March 2015, Page 4 Archive

Even though the “Cadillac Tax” doesn’t take effect until 2018, it’s one of HR pros’ biggest concerns regarding the entire Affordable Care Act. Now, for the first time, the feds are offering guidance on how this tax will be calculated.  

Starting in 2018, employers will be required to pay a 40% excise tax on the value on any healthcare coverage that exceeds $10,200 for single coverage or $27,500 for families in premium costs.

Many firms have already determined they’re likely to be impacted by this tax in 2018 or soon after.

But even though they’ve been making decisions in anticipation of that tax, until now, the feds haven’t given any details on what to expect.

1. Pretax HSA contributions

In the guidance, Notice 2015-16, the IRS was clear that employer contributions to an HSA are subject to the 40% Obamacare tax. What’s less clear, however, is exactly how employee pretax contributions will be treated.

Specifically, the IRS said that the agencies (HHS, DOL and IRS/Treasury):

anticipate that future proposed regulations will provide (1) employer contributions to HSAs, including salary reduction contributions to HSAs, are included in applicable coverage, and (2) employee after-tax contributions to HSAs are excluded from applicable coverage.

Based on how the IRS plans to treat pretax HSA contributions, many employers will be subject to the Cadillac Tax unless they limit the amount that workers’ can contribute to their HSAs.

2. Vision, dental and EAPs

The guidance also said the feds were considering excluding self-insured vision and dental plans, which are considered excepted benefits, from the Cadillac Tax by using their “regulatory authority.” They will also look into doing the same for EAPs that fall under the excepted benefit category.

Under current health reform regs, fully insured dental and vision plans are excluded from the excise tax.

3. Specific onsite clinics

Finally, the IRS guidance touched on the type of onsite medical clinics that would likely be excluded from the Cadillac Tax.

The onsite clinics the IRS guidance refers to are the type that only offer de minimis (i.e., minimal) care to workers. The IRS cited a COBRA reg to spell out the type of clinics that will likely be excluded from the tax. According to that reg, an onsite clinic isn’t considered a group health plan if:

• The care consists primarily of first aid provided during the employer’s work hours for treatment of a health condition, illness or injury that occurs during work hours
• the care is only available to current employees, and
• employees aren’t charged for the use of the facility.

If an employer’s onsite clinic meets this criteria, it likely won’t be subject to the ACA’s excise tax, the IRS said.

More to come

The IRS also made it clear that there was more guidance to come on the types of care that will trigger the Cadillac Tax.

The feds are accepting public comments on the details of this notice until May 15, 2015, after which they’ll release additional guidance followed by proposed regs on the Cadillac Tax.

Specifically, the feds are requesting employer comments on onsite clinics that provide the following health services in addition to first aid:

• immunizations
• allergy injections
• provision of nonprescription pain relievers, such as aspirin, and
• the treatment of injuries caused by accidents at work, beyond first aid.

For more HR News, please visit: Feds offer a first look at the upcoming ‘Cadillac Tax’

Source: News from HR Morning

You know that employers have to tread carefully in their social media policies concerning what employees can and can’t say about work. But does that same leeway apply when it comes to employees posting negative comments about customers?  

A case in Hawaii could give us some answers. A brief rundown:

Maurice Howard was a regular customer of a Hertz car rental agency. He alleged that Hertz employees posted messages on Facebook that constituted “an attack on [his] race, sexual orientation and financial state and condition.”

Howard pointed to several insulting Facebook posts made by Hertz employee Shawn Akina. Several of Akina’s co-workers also posted comments on Akina’s page, Howard alleged.

Howard originally sued for assault, racial and sexual orientation bias, libel, and violation of privacy. He later dropped those counts, however, and maintained his claims for negligent supervision by the employer, negligent retention and negligent training.

Here’s the rub: Howard said that Hertz management knew of Akina’s activities — he had supposedly made negative comments about customers on two previous occasions — but took no action against him or provided him with training on what is and isn’t acceptable on social media.

Akina’s early posts should have gotten him suspended or fired, Howard claimed, and added that Akina’s comments about him “caused him to sustain injuries and losses.”

