Within just the past decade or so, Workplace Wellness has become an industry within an industry. In fact, as a benefits broker/consultant, I get as many calls from Wellness program vendors as I do from insurance companies, seeking new client opportunities. Recently I came upon an article that made some interesting points relative to Workplace Wellness programs, and the potential outlay of employer dollars in the interest of reducing health care related claims costs. Here are some thoughts for readers and stakeholders to ponder:
On average, U.S. citizens consume about 2,700 calories per day.
Healthy food costs significantly more than unhealthy food.
As medical costs and insurance premiums continue to escalate, and health care reform poses new and additional cost pressures, employers are seeking innovative ways to reduce the costs associated with group insurance programs. The solution for many employers has been the implementation of some form of self-funding.
SELF-FUNDING ALLOWS THE EMPLOYER TO ASSUME ONLY AS MUCH RISK OR EXPOSURE AS THE COMPANY CAN WITHSTAND, WITHOUT CAUSING FINANCIAL DISTRESS.
Health insurance is comprised of two (2) separate and distinct components of exposure: predictable claims and unpredictable claims.
Since the launch of this blog site earlier this year, the majority of posts have been focused on compliance issues. This week, I’m changing things up, and shifting the focus to strategies that can help employers and employees REDUCE the cost of their health insurance. These strategies are not merely theoretical, conceptual ideas, but rather, time tested and proven ways to reduce the cost of health insurance. And depending on the type of coverage you offer today, there may be no better time than NOW to consider making some changes!
On June 26, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court announced its decision regarding the constitutionality of the federal Defense of Marriage Act of 1996 (DOMA). The Court struck down Section 3 of DOMA, which limited marriage to opposite sex unions for purposes of federal law.
In a 5-4 decision, the court found this definition to be a violation of equal protection rights under the U.S. Constitution, holding that same-sex couples who are legally married under state law will be entitled to equal treatment under federal law with regard to income taxes and federal benefits. However, the Courts ruling does not establish a constitutional right to same-sex marriage.
The high courts decision will impact employers in states that…
