All posts tagged health coverage

Our Firm is making a big push to provide compliance assessments for our clients and using them as a marketing tool with prospects. Since the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) began its Health Benefits Security Project in October 2012, there has been increased scrutiny. While none of our clients have been audited yet, we expect it is only a matter of time and we want to make sure they are prepared.

We knew most fully-insured groups did not have a Summary Plan Description (SPD) for their health and welfare plans, but we have been surprised by some of the other things that were missing. Here are the top five compliance surprises we found.

  1. COBRA Initial Notice. The initial notice is a core piece of compliance with the Consolidated Omnibus Budget and Reconciliation Act (COBRA) and we have been very surprised by how many clients are not distributing this notice. Our clients using a third-party administrator (TPA), or self-administering COBRA, are doing a good job of sending out the required letters after qualifying events. However, we have found that many clients are not distributing the required COBRA initial notice to new enrollees. The DOL has recently updated the COBRA model notices with expiration dates of December 31, 2019. We are trying to get our clients to update their notices and, if they haven’t consistently distributed the initial notice to all participants, to send it out to everyone now and document how it was sent and to whom.
  2. Prescription Drug Plan Reporting to CMS. To comply with the Medicare Prescription Drug Improvement and Modernization Act, passed in 2003, employer groups offering prescription benefits to Medicare-eligible individuals need to take two actions each year. The first is an annual report on the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) website regarding whether the prescription drug plan offered by the group is creditable or non-creditable. The second is distributing a notice annually to Medicare-eligible plan members prior to the October 15 beginning of Medicare open enrollment, disclosing whether the prescription coverage is creditable or non-creditable. We have found that the vast majority (but not 100 percent) of our clients are complying with the second requirement by annually distributing notices to employees. Many clients are not complying with the first requirement and do not go to the CMS website annually to update their information. The annual notice on the CMS website must be made within:
  • 60 days after the beginning of the plan year,
  • 30 days after the termination of the prescription drug plan, or
  • 30 days after any change in the creditability status of the prescription drug plan.
  1. ACA Notice of Exchange Rights. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) required that, starting in September 2013, all employers subject to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) distribute written notices to all employees regarding the state exchanges, eligibility for coverage through the employer, and whether the coverage was qualifying coverage. This notice was to be given to all employees at that time and to all new hires within 14 days of their date of hire. We have found many groups have not included this notice in the information they routinely give to new hires. The DOL has acknowledged that there are no penalties for not distributing the notice, but since it is so easy to comply, why take the chance in case of an audit?
  2. USERRA Notices. The Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) protects the job rights of individuals who voluntarily or involuntarily leave employment for military service or service in the National Disaster Medical System. USERRA also prohibits employers from discriminating against past and present members of the uniformed services. Employers are required to provide a notice of the rights, benefits and obligations under USERRA. Many employers meet the obligation by posting the DOL’s “Your Rights Under USERRA” poster, or including text in their employee handbook. However, even though USERRA has been around since 1994, we are finding many employers are not providing this information.
  3. Section 79. Internal Revenue Code Section 79 provides regulations for the taxation of employer-provided life insurance. This code has been around since 1964, and while there have been some changes, the basics have been in place for many years. Despite the length of time it has been in place, we have found a number of groups that are not calculating the imputed income. In essence, if an employer provides more than $50,000 in life insurance, then the employee should be paying tax on the excess coverage based on the IRS’s age rated table 2-2. With many employers outsourcing their payroll or using software programs for payroll, calculating the imputed income usually only takes a couple of mouse clicks. However, we have been surprised by how many employers are not complying with this part of the Internal Revenue Code, and are therefore putting their employees’ beneficiaries at risk.

There have been other surprises through this process, but these are a few of the more striking examples. The feedback we received from our compliance assessments has been overwhelmingly positive. Groups don’t always like to change their processes, but they do appreciate knowing what needs to be done.

Audit-proof your company with UBA’s latest white paper: Don’t Roll the Dice on Department of Labor Audits. This free resource offers valuable information about how to prepare for an audit, the best way to acclimate staff to the audit process, and the most important elements of complying with requests.

