December 22, 2024

You are here: Home / Archives for surcharge

Your Money Adviser: Trends to Watch For in Employer Health Plans

September 26, 2013 by

(Almost anyone can shop on the new exchanges, or marketplaces. But if your job comes with affordable coverage, you’re ineligible for any subsidies and you probably won’t need to shop there).

A few companies have made headlines with big changes to their employee health plans for next year. Walgreen, for instance, is shifting workers to a private health care exchange — separate from the state-based marketplaces created by the Affordable Care Act — where they can shop for plans with a contribution from the company.

And United Parcel Service recently told white-collar workers it would eliminate coverage for spouses who are were eligible for insurance through their own jobs.

So far companies making such major changes remain in the minority. But benefits experts caution that with so much in flux, it’s wise to carefully review the options your employer is offering for next year. “The overarching theme this year is that you have to pay attention,” said Jody Dietel, the chief compliance officer at the benefits management firm WageWorks.

Some trends to watch for include:

■ Higher costs for covering your spouse and children.

If you don’t already, you may pay a surcharge for covering your spouse if your spouse’s job offers coverage. Under the health reform law, companies that offer insurance to workers must also offer it to their children, but you may pay more for covering them, too.

■ Higher deductibles are here to stay.

The trend toward “consumer-driven” plans with high deductibles is continuing, as employers shift costs to workers. Usually, high-deductible plans are offered along with a health savings account, which employees can use to help pay for out-of-pocket medical costs. The idea is that if you are responsible for more of your medical spending, you’ll pay more attention to the cost. Most companies will now offer at least one such high-deductible plan as an option, and more are offering them as the sole plan. “Our best indication is that they’ll be fairly universally offered in the next few years, and in some cases, exclusively offered,” said Christopher Ryan, vice president of ADP’s Strategic Advisory Services, a benefits consultant.

■ Carrots and sticks to influence employee health behavior.

Companies are actively encouraging workers to improve their health, either by offering some sort of payment as an incentive for losing weight or exercising, or higher insurance premiums as a punishment. “Lots of companies are getting aggressive around wellness and health promotion,” said Tom Billet, a health care consultant at Towers Watson.

For instance, your employer may ask you to complete a personal health assessment, or undergo some sort of health screening, like a blood pressure or cholesterol test. As a reward, the company will deposit a bonus into your health savings account.

Here are some questions to consider this year:

■ Why did my employer gave me information about the state health insurance exchanges if I don’t need to use them?

The law requires employers to inform workers about the marketplaces. But for the “vast majority” of employees with workplace coverage, no action is warranted, Mr. Billet said.

■ Should I choose coverage under my employer’s plan, or the one offered by my spouse’s employer?

If you and your spouse have coverage available through your respective jobs, you’ll have to “do the math” both ways to see which option makes the most sense financially, said Helen Darling, president of the National Business Group on Health, which represents large employers.

You’ll also want to take into account any restrictions the plans impose. If your spouse’s plan is less expensive but your family’s doctor isn’t in the plan’s network, for instance, you might want to go with your employer’s plan, even if it costs more.

■ Is there any upside to high-deductible plans?

The plans usually are paired with a health savings account, which can be financed with pretax dollars by either you, your employer or both of you. You can use the money to pay for medical costs that fall under your deductible (and keep in mind that most preventive care is covered outside of the deductible, meaning you shouldn’t have to tap the account to pay for it). If you don’t spend the money, it can be rolled over to the next year.

E-mail: yourmoneyadviser@nytimes.com

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/26/your-money/trends-to-watch-for-in-employer-health-plans.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

Filed Under: Your Money Tagged With: , ,

Your Money Adviser: Trends to Watch for in Employer Health Plans

September 26, 2013 by

(Almost anyone can shop on the new exchanges, or marketplaces. But if your job comes with affordable coverage, you’re ineligible for any subsidies and you probably won’t need to shop there).

A few companies have made headlines with big changes to their employee health plans for next year. Walgreen, for instance, is shifting workers to a private health care exchange — separate from the state-based marketplaces created by the Affordable Care Act — where they can shop for plans with a contribution from the company.

And United Parcel Service recently told white-collar workers it would eliminate coverage for spouses who are were eligible for insurance through their own jobs.

So far companies making such major changes remain in the minority. But benefits experts caution that with so much in flux, it’s wise to carefully review the options your employer is offering for next year. “The overarching theme this year is that you have to pay attention,” said Jody Dietel, the chief compliance officer at the benefits management firm WageWorks.

Some trends to watch for include:

■ Higher costs for covering your spouse and children.

If you don’t already, you may pay a surcharge for covering your spouse if your spouse’s job offers coverage. Under the health reform law, companies that offer insurance to workers must also offer it to their children, but you may pay more for covering them, too.

■ Higher deductibles are here to stay.

