.  Humana, meanwhile, has left the cost-sharing waiver in place for Medicare Advantage members, but dropped it on Jan. 1 for those in job-based group plans.

A study by the Peterson Center on Healthcare and the Kaiser Family Foundation released in November 2020, found that 88% of Americans who have health coverage — including employer-sponsored health plans and individual plans purchased on exchanges — had policies that waived cost-sharing for COVID-19 treatment.

Despite the fact that vaccines are rolling out quickly across the country and in light of a significant percentage of people who are hesitant to get vaccinated for COVID-19, the coronavirus is expected to be a presence in society for some time to come. And that means people will contract it and get sick.

There are also concerns about mutant strains that have developed in South Africa and Brazil, and possibly in India during the massive outbreak in April.

The takeaway

You may want to check with your group health plans to see if they have waived any cost-sharing for COVID treatment, and have since dropped or are planning to drop it.

You should meet with your employees or send them a memo explaining any impending changes for them if they have a health plan that is ending or has ended waivers.  

""/
Uncategorized

The Top Five Health Conditions Driving Insurance Costs

by Inoventive Solutions
March 10, 2021

A new study has identified the top five health conditions that are driving the overall cost of group health plan outlays, and without which spending would actually be falling.

The report is enlightening, and employers can use the findings to offer programs aimed at education and prevention to help control their employees’ health care costs and cut into health insurance premiums paid by both employers and workers.

Inspecting its study data for trends, the Health Action Council (HAC) determined that 63% of its covered lives had at least one of five conditions that were driving health care costs. Most of these top five conditions are preventable or treatable with lifestyle modifications that employers can encourage. 

Here’s a look at the five conditions and the burden they put on your employees and your company:

Asthma

Average costs paid per member of the HAC for asthma treatment are increasing on average 6.4% a year. This is one of the most prevalent health conditions in the country. Three important stats:

  • The incidence of asthma was 31% higher among women than men.
  • The incidence of asthma among African American covered lives was 20% more prevalent than among other races.
  • The average age of HAC members with asthma was 31.9, two years younger than the overall membership average age of 33.9.

Diabetes

Average costs paid per member of the HAC for diabetic treatment are also increasing 6.4% a year. Three important stats:

  • Diabetes was 20% more common in men than women among the HAC’s enrollees.
  • The average age of HAC plan enrollees with diabetes was 52.
  • Although Asian covered lives amounted to only 3% of the HAC enrollees, they had the highest incidence of diabetes of all racial groups.

Hypertension

Average costs paid per member of the HAC for hypertension treatment are increasing 6.3% a year. Three important stats:

  • Hypertension was 23% more common in men than women.
  • The average age among HAC enrollees with hypertension was 53.1.
  • The risk of African Americans developing hypertension was 63% more than for other races.

Back disorders

Average costs paid per member of the HAC for back treatment are increasing 3.4% a year. Three important stats:

  • Back disorders were 27% more common in women than men.
  • The average age among HAC enrollees with back disorders was 43.3.
  • Caucasian HAC members had 14% higher back disorder prevalence than other races.

Mental health, substance abuse

Average costs paid per member of the HAC for mental health and substance abuse treatment are increasing 2.7% a year. Three important stats:

  • Mental health and substance abuse problems were 39% more common in women than men.
  • The average age among HAC enrollees with mental health and substance abuse issues was 32.8.
  • Caucasian HAC members had 20% higher mental health and substance abuse issues than other races.

The takeaway

To help workers with these conditions, the report recommends:

  • Creating and implementing simple education and targeted wellness programs to address common conditions among your employees.
  • Instituting an exercise, stretch or meditation program at the beginning of a work shift to improve safety and decrease injuries. These types of practices are preventative and may decrease the severity of an injury if one occurs.
  • Evaluating benefit plan design for opportunities to implement continuum-of-care protocols. For example, employers can make chiropractic care or physical therapy mandatory for back disorders before moving to more aggressive treatments.
  • Covering medications for specific common chronic conditions as preventative care. Another option is to promote the use of patient assistance programs for medicines that may be excluded in your plan’s drug formulary.
  • Promoting virtual care for specific conditions; for example, mental health support if you have staff in rural areas.
  • Working with your health insurer or medical expert(s) to identify opportunities for provider outreach and education to your workers.
"employee
Uncategorized

Changes for 2021 Summary of Benefits and Coverage

by Inoventive Solutions
January 26, 2021

There are new Summary of Benefits and Coverage notice requirements for health plans starting with the 2021 coverage year.