By Bob Bentley, Manager
Originally published by www.ubabenefits.com

Recently, the U.S. Department of the Treasury, Department of Labor (DOL), and Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) (collectively the Departments) issued final regulations regarding the definition of short-term, limited-duration insurance, standards for travel insurance and supplemental health insurance coverage to be considered excepted benefits, and an amendment relating to the prohibition on lifetime and annual dollar limits.

Effective Date and Applicability Date

These final regulations are effective on December 30, 2016. These final regulations apply beginning on the first day of the first plan or policy year beginning on or after January 1, 2017.

Short-Term, Limited-Duration Insurance

Short-term, limited-duration insurance is a type of health insurance coverage designed to fill temporary gaps in coverage when an individual is transitioning from one plan or coverage to another plan or coverage. Although short-term, limited-duration insurance is not an excepted benefit, it is exempt from Public Health Service Act (PHS Act) requirements because it is not individual health insurance coverage. The PHS Act provides that the term ‘‘individual health insurance coverage’’ means health insurance coverage offered to individuals in the individual market, but does not include short-term, limited-duration insurance.

On June 10, 2016, the Departments proposed regulations to address the issue of short-term, limited-duration insurance being sold as a type of primary coverage.

The Departments have finalized the proposed regulations without change. The final regulations define short-term, limited-duration insurance so that the coverage must be less than three months in duration, including any period for which the policy may be renewed. The permitted coverage period takes into account extensions made by the policyholder ‘‘with or without the issuer’s consent.’’ A notice must be prominently displayed in the contract and in any application materials provided in connection with enrollment in such coverage with the following language:

THIS IS NOT QUALIFYING HEALTH COVERAGE (‘‘MINIMUM ESSENTIAL COVERAGE’’) THAT SATISFIES THE HEALTH COVERAGE REQUIREMENT OF THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT. IF YOU DON’T HAVE MINIMUM ESSENTIAL COVERAGE, YOU MAY OWE AN ADDITIONAL PAYMENT WITH YOUR TAXES.

The revised definition of short-term, limited-duration insurance applies for policy years beginning on or after January 1, 2017.

Because state regulators may have approved short-term, limited-duration insurance products for sale in 2017 that met the definition in effect prior to January 1, 2017, HHS will not take enforcement action against an issuer with respect to the issuer’s sale of a short-term, limited-duration insurance product before April 1, 2017, on the ground that the coverage period is three months or more, provided that the coverage ends on or before December 31, 2017, and otherwise complies with the definition of short-term, limited-duration insurance in effect under the regulations. States may also elect not to take enforcement actions against issuers with respect to such coverage sold before April 1, 2017.

For information on final regulations regarding excepted benefits, specifically similar supplemental coverage and travel insurance—as well as information on the definition of essential health benefits for purposes of the prohibition on lifetime and annual limits, view UBA’s ACA Advisor, “Regulations Regarding Short-Term Limited-Duration Insurance, Excepted Benefits, and Lifetime/Annual Limits.”

Originally published by www.ubabenefits.com

Recently, the Department of the Treasury, Department of Labor (DOL), and Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) (collectively, the Departments) issued FAQs About Affordable Care Act Implementation Part 34 and Mental Health and Substance Use Disorder Parity Implementation.

The Departments’ FAQs cover two primary topics: tobacco cessation coverage and mental health / substance use disorder parity.

Tobacco Cessation Coverage

The Departments seek public comment by January 3, 2017, on tobacco cessation coverage. The Departments intend to clarify the items and services that must be provided without cost sharing to comply with the United States Preventive Services Task Force’s updated tobacco cessation interventions recommendation applicable to plan years or policy years beginning on or after September 22, 2016.

Mental Health / Substance Use Disorder Parity

Generally, the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 (MHPAEA) requires that the financial requirements and treatment limitations imposed on mental health and substance use disorder (MH/SUD) benefits cannot be more restrictive than the predominant financial requirements and treatment limitations that apply to substantially all medical and surgical benefits.

A financial requirement (such as a copayment or coinsurance) or quantitative treatment limitation (such as a day or visit limit) is considered to apply to substantially all medical/surgical benefits in a classification if it applies to at least two-thirds of all medical/surgical benefits in the classification.

If it does not apply to at least two-thirds of medical/surgical benefits, it cannot be applied to MH/SUD benefits in that classification.

