March Bulletin 2014 by MSEC

march 2014

SURVEYS

HUMAN RESOURCES

! ing ue go l. Iss ll be pri st wi in A La letin nic ul ctro e B le Th e

EMPLOYMENT LAW

TRAINING

Part XVIII: New Guidance on Out-of-Pocket Maximums Peggy Hoyt-Hoch, Employment Law Services Page 1 New Guidance on Outof-Pocket Maximums Page 2 You Asked: What Does It Mean to “Care” for a Family Member Under the FMLA? Book Review: Great by Choice: Uncertainty, Chaos, and Luck— Why Some Thrive Despite Them All Page 3 People Analytics: A Strategic Focus on People Management Page 4 Embracing Flexible Work and Telecommuting Marijuana in Colorado: What Employers Need to Know Page 5 Mentoring: One Member’s Key to New Hire Success: Public Employers: Employee Fired for Party Affiliation Sues Under First Amendment Page 6 Survey News Page 7 Economic Perspective

The Affordable Care Act now subjects all nongrandfathered health plans to cost-sharing limitations (a.k.a. out-of-pocket maximum costs or “OOP maximums”). While the Departments of Health and Human Services (HHS) and Labor and the Internal Revenue Service allowed transitional relief this year, recently issued joint guidance confirms that it will not last beyond the end of the 2014 plan year. Transitional relief has allowed plans to apply OOP maximums to each separate category of benefits to avoid having to coordinate expenses between or among multiple claims administrators or multiple vendors. For the plan year beginning on or after January 1, 2015, non-grandfathered plans must limit participants’ OOP maximums to the same OOP maximums published annually for High Deductible Health Plans, combined with Health Savings Accounts (HDHPs). The 2014 OOP maximums are $6,350 for self-only coverage and $12,700 for other coverage. The agencies will publish 2015 maximums at the end of the year. Guidance confirms that OOP maximums only apply to essential health benefits (EHBs). EHBs are the 10 categories of core benefits qualified health plans must cover. The categories are prescription drugs, hospitalization, maternity and newborn care, ambulatory services, emergency care, mental-health and substance-use disorder services, chronic disease management, and pediatric services including oral and vision care. OOP maximums do not include other participant costs such as

employee contributions, adult vision or dental care, crowns or implants, or additional medical services not classified as EHBs. Nor do they include out-of-network items that did not traditionally count toward a maximum. Employers who use multiple providers should strategically review their claims processing procedures to determine the best approach for their 2015 plan design. It may be most effective to use a central unit to collect, monitor, coordinate, and control payments toward the OOP maximum between your various vendors. Alternatively, separate OOP limits can be created and assigned to the various categories of benefit vendors, as long as the combined maximum is no more than the published amounts. For example, a plan could set the OOP maximum for hospitalization at $1,000, prescription drugs at $1,000, and $4,350 for remaining major medical expenses. This allocation meets the 2014 combined cap for self-only coverage of $6,350. Before considering an allocation like this, self-funded plans should determine whether assigning separate maximums could result in higher claim costs for the plan or higher costs to participants. The guidance offers large and self-funded plans some latitude to define their own EHBs, as long as they use an acceptable alternative. See a list of authorized categories of EHBs, at http://www.cms.gov/cciio/resources/data-resources/ ehb.html. Additional details about benchmark EHB plans are available at http://www.naic.org/ index_health_reform_section.html. Continued on page 3

Denver 303.839.5177 Scottsdale 602.955.7558 Colorado Springs 719.667.0677 Fort Collins 970.223.4107 Fax 303.861.4403 Toll Free 800.884.1328

What Does It Mean to “Care” for a Family Member Under the FMLA? Tina Harkness, Membership Development We receive many calls from members who are perplexed as to the extent to which they must allow an employee to care for a covered family member with a serious health condition. Most members are aware that the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) defines “care” broadly to include both physical and psychological care, but they are not sure what that means.

