Employee Engagement Strategy Greatly Increases Benefit Usage, Including HSAs

Fidelity Investments reports the more an employer communicates with workers on benefits, the likelier they are to use them.

Fidelity Investments has published a new report showing 89% of employees with a health savings account (HSA) believe the savings account has positively affected their livelihood.

At the same time, 72% agree that holistic financial wellness programs that consider things like health care expenses are valuable. While 92% of those surveyed say they are aware their company offers HSAs, only 50% have signed up for the savings vehicle. Likewise, 61% of respondents report they are aware of the telemedicine benefit offered by their plan, yet just 34% use the feature. Aside from promoting it, employers are encouraged to explain its value.

Get more!  Sign up for PLANSPONSOR newsletters.

The report urges employers to understand why their workers use or sign up for a given benefit. For example, 62% of survey respondents state HSAs are valued because they help pay for health care in the short term. For employees who see a tool’s value but have yet to take advantage of it, Fidelity says, adding other types of engagement may prove useful, such as creating personal experiences, normalizing wellness practices and ensuring the user experience is streamlined. 

These engagement strategies are especially beneficial for employers that have changed benefits since the start of the year. According to Fidelity, one in four organizations have changed employee health benefits since the beginning of the pandemic. This hasn’t necessarily meant a reduction in health care coverage, says Hope Manion, chief health and welfare actuary and senior vice president at Fidelity Workplace Consulting. Instead, some employers are enhancing telemedicine, mental and emotional health coverage, and dependent care.

“There are two flavors of employers right now: those that have the ability to enhance benefit offerings and those that are really struggling to offer benefits because their business has been severely impacted,” she says. “Some employers are cutting back, but health insurance is the last thing they’ll touch. A lot of emphasis is on trying to get employees able to find a provider in their area or maybe a virtual arrangement. Dependent care is of big interest too, as well as extended or expanded paid time off [PTO] policies. It’s about trying to meet employees where they’re at, provide them with the flexibility and an ability to take care of their families, so they can be more productive at work.”

Whether it’s an expansion or reduction of benefits, the report suggests employers review their offerings during the enrollment process, especially when it comes to employees’ health insurance. According to the survey, 79% of employers do not expect to spend additional time evaluating benefits this year.

“If 2020 has shown us anything, it’s that this is not a typical year and, arguably, we are approaching the most important annual enrollment we will ever experience in our lifetime. We cannot simply default our benefits like we may have done in previous years,” Manion says. “Given so many have experienced financial and health crises this year, now is the time to ensure they don’t overlook benefits that could impact their future health and financial well-being.”

Education and communications surrounding health care options can have lasting effects on employees and pre-retirees. According to Fidelity’s annual Retiree Health Care Cost Estimate, a 65-year-old couple can expect to spend $295,000 on health care and medical expenses throughout retirement. For single retirees, the 2020 estimate is $155,000 for women and $140,000 for men. These figures are up from 2019’s report, and up from $250,000 for a couple in 2010.

EBRI Says CARES Act Distributions Could Have Lasting Consequences

The report highlights how a loan or distribution option under the CARES Act can affect employees.

An Employee Benefit Research Institute (EBRI) study has found that taking withdrawals under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act (CARES) Act can have damaging effects on workers who fail to repay them, especially those in older age groups.

While those who fully refund their coronavirus-related distributions (CRDs) are projected to see minimal impact on their future retirement security, those who do not repay the distribution face the possibility of significant reductions in their retirement balance.

Get more!  Sign up for PLANSPONSOR newsletters.

The report offers four scenarios, each painting a different impact in taking out a CRD.

The first includes a one-time full withdrawal—up to $100,000—with a three-year payback, which resulted in a median reduction rate in retirement balances of 2.3%. However, that figure more than doubles, to 5.8%, for older workers ages 60 to 64.

The second scenario is one in which a worker takes a full distribution but instead of repaying it over the course of three years, does not pay back the withdrawal at all. In this scenario, the EBRI report finds the median reduction skyrockets to 20%, and again more than doubles for older workers, at a 45% reduction rate in retirement balances. This rate is cut in half to 10% for younger workers, most of whom have account balances that are too small for a full distribution.

In the third setting, the report assumes that every dollar used to repay the CRD will result in a dollar reduction toward new contributions to the defined contribution (DC) plan account. This results in a median reduction of 5.9% overall, and an 8.8% reduction for workers ages 55 to 59, and 5.5% for those 60 to 64.

The last situation shows a more draconian scenario, as the report notes, in that an employee takes on a full CRD in 2020 and further does so every 10 years thereafter with no payback. This scenario represents a potential national or global crisis, such as the current pandemic or the 2008 recession, that occurs every 10 years. In response to these crises, policymakers would relax withdrawal provisions within DC plans, says the report. Such a scenario concludes with the highest reduction rate of the four scenarios, at 54%—a loss of more than half of retirement account balances. According to EBRI, at this point, the median reduction rate no longer increases with age as with the other scenarios, since the number of withdrawals is larger for younger participants.

Jack VanDerhei, EBRI’s director of research and author of the report, explains that the study warns about the consequences of using DC plans as an emergency savings account, all while highlighting further examination of the loan provisions. “While the CARES Act provisions provide much-needed liquidity for cash-strapped workers during the current pandemic, this study strives to assess how using defined contribution plans as emergency savings impacts the future retirement security of American workers,” he states. “However, further examination is needed. Under a scenario in which estimated actual implementation and utilization of CARES Act provisions is low, the aggregate impact is estimated to be less than one-half a percent in the scenario in which employees fail to pay back CRDs. But that could change if more employers choose to implement provisions or if allowing access to retirement funds with no penalty becomes a more commonplace and relied-upon response to emergencies.”

The report makes it a point to add that employers would have had to offer these provisions in their plan, with employees requiring approval before taking out such a distribution. The CARES Act distribution and loan provisions have been met with several reviews since their introduction. And plan sponsors have considerations to understand before implementing loan options.

«