If it does apply to at least two-thirds of medical/surgical benefits, the level (such as 80 percent or 70 percent coinsurance) of the quantitative limit that may be applied to MH/SUD benefits in a classification may not be more restrictive than the predominant level that applies to medical/surgical benefits (defined as the level that applies to more than one-half of medical/surgical benefits subject to the limitation in the classification).

In performing these calculations, the determination of the portion of medical/surgical benefits subject to the quantitative limit is based on the dollar amount of all plan payments for medical/surgical benefits in the classification expected to be paid under the plan for the plan year. The MHPAEA regulations provide that “any reasonable method” may be used to determine the dollar amount of all plan payments for the substantially all and predominant analyses.

MHPAEA’s provisions and its regulations expressly provide that a plan or issuer must disclose the criteria for medical necessity determinations with respect to MH/SUD benefits to any current or potential participant, beneficiary, or contracting provider upon request and the reason for any denial of reimbursement or payment for services with respect to MH/SUD benefits to the participant or beneficiary.

However, the Departments recognize that additional information regarding medical/surgical benefits is necessary to perform the required MHPAEA analyses. According to the FAQs, the Department have continued to receive questions regarding disclosures related to the processes, strategies, evidentiary standards, and other factors used to apply a nonquantitative treatment limitation (NQTL) with respect to medical/surgical benefits and MH/SUD benefits under a plan. Also, the Departments have received requests to explore ways to encourage uniformity among state reviews of issuers’ compliance with the NQTL standards, including the use of model forms to report NQTL information.

To address these issues, the Departments seek public comment by January 3, 2017, on potential model forms that could be used by participants and their representatives to request information on various NQTLs. The Departments also seek public comment on the disclosure process for MH/SUD benefits and on steps that could improve state market conduct examinations or federal oversight of compliance by plans and issuers, or both.

 

By Danielle Capilla, Originally published by United Benefit Advisors – Read More

Millennials are currently the largest generation in the workforce, and statistics show they’re not going anywhere anytime soon. By 2020, millennials are projected to make up 50% of the workforce. As millennials continue to rise in numbers, companies are finding it harder to retain them in their current roles. A study conducted by Deloitte conveyed that 44% of millennials can see themselves switching jobs within two years of employment. Along with this, Gallup found that the millennial turnover rate costs the economy $30.5 billion every year.   These statistics clearly demonstrate that millennials’ expectations are not being met by current employers, so we’ve come up with a list of tips to help you design the perfect benefit plans and employee engagement strategies to attract top young talent.

More Benefit Choices

Contrary to traditional benefit plans where employers offer pre-crafted options, millennials want more say in what benefits they are offered. More choices including flexible work hours, work from home days and paid parental leave offer millennials the opportunity to achieve their ideal work-life balance which keeps them happy to work for your company long-term. Look at your benefit options as a company and assess how you can give your employees more freedom in their benefit choices.

Advancements

By nature, every employee wants to advance in their career. More specifically, millennials are extremely driven and tend to take jobs where they see an opportunity to be promoted quickly. Tower Watson conducted a study which found 41% of employees said they would leave their job if it meant they could advance their career. (http://blog.accessperks.com/employee-engagement-loyalty-statistics-the-ultimate-collection) Clearly, continuously promoting all of your employees is impractical. However, there are other ways to give your employees more power and opportunity to advance without promotions.

Many companies find success in giving millennials more responsibility and the opportunity to prove themselves in the workplace via co-managing projects with older, more experienced employees or trusting them more management oriented tasks. At the end of the day, millennials desire to have a substantial impact in their companies rather than just subscribing to the clock-in, clock-out mentality, and allowing them to have more responsibility furthers a sense of purpose in their work.

Positive Impact

Millennials are known for being a philanthropic generation, and they don’t want this mindset to change once they step into the office. Millennials are success-driven, but also desire to leave a positive impact on the world. Many companies participate in community outreach, so make that clear to both current and prospective employees. If you don’t currently sponsor community events or encourage your team to volunteer together, consider creating a simple initiative that allows your staff to give back and ask a millennial employee to spearhead it! Engage people through the spirit of service, and help the millennial generation see how they will impact society by joining your workforce.

The studies we’ve examined reveal that millennials have a like-minded outlook on what they value at work. They want more choices and flexible work options, opportunity for advancement, unique responsibility and to have a positive influence on not only their company, but on society as a whole. As more Baby Boomers retire and the workplace is faced with an influx of millennial workers, keep these perks in mind as you form your benefit plans and company culture!

