Friday, July 29, 2011

Will One-Third of Employers Drop Health Coverage in 2014?


By Charles J. Farro


That’s what a 2011 McKinsey & Company survey predicts. Of more than 1,300 employers surveyed, 30 percent responded that they will "definitely" or "probably" stop offering employer-sponsored health insurance after 2014.


That is significantly higher than the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimation that 7 percent of empoyees currently covered by employer-sponsored plans would be forced to switch to subsidized exchange policies that year. The discrepancy between the CBO’s numbers and the McKinsey findings throws yet another wrench into the health care reform controversy.


Not surprisingly, the White House and many Democrats are questioning the validity of the study and claiming that the numbers are grossly overstated. While McKinsey admits that their survey found "a bigger effect than expected," they are standing by the results. In their defense, spokeswoman Yolande Daeninck said in a recent interview , "The article presents the results of a survey of more than 1,000 companies on U.S. health care reform in February 2011. The article reflects the opinions of the respondents at that point in time. Obviously the survey is only one indicator of the employers’ view of likely future actions. Many uncertainties remain, and the actions and timing of actions of employers will ultimatley depend on numerous variables."


Of course, one of those variables will be an employer’s ability to attract and retain employees without a company-sponsored health plan. While dropping coverage and paying the penalty may make financial sense on the surface, employers will have to carefully weigh the impact of that decision on other areas of their business. Interestingly, McKinsey’s consumer research found that more than 85% of employees – and almost 90% of higher income employees – would stay with an employer that dropped health coverage.


While a lot can happen between now and 2014, it is clear that health care reform will continue to meet with resistance and may not ultimately achieve the goals of its supporters. Our team at BRG will continue to stay on top of new developments and bring you all of the information and guidance you need to make the tough decisions along the way.


Chuck Farro is Chairman, CEO and co-founder of BRG. He manages BRG’s operations and directs marketing services. You can contact Chuck by phone at 216-393-1800 or by email at cfarro@benefitsrg.com.


© 2011 Benefits Resource Group

Thursday, May 5, 2011

New Responsibilities and Risks for Plan Administrators under Participant Disclosure Rules


By Linda A. Cahill, CLU, ChFC, RPA



Since the Department of Labor (DOL) first issued proposed regulations requiring the disclosure of information to participants in self-directed individual account plans, including 401(k) plans, plan administrators and third party vendors have been wrestling with the implications of the new requirements. Now that final regulations have been released and will apply to plan years beginning on or after November 1, 2011 (January 1, 2012 for calendar year plans), it is clear that all parties – especially plan administrators – have increased responsibilities and fiduciary risks.



What the Final Regulations Require



Under the final regulations, plan administrators for any ERISA participant-directed individual account plan (excluding IRA’s, SEP’s and SIMPLE’s) must make disclosures in two main categories: plan-related information and investment-related information.



Click here to view a summary chart of the plan disclosure requirements.



Most of the disclosures must be made before participants first become eligible to make an investment election under the plan, and then annually thereafter. However, there are some specific fee disclosures that must be communicated quarterly.



More Fiduciary Responsibilities and Risks



The new regulations require plan administrators to regularly disclose information to participants and beneficiaries far beyond what most are disclosing today. Several provisions of the new rules create a significant burden, and added fiduciary risk, for plan administrators.



For example, the regulations define "participants" to include all eligible employees, not just those who are currently participating in the plan. Because most plan administrators do not typically distribute disclosures to eligible non-participants, the new regulation places an increased administrative burden – and potential costs – on plan administrators.



In addition, plan administrators must provide advance notice of all plan-related changes, not just those that are deemed "material". The "material" requirement was in the proposed regulations, but dropped in the final regulations based on the DOL’s assessment that all changes are "material". The volume and frequency of communication required to comply with this requirement could overwhelm both plan administrators and participants.