The requirements, released by the Department of Labor, have new model templates, new instructions and new information that affects the coverage examples that are required to be in SBC documents that employers with group health plans must distribute to their employees.

Under the Affordable Care Act, all non-grandfathered health plans are required to provide enrollees and prospective applicants an SBC, which is essentially a synopsis of the plan’s coverage and benefits. It must be produced in a specific format, contain specific information, and be written in a way that is easily understood.

Here are the changes that were made to the SBC template for plans that started on or after Jan. 1:

Coverage example

The coverage examples that appear on the last page of the document have been modified to reflect changes in the cost of medical services that occur over time due to inflation and other factors:

  • “Managing Joe’s Type 2 diabetes” (diabetes example): The total amount of expenses incurred for “Joe” has decreased.
  • “Mia’s simple fracture” (fracture example): The total amount of expenses incurred by “Mia,” who visited the emergency room for a simple fracture, has increased.
  • “Peg is having a baby” (maternity example): The costs incurred during “Peg’s” hospital stay have been changed to remove separate newborn charges. The deductible line of the example should now match “your deductible amount” (if applicable).

Minimum essential coverage

Under the entry for minimum essential coverage, the template has been revised to reflect the elimination of the individual mandate penalty, which was repealed effective Jan. 1, 2019.

The entry now indicates that individuals eligible for certain types of minimum essential coverage may not be eligible for a premium tax credit under the ACA marketplace.

Uniform glossary

The uniform glossary has been updated to remove references to the individual mandate penalty.

What to do

If you offer group health plans to your employees, you are a plan sponsor and thus required to distribute SBCs to staff who are eligible for coverage during open enrollment. The SBC must also be given to new hires within 90 days of hiring for mid-year enrollment. 

If you don’t have your latest SBC, you can contact us or your health insurer. The insurer is obligated to provide all covered employers with updated SBCs after the Department of Labor and the Department of Health and Human Services release changes to templates.

"COVID-19
Uncategorized

The Big Question: Can Employers Require Workers to Vaccinate?

by Inoventive Solutions
November 24, 2020

As the COVID-19 pandemic rages on and more employers bring staff back to the workplace, many businesses are considering implementing mandatory vaccination policies for seasonal flus as well as the coronavirus.

A safe and widely accessible vaccine would allow businesses to open their workplaces again and start returning to a semblance of normalcy. But employers are caught in the difficult position of having to protect their workers and customers from infection in their facilities as well as respecting the wishes of individual employees who may object to being required to be vaccinated.

The issue spans Equal Opportunity Employment Commission regulations and guidance, as well as OSHA workplace safety rules and guidance. With that in mind, employers mulling mandatory vaccination policies need to consider:

  • How to decide if such a policy right for the company,
  • How they will enforce the policy,
  • The legal risks of enforcing the policy, and
  • Employer responsibilities in administering the policy.

Proceed with caution

A number of law firms have written blogs and alerts on the subject of mandatory vaccinations, and the overriding consensus recommendation is to proceed with caution. 

In 2009 pandemic guidance issued during the H1N1 influenza outbreak, the EEOC stated that both the Americans with Disabilities Act and Title VII bar an employer from compelling its workers to be vaccinated for influenza regardless of their medical condition or religious beliefs – even during a pandemic.

The guidance stated that under the ADA, an employee with underlying medical conditions should be entitled to an exemption from mandatory vaccination (if one was requested) for medical reasons. And Title VII would protect an employee who objects due to religious beliefs against undergoing vaccination.

In these cases, the employer could be required to provide accommodation for these individuals (such as working from home).

Additionally, the employer would have to enter into an interactive process with the worker to determine whether a reasonable accommodation would enable them to perform essential job functions without compromising workplace safety. This could include:

  • The use of personal protective equipment,
  • Moving their workstation to a more secluded area,
  • Temporary reassignment,
  • Working from home, or
  • Taking a leave of absence.

One issue that employment law attorneys say may not have any legal standing is if an employee objects to inoculation based on being an “anti-vaxxer,” or someone who objects to vaccines believing that they are dangerous. In this case, depending on which state your business is located, you may or may not be able to compel an anti-vaxxer to get a vaccine shot.

Protecting your firm

To mount a successful defense of a vaccination policy if sued, you would need to be able to show that the policy is job-related and consistent with business necessity. And that the rationale is based on facts, tied to each employee’s job description and that you enforce the policy consistently without prejudice or favoritism. 