One thing rings true when it comes to the Affordable Care Act (ACA): “expect the unexpected.” I know this sounds cliché, but it was my best attempt to describe the experience HR professionals encounter as they attempt to comply with this somewhat murky piece of legislation. Last year on December 28, we were alerted a month from the approaching deadline that the forms and filing requirements had moved two and three months out to address challenges. This was a fairly drastic move within a month of a significant compliance deadline.

As a leading provider of ACA solutions to hundreds of employers, we are finding this concern about uncertainty spills into the 2016 tax season. To provide some useful guidance, I thought it would be helpful to share with you a roll-up of common questions and key issues we are receiving from our clients over the past several months:

  1. Will the ACA be delayed again in 2016? We do not see the filing requirements delayed again in 2016. The delay for 2015 was a one-time delay, and the IRS has signaled this to be the case on their conference calls.
  2. What changes do we need to be concerned with in the 1094-C and 1095-C forms? Overall, the changes to these forms are minor in 2016. The 2015 Qualifying Offer, a form of transition relief, was eliminated from the 1094 form. The biggest changes are with two contingent offer of coverage codes 1J and 1K. The idea behind these new offer codes is that employer coverage is contingent upon not having coverage available elsewhere. If this better describes how you offer coverage, you may want to consider selecting these codes over the traditional 1A or 1E.
  3. Will it be easier to work with name/TIN mismatches flagged through the corrections process? In the first year it was difficult to work with IRS requested corrections because you often could not identify which covered individual generated the error (we didn’t know if it was the employee, a dependent, or both). Several IRS conference calls have signaled they will be providing more detail on the corrections this year. If your ACA solution communicates with the IRS Affordable Care Act Information Returns (AIR) system, you will likely be able to display the detail of this error message and act on it. A side-note: remaining corrections from 2015 do not have a specific due date, but should be addressed as soon as possible.
  4. Why do we still have transition relief in 2016? The expectations for many is that transition relief was simply a 2015 phenomenon. While non-calendar year and 2015 Qualifying Offer Transition Relief have been eliminated, 4980H Transition Relief has remained into 2016 for “non-calendar” plans that meet certain criteria. This means that employers who might be facing shared responsibility penalties in 2016 can still take advantage of one of the two types of relief: 1) if you average 50 to 99 FTEs you are shielded for the 2015 non-calendar year plan for the months that spill into 2016 (e.g., a July 1 plan will be shielded for the first six months of 2016), or 2) the same applies for 100+ clients in terms of being able to leverage the 70 percent offer requirement.
  5. Will it be easier this year? This is a general question that depends on the solution you use. Overall, we believe the answer is a resounding “YES!” With our solution, a large number of clients are able to take advantage of an automated renewal process that transitions setup from 2015 and trends existing employees from December 31, 2015, into 2016. Vendors have learned how to make this process easier for their customers after all the pain they experienced in 2015. Everything from data collection, filing and corrections process should be more automated this year.

Originally published by www.ubabenefits.com

 

Minimum essential coverage (MEC) is the type of coverage that an individual must have under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA). Employers that are subject to the ACA’s shared responsibility provisions (often called “play or pay”) must offer MEC coverage that is affordable and provides minimum value.

In the fall of 2015 the IRS issued Notice 2015-68 stating it was planning to propose regulations on reporting MEC that would, among other things, require health insurance issuers to report coverage in catastrophic health insurance plans, as described in section 1302(e) of the ACA, provided through an Affordable Insurance Exchange (an Exchange, also known as a Health Insurance Marketplace). The notice also covered reporting of “supplemental coverage” such as a health reimbursement arrangement (HRA) in addition to a group health plan.

Recently, the IRS released the anticipated proposed regulations, incorporating the guidance given in Notice 2015-68. These regulations are generally proposed to apply for taxable years ending after December 31, 2015, and may be relied on for calendar years ending after December 31, 2013.

The proposed regulations provide that:

  1. Reporting is required for only one MEC plan or program if an individual is covered by multiple plans or programs provided by the same provider.
  2. Reporting generally is not required for an individual’s eligible MEC only if the individual is covered by other MEC for which section 6055 reporting is required.

