California Employer Health Benefits: Prices Up, Coverage Down

http://www.chcf.org/publications/2017/03/employer-health-benefits?_cldee=aGVucnlrb3R1bGFAeWFob28uY29t&recipientid=contact-58e265c0591ce51180f7c4346bac4b78-22293f7225824dd0a2a16e01c6e7b1e7&esid=7e382ea0-c114-e711-80fa-5065f38a19e1

Since 2000, the percentage of employers offering health benefits has declined in California and nationwide, although coverage rates among offering firms have remained stable. Only 55% of firms reported providing health insurance to employees in 2016, down from 69% in 2000. These findings underscore the important role that Medi-Cal and Covered California play in providing insurance to working Californians — coverage that could be negatively impacted if the Republicans repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act.

Nineteen percent of California firms reported that they increased cost sharing in the past year, and 27% of firms reported that they were very or somewhat likely to increase employees’ premium contribution in the next year. The prevalence of plans with large deductibles also continues to increase.

California Employer Health Benefits: Prices Up, Coverage Down presents data compiled from the 2016 California Employer Health Benefits Survey.

Other key findings include:

  • Health insurance premiums for family coverage grew by 5.6%. Family coverage premiums have seen a cumulative 234% increase since 2002, compared to a 40% increase in the overall inflation rate.
  • The average monthly health insurance premium, including the employer contribution, was $597 for single coverage and $1,634 for family coverage in California, and was significantly higher than the national average.
  • 41% of workers in small firms faced an annual deductible of at least $1,000 for single coverage, compared to 17% of workers in larger firms. The prevalence of these higher deductibles in small firms has increased substantially in the past five years.
  • Only one in four firms with many low-wage workers (those earning $23,000 or less) offered health coverage to employees in 2016.
  • In the past year, 24% of large firms extended eligibility for health benefits to workers not previously eligible.

The complete Almanac report, as well as past editions, is available under Document Downloads.

California Employer Health Benefits: Prices Up, Coverage Down

http://www.chcf.org/publications/2017/03/employer-health-benefits

Since 2000, the percentage of employers offering health benefits has declined in California and nationwide, although coverage rates among offering firms have remained stable. Only 55% of firms reported providing health insurance to employees in 2016, down from 69% in 2000. These findings underscore the important role that Medi-Cal and Covered California play in providing insurance to working Californians — coverage that could be negatively impacted by the Republicans’ repeal and replacement of the Affordable Care Act.

Nineteen percent of California firms reported that they increased cost sharing in the past year, and 27% of firms reported that they were very or somewhat likely to increase employees’ premium contribution in the next year. The prevalence of plans with large deductibles also continues to increase.

California Employer Health Benefits: Prices Up, Coverage Down presents data compiled from the 2016 California Employer Health Benefits Survey.

Other key findings include:

  • Health insurance premiums for family coverage grew by 5.6%. Family coverage premiums have seen a cumulative 234% increase since 2002, compared to a 40% increase in the overall inflation rate.
  • The average monthly health insurance premium, including the employer contribution, was $597 for single coverage and $1,634 for family coverage in California, and was significantly higher than the national average.
  • 41% of workers in small firms faced an annual deductible of at least $1,000 for single coverage, compared to 17% of workers in larger firms. The prevalence of these higher deductibles in small firms has increased substantially in the past five years.
  • Only one in four firms with many low-wage workers (those earning $23,000 or less) offered health coverage to employees in 2016.
  • In the past year, 24% of large firms extended eligibility for health benefits to workers not previously eligible.

The complete Almanac report, as well as past editions, is available under Document Downloads.

The Benefits Employees Want Don’t Always Cost a Lot

https://hbr.org/video/5357774445001/the-benefits-employees-want-dont-always-cost-a-lot

https://hbr.org/2017/02/the-most-desirable-employee-benefits?referral=00060

W170131_JONES_BENEFITSVALUED

In today’s hiring market, a generous benefits package is essential for attracting and retaining top talent. According to Glassdoor’s 2015 Employment Confidence Survey, about 60% of people report that benefits and perks are a major factor in considering whether to accept a job offer. The survey also found that 80% of employees would choose additional benefits over a pay raise.