Must the employee provide direct care to the family member? No. The employee’s care of the family member can be direct or indirect. Examples of direct care include tending to basic medical, hygienic, nutritional, or safety needs or transporting the family member to and from medical appointments. Psychological care can be indirect and encompasses providing comfort and reassurance to the family member. Does “care” include arranging for others to care for the family member? Yes. Care includes situations where the employee may need to substitute for others who normally care for the family member, or arrange for changes in care, such as arranging for the family member’s transfer to a nursing home. Can I deny leave because other family members or individuals are available to care for the family member? No. The employee does not have to be the only person available to care for the family member to take leave. Does the employee have to be in close physical proximity to the family member? Yes. Courts have rejected employee claims that they were providing care because they were not in close physical proximity to the family member. For example, a court held that the employee’s frequent telephone contact with his wife and badly injured daughter in Florida while he was in Texas tending their yard and preparing their home for his daughter’s return did not constitute care. The court said that caring for someone required physical proximity and “some actual care.” Does care include housekeeping and similar tasks? Probably not. A court said that an employee’s three-day absence to clean his mother’s house following flooding was not care because the employee did not show that the cleaning was medically necessary for his mother. Had the employee presented evidence that his mother’s hepatitis was in danger of being aggravated if he did not immediately clean after the flooding, the outcome might have been different.

Does care for the family member have to occur at home? Not necessarily. An employee was providing care when he took his five-year-old daughter with late-stage cancer to a football game where she was honored at halftime. The employee helped his daughter on to the field and provided psychological comfort to her during the game. Another employee took FMLA to accompany her terminally ill mother on vacation in Las Vegas. Even though the purpose of the trip was to engage in tourist activities, the employee was her mother’s primary caregiver and provided for her mother’s basic medical needs during the trip. What can I do to ensure that an employee is using leave to care for a family member? You can require employees requesting leave to care for family members to be specific about what care they will be providing during the leave. You can also require the family member’s health care provider to be specific when filling out the medical certification form as to how and when the employee will be providing care. And, you can contact us for help with questionable situations.

Book Review: Great by Choice: Uncertainty, Chaos, and Luck—Why Some Thrive Despite Them All Patrick Butler, Human Resource Services Jim Collins and Morten T. Hansen have written an incisive analysis of why some organizations crumble and others thrive in trying times. Their findings contradict the notion that a company that fails in a bad economy does so primarily due to that economic environment and that the company’s fate was largely out of its control. After studying organizations that fared well and those that did not in economically difficult eras, they identified three characteristics that prosperous companies shared—fanatic discipline, productive paranoia, and empirical creativity. Collins and Hansen termed the successful companies “10Xers” because they beat their industry’s market returns by at least 10 times during the period studied. One example is Southwest Airlines. The authors examined the period 1972 through 2002, a time that saw numerous blows to the industry including deregulation, labor strife, fuel shocks, and 9/11. During that 20-year period, Southwest beat the entire market 63-fold. The company they compared Southwest to, Pacific Southwest Airlines, was eventually swallowed up by another airline. Continued on next page

The Bulletin

March 2014

MSEC.org

Continued from page 1

The agencies have confirmed that in audits for OOP maximum compliance in 2015 they will use discretion and work with self-funded plans who adopt an EHB alternative definition in good faith. Employers who fully insure their benefit plans need only confirm that their insurance carriers are complying with required maximums. The carriers will manage any allocation of the maximum in their design, if they find it advantageous to do so.

Continued from previous page

The authors found that organizations that are fanatically disciplined hold themselves accountable to sticking to what makes them successful, regardless of the business environment. They understand what makes them successful and, when times become difficult, they buckle down and continue to focus on what makes them exceptional. In contrast, the companies that failed during down times did not fail because they refused to change. Indeed, they changed much more than the 10Xers did, desperately looking for a “silver bullet” that was not to be found. That is not to say that 10Xer companies were intransigent. They exhibited ongoing empirical creativity. They were always looking for new business opportunities, but would only act based on empirical evidence. When evidence was lacking, they would commit just enough resources to determine whether the project was viable, but not so much that they would risk their overall financial standing if it failed. When the business environment was favorable, 10Xers were notably productively paranoid. They were incessantly afraid of what threat was around the corner that they were not anticipating. These companies were always looking for their own weaknesses even when from the outside they seemed impenetrable. And when the economic environment turned south, they were better girded to weather the storm. Collins and Hansen also examined the role luck plays—both good and bad—in whether companies succeed or fail in bad economic times. They found that the 10Xers and their comparison companies experienced almost the same number of good and bad luck instances. The difference was that the 10Xers took better advantage of instances of good luck. These findings should be heartening to organizations striving to succeed in adverse times.