These rules would apply month by month and individual by individual. Once finalized, the regulations would adopt the same information provided in the final instructions for reporting under sections 6055 and 6056 of the ACA.

For examples under the first rule and more detail on the second rule, as well as how to avoid penalties, view UBA’s ACA Advisor, “Reporting Minimum Essential Coverage”.

Originally published by www.ubabenefits.com

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) has brought about many changes to the health insurance industry. As we are now in the sixth year of implementation of the Act, we are seeing more changes coming just around the corner.

Generally speaking, most health plans can be classified into two categories: HMO and PPO. With an HMO plan, you choose your physician group where you will seek services, and you choose a primary care physician that you will see for all of your needs, who will refer you to a specialist or other service facility, if needed. The HMO model is designed to be as cost-effective as possible, only providing services when the physician deems it necessary, or solely for the benefit of the patient.

Due to the ACA, with an HMO plan, a woman is no longer required to get a referral from her primary care physician to an OB-GYN, and a parent is not required to get a referral to a pediatrician for his or her children even though neither are classified as primary care physicians.

In contrast, a PPO plan has more flexibility for the patient. With a PPO plan you are encouraged to see physicians and providers that are participating in your plan’s network, but are not required to do so. You can, in fact, see any doctor or provider that you wish, when you wish to see them, and without a referral from your primary care physician.

However, times they are a-changin’. Beginning January 1, 2017, Covered California, California’s state insurance exchange, will require both HMO and PPO enrollees to specify their primary care physician during the enrollment process. If one is not selected, the plan will select one for the plan participant. A plan participant is allowed to change their primary care physician at any time. Right now, this is only being implemented for individual plan subscribers.

It is expected that this change will be implemented for group PPO plan subscribers in 2018.

Beginning in 2012, the ACA implemented the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) fee. This is a charge of $1 to $2 per enrollee, per year in a plan. If the plan is fully insured, the fee is paid to the government directly by the insurance carrier. If the plan is self-funded it is paid by the plan sponsor using IRS Form 720 and is due by July 31 for the previous plan year.

The purpose of the PCORI is to help analyze the overall costs of health care and identify trends to find ways to best reduce the overall cost of health care.

HMOs like Kaiser Permanente have fully integrated information systems that allow them to track each patient electronically so that they can see everything about the patient in one place. By tracking each patient, notes from the nurses and physicians, treatments, and medications, they can track costs and trends easily by mining the data from the system.

Most PPO plans do not track this data, in part because patients in the past have not had to choose a primary care physician or provider group. When they can see whomever they choose, it makes tracking of this data very difficult across multiple providers. In addition, participants in a small group, fully-insured plan are pooled with other small groups where claim data is not shared with the plan sponsor, and there is no need to track it closely as the information at the patient level is not relevant to the actuaries that calculate plan costs and premiums.

However, that is going to change. In order to study the overall cost of medical care, identify trends, and discover ways to curb inflating costs, data is needed, and selecting a primary care physician for plan participants is the first step.

Cigna, which provides both HMO and PPO plans, has implemented a Collaborative Care Program with more than 120 physician groups in 29 states, including provider group Palo Alto Medical Foundation (PAMF) in the San Francisco Bay area. By tracking client claims data and patient outreach programs to help patients to remember to take their medications as prescribed and continue with follow up treatments, PAMF has been able to reduce its inflation trend by 5 percent compared to other providers in the San Francisco Bay Area. The goal is to duplicate and build on the success that Cigna has already shown through its program and control and reduce the cost of health care.

So when you or your employees are applying for health insurance, make sure that primary care physician information is handy, because it is going to be needed.

Originally published by www.ubabenefits.com

On June 8, 2016, Ohio Governor John Kasich signed legislation (H.B. 523) making Ohio the 25th state to adopt a workable medical marijuana law. The legislation will allow seriously ill patients to use and purchase medical cannabis that will be cultivated and processed in-state.

With regards to employment, the bill does not:

  • Require an employer to permit or accommodate an employee’s use, possession, or distribution of medical marijuana.
  • Prohibit an employer from taking any adverse employment action an employer may take under current law because of a person’s use, possession, or distribution of medical marijuana.
  • Permit a person to sue an employer for taking an adverse employment action related to medical marijuana.
  • Prohibit an employer from establishing and enforcing a drug-testing policy, drug-free workplace policy, or zero-tolerance drug policy or interfere with federal restrictions on employment, including U.S. Department of Transportation regulations.