The federal District Court judge ruled that Howard “sufficiently alleges that … Akina posted ‘hostile and harassing content’ on Facebook’ about a Hertz customer and Hertz manager in the past. It is therefore at least plausible that similar conduct in the future may have been foreseeable.” The case continues.

Bottom line: Hertz is looking at a big legal bill for a court fight, or writing a big check for a settlement.

Where are the boundaries?

As you know, a number of employer policies dealing with social media have been found to be too broad by the National Labor Relations Board, which staunchly protects employees’ right to discuss the “terms and conditions” of their work. And it seems possible that such discussion might occasionally include a mention of a specific customer.

There’s a fine line to walk here. It seems safe, however, to prohibit insulting, negative postings about specific customers, especially when they have no connection with workplace conditions.

The case is Howard v. The Hertz Corporation (link courtesy of law firm Hall Render).

For more HR News, please visit: Are employees protected when they post negative comments about customers?

Source: News from HR Morning

Human resources departments continue to struggle to build the best workforce. There are plenty of applicants but not enough candidates with the right combination of skills, experience, work ethic, and attitude to be top performers. This guide provides tactics and tips to help you improve the effectiveness of your company’s recruiting, hiring, and onboarding processes.

Click here to learn more!  

For more HR News, please visit: The best team wins: Ten tips to hone your recruiting, hiring, and onboarding processes

Source: News from HR Morning

The Affordable Care Act — known to one and all as Obamacare — began its latest legal test before the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday.  

You recall that last fall, the high court agreed to hear a case challenging the legality of Obamacare subsidies in states that have refused to set up their own healthcare exchanges.

The case, King v. Burwell, is an appeal of a July ruling from the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, which upheld the subsidies.

The essence of the case is one phrase in the law, which says that subsidies — in the form of tax credits — would be offered in health insurance exchanges “established by the state.” But more than 30 states passed on setting up their own exchanges, so the feds stepped in to do so.

Four Virginia residents — the original plaintiffs in the case —  claim that the subsidies are illegal in the states where only federal exchanges have been established.

It’s been estimated that should the court rule against the administration, up to nearly 8 million people in at least 34 states would lose the subsidies that help low- and moderate-income people buy private health insurance.

Although this case doesn’t directly involve individuals who receive health coverage through their employers, experts agree that if the court rules the federal subsidies illegal, the whole healthcare reform law could be in deep trouble.

A ‘rational reading’ and a ‘death spiral’

Here are some highlights of Wednesday’s oral arguments, courtesy of the Washington Post:

Attorney Michael Carvin opened the proceedings for the plaintiffs, who said that his interpretation of the phrase “established by the State” is the sole reading that would makes sense to “a rational, English-speaking person.”

But earlier, Justice Sonia Sotomayor told Carvin, “I’m a little concerned with how you envision this provision working,” adding that without the subsidies, the states with federal insurance exchanges would see the market collapse — a “death spiral” for those who receive coverage through the exchange.

“Tell me how that is not coercive in an unconstitutional way,” the Post quoted Sontamayor.

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy echoed Justice Sotomayor’s concern. “There is a serious constitutional problem,” he told Carvin.

Justice Elena Kagan suggested a hypothetical she thought applied to the question of whether the subsidies should apply across the board. Quoting from the Post:

She has three clerks, she says: Will, Elizabeth and Amanda. She asks Will to write a memo and Elizabeth to edit it. If Will is too busy, Amanda is to write it. If Will is too busy to write it, should Elizabeth edit it? she asks, eliciting a round of laughter from the audience.

“It’s obvious that Elizabeth should edit the memo,” she says.

Following Carvin’s presentation, Solicitor General Donald Verilli began the administration’s argument, asserting that Carvin’s opinion on who could receive subsidies would make the law “an incoherent statute that doesn’t work … That cannot be the statute Congress intended.”

Justice Antonin Scalia’s icy response: “The question is whether it’s the statute Congress wrote.”

The court is expected to issue a ruling by the end of June.