People Analytics: A Strategic Focus on People Management Alyssa Leonas, Human Resource Services What if you could track the number of times your employees smile and determine the impact of those smiles on your customers? You may be surprised to learn that Harrah’s Las Vegas Hotel and Casino currently does this. Harrah’s tracks dealers’ smiles and has statistically determined the impact those smiles have on their patrons. This is an example of “people analytics”—a new way to assess employee fit, performance, and potential. Advances in technology give HR professionals more data and more ways to use data than ever before. People analytics is on the rise in all areas of HR, including hiring, development, succession planning, and employee retention. While interviews remain an important part of assessing fit, many organizations are analyzing patterns of data to predict success of candidates. Historically, employers have used skill assessments and tests to determine whether someone has the necessary knowledge, skills, and abilities. Now, organizations can access detailed information about how applicants will fit into the organization, and even evaluate their capacity to excel as leaders. Unbelievably, video games can be used to determine performance potential or fit of individuals in various jobs, and their potential to advance. The results factor in personality and behavioral components such as persistence, creativity, ability to learn from mistakes, and emotional intelligence. An advantage of using statistical data to make hiring and promotional decisions is that it removes our subconscious biases, to truly find the best match. People analytics also takes the guesswork out of succession planning. Organizations can pinpoint individuals with high leadership potential and begin to develop them long before they step into a leadership role. Algorithms can determine characteristics and competencies of individuals who will synergize and succeed as a team. Analysis can draw deeper meaning from an individual’s communication patterns via e-mail. Commonly used phrases and styles of communication can point to the potential for success in certain roles. Use of people analytics even affects employee retention. Organizations have developed algorithms to determine which individuals are most likely to leave their positions based on factors such as length of service, number of promotions over a given period of time, changes in 401(k) investments, and more. People analytics opens the door to many possibilities. Surely, we will see their use become increasingly common as more companies adopt a data-driven approach to people management decisions.

The Bulletin

March 2014

MSEC.org

Embracing Flexible Work and Telecommuting Peg McHugh, Human Resource Services

U.S. Census Bureau reports show that the number of American workers working from home increased 41 percent between 2000 and 2012. Why do some companies offer flexible work and telecommuting when others shy away? Four companies offer their views and experiences below.

that, “Accountability and work ethic is solely up to the employee. As the owner, I have tools to monitor activity, but only on a macro level.” Managing a remote workforce means adopting new management techniques and philosophies to make it work.

Why do you offer flexible work and telecommuting?

Companies considering offering flexible work and telecommuting should weigh the pros and cons and start by determining which jobs and employees would benefit from more flexibility. Flexible work and telecommuting are not appropriate for every worker or every job. Successful flex workers tend to possess qualities of self-direction, self-motivation, self-discipline, and responsiveness as well as skills in problem solving, organization, and time management. They also tend to be workers who seek continuous improvement and education throughout their careers. Companies should look for these attributes when recruiting workers for flexible work arrangements.

Chris Hytry Derrington, CEO of Rural America Onshore Outsourcing, believes flexible telecommuting jobs for rural residents are a smart way to bring jobs back to the U.S. lost to outsourcing. Hytry Derrington realized the complications of outsourcing often outweigh the benefits, so he created a company to help employees hire U.S. workers who telecommute from their rural homes. The flexibility offered to each worker usually depends upon the specific job. Most of their IT positions have telecommuting opportunities due to employees’ access to high-speed internet. Other flexibility options available include part-time, flex hours, and freelance work assignments. Optimize Worldwide started recruiting for remote sales representatives in an effort to build a sales force and produce a steady flow of business. To reach new regions, they offered telecommuting sales positions to professionals already living in the markets into which they wanted to expand. McGraw Hill Financial Group found having flexible work options helped them weather Hurricane Sandy in 2012. Once they realized that remote work could be effective and productive, they expanded use of flexible work options as part of normal business operations.

