Employee Participation Top Wellness Program Challenge
July 18, 2014 (PLANSPONSOR.com) – More employers are using wellness programs in an effort to reduce health care spending, but employee participation is a challenge.
The 2014 Benefits Strategy and Benchmarking Survey from Arthur J. Gallagher & Co. shows 44% of respondents offer a wellness program for
their employees, and nearly three-quarters (73%) say employee participation is their number one wellness challenge.
Arthur J. Gallagher says a key to encouraging participation is recognizing that employees, and their
families, have unique needs when it comes to wellness; employers should not limit their wellness programs to health assessments and
biometric screenings. “Taking a personalized approach to wellness offerings will
increase participation,” according to the report.
Other wellness challenges employers cite include cultural shift/reluctance to change,
budget, geography/multiple locations, and return on investment/productivity
measurement.
Respondents report using a number of different incentives to
personalize wellness offerings and encourage participation in such programs, including:
Cash or gift incentives (64%);
Premium differentials (44%);
Contributions to health reimbursement accounts, health
savings accounts or flexible spending accounts (16%);
Personal time off (PTO) or vacation days (13%);
Deductible differential (5%);
Free medication (4%); and
Limited plan choice (1%).
Arthur J. Gallagher notes many employers have found
that allowing employees to choose their incentives helps to engage them at a
higher level.
According to the survey, metrics employers use to gauge the success of wellness programs include program
participation (62%), health risk assessment (43%), biometrics (38%), employee
engagement/satisfaction (32%) and financial/claims data (30%).
A comprehensive wellness program considers how
employers evaluate the impact of their efforts, the firm says. While
these are important metrics to track, many organizations are also looking more
closely at the impact of their strategies on safety and productivity.
"Safety
outcomes are key indicators of the success or failure of a wellness program,
but many employers aren’t willing to address safety and productivity in the
same conversation. Breaking down this wall is a hot topic and will continue to
be in 2015," according to the report.
A total of 1,833 organizations across the United
States participated in the survey. Information about downloading an executive summary
of the survey results, as well as how to request the full survey report, can be
found here.
July 18, 2014 (PLANSPONSOR.com) - A pension plan transaction recently announced by British Telecom, offers a glimpse of a coming pension risk transfer option for U.S. defined benefit plan sponsors.
On
July 7, the British Telecom (BT) pension plan trustee announced longevity
insurance and reinsurance arrangements have been entered into to provide long-term protection and income to the plan in the event that members live longer
than currently expected. To facilitate the transaction and maximize the plan’s
access to the global insurance and reinsurance market, the trustee has set up a
wholly owned insurance company and transferred longevity risk to this insurer, which
has in turn reinsured this longevity risk with The Prudential Insurance Company
of America.
Amy
Kessler, a senior vice president and head of Longevity Reinsurance within
Prudential Retirement’s Pension Risk Transfer business, tells PLANSPONSOR that
since the BT transaction, more U.S. clients with foreign subsidiaries that are
struggling with de-risking their UK, Canadian or Dutch pension plans are inquiring
about their options abroad.
Kessler
notes defined benefit plan sponsors have liability risk because they do not
know how long people will live, and they have asset risk because they do not
know how the market will perform. In the 2000s, more plan sponsors started
turning to liability-driven investing (LDI) strategies,
in which they add long-duration bonds and other fixed-income investments, to
try to match liabilities to assets. While U.S. plan sponsors were turning to
LDI, those in the UK were moving on to pension risk buy-ins or buy-outs.
Beginning in 2011, U.S. plan sponsors began following the UK’s lead.
The transaction BT
announced is different and newer, however. Kessler explains that in the UK,
many pension plans that began using LDI years ago now have 70% to 80% of their
portfolios invested in fixed-income with longer durations to match liabilities,
and because they are so heavily invested in fixed income, they are no longer
expected to “outrun” life expectancies. If life expectancies continue to
increase, the pension plans will have to come up with cash to continue paying
annuitants. Rather than retain that risk, the largest plans in the UK are
buying longevity insurance to lock in a future cash flow that will help pay
benefits after annuitants reach their life expectancy. “That gives the pension
funds a fixed and known future liability cash flow,” Kessler says. There have
been many such transactions in the UK, and Prudential expects the first
longevity insurance deal in Canada in the not-too-distant future, she adds.
However,
this solution has not yet migrated to the United States. Kessler says this is in part because
of the asset mix of U.S. defined benefit plan portfolios, and the U.S. market
has just begun to adopt up-to-date longevity expectations. A key deterrent has
been the mortality tables used by U.S. plans, but new mortality tables look
more like what insurance companies use. In addition, once U.S. defined benefit
plans get to 70% to 80% of assets in longer duration fixed-income investments, longevity
insurance will be a viable solution for longevity risk. “It’s a turning point
in the U.S. market—a time for plan sponsors to take a look at the new solution
as well as revisit the other two,” Kessler says.
Kessler
explains that a buy-out covers all asset and liability risk associated with the
annuitants for whom the buy-out transaction is made. An annuity is purchased by
the plan to settle certain pension liabilities. It is a full settlement, so the
portion of liabilities annuitized leaves the plan sponsor’s balance sheet and
goes on the balance sheet of the insurance company. Kessler says this is a
holistic, bundled solution similar to what GM and Verizon entered into with Prudential. “From that moment forward, Prudential pays
participants directly,” she explains. She adds that a buy-out is a solution
available in the U.S., UK, Canada and the Netherlands.
A
buy-in is similar in that it is an insurance product that covers all asset and
liability risk for annuitants covered, but the key difference, Kessler
explains, is a buy-in is a contract between the insurance company and the
pension plan, which is held in the plan, rather than a settlement of the
liability. The first U.S. pension risk transfer transaction was a buy-in
Hickory Springs Manufacturing in Hickory, North Carolina,
entered into with Prudential. Prudential knows the amount of the payout
obligation the plan has each month and matches that liability. Prudential is
responsible for all of asset and liability risk, and pays the benefits into the
pension plan, while the plan cuts the checks to annuitants. Kessler says
buy-ins are the most frequently used pension risk transfer transactions in the
UK. Buy-in solutions are also available in Canada.
Prudential
recommends defined benefit plan sponsors start working with actuarial
consultants to prepare their data and to look at the different solutions
available side-by-side to see which is best. “One of the things we think is
very exciting about all the innovation that has happened in pension risk
transfer space in the UK, is we can bring all those ideas to the U.S. market,”
Kessler says, adding that plan sponsors should engage in dialogue with insurers
about the goals for their plans and the resources available.
According
to Kessler, “For the first time in a long time, U.S. pensions have a healthy
funded status, and a lot of plans are in striking position to reduce risk or
transfer risk. It’s a good time to think about getting risk off the table.”
She
notes that in the past there have been various windows of opportunity where
plans were well-funded, but at some point there’s economic difficulty again. “There’s
a sense of urgency to de-risk today, to strike when the iron’s hot, because there’s
likely, at some point, to be a turn in the business cycle.”