The DOL does provide some flexibility, allowing information to generally be distributed either by paper or electronically. However, the requirement to provide information in a format that allows participants to compare investment options is cumbersome, to say the least. The DOL has provided a model comparison chart to assist plan administrators and their vendors with this requirement but, depending on the number and variety of investment options offered, preparation will be a challenge.



Ensuring Your Investments and Vendors are Competitive



While the new regulations allow plan administrators to delegate some responsibilities to other individuals and entities, failure to meet the requirements could be considered a breach of fiduciary duty, exposing the plan administrators to remedies under ERISA. More than ever, plan administrators must carefully evaluate, select and monitor their third party vendors. Not only is their ability to accurately comply with the new disclosure requirements critical, but their fees and expenses will be more visible than ever before.



Please let us know if we can assist you in preparing for compliance with the new regulations, or in evaluating third party vendors for your plan. Your choice of partners can have an enormous impact on your ability to comply and your potential fiduciary risk.



Linda Cahill is a Principal with BRG. You can contact Linda by phone at 216-393-1812 or by email at lcahill@benefitsrg.com.



Securities and Investment Advisory Services Offered through M Holdings Securities, Inc., A Registered Broker/Dealer, Member FINRA/SIPC; BRG is independently owned and operated; This material is intended for informational purposes only and is not intended to replace the advice of a qualified tax advisor; Product guarantees are subject to the claims paying ability of the issuing insurance company; Variable life insurance products are long-term investments and may not be suitable for all investors. An investment in variable life insurance is subject to fluctuating values of the underlying investment options and entails risk, including the possible loss of principal. The performance of your account will vary and you may receive more or less than the amount invested.

Thursday, March 31, 2011

IRS issues PPACA guidance on W-2 reporting

The Internal Revenue Service has issued interim guidance to employers on the informational reporting requirements on each employee's annual Form W-2 of the cost of the health insurance coverage they sponsor for employees.


The IRS is also asking for comments on the interim guidance. The IRS emphasized that the new reporting to employees is for their information only, to inform them of the cost of their health coverage, and does not cause excludable employer-provided health coverage to become taxable; employer-provided health coverage continues to be excludable from an employee's income, and is not taxable.


The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act provides that employers are required to report the cost of employer-provided health care coverage on the Form W-2.


Notice 2010-69, issued last fall, made this requirement optional for all employers for the 2011 Forms W-2 (generally furnished to employees in January 2012).


In the guidance, the IRS provided further relief for smaller employers (those filing fewer than 250 W-2 forms) by making this requirement optional for them at least for 2012 (i.e., for 2012 Forms W-2 that generally would be furnished to employees in January 2013) and continuing this optional treatment for smaller employers until further guidance is issued.


Using a question-and-answer format, Notice 2011-28 also provides guidance for employers that are subject to this requirement for the 2012 Forms W-2 and those that choose to voluntarily comply with it for either 2011 or 2012.


The notice includes information on how to report, what coverage to include and how to determine the cost of the coverage. The 2011 Form W-2, prior IRS Notice 2010-69 deferring the reporting requirement for 2011, and Notice 2011-28 containing the new guidance are available on IRS.gov.


The notice provides interim guidance that generally applies beginning with 2012 Forms W-2 (that is, the forms required for the calendar year 2012 that employers generally are required to furnish to employees in January 2013 and then file with the Social Security Administration. Employers are not required to report the cost of health coverage on any forms required to be furnished to employees prior to January 2013.


See Notice 2010-69. However, any employers that choose to report earlier (on the 2011 Forms W-2 generally furnished to employees in January 2012) may look to this notice for guidance regarding that voluntary earlier reporting.


The notice also provides additional transition relief for certain employers and with respect to certain types of employer-sponsored coverage. This transition relief will continue at least through the 2012 Forms W-2 that are required to be furnished to employees in January 2013.


In other words, those employers for whom the additional transition relief applies, including smaller employers that are required to file fewer than 250 2011 Forms W-2, will not be required to report the cost of health coverage on any forms required to be furnished to employees prior to January 2014.


