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.

Never miss a story — sign up for PLANSPONSOR newsletters to keep up on the latest retirement plan benefits news.

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.

Options for Pension Risk Transfer Expanding

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.

Get more!  Sign up for PLANSPONSOR newsletters.

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.”

More information about pension risk transfer from Prudential is at http://pensionrisk.prudential.com.

«