| Greetings!
We hope that this edition of the PBG Newsletter finds you in good health! This month's articles include updates on the Health Care Reform Battle in the Courts, Possible Tax Changes for Domestic Partners in Health Plans, and Changes to the DOL's Rules Regarding Electronic Disclosure. Please feel free to contact us with any questions you may have.
As you may remember, PBG hosted a Benefits Breakfast Seminar back in March called, "What Every Employer Needs to Know Now About Updates to the New National Labor Relations Board and Unionization Guidelines". This informative presentation covered the historical perspective of unionization, union membership trends, updates to the new "union-friendly" NLRB with autonomous authority and it's ability to make rule changes. The following article, covering many of the same topics, was just published this week by AIM (Associated Industries of Massachusetts). Partners Benefit Group prides itself on bringing this and other important news to you months before it reaches public recognition!
NLRB Rule Seeks to Speed Pace of Union Elections
The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) continued its effort to reshape labor-management relations yesterday by proposing regulations that would shorten the time employers have to respond to union organizing campaigns.
The rule changes would reduce by several weeks the current average period of 40 days between the submission of union cards and the holding of a union election. The accelerated time frame would come from simplifying procedures, deferring litigation, and setting shorter deadlines for hearings and filings. The NLRB adopted the proposed regulations by a vote of three to one, with Republican member Brian Hayes casting the lone dissenting vote.
"Make no mistake, the principal purpose for this radical manipulation of our election process is to minimize or, rather, to effectively eviscerate an employer's legitimate opportunity to express its views about collective bargaining,'' Hayes wrote.
...
Abbreviated union elections place employers at a disadvantage because most don't find out about a union campaign until it is well under way- frequently when the union has more than 75 percent of the potential unit employees signed up... 10-day elections are insufficient time for a company to combat the promises, lies and misrepresentations that the union has been able to make without the opportunity for an employer to present an opposing view...
To read the full article from AIM, click here .
"If the Obama administration had any doubt that its signature healthcare law faces a severe challenge in court, it was erased soon after Chief Judge Joel Dubina opened the proceedings here.
"I can't find any case like this," Dubina said. "If we uphold this, are there any limits" on the power of the federal government?
Judge Stanley Marcus chimed in: "I can't find any case" in the past, he said, where the courts upheld "telling a private person they are compelled to purchase a product in the open market.... Is there anything that suggests Congress can do this?"
After nearly three hours of argument Wednesday, the three-judge panel of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals seemed prepared to declare at least part of last year's law unconstitutional.
The law's requirement that nearly everyone buy health insurance by 2014 is the question at the heart of the constitutional challenge. The argument that the mandate exceeds Congress' power initially was waved aside by many legal commentators, but it has now sharply divided the federal courts.
Three federal district judges have upheld the law and two have ruled it unconstitutional. Three cases have reached appeals courts, with a fourth appellate panel scheduled to hold a hearing in September.
The current case has gathered the most attention because it involves 26 state attorneys general - all Republicans - who jointly challenged the law. In addition, the 11th Circuit is considered among the most conservative of the federal appellate courts. If any of the appeals courts strikes down the law, the case almost certainly would land at the Supreme Court, perhaps during the election year. The 11th Circuit has been seen by legal experts as one of the more likely to rule against the administration."
To read the full article from the LA Times, please click here.
"Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Wash., has introduced bipartisan legislation that aims to bring parity and equal treatment under the tax code for health plan beneficiaries who are domestic partners and non-spouse dependents.
Under the existing tax laws, companies and their employees need to pay higher federal taxes for health care benefits that are provided to domestic partners and non-spouse dependents. McDermott's bill, which he introduced June 2, would correct this tax disparity...
Under current tax law, domestic partners and non-spouse dependents who receive health benefits have to pay an average of $2,000 more in federal taxes annually... A coalition of 77 American businesses, which includes Alaska Airlines, Microsoft, Boeing and others, sent a letter in support of McDermott's legislation, which states, "Companies like ours in increasing numbers have made the business decision to provide health benefits to such beneficiaries, such as the domestic partners, adult children, certain grandchildren, etc. of our employees ... [This coverage] helps corporations attract and retain qualified employees and provides employees with health security on an equitable basis. Unfortunately, federal tax law has not kept pace with businesses in this area, and ... imposes a significant financial hardship on families and is simply unfair."