The transition relief will continue until the issuance of further guidance.



Wednesday, February 23, 2011

Setting self-funding strategy

Small employers increasingly turning to self-funding to ease cost increases

By Samuel H. Fleet
February 1, 2011

Self-funding used to be exclusively for big companies that had a solid cushion of assets, plenty of cash flow and a large employee population across which to spread risk.

In the past few years, however, more small and midsize employers are finding that self-funding gives them the flexibility they are looking for in health care benefits for employees.

With the continuing rise in medical care costs driving fully insured premiums higher and more options available to take the volatility out of risk, today more employers are looking at self-funding as an escape hatch to avoid the anticipated consequences of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

Under PPACA, insurers face new, costly requirements like providing free preventive care and covering young adults through age 26. They also will operate under restrictions, such as no annual or lifetime caps, and the requirement that they spend 80% to 85% of premiums on health care services.

At the same time, insurers will continue to build a profit margin into their products; they will structure coverage to suit their marketing strategy, rather than an individual company's needs, and will present employers with already-contracted provider networks of their choosing.

None of these factors will lead to lower premium costs. In fact, Aon Hewitt estimates that premiums will rise 8.8% in 2011, the highest increase in five years.

To get out from under these costs and gain the flexibility to create a benefits program they can control, many employers are taking a second look at self-funding.

Today, self-funded plans cover almost 41 million workers - 59% of the private-sector workforce, according to federal statistics. Taking into account family members, self-funded plans cover about 70 million Americans.

It's also worth noting that the 2010 Kaiser Family Foundation survey on employer-provided health benefits identified a jump in small and midsized companies turning to self-funding. Between 2008 and 2010, the rate of companies with fewer than 200 workers that self-funded health care rose from 12% to 16%, while the rate of companies with 200 to 999 workers increased from 47% to 58%.

Self-funding options

When an employer decides to self-fund, there are two options to consider. The first option is to self-fund on their own; to do that, most companies purchase medical stop-loss insurance.

By setting a ceiling for individual costs, aggregate costs or both, an employer can draw a line in the sand to make sure unexpected expenses do not exceed the resources to pay them. Stop-loss insurance is an economical way to protect against the unpredictable nature of health care costs that comes with having a small pool of workers.

One of the newest options in self-funding is to join other small and midsized self-funding companies in a captive insurance structure to pool risk and provide economies of scale. Because the structure often takes a regional approach, local provider networks can be arranged that make sense for each employer.

Best of all, the captive structure returns excess premiums to members of the captive on a pro-rata basis, rewarding employers that do an effective job of managing health risks.

Overall, the benefits to a self-funded captive include:

* Plan design flexibility.

* Protection to large groups by pooling the most volatile risk.

* Cohesive plan administration.

* Tiered structure of costs that allows employers to choose varying degrees of member services and interventions.

* Eliminates the requirement and cost to interview, select, monitor and coordinate multiple vendors necessary to effectively manage health care risk, services and cost.

* Retained carrier profits (positive experience).

Options to control risk

One reason companies used to steer clear of self-funding is the danger in any one year of high medical costs. With smaller workforces, there are fewer healthy people to dilute the costs if someone needs expensive care.

Today, however, there are a number of options to make self-funding less of a gamble, while still retaining plan flexibility and cost-effective care:

1. Provide for organ transplants separately. The number of organ transplant recipients is increasing, with more than 180,000 people living with a transplanted organ by the end of 2007. With costs from surgery and post-operative care that can quickly exceed $250,000, employers can protect their budgets by buying organ transplant insurance.

2. Control specialty pharmacy costs. As drugs become more expensive - especially for treatment of cancer and chronic diseases - many employers are contracting with pharmaceutical benefits management experts. They can reduce costs by arranging for discounts, eliminating the added costs charged by doctors who purchase drugs and then administer them, and using rigorous utilization review.