In addition, a person who is discharged from employment because of the person’s medical marijuana use will be found to have been discharged for just cause under the Unemployment Compensation Law if the use violated an employer’s drug-free workplace policy, zero-tolerance policy, or other formal program or policy regulating medical marijuana use and will be thus ineligible for unemployment benefits.

The bill also maintains the rebuttable presumption that an employee is ineligible for workers’ compensation if the employee was under the influence of marijuana and being under the influence of marijuana was the proximate cause of the injury, regardless of whether the marijuana use is recommended by a physician.

The law goes into effect September 8, 2016.

Originally published by www.thinkhr.com

0826The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) established national standards to secure and protect the privacy of health information. The Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act (HITECH) requires the Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) Office for Civil Rights (OCR) to conduct audits of covered entities and business associates in order to ensure compliance with the HIPAA Privacy, Security, and Breach Notification Rules.

OCR initiated a pilot program in 2012 to assess the processes implemented by 115 covered entities to comply with HIPAA’s requirements. The pilot program was a three-step process: (1) initial protocol development, (2) test of these protocols by conducting 20 audits, and (3) full audit execution using revised protocol materials, which were completed by the end of December 2012.

OCR selected a pool of covered entities for audits that broadly represented a wide range of healthcare providers, health plans, and healthcare clearinghouses. Criteria to select entities to be audited included whether the entity was public or private, size of the entity, affiliation with other healthcare organizations, the type of entity and relationship to patient care, past and present interaction with OCR concerning HIPAA enforcement and breach notification, as well as geographic factors.

A wide range of covered entities were audited in Phase 1. The audit process began when selected entities received a notification letter from OCR notifying them of their selection and asking them to provide documentation of their privacy and security compliance efforts. Every audit included a site visit during which auditors interviewed key personnel and observed processes to determine compliance. Following the site visit, auditors developed a draft audit report which described how the audit was conducted, what the findings were, and what actions the covered entity took in response to those findings. The covered entity had the opportunity to remedy any compliance issues. The final report included the steps the entity took to resolve any compliance issues identified by the audit and it also described best practices.

OCR used the final audit to understand HIPAA compliance efforts and to determine the types of technical assistance that should be developed and the types of corrective action that are most effective. The technical assistance and best practices that OCR generated assisted covered entities and business associates in improving their efforts to keep health records safe and secure.

Originally published by United Benefit Advisors – Read More

UBA’s Special Report – Trends in Prescription Drug Benefits explores our Health Plan Survey findings in more detail, particularly examining what’s happening with prescription drug plan design among different group sizes, regions and industries. When it comes to copay amounts, median retail prescription drug copays are $10/$30 for two-tier plans, $10/$35/$55 for three-tier plans, and $10/$35/$60/$100 for four-tier plans. These amounts have remained largely flat from 2014.

Generic drugs in the lowest tier generally cost less than $10, so employees are paying all or most of the generic cost with the tier 1 copay. This makes it difficult to raise that amount, especially if employers are concerned about medication adherence. But in four-tier models, the tier 3 copay increased 20%. Since this tier covers non-formulary brands, copay increases may continue as drug costs in this category soar.

Median Prescription Retail Copays by Plan Design            © 2016 United Benefit Advisors. All rights reserved.

While median copays in four-tier plans see no fluctuation among region, size or industry, three-tier plans show some creative cost management among some groups. For example, the largest employers (1,000+ employees) and Northeastern groups are pushing up the tier 3 copay above average. With employers flocking to 4+ tier plans, copay hikes in three-tier models may become more common for those hesitant to expand drug tiers.

As five-tier plans emerge, the median copays are $10/$10/$40/$70/$100. This will be an important baseline to watch now that the UBA Health Plan Survey will start to break this out separately. In predictable fashion, small groups tend to set copays higher than average, while the large groups are below average. Regionally, the West is experimenting with driving the fifth tier copay significantly higher than average ($150) while keeping the other copays at or below average. The Central U.S. is pushing most copays in five-tier plans higher than average.

Originally published by United Benefit Advisors – Read More