To read the full article, please click here .
"The U.S. Department of Labor is considering expanding the use of electronic disclosures in regards to the information about an employer's benefits plan as mandated by ERISA. The decision revolves around whether to allow plan administrators to electronically provide plan descriptions and other documents, such as COBRA notices, to their plan participants and beneficiaries.
In response to the fact that the Obama administration encourages electronic dissemination of information, the DOL is exploring how to possibly expand and modify the present standard, which will need to consider the current state of technology as well as the importance of protecting the rights and needs of participants and their beneficiaries. The DOL wishes to gain feedback and suggestions from all interested parties such as plan participants and beneficiaries, employers, plan sponsors and service providers, health insurance issuers, as well as members of the financial industry and the public.
Electronic communication can be just as effective as paper communication; it will reduce costs and administrative burdens, as well as increase the punctuality and accuracy. However, it could cause problems if some employers do not have access to the internet and some plan participants and beneficiaries may prefer to receive such important financial information in paper form.
For those interested in providing feedback to the DOL, all comments must be in writing and submitted before June 6, 2011 and must include the agency name and Regulation Identifier Number (RIN). Comments may submitted: 1) online on the federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov ; 2) via an e-mail to e-ORI@dol.gov that must include RIN 1210-AB50 in the message subject line; or 3) in paper form to the Office of the Regulations and Interpretations, Employee Benefits Security Administration, Room N-5655, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20210, Attention: E-Disclosure RFI."
Source.
More than any other provision of the health reform law, insurance exchanges will forever change the way individuals and small businesses purchase coverage. An exchange must be available in each state by 2014 to assist those who purchase individual coverage or coverage through a small group employer. State exchanges, which must be certified by Jan. 1, 2013, are on the verge of revolutionizing the health insurance business. Most states are expected to develop two separate exchanges: One that will offer coverage to individuals; and the other, the Small Business Health Options Program (SHOP) exchange, that will sell small-group coverage.
Massachusetts and Utah are the only two states that currently have exchanges established. Seven other states including California, Hawaii, Maryland, Vermont, Washington and West Virginia have already adopted laws to establish health care exchanges, while Virginia and North Dakota have passed laws expressing the intent to do so as well. Seven additional states have accepted federal grants to prepare establishing exchanges which is a move toward meeting the 2013 deadline.
Contrarily, over twenty other states have by-passed opportunities to begin the process of creating health care exchanges or have not even considered starting the process. Louisiana has stated that it does not intend at all to creat an insurance marketplace for state residents. In this state and any other state that refuses, the federal government will step in and enforce the exchange.
To read the full article from the Washington Times, click here.
Associated Industries of Massachusetts (AIM) has published an article encouraging Massachusetts employers to read the Attorney General's Report which investigates medical costs throughout the state.
Her report finds that:
- Doctors and hospitals charge widely different prices for the same medical services.
- The quality of medical care has no correlation to the price of that care.
- Globally paid doctors (those who accept a set annual payment to care for each patient) do not have a lower total medical expense than fee-for-service providers. The finding is important because most state policymakers believe that global payments hold the key to reducing health care costs.
- Wealthy people spend more on health care than less affluent people.
- The number of consumers choosing limited, or tiered, networks is increasing. These networks offer consumers access to high-quality medical care at reasonable prices.
- Preferred Provider Organizations (PPOs), where patients do not have a primary care physician, create significant impediments to the coordination of care.
- Primary care physicians provide the most coordinated care, regardless of the payment methods used. Primary-care doctors are expected to play a central role in the pending overhaul of the health care finance system.
To read the report, and the remainder of the AIM article, click here .
We hope you are off to a happy and healthy summer! As always if you have any questions about the information contained in this newsletter, please feel free to contact us!
Sincerely, Maria Eramo
Partners Benefit Group, Inc. |