For more HR News, please visit: Obamacare faces the music before the Supreme Court — again

Source: News from HR Morning

Some analysts are predicting 2015 will be a big year for hiring. That’s good news. But the bad news is some employers have glaring holes in their hiring processes. 

More than three-quarters (76%) of employers plan to grow their workforce this year, according to HireRight’s “2015 Employment Screening Benchmark Report.” That’s certainly encouraging.

But not all of the findings were as chipper as that figure.

In producing the report, the background check provider HireRight polled more than 3,000 HR, recruiting, security, and management professionals to find out what their hiring practices look like.

It found some employers are making mistakes that could hurt them down the line.

A handful of the most common mistakes:

1. Failing to verify credentials. HireRight found that 50% of employers weren’t checking job candidates’ education backgrounds, and 32% weren’t checking previous employment. This is particularly concerning when you consider that 86% admitted to having caught a candidate in a lie at one time or another.
2. Not re-screening after the initial hire. Just because a person was squeaky clean when you hired him or her five years ago doesn’t mean their record’s still spotless. HireRight warns that failing to spot potentially dangerous additions to an existing employee’s record could leave you open to negligent retention claims down the road.
3. Failing to drug test. Changing marijuana laws are making this a more complex area, but HireRight suggests that more employers consider conducting pre-hire and ongoing drug tests in the name of preserving workplace safety and productivity, and decreasing absenteeism. Currently, 34% of employers don’t conduct any type of drug testing, the poll found.
4. Conducting risky social media screenings. HireRight says 36% of respondents use social media to screen applicants, a figure which is growing. This is an area where employers need to tread carefully to make sure they’re not screening out applicants for discriminatory reasons or digging up protected information.
5. Not going over the border. HireRight says 15% of respondents conduct global screening — a figure it deems too low. The firm says it’s important for companies to take their screenings global and not bypass verifying candidate’s non-U.S. work history and qualification claims.

Cite: “2015 Employment Screening and Benchmarking Report,” by HireRight.

For more HR News, please visit: Don’t do it: 5 costly hiring mistakes employers are making

Source: News from HR Morning

If you’ve noticed pharmacy spending takes a bigger chunk out your healthcare budget with each passing year, you’re not alone. Luckily, there are some practical steps you can take to stave off the increases.  

Buck Consultants, an HR and benefits consulting firm, recently published the Prescription Drug Benefit Survey, and it contained several eye-opening stats.

‘No signs of decreasing’

More than three-quarters (77%) of employers are currently spending 16% or more of their health costs on pharmacy benefits alone, according to the study. On top of being a high figure in and of itself, it’s up from the 72% of employers who reported spending that much in last year’s Buck Consultants’ study.

Another alarming stat: 4.6% of firms are spending more than 30% of their healthcare dollars on pharmacy benefits. That’s double the 2.3% of employers that reported spending that much last year.

One explanation for the increase is the surging popularity of speciality drugs.

As Buck Consultants Principal Paul Burns explained:

With specialty drug costs showing no signs of decreasing, we could easily see the average percentage of total health care spend employers are paying for pharmacy increase from 15 to 20%.

Room for improvement

The study, however, did offer some encouraging news for employers.

Essentially, the folks at Buck Consultants said the bulk of employers could spend their pharmacy dollars more efficiently and prevent the upward trend in pharmacy benefit spending.

How? By getting together with your benefits broker and making sure your pharmacy benefits strategy and policy is consistent with your budget goals.

In addition, Buck suggests that firms conduct competitive bidding process on a regular basis to select a pharmacy benefit manager.

For more HR News, please visit: Getting a handle on skyrocketing employee pharmacy spending

Source: News from HR Morning

In CEB’s Key Imperatives for HR in 2015, learn the four trends disrupting HR and how your team can drive greater business impact this year. Through hundreds of conversations with HR executives, we’ve identified four trends that are disrupting HR’s ability to increase their impact on the business.

Click here to learn more!  

For more HR News, please visit: Key Imperatives for HR Executives in 2015

Source: News from HR Morning