Also, you must ensure that any employee who requests accommodation due to their health status or religious beliefs does not suffer any adverse consequences. In other words, you cannot punish someone that is covered by the ADA or Title VII for refusing a vaccine.

Also, you will need to project and safeguard your employees’ medical information, under the law.

The takeaway

A number of employment law experts say that once a vaccine is widely available, most employers will likely have the right to require that workers get it, as long as they heed the advice above about the ADA and Title VII. Until then, you may want to consider following the 2009 guidance.

If you do implement a policy requiring vaccination, consider:

  • Fully covering vaccine costs if they are not fully covered by your employees’ health insurance.
  • Allowing employees to opt out entirely if they have medical or religious objections.
  • In the event of a medical or religious objection, you must engage in an interactive process to determine whether the individual’s objections can be accommodated.
  • Including safeguards for keeping your employees’ medical information confidential.
  • Not abandoning your other efforts to keep your workplace safe, such as the use of social distancing, regular cleaning and disinfecting, and the use of personal protective equipment.
"Helath
Uncategorized

Alternative Group Plan Funding Gets a Second Look

by Inoventive Solutions
July 28, 2020

Watching their group health plan premiums climb higher with each passing year, some employers start looking into alternative funding strategies in hopes they can get a better handle on their employees’ health costs.

While group plans are the standard, larger employers have typically had more options for funding their group health coverage. But now even small and medium-sized employers – even companies with fewer than 100 employees – can benefit from alternative funding approaches.

There are three main types of alternative funding strategies that are available to employers:

  • Captives
  • Private exchanges
  • Full and partial self-funding.

Captives

With a captive, multiple employers pool their resources and share the risk in providing health insurance to their employees. It is essentially a self-insured pool built into a captive insurance company (an insurer that is owned by the entity that created it). The captive has staff that will administer the health plan.

Captives are also multi-year agreements, so once an employer commits to make it worth their investment, they need to stick with it for a period of time.

Group captives will often have a specific funding mechanism that is broken down into four layers:

Layer 1: The employer is responsible for the first $25,000 of any claim made by one of its employees.

Layer 2: All employers involved in the captive will share the costs of that claim if it exceeds $25,000, up to $250,000.

Layer 3: For claims that cost more than $250,000, the captive will secure reinsurance coverage to cover amounts above that level. This reinsurance is also called “stop-loss” insurance.

Layer 4: Another layer of protection known as “aggregate stop-loss” coverage protects each employer in the captive for the total claims of their employees, ranging from 115% to 125% of expected claim costs in a year.

Private exchanges

Typically, businesses using a private exchange will offer employees a credit that can be applied toward the purchase of a health plan. Employees can then access a variety of health plans through an online portal and can chose and enroll in plans that meet their needs.

Private exchanges are run by insurance carriers or consultancies, and plans on the exchange are regulated as group coverage. Employees shopping on these exchanges are not eligible for the Affordable Care Act’s tax credits or cost-sharing subsidies.

Most employers currently using private exchanges are large; therefore, most private exchange plans are regulated as large-group coverage and are not part of the ACA’s single risk pool. However, to the extent that smaller employers participate in private exchanges, they are subject to the ACA’s small-group rating regulations and risk-pool requirements.

One of the main features of private exchanges is that they enable employees to comparison-shop among multiple health insurance plans.

Self-insuring

There are many different types of self-insurance, from minimum-premium or risk-sharing arrangements to a fully self-funded plan, in which the employer is responsible for all claims.

Employers can choose from:

Retrospective premium arrangements – The insurer will credit back a portion of the unused premium to the employer (typically as a credit for the following year). This is often used in a fully insured arrangement.

Minimum premium arrangements – The employer pays fixed costs (administration charges, stop-loss insurance and network access fees) and claim costs up to a maximum liability each month.

Partial self-funding -The employer takes on more liability and pays fixed costs (administration, network access, stop-loss premiums and some fees and taxes). It’s partial self-funding because the employer will purchase individual stop-loss insurance, which caps the employer’s liability on any given claim to a certain amount, say $50,000.

That way, the employer is self-insuring most of their employees’ medical needs, but is protected in case some of those claims become catastrophic.

Full self-funding – This is like partial self-funding except that there is no stop-loss insurance and the employer is responsible for all costs that are not shared by its employees.  This kind of arrangement is usually only available to large employers.

The takeaway

These alternative funding approaches are what is available now. But the industry is innovating to making health care and insurance more affordable for all involved.

1 2 3 4 5 6 … 8 9
Recent Posts
Recent Comments
    Archives
    Categories
    Meta