3. Manage dialysis treatment carefully. In 2007, 365,000 people were undergoing dialysis at a cost of $35 billion. With the cost of treatment ranging up to $50,000 per month, using dialysis management specialists is one way to make sure patients get the treatment they need in the most economical way possible. Among their strategies are vetting invoices against usual and reasonable rates, arranging for home dialysis when appropriate and obtaining discounted drug prices.

4. Focus on chronic conditions. Diabetes, heart disease and other chronic conditions can become costly when patients do not follow their doctor's advice. By arranging for patient-focused case management or providing incentives for workers to comply with treatments, an employer can not only reduce costs, but also help their workers live healthier lives.

5. Use administrative audits. Periodic pharmaceutical and medical audits can identify anomalies, such as double-billing and inappropriate treatments. They can also be used to identify trends that can be addressed through wellness programs and other strategies to lower health care costs.

While the full scope of changes required under PPACA will not be clear until all of the regulations are written and put into place by 2014, most experts agree that the next few years will be a time of rising health insurance costs.

For employers who see their health benefits as an important tool for attracting and retaining a talented workforce, it is important to find cost-effective strategies for continuing to provide coverage. By exploring self-funding options, including joining a captive structure and taking steps to mitigate risk, employers can position themselves to take control of their benefits and rein in costs.

Monday, January 17, 2011

Why Survey Your Employees? Because You Can’t Afford Not To

As the cost of employee benefits continues to increase, employers feel the pressure to maximize the return on every benefits dollar they spend. Most companies look to their consulting and legal advisors, as well as benchmarking studies, to help them determine what benefits will appeal to their current and prospective employees. However, many companies never consider the input of their employees.

Employers are often nervous about employee surveys in general, and particuarly regarding their benefits. Opinion Research Corporation recently published the results of a "survey about surveys." They found that only 40% of companies conducted any kind of employee survey at all. Yet, of those that did, 80% of the employees felt good about being asked for their opinions and believed their performance improved as a result.

So, if employees actually like to be asked for their opinions, how can a company use a survey about employee benefits to their best advantage? How can they gather input without raising unrealistic expectations and generating data that is actually useful in the plan design and implementation process. The answer is through careful survey design, execution and communication.

What You Can Learn From an Employee Benefits Survey

An employee benefits survey is designed to capture employees’ understanding and perceptions of your company’s benefit package, including:

• How well do your employees understand their existing benefits plan?

• How important are individual benefits to your employees?

• How satisfied are they with their benefits?

• How competitive do they perceive your benefits to be?

• How effective are your benefit communications?

• What additional benefits would employees like to have?

• What benefits are they willing to pay for?

A survey can help you determine which benefits are most important to employees and if your benefit dollars are being spent "wisely." You can also determine if employees are willing to pay for new benefits, and if so which would have the broadest appeal.

Utilizing quantitative data captured by your survey, you and your consultant will be better equipped to design and implement a benefits package that strategically allocates benefits dollars appropriately. The right benefit package will make your company more attractive to quality employees, while simultaneously helping you apply benefit dollars judiciously and control costs. Studies show that effectively communicating the value of benefits actually increases employee satisfaction and reduces turnover.

Surveying Beyond Benefits

While it’s a good idea to keep your survey fairly focused, it may also be a good opportunity to gather some additional employee input. For example, you may include a question in your survey about the employee’s general experiences working at your company.

Whatever your survey topics, it’s important to communicate the results to your employees and share with them any changes you are making, or contemplating making, as a result of their input. It’s critical that employees know that you heard them, even if you aren’t taking all of their suggestions.

Learn More

If you are interested in conducting a survey of your employees, BRG can help you:

• Determine the right questions to ask,

• Implement the survey via internet or paper with minimal effort from your staff,

• Interpret and communicate the results, and

• Determine any changes you may want to consider in your plan design and/or communications.

Give us a call. We look forward to assisting you.

Ross W. Farro is a Principal with BRG and specializes in assisting clients with their Health and Wellness needs. You can contact Ross by phone at 216-393-1820 or by email at rfarro@benefitsrg.com.

