At DICK’S, our teammates are the heart of our business, and we are committed to protecting their health and well-being.…
In response to today's ruling, we are announcing that if a state one of our teammates lives in restricts access to abortion, DICK'S Sporting Goods will provide up to $4,000 in travel expense reimbursement to travel to the nearest location where that care is legally available. This benefit will be provided to any teammate, spouse or dependent enrolled in our medical plan, along with one support person.
We recognize people feel passionately about this topic -- and that there are teammates and athletes who will not agree with this decision. However, we also recognize that decisions involving health and families are deeply personal and made with thoughtful consideration. We are making this decision so our teammates can access the same health care options, regardless of where they live, and choose what is best for them.
 |
| http://dilbert.com/strip/2013-05-10 |
Now, Ohio is considering getting in the game. H.B. 511—the Family and Medical Leave Insurance Benefits Act [pdf]—would, in essence, create state-administered short-term disability insurance for employees who need time off for an FMLA-covered reason.
Do you have an employee with a high-cost medical condition? For example, an employee with hemophilia could incur hundreds of thousands or dollars or more in medical costs per year. That one employee could be catastrophic for the overall cost of your company’s group health plan. As a result, many employers are taking advantage of Obamacare’s health-care exchanges by paying these employees to secure their own private medical insurance.
This practice, however, may be changing, and it’s not for the better. According to TLNT, the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and the Treasury have jointly warned employers not to dump high-cost employees from group health plans:
As employers try to minimize expenses under the health law, the Obama Administration has warned them against paying high-cost workers to leave the company medical plan and buy coverage elsewhere. Such a move would unlawfully discriminate against employees based on their health status….
The Affordable Care Act requires exchange plans to accept all applicants at pre-established prices, regardless of existing illness. Because most large employers are self-insured, moving even one high-cost worker out of the company plan could save a company hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. That’s far more than the $10,000 or so it might give an employee to pay for an exchange plan’s premiums….
The Affordable Care Act itself doesn’t block companies from paying sick workers to find coverage elsewhere…. But other laws do, including the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act and the Public Health Service Act, according to three federal agencies. Specifically, paying a sick worker to leave the company plan violates those statutes’ restrictions on discriminating against employees based on medical status, the departments said in their bulletin.
I understand how dropping an ill employee from health coverage because of a medical condition would violate a variety of laws, including the ADA. But, in these cases, employers are not “dropping” employees. Instead, they are merely shifting coverage from an employer-sponsored plan to a government-sponsored plan. The cost to the employee, and the coverage available to the employee, should not change. If the cost and coverage does not change, this practice should not violate any laws.
It’s no secret that health insurance costs are out of control. To help combat this surge, many employers have turned to biometric testing for their employees. Biometric testing is part of corporate wellness programs where employees measure certain levels, such as blood pressure and cholesterol, for breaks on insurance premiums under the Affordable Care Act.
If the Affordable Care Act expressly permits this testing, then why is the EEOC claiming that Honeywell’s biometric testing program violates the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act?
On Monday, the EEOC filed a lawsuit seeking a temporary restraining order declaring Honeywell’s biometric testing illegal. According to the EEOC’s lawsuit, Honeywell’s program creates up to $4,000 in penalties for employees unless they and their spouses take blood and medical tests that can identify smoking, diabetes, high blood pressure, obesity and other health problems. The Minneapolis Star Tribune quotes an EEOC attorney, who said, “Honeywell’s tests and threatened penalties go too far because they are not job-related and are not consistent with any business necessity…. They can only do that in situations where it’s voluntary for the employee to answer.”
For its part, Honeywell has called the lawsuit “frivolous”—
The Chicago EEOC office is unfamiliar with the details of our wellness programs and woefully out of step with the healthcare marketplace…. The incentives we provide are specifically sanctioned by two separate Federal statutes—HIPAA and the ACA. Honeywell’s wellness plan incentives are in strict compliance with both HIPAA and the ACA’s guidelines, which were designed by Congress to encourage healthier lifestyles while helping to control healthcare costs. No Honeywell employee has ever been denied healthcare coverage or disciplined in any way as a result of their voluntary decision not to participate in our wellness programs…. We’re proud to provide employees with the opportunity to lead healthier lifestyles and are disappointed that the EEOC would take a position that is so contrary to a fundamental component of the President’s health care plan, legislation passed by Congress, and the desire of all Americans to lead healthier lives.
