Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /nfs/cust_vwsdata/134030/htdocs/blog/themes/default/themes.php:1349) in /nfs/cust_vwsdata/134030/htdocs/blog/scripts/sb_feed.php on line 50 Employer Solution Group Blog
http://www.esgtexas.com/blog/index.php
Copyright 2012, ESG - AdministratorESG - Administratoren-USSPHPBLOG 0.5.1Minimum Wage Rate Increase
http://www.esgtexas.com/blog/index.php?entry=entry090707-094013
]]>http://www.esgtexas.com/blog/index.php?entry=entry090707-094013ESG - AdministratorTue, 07 Jul 2009 14:40:13 GMThttp://www.esgtexas.com/blog/comments.php?y=09&m=07&entry=entry090707-094013June 19th Reform Bill
http://www.esgtexas.com/blog/index.php?entry=entry090702-125518
Let’s focus on the 85% loss ratio… and why this is a bad thing. So the way this would work is that an insurance company must have an 85% loss ration or higher for every policy (group or individual). So for every dollar in premium, 85 cents must be paid out in claims…. Leaving 15 cents to cover administration, business expenses, etc… Hmmm, sounds fair…. But look further. As we all know with every other insurance policy we have, the people who don’t file claims premiums off set the people who do… it’s the concept of pooling. If you take that away, great, the healthy people will see premiums drop! Hey, I’m healthy, that works for me! But since they can’t generate much profit from my premiums, the sick’s premiums will have to increase substantially to cover the losses on their policy. So now the sick’s premiums just shot through the roof… but wait, the bill says insurance companies can’t set premiums based on health status… so I guess the insurance companies just have to loose money on every policy out there that has a loss ratio above 85%.... Guess where that leads us…. To insurance companies going out of business, no longer offering Medical, and eventually we’re all on the Federal Government Plan… Single Payer System, here we come! ]]>http://www.esgtexas.com/blog/index.php?entry=entry090702-125518ESG - AdministratorThu, 02 Jul 2009 17:55:18 GMThttp://www.esgtexas.com/blog/comments.php?y=09&m=07&entry=entry090702-125518DOL Publishes Form for Review of Denied COBRA Premium Subsidies
http://www.esgtexas.com/blog/index.php?entry=entry090527-135358
The form is made available for those who believe they were eligible for the premium reduction but their request for those benefits or the reduced premium had been denied. The 11-page application asks former employees and eligible dependents 10 questions about the individual’s eligibility, and specifically asks if the individual received notice informing him or her of the right to elect COBRA. In addition, it asks whether the individual received a notice informing him or her of the right to a premium reduction.
I'm sure some of you will be getting the call from your local offices or former employees asking for information to assit them with completing the form. Significantly, the DOL requests a description of the reason given for any denial of the premium reduction, attaching copies of all relevant documents. I have attched the link to the application below.
At least President Obama says a single payer system is not the option… I just hope the House agrees. It seems like a lot of their ideas surround a single payer system or a system so controlled by the government it might as well be a single payer system. Like in Texas, where a bill is making it’s way through the State Legislature that would cap the profit margins insurance companies can have. So if it passes, an insurance company can not price their premiums such that their loss ratio can be less then X percent. In other words, it would say that premiums for a set group must be set so that truly 80 cents of every dollar collected has to go out in claims (using random numbers to explain it better). If the insurance company really only pays out 75 cents, then the premiums must come down. What about the case where the insurance company paid out $1.20 for every dollar in. The issue here is everyone knows insurance is all about the non-users helping off set the users. So take away the ability to do that, and the healthy groups see lower premiums, but the sick groups… they get rates that go through the roof! Thoughts? ]]>http://www.esgtexas.com/blog/index.php?entry=entry090515-172307ESG - AdministratorFri, 15 May 2009 22:23:07 GMThttp://www.esgtexas.com/blog/comments.php?y=09&m=05&entry=entry090515-172307Health Care Reform
http://www.esgtexas.com/blog/index.php?entry=entry090514-222614
http://www.bcbs.com/news/bluetvradio/pa ... g-america/
But in Washington, penalizing people is not the popular side to take... who wants to tell voters I voted to slap the unhealthy with higher premiums. Although let me be clear, that is not what they are suggesting, nor am I. They would not charge more because they are sick, or have a condition. The overweight person would pay the same as the "normal" weight person... the time you're penalized with higher premiums is when you do have a chronic condition and you do NOT follow the prescribed treatments. But those in Washington don't want to hurt anyone... so now another hot suggestion is "let's limit the tax credit employers get for their share of the employer sponsored health insurance premium." Washington thinks the tax payments could generate enough money to cover the roughly 40,000,000 uninsured. What they do not realize from their bubble is this is just a death spiral waiting to happen. Let's see, business owner no longer gets the tax breaks, and hey, in this economy, I don't need benefits to recruit, so forget it, they are more trouble then they are worth... so I'll drop them. Well, now the tax revenue didn't increase but the number of uninsured sure did... see a problem here?
How about the proposal for a government plan that people can pick to compete against the private companies.... although this one sounds interesting, because they say it will not be funded by tax dollars, just premiums paid by policy holders... but let's think this one through. The epitome of inefficiency will take on private companies to offer something better... let's be real here. To top it off they are saying the government plan would accept anyone wanting coverage... hmmm, do I see the sick going there since the private companies will charge more, it's what we in the business call a death spiral.