Securities and Investment Advisory Services Offered through M Holdings Securities, Inc., A Registered Broker/Dealer, Member FINRA/SIPC; BRG is independently owned and operated; This material is intended for informational purposes only and is not intended to replace the advice of a qualified tax advisor; Product guarantees are subject to the claims paying ability of the issuing insurance company; Variable life insurance products are long-term investments and may not be suitable for all investors. An investment in variable life insurance is subject to fluctuating values of the underlying investment options and entails risk, including the possible loss of principal. The performance of your account will vary and you may receive more or less than the amount invested.

© 2010 Benefits Resource Group

Monday, January 3, 2011

What’s New with Health Care Reform? More Than You Think

By Cindy LaQuatra, RHU, GBA

Whether the 2010 mid-term elections will present a signficant opportunity for future changes to federal health care reform legislation remains to be seen. In the meantime, millions of U.S. employers are preparing for the first round of compliance requirements in 2011.

While there has been no change in the law since the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) was passed, much guidance and interpretation has been – and continues to be – published on the subject. Staying on top of the relevant information can be a challenge for employers, particularly when the federal regulations seemingly conflict with state regulations, such as the dependent age extension for Ohio employers. In this article, we will review some of the recent guidance and hot topic discussions to help you with your company’s compliance efforts.

Key Provisions Effective for 2010/2011

For most employer plans, the key federal provisions that must be implemented for 2011 include:

Elimination of most annual and lifetime plan limits

100% Preventive Care coverage for non-grandfathered plans

Specific coverage for emergency services

No pre-existing limits for members under the age of 19

Extension of dependent age limit to age 26 (see State vs. Federal Dependent Age Limit Extension below)

Elimination of over-the-counter medications as a reimbursable expense under Flexible Spending Accounts (FSAs), Health Reimbursement Accounts (HRAs) and Health Savings Accounts (HSAs), unless the employee obtains a prescription.

The requirement for employers to report the cost of coverage under an employer-sponsored group health plan on each employee’s W-2 form has been delayed until 2012. Reporting this information for tax year 2011 is optional. The government intends to use this information to calculate the "Cadillac health plan tax" by 2018.

For a detailed Health Care Reform implementation timeline visit the

HealthCare.gov website

.

State vs. Federal Dependent Age Limit Extension

Both the federal government, through the PPACA, and the state government, through the budget passed in July of 2009, have enacted legislation allowing older age children to remain covered under their parents’ coverage. The two laws are not exactly the same.

The federal law applies to all group and individual plans, including self-funded ERISA plans, and requires plans to extend the eligibility age for dependents to age 26. The state law does not apply to self-funded ERISA plans; however, self-funded public entities such as city or county governments are subject to the state law. The state law requires that employees be allowed to pay for extending

coverage for children until age 28. There are also many differences in the details of which dependents the extension applies to and how it must offered.

Virtually all employers must comply with the federal law; those with insured plans generally must comply with both. The Ohio Department of Insurance (ODI) has issued an

FAQ

addressing the differences in the laws and how they should be coordinated.

Grandfather Status: Making the Decision

Group health plans in existence on March 23, 2010 when PPACA was enacted, are eligible to retain "grandfather status" and, as a result, enjoy certain exemptions and special treatment under various provisions of the law. However, as many employers have discovered, the advantages of grandfather status must be weighed against the limitations placed on the employer's ability to make cost containment changes to the plan without jeopardizing its status.