Because the EEOC is seeking a TRO, I would expect this case to unfold quickly. I will keep everyone updated as this important story develops. Special thanks to Kate Bischoff for brining this to my attention.
Tony Soprano once said, “Family: they’re the only ones you can depend on.” If Congressional Democrats get their wish, American workers will be able to depend on the FAMILY Act to provide up to 12 weeks of paid leave each year for the birth or adoption of a new child, the serious illness of an immediate family member, or a worker’s own medical condition.
Late last week, Representative Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) introduced H.R. 3712—the Family and Medical Insurance Leave Act of 2013 (aka, the FAMILY Act).
Five years ago, Ohio tried to enact its own paid sick leave law—the Healthy Families Act. At that time, I strongly opposed the OHFA, not because I’m against paid leave for employees, but because it was expensive for employers and would have labeled Ohio as unfriendly to businesses.
Here’s the key difference between the FAMILY Act, and Ohio’s old plan. The paid leave employees would receive under the FAMILY Act does not come out of ordinary payroll. It’s essentially an insurance benefit, paid by a nominal 0.2 percent payroll tax shared equally by the employer and the employee. As a result, employees would be eligible to collect paid-leave insurance benefits equal to 66 percent of their typical monthly wages, with a capped maximum of $1,000 per week for up to 12 weeks per year.
This solution seems like a win-win. The United States remains the only industrialized nation that does not guarantee working mothers paid time off after childbirth. This legislation would bring us up to par with the rest of the civilized world without imposing a significant monetary penalty on employers. I expect partisan lobbying on this bill, which could prevent it from progressing. That would be a shame, since I view the FAMILY Act as a business-friendly approach to solving one of our workplaces’ nagging problems.
[Hat tip: Eric Meyer]
We love our pets. This year, it is estimated that we will spend more than $55 billion on them. More than $14 billion of that total will be for veterinary care alone. Vet bills are expensive, and often unplanned and unbudgeted. Given our emotional attachment to our pets, we pay them, regardless of the cost. To mitigate the unexpected nature of these costs, after losing our last dog we opted for vet insurance for our current one.
Corporate America is following suit by beginning to offer pet insurance as an employee benefit.
According to Yahoo, one out of every three of the Fortune 500, plus 3,400 other smaller companies, now offer pet insurance as a benefit to their employees. Ohio employers offering this benefit include Procter & Gamble, Cliffs Natural Resources, and Quest Diagnostics.
Employee recruitment and retention is difficult. Companies struggle to locate, attract, and retain the best employees. Thinking outside the box with employee benefits is one way to attract, and keep, good employees.
I have not read any version of the health care bill. In fact, anyone outside of Capitol Hill, the White House, lobbyists, or some major news agencies who tells you otherwise is probably lying to you. So, I don’t have a lot to say about this legislation. In fact, I’m not embarrassed to say that I have not yet formed an opinion pro or con about it. What is embarrassing is the partisan politics that this issue has created. No one can honestly say that they are in favor of the bill because they are blue or against it because they are red. They are dishonest opinions based solely on party lines.
So, what can I tell you about this legislation? Employers are not required to provide health insurance to their employees. Instead, employers with 50 or more employees who do not provide health insurance will be fined $2,000 per employee. Employers smaller than 50 employees likely will not feel much of an effect from these changes.
For more on this important issue, I recommend reading Dan Schwartz’s post at the Connecticut Employment Law Blog.
Presented by Kohrman Jackson & Krantz, with offices in Cleveland and Columbus. For more information, contact Jon Hyman, a partner in our Labor & Employment group, at (216) 736-7226 or jth@kjk.com.