Benefits December 9, 2011

Employee Healthcare Costs a Major Concern Among Local Governments

December 9, 2011 (PLANSPONSOR.com) – A survey of local governments found employee healthcare costs are a major concern. 
 

Reported by

According to the survey, 71% of respondents listed “employee healthcare costs” as one of their top three general operating concerns, ranking below “budget” (93%), and ranking ahead of the next closest concern, “service delivery” (41%) on the list of local government priorities.

When asked what approaches the respondent was taking to reduce healthcare expenses/claim costs, the four most popular answers for actions already taken were: increase the share of total healthcare costs paid by employees (51%); audit or review eligibility or enrollment in your health plan (46%); actively manage communication to educate customers on healthcare costs and living a healthier lifestyle (43%) and significantly increase pharmacy copays, deductibles or coinsurance (42%).

For more stories like this, sign up for the PLANSPONSOR NEWSDash daily newsletter.

Local governments also cited four primary obstacles to developing a healthy workforce, which included: lack of employee engagement (65%); lack of adequate budget to support effective health management programs (60%) and too many other demands on employees/not enough time (54%).

Several questions in the survey asked local governments directly about their plans and understanding of federal healthcare legislation passed in 2010. Specifically, most local governments need to learn more about the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. When asked what their level of understanding of the healthcare reform legislation is, the vast majority of respondents said they partially understand, and need to learn more (63%). Eighteen percent of respondents said they completely understand the legislation, but need to assess its impact. Twelve percent completely understand the legislation and its impact, while 7% said they have heard about it, but don’t understand the legislation or its impact on their benefits.

Most local governments plan to take a “wait and see” approach on potential changes due to the Affordable Care Act. When asked whether they plan to make any changes to employees’ healthcare benefits as a result of health reform legislation, 54% said they would wait and see how it unfolds, while 44% said no changes were currently planned. A very small percentage indicated plans to drop health coverage for any class of employee.

Among other relevant findings, overall, 99% of local government respondents offer medical insurance as part of their current employee healthcare plans, along with 92% who offer dental and 92% who offer pharmacy provisions as part of the employee plans. Additionally, population size seemed to be a factor in whether local governments have programs in place to address workforce health concerns, with larger local governments reporting the availability of these programs at a noticeably higher rate than smaller localities show.

The survey was conducted jointly by Cigna and IMCA, the International City/County Management Association, and includes responses from nearly 1,500 local governments.

To view the survey in its entirety, visit http://icma.org/en/results/surveying/survey_research/survey_results.

Benefits December 9, 2011

Michigan Bill Barring Domestic Partner Benefits Goes to Governor

December 9, 2011 (PLANSPONSOR.com) - A law barring domestic partner benefits for public employees in Michigan is on its way to Governor Rick Snyder following passage by both the state House and Senate.
Reported by

The Detroit Free Press reports the bill is aimed at ending programs enacted by state universities, school districts and other government agencies to extend healthcare and other benefits to the unmarried partners of employees, usually to make those benefits available to same-sex couples (see MI House Approves Bill to Stop Domestic Partner Benefits).  

Snyder spokeswoman Sara Wurfel issued a statement in which she said Snyder is expected to sign the legislation “pending a final review.”  

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

Backers of the legislation criticized the programs as expensive and a violation of the state’s 2004 constitutional amendment defining marriage as involving one man and one woman approved by Michigan voters in 2004 (see MI Couples: Amendment Didn’t Kill Public Same-Sex Benefits).   

According to the Free Press, if signed by Snyder, the legislation would prohibit domestic partner benefits for employees subject to state labor law governing the treatment of government employees. It was not immediately clear whether that would apply to employees of the state’s 15 public universities. Supporters of the bill in the House said it would, but Mike Boulus, executive director of the university Presidents Council, said it would not. 

The ban also would not apply to public employees covered by a collective bargaining agreement that authorizes domestic partner benefits until that contract expires. 

The issue has created much controversy over the years, with the Michigan State Supreme Court weighing in that providing health insurance benefits to same-sex domestic partners violates the marriage amendment of the state constitution (see MI High Court Says No to Provision of Benefits to Same-Sex Couples).

«