Google is famous for its over-the-top perks, which include lunches made by a professional chef, biweekly chair massages, yoga classes, and haircuts. Twitter employees enjoy three catered meals per day, on-site acupuncture, and improv classes. SAS has a college scholarship program for the children of employees. And plenty of smaller companies have received attention for their unusual benefits, such as vacation expense reimbursement and free books.

But what should a business do if it can’t afford Google-sized benefits? You don’t need to break the bank to offer attractive extras. A new survey conducted by my team at Fractl found that, after health insurance, employees place the highest value on benefits that are relatively low-cost to employers, such as flexible hours, more paid vacation time, and work-from-home options. Furthermore, we found that certain benefits can win over some job seekers faced with higher-paying offers that come with fewer additional advantages.

As part of our study, we gave 2,000 U.S. workers, ranging in age from 18 to 81, a list of 17 benefits and asked them how heavily they would weigh the options when deciding between a high-paying job and a lower-paying job with more perks.

 

Allina nurses reject contract, remain on strike

http://www.startribune.com/allina-nurse-voting-underway/395751251/?utm_campaign=KHN%3A+Daily+Health+Policy+Report&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=35296430&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-8gHTYiuu9s2-hzZYnd1K270pbRMyWvz5PDcZt1i3W3MLFf53479V9qmXTqnKTYCGtVf9r4rk273AF7mRMZfoQlf_qMDg&_hsmi=35296430

itemprop

Allina Health hospital nurses voted Monday night to reject a contract offer from their employer, increasing the likelihood that their walkout over health benefits, staffing and safety concerns will go down as the longest nursing strike in Minnesota history.

While the Minnesota Nurses Association had not recommended a “no” vote, many nurses said they felt Allina’s latest offer was too similar to one they rejected in August, and to the terms their union negotiators rejected during last-ditch negotiations in September to avert a strike.

A new sign reading “New Lipstick, Same Pig” appeared at the picket line outside Allina’s Abbott Northwestern Hospital in Minneapolis Monday morning, foreshadowing the vote result that the union announced at 10:30 p.m. in St. Paul.

While she declined to provide exact results, MNA executive director Rose Roach called the vote margin “resounding” and said it sent a clear message from front-line nurses to go back to the bargaining table. “Each of them voted with their conscience, and with their patients and their families in mind,” she said.

The results mean that strikes will continue at Abbott as well as United Hospital in St. Paul, Mercy Hospital in Coon Rapids, Unity Hospital in Fridley and the Phillips Eye Institute in Minneapolis.

More than 4,000 nurses have been on strike for 29 days, since Labor Day, after a one-week walkout in June. The state’s longest nursing strike, in 1984, lasted 38 days.

One of the Biggest Challenges Workers Face While On the Job? Caregiving at Home

http://altarum.org/health-policy-blog/one-of-the-biggest-challenges-workers-face-while-on-the-job-caregiving-at-home

CaregivingCaregiving

Two out of every five adults are the family caregiver of a loved one – that is tens of millions of family caregivers across the country. You probably know someone who is caring for an elderly mother with Alzheimer’s, or a child with autism, or a partner with cancer. You might be a family caregiver yourself.

What might surprise you, though, is that most of the people who are caring for someone at home are also working a full- or part-time job. In fact, most family caregivers (62%) are between the principal working ages of 25 and 54. Workers who are family caregivers are as common as workers with brown eyes.

They do not have it easy. Caregiving takes a toll on their jobs and their livelihoods. In fact, a majority of caregivers (52%) feel their career is negatively impacted by their caregiving situation. Studies show that this belief is justified – the impact of caregiving on the lives of caregivers is very real.

Transgender nurse sues Dignity Health for refusing to cover gender reassignment costs

http://www.beckershospitalreview.com/legal-regulatory-issues/transgender-nurse-sues-dignity-health-for-refusing-to-cover-gender-reassignment-costs.html

Lawsuit2

Specifically, the lawsuit alleges Dignity’s policy violates regulations released by HHS last month that prohibit healthcare companies that receive federal aid from denying coverage to plan members for health services related to gender transformation.