In general, any of the following changes which reduce benefits or increase costs for participants would cause a plan to lose its grandfather status:

• The elimination of all or substantially limit benefits to diagnose or treat a particular condition;

• Any increase in a percentage cost-sharing requirement, such as an individual's coinsurance, above the amount that applied on March 23, 2010;

• An increase in a fixed-amount cost-sharing requirement that applied on March 23, 2010 other than a copayment (for example, deductible or out-of-pocket limit) by a total percentage that is more than the medical inflation percentage rate plus 15%;

• An increase in a fixed-amount copayment that applied on March 23, 2010 by more than the greater of $5 (increased for medical inflation) or the medical inflation percentage rate plus 15%;

• A decrease by an employer in its contribution rate towards the cost of any tier of coverage for any class of similarly situated individuals by more than 5% below the employer's contribution rate for the coverage period that included March 23, 2010; or

• The imposition of a new overall annual limit or a decrease in the amount of an existing annual limit on the dollar value of benefits.

Grandfathered plans may also lose their status if they transfer employees to another plan or plan option without a bona fide employment-based reason for the transfer. There is a transition rule to regain grandfathered status. If a change made after March 23, 2010 causes loss of grandfathered status, that change may be revoked prior to the beginning of the first plan year beginning after September 10, 2010. If timely revoked, then the plan is considered to be grandfathered.

Mini-Med Plans and the Impact of Medical Loss Ratios

Approximately two million Americans currently have limited medical benefit plans, also known as "mini-med plans." Mini-med plans have gained popularity in recent years, especially among companies that employ low-wage, seasonal and part-time workers, and contractors. Mini-meds allow these employers to offer a health plan at a low cost to both the company and employees.

Federal health care reform requirements pose several challenges for mini-med plans, threatening their future viability as an employer-sponsored benefit. The Department of Health and Human Services

(HHS) has addressed one issue (though not effectively, according to many industry leaders), by offering insurers the ability to apply for waiver of the restricted annual benefit limits – a cornerstone of mini-med plans. While many insurers have already obtained these waivers, they are now facing another hurdle – meeting the law’s medical loss ratio (MLR) requirement. Health care reform requires that insurers spend at least 85 cents out of every premium dollar on medical claims for its large-group policyholders. For small-group and individual policies, the figure is 80 cents. The remaining 15 -20 cents of each premium dollar can be used to pay expenses that do not directly benefit customers -- like payroll, advertising, overhead and profits. Because of mini-med plans’ high expense structure relative to low spending on claims, insurers will find it difficult, if not impossible, to meet the MLR standard.

On September 30, HHS released a statement acknowledging the special circumstances involved in providing coverage to certain types of workers through mini-med plans. HHS stated that it will balance a commitment to implementing the provisions of the PPACA in a way that causes the least disruption to currently available coverage while "ensuring that consumers receive the benefits the PPACA provides," and that it will exercise discretion when drafting regulations that address the application of the MLR standards to mini-med plans. The insurance industry – as well as several large employers, including McDonalds – is actively communicating with HHS to encourage a reasonable solution.

Potential Impact of Mid-Term Elections

While the new GOP majority in the House is likely to pursue a full repeal of health care reform, the Democrat majority in the Senate and promise of presidential veto, makes a full repeal highly unlikely. It is more likely that the GOP will look to repeal pieces of the law and potentially impede implementation. Repeal efforts may be focused on some of the more unpopular provisions, including new taxes and the requirement for all Americans to carry health insurance. James P. Gelfand, director of health policy at the

United States Chamber of Commerce

, said recently that a top priority would be to alter or eliminate the provision that will require many employers to contribute to the cost of coverage for employees. The requirement, he said, would hurt job creation and increase the cost of hiring workers. Some labor unions may join employers in trying to roll back a new tax on high-cost, employer-sponsored health plans, scheduled to take effect in 2018.

Cindy LaQuatra, RHU, GBA is

a Senior Consultant in BRG’s Health and Wellness Division. If you have a comment about this article or questions regarding health care reform and your business, contact Cindy by phone at 216-393-1848 or by email at mailto:claquatra@benefitsrg.com.

Securities and Investment Advisory Services Offered through M Holdings Securities, Inc., A Registered Broker/Dealer, Member FINRA/SIPC; BRG is independently owned and operated; This material is intended for informational purposes only and is not intended to replace the advice of a qualified tax advisor; Product guarantees are subject to the claims paying ability of the issuing insurance company; Variable life insurance products are long-term investments and may not be suitable for all investors. An investment in variable life insurance is subject to fluctuating values of the underlying investment options and entails risk, including the possible loss of principal. The performance of your account will vary and you may receive more or less than the amount invested.