The trend toward “consumer-driven” plans with high deductibles is continuing, as employers shift costs to workers. Usually, high-deductible plans are offered along with a health savings account, which employees can use to help pay for out-of-pocket medical costs. The idea is that if you are responsible for more of your medical spending, you’ll pay more attention to the cost. Most companies will now offer at least one such high-deductible plan as an option, and more are offering them as the sole plan. “Our best indication is that they’ll be fairly universally offered in the next few years, and in some cases, exclusively offered,” said Christopher Ryan, vice president of ADP’s Strategic Advisory Services, a benefits consultant.

■ Carrots and sticks to influence employee health behavior.

Companies are actively encouraging workers to improve their health, either by offering some sort of payment as an incentive for losing weight or exercising, or higher insurance premiums as a punishment. “Lots of companies are getting aggressive around wellness and health promotion,” said Tom Billet, a health care consultant at Towers Watson.

For instance, your employer may ask you to complete a personal health assessment, or undergo some sort of health screening, like a blood pressure or cholesterol test. As a reward, the company will deposit a bonus into your health savings account.

Here are some questions to consider this year:

■ Why did my employer gave me information about the state health insurance exchanges if I don’t need to use them?

The law requires employers to inform workers about the marketplaces. But for the “vast majority” of employees with workplace coverage, no action is warranted, Mr. Billet said.

■ Should I choose coverage under my employer’s plan, or the one offered by my spouse’s employer?

If you and your spouse have coverage available through your respective jobs, you’ll have to “do the math” both ways to see which option makes the most sense financially, said Helen Darling, president of the National Business Group on Health, which represents large employers.

You’ll also want to take into account any restrictions the plans impose. If your spouse’s plan is less expensive but your family’s doctor isn’t in the plan’s network, for instance, you might want to go with your employer’s plan, even if it costs more.

■ Is there any upside to high-deductible plans?

The plans usually are paired with a health savings account, which can be financed with pretax dollars by either you, your employer or both of you. You can use the money to pay for medical costs that fall under your deductible (and keep in mind that most preventive care is covered outside of the deductible, meaning you shouldn’t have to tap the account to pay for it). If you don’t spend the money, it can be rolled over to the next year.

E-mail: yourmoneyadviser@nytimes.com

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/26/your-money/trends-to-watch-for-in-employer-health-plans.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

Filed Under: Your Money Tagged With: , ,

Higher Reserves Proposed for ‘Too Big to Fail’ Banks

June 26, 2011 by Leave a Comment

After nearly two years of political jousting, a panel of global regulators said on Saturday that banks deemed too big to fail would have to set aside an additional cushion of capital reserves in what is the centerpiece of their efforts to avoid a repeat of the 2008 financial crisis.

The chief oversight group of the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision proposed that the world’s largest and most complex banks would need to hold a reserve of high-quality capital of between 1 and 2.5 percent of their assets to cope with any unforeseen losses. That would be on top of their proposed minimum capital levels for all banks, currently set at 7 percent of assets.

Regulators plan to impose the surcharge on a sliding scale, based on several factors including the bank’s size, complexity and the closeness of its ties to other large trading partners around the world.

And in what appears to be a nod to regulators pressing for even higher requirements, the committee proposed an additional surcharge on banks who grow larger or engage in risky activities that would “increase materially” the threat they pose to the financial system. The surcharge could raise the requirement to 3.5 percent of assets.

The process is only just beginning. The Basel committee will put out a more detailed proposal in late July, giving banks and policymakers a final chance to weigh in on the new rules before formally approving them. Then, regulators must begin the process of identifying these so-called “systemically important” global banks. The banks, meanwhile, will not have to fully comply with the new rules until January 2019.

The proposed capital requirements are perhaps the most important banking reform since the crisis erupted three years ago and are being followed closely in the world’s financial and political capitals. If banks are forced to hold bigger cushions of capital, they can more easily absorb financial shocks and avoid the need for taxpayer bailouts. But setting aside more capital means that banks also have less money available to lend out — a move that could dampen economic growth and potentially hinder an already anemic global recovery.

Amid aggressive lobbying by some of the largest banks for weaker capital requirements, international financial regulators have spent the last two years trying to strike the right balance. They also are trying to bridge different national standards, which might give countries with more favorable requirements a competitive advantage.

In a statement Saturday, the panel of regulators said the new measures would create strong incentives for large banks to curb risky behavior that could endanger the financial system. “This will contribute to enhancing the resiliency of the banking system and help mitigate the wider spill-over risks,” said Nout Wellink, a central banker from the Netherlands who is chairman of the Basel Committee.

American regulators pushed for a higher surcharge and better loss-absorbing capital, while European regulators, especially those in Germany and France, preferred a lower surcharge and broader definition of capital.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=38c7297c598e62d0e1cfd3ac59b55387

Filed Under: Business News Tagged With: , ,