The American Institute of CPAs reports that its poll of 1,100 working adults revealed that by a 4 to 1 margin, workers would choose a job with benefits over an identical job that offered 30% more salary without benefits. Employed adults estimate that benefits represent about 40% of their total compensation. When asked which benefits are most valuable over the long run, 56% said a 401(k) match or health insurance while just over 30% said a pension.
Technology giant Apple reported recently that thousands of hip and knee replacement patients are using Apple Watches and a new health app, MyMobility from Zimmer Biomet, to share health data with their surgeons during treatment and recovery. The app is being used to provide physicians with data about the patient’s heart rate, number of steps taken and time spent standing continuously, rather than having to rely on traditional in-person visits.
In order to address a sleep shortage that is hurting productivity for U.S. businesses, the American Academy of Sleep Medicine has introduced an online wellness program to help employees track the quantity and quality of their sleep. Employees log their time online or upload data from a fitness tracker such as a Fitbit. With the CDC linking sleep to chronic illnesses such as Type 2 diabetes, heart disease and depression, researchers hope to help employees set a goal and improve the quality of their sleep.
Currently, only 21 states offer some protection against balance billing and most existing laws apply to emergency services required from out-of-network providers. Few, if any, address balance bills received for treatment by an out-of-network provider in an in-network hospital. In Pennsylvania, the Governor and General Assembly have introduced two bills aimed at taking consumers out of the middle of the reimbursement process. These bills have come after several other states have adopted more comprehensive laws that prohibit balance billing entirely.
Some measures addressed in Connecticut, New York, Maryland, Florida and New Jersey include:
- Protections in emergency department and in-network hospital settings
- Prohibiting providers from balance billing and requiring carriers to hold their members harmless
- Adopting reimbursement rate standards and a payment dispute resolution process
- Applying these laws to all types of managed care products, including HMOs and PPOs
The goal of the proposals is to keep covered persons out of the middle of carrier-provider payment disputes. In non-emergency procedures, healthcare facilities in New Jersey are required to disclose whether they are in-network and advise the covered person to ask if their physician is in or out-of-network. Individual healthcare professionals must inform the patient if they do not participate in the person’s plan network and provide a billing estimate and applicable CPT codes. With healthcare costs continuing to rise and a lack of federal regulations, we can expect more states to take measures to protect healthcare consumers. We will strive to keep our clients informed as changes develop.
There is a lot of misinformation surrounding medical cannabis, which can make it difficult to establish a plan document that accurately outlines its use. One particular obstacle is the lack of verified and sourced research regarding the medicinal use of cannabis, creating confusion around what the drug can and should be used for.
To address this confusion, benefit plans should limit coverage to areas where existing evidence supports the use. Create a benefit description that reflects approved applications determined by your state, while also limiting the care option to those members whose previous treatment options have failed. Experts agree that plan documents should clearly indicate that medical cannabis will not be authorized as a first line therapy.
Other parameters can be set, such as financial limitations within a certain time period, eligible products and dosages and even eligible suppliers. When addressing cost considerations, it’s important to know that medical cannabis should not be viewed as an alternative to prescription painkillers and opioids, but rather an add-on which does not eliminate those other costs.
With behavioral health conditions impacting one in five Americans, it’s no wonder we’re seeing more employers search for ways to provide members with better access to behavioral healthcare benefits.
Statistics show that many employees, including some that are insured, fail to get the mental healthcare they need. Because self-funded health plans provide plan design flexibility, some plans are taking bold steps to address this growing need. While many are using telemedicine to improve access and lower costs, some employers are treating out-of-network behavioral health treatment as in-network, enabling employees to pay the same amount for treatment regardless of which provider they use. Others are covering out-of-network behavioral healthcare services even when their plan doesn’t cover out-of-network services for other types of care.
When you consider that mental illness has become the greatest cause of disability claims in the U.S., it is not surprising that employers are looking for ways to help employees obtain the care they need.
Significant Action is Warranted
There is plenty of research to show that Americans are not getting the mental healthcare they need. According to Mental Health America, despite having health insurance, 56.5% of adults with mental illness received no treatment in the past year.
Another problem is that behavioral health treatments are rarely classified as primary care, and are regarded instead as specialty treatment. This makes people find an in-network provider, go out-of-network, pay higher out-of-pocket costs or avoid treatment altogether. Claims data from Collective Health shows that more than 40% of the 2017 behavioral health spend was out-of-network, which is many times the amount spent on primary or preventative care.
Many employers will find it interesting that AHPs will continue to be categorized as MEWAs – Multiple Employer Welfare Arrangements. This consideration will make association health plans subject to some state regulations that severely restrict the formation of self-funded MEWAs.
Having to comply with the rules of each state will make AHPs more difficult to organize. While associations can create a plan that extends across state lines, they will have to follow the rules of the state they are in that has the most restrictive laws. As an example, an AHP based in New Jersey that extends into New York would still have to follow the more restrictive laws of New York.
Even though the regulations are more restrictive than many would like, AHPs should enable many small employers to offer their employees better health benefits at more affordable rates.