© 2010 Benefits Resource Group

Thursday, December 9, 2010

Put down the 10-foot pole: Wellness is not a poisonous snake

Every year, large consulting and brokerage firms conduct surveys on what companies are doing to mitigate the impact of rising health care costs.

Questions about wellness initiatives have become a standard feature in such surveys. It always amazes me to see what percentage of companies indicate that they don't have any plans to implement programs or initiatives to help employees make better lifestyle choices.

Often, these companies cite lack of time, money or resources for their failure to even consider such plans. Some even make vague and defensive statements such as, "We have no interest in wellness programs," or "Wellness programs just don't work for us."

It's certainly true that a large percentage of companies have failed to make wellness programs work financially. Two common pitfalls include a lack of commitment from senior leaders (who must function as role models) and the failure to integrate the health promotion program with the delivery of benefits and incentives.

Get off the sidelines

However, companies no longer can afford to sit on the sidelines and play the reluctant spectator. Health care costs won't ever magically decrease.

Well-planned and well-managed health promotion efforts have a proven return on investment that ranges anywhere from a $2 return for each $1 invested to more than a $6 return for $1 spent. In some cases, companies have cited $10 returned on medical expenses alone for each dollar invested.

If professionals do their homework and commit to helping employees to manage their health more effectively, their companies can expect to get at least a 200% return on their investment.

Considering that a large percentage of businesses operate on a less than 10% profit margin, that 200% return on investment is an excellent way of increasing net profits.

Nevertheless, some companies still treat wellness plans like poisonous snakes - keeping them at a distance with the proverbial 10-foot pole.

Could it be that such erroneous business decisions are made because not all facts are considered and wellness is seen only as a tool to manage health care cost? Health improvement among the workforce has a much broader impact.

By not accounting for these secondary benefits, one can easily dismiss the case for workforce health promotion - especially by senior leaders unprepared to personally demonstrate the type of lifestyle choices that a wellness program would require.

At that point, naysaers further substantiate their point by referring to the many anecdotal reports - reports that usually leave out critical facts that would invalidate them - from companies that have failed to demonstrate a positive return on investment.

Although, a comprehensive and fully integrated wellness program can have a significant impact on future medical claims, the financial impact generated through the secondary benefits is in actuality multiple times greater than the cost savings generated through lower medical claims.

Research over the last 10 years has repeatedly confirmed that productivity gains outweigh health care cost savings of as little as two- and as much as four-fold.

In case you are still hanging on to the old and outdated methods of managing health care cost, let me be very clear on this: absenteeism and presenteeism numbers are only positively affected if the overall health of the employee improves.

The kind of synergy effects necessary to truly take your company to the next level and protect it from health care costs cannot be achieved through any other cost cutting strategy (such as shifting cost, reducing benefits or eliminating access.)

Only when you make the required paradigm shift and invest in the health of your employees will you experience changes in productivity.

Once you combine the impact a health promotion program has on health care cost and productivity (as well as other cost drivers such as workers' compensation, short-term and long-term disability, accident rates and even overtime and training costs) it becomes a no-brainer and perhaps even a mandatory business pursuit.

There are absolutely no reasons left not to make health promotion a top focus. Business leaders who still opt not to implement a health promotion program are knowingly putting their companies and their employees in harm's way.

Based on what we know today, there are absolutely no reasons left not to make health promotion a top focus. Business leaders who still opt not to implement a health promotion program are knowingly putting their companies and their employees in harm's way. -M.P.



Contributing Editor Michael Puck, SPHR, is the benefits innovation leader for a global defense, security and aerospace company, author of "The High Road - Total Health Care Transformation Program" and founder of www.8020wellness.com.