I could go on and on... but for now I'll stop. Please understand, I am in favor of reforming the system, something has got to change that's for sure. I'm just not sure we have the right answer yet, and Let's hope we don't jump to bandaids that only mask the problems.
Stay tuned for more updates and suggestions from Washington.]]>http://www.esgtexas.com/blog/index.php?entry=entry090514-222614ESG - AdministratorFri, 15 May 2009 03:26:14 GMThttp://www.esgtexas.com/blog/comments.php?y=09&m=05&entry=entry090514-222614American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009
http://www.esgtexas.com/blog/index.php?entry=entry090305-173927
So, HR professionals and business leaders, let me know your thoughts and let us know how we can help you stay compliant.
FACTS:
The House of Representatives and Senate passed ARRA on February 13th (House vote of 246-183) President Obama signed the bill on February 17, 2009.
* Sixty-five percent temporary COBRA premium subsidy for workers who have been involuntarily terminated between Sept. 1, 2008, and Dec. 31, 2009.
* Subsidy available for up to 9 months.
* Subsidy would not be considered income for purposes of other federal/state program eligibility.
* To be eligible for the subsidy, an individual must have a modified adjusted gross income below $145,000 (or $290,000 for joint filers); if the taxpayer’s income exceeds this threshold, then the premium subsidy must be repaid. For taxpayers with AGI between $125,000 and $145,000 ($250,000 and $290,000 for joint filers), the amount of the premium subsidy that must be repaid is reduced proportionately.
COBRA: Answers for Employers http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,, ... 08,00.html]]>http://www.esgtexas.com/blog/index.php?entry=entry090305-173927ESG - AdministratorThu, 05 Mar 2009 23:39:27 GMThttp://www.esgtexas.com/blog/comments.php?y=09&m=03&entry=entry090305-173927Limited Benefit vs. Mini-Med Plans - 101
http://www.esgtexas.com/blog/index.php?entry=entry090209-132429
Rising costs in major medical plans has changed this market and now major national carriers are introducing the next generation of these plans called Limited Benefit medical plans!
Limited Benefit medical plans, like Mini-Medical, have limits with respect to basic outpatient services. The level of benefits in these plans; however, are much higher with added coverage for surgeries, accidents and emergency rooms. Hospital room and board charges are also covered up to a preset limits. Another added benefit is most having true PPO network access, which takes out the reimbursement style of Mini-Medical plans. We are now seeing employers investing in these plans to provide benefits to their employees either as the sole benefits offering, carve outs or a combination of both. We will explore the cautious side of these plans in future articles. ]]>http://www.esgtexas.com/blog/index.php?entry=entry090209-132429ESG - AdministratorMon, 09 Feb 2009 19:24:29 GMThttp://www.esgtexas.com/blog/comments.php?y=09&m=02&entry=entry090209-132429The Effects of Austin Office Vacancy Rates
http://www.esgtexas.com/blog/index.php?entry=entry090119-152528
We predict a steady decline in asking rates through 2010 but the best spaces will go quickly as Tenants snap up either downsized space or take this opportunity to “move up” to larger spaces or better class buildings while we are in a Tenants’ Market. Unfortunately, when the leases renew, we will be out of this recession and the process of moving Tenants back into spaces they should have been in all along will begin. Tenants will find that their renewals are at the then-current market rates and the savings realized will be burned up in moving, wiring and business interruption expense. This brings up a few questions: Is this downturn going to influence your decisions for expansion, contraction or “upgrading” your office space in the next year? Are you planning to take advantage of the Tenant’s Market conditions, and if so, are you prepared to pay the higher lease rates when the economy improves and rates go back to where they would have been had we not experienced the downturn conditions?
Let us know what you think.
]]>http://www.esgtexas.com/blog/index.php?entry=entry090119-152528ESG - AdministratorMon, 19 Jan 2009 21:25:28 GMThttp://www.esgtexas.com/blog/comments.php?y=09&m=01&entry=entry090119-152528DOL Posts New FMLA Poster, Certification Forms
http://www.esgtexas.com/blog/index.php?entry=entry090108-152715
These forms are very different from the old ones and will require some extra effort on your part.
Are you ready.....write in and give me your thoughts. ]]>http://www.esgtexas.com/blog/index.php?entry=entry090108-152715ESG - AdministratorThu, 08 Jan 2009 21:27:15 GMThttp://www.esgtexas.com/blog/comments.php?y=09&m=01&entry=entry090108-152715The Ledbetter Fair Pay Act
http://www.esgtexas.com/blog/index.php?entry=entry090106-150259
The Ledbetter Fair Pay Act would eliminate the statutory time limit for filing pay discrimination claims. The new Congress begins today, and we have learned that the U.S. House of Representatives plans to quickly consider this important legislation
Background
Ledbetter Fair Pay Act (H.R. 11) – The Ledbetter legislation is a congressional response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s May 2007 decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. In that case, the Court held that the 300-day time limit for filing a charge Title VII of the Civil Rights Act starts after the alleged unlawful employment action, and does not re-start a new upon receipt of each successive paycheck
The Ledbetter Fair Pay Act would effectively eliminate the uniform statue of limitations on pay discrimination claims and restart the time clock for filing such a charge with the EEOC upon the receipt of each successive paycheck. The bill would also re-start the time clock when a retiree receives an annuity check from an employer, and would thus keep employers liable to a discrimination claim potentially decades after an alleged act of misconduct. The legislation would amend the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Rehabilitation.