What are the benefits of offering more flexibility? Employees appreciate it. Hytry Derrington says, “Offering flexibility shows them we appreciate their time and understand they have other obligations in life. We believe offering these benefits decreases stress and burnout and leads to a healthier and more productive associate.” Offering flexibility that employees cannot find elsewhere may also give an employer a competitive advantage. Charles Myers, Head of Support for HotelTonight, says that offering flexibility helps his company, “retain higher quality employees who wouldn’t want to work anywhere else.” Are there any downsides? One of the biggest fears employers have about telecommuters is that they will be less productive. Matt Morgan, CEO of Optimize Worldwide acknowledges

The Bulletin

Marijuana in Colorado: What Employers Need to Know Alicia Williams, Employment Law Services With the recreational sale of marijuana now legal in Colorado, employers need to know that they may continue to have and enforce their drug policies. Colorado’s Amendment 64 does not require employers to accommodate marijuana use. Moreover, in April 2013, the Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed that off-duty marijuana smoking is not protected under Colorado’s lawful off-duty activities law. Coats v. Dish Network, L.L.C. (Colo. Ct. App. 2013). The Colorado Supreme Court is reviewing this decision, but for now, employers retain the authority to take disciplinary action, including termination, in response to a positive drug-test result or on-the-job impairment. We are finding, however, that employees are not clear on this. If your employees seem confused about what the legalization of marijuana means for enforcement of your drug policy, clarify that your organization prohibits use and possession of all drugs, including marijuana. If you conduct drug testing, detail the circumstances and procedures for such testing. And obtain employees’ signed acknowledgements of the policy. If you have to discipline or terminate an employee, you can show that he or she received the policy and should have been aware of its requirements.

March 2014

MSEC.org

Human Resources

Mentoring: One Member’s Key to New Hire Success Kathleen Hart, Human Resource Services

Starting at a new organization can feel like visiting a new country. Each company has its own rules, values, language, dress, communication styles, and acceptable behaviors. New employees need a safe way to learn and ask questions without breaking unspoken norms and facing embarrassment or worse. Providing mentors is one way organizations can build a positive connection with new employees and help them be successful. MSEC member Christian Living Communities (CLC) started a mentorship program a few years ago for Certified Nursing Assistants (CNA) and nurses that is still successful today. Janet Lyons, Executive Director of Clinical Services, and Pat McBride, Director of Staff Development, headed the change initiative with amazing results. Since CLC implemented the program, the retention rate for nurses has gone from 45 percent to 90 percent and state health department citations dropped from 122 to 14. Keys to the program’s success include:

Identify Need: The need for CLC’s program came mainly from the cost and impact of turnover. This included staff

time in training new employees and the impact turnover had on their value of providing an engaging and caring environment for residents.

Determine Scope: Through external research as well as asking internal staff why they stay, Janet and Pat developed the program based on two premises that tie to employee success and retention: (1) knowing the rules, including the values and mission of the organization and standards of practice, and (2) having a best friend at work. Develop Requirements: CLC had three criteria for mentors: solid job skills and performance, behaviors supporting the organization’s mission and values, and enjoyment in training others. Mentors had to fill out an application and questionnaire, go through an interview process, and commit to the program for a full year. The mentor’s commitment included providing the mentee individualized training and support in learning the core competencies of the job, developing a positive relationship with the mentee, and helping the mentee assimilate into the team.

Provide Training: Mentors received eight hours of training on topics such as developing positive relationships, teamwork, giving respectful feedback, time management, how to deal with stress, what mentees need and when, and how to handle change. Mentors also meet with each other every month to share their ideas and best practices. Gather Feedback: Mentors and mentees evaluate each other every month. This feedback ensures the relationship and program is progressing. Keep Program Visible and Celebrate: The CNA mentors presented training they developed to the Board. When mentees complete the yearlong program, CLC throws a big graduation party and the mentors introduces mentees as co-workers. Often mentees go on to become mentors. The program has helped new hires learn about CLC and have a sense of belonging and support that includes a best-friend connection. A win for CLC, and its employees and residents.

Employee Fired for Party Affiliation Sues Under First Amendment Lorrie Ray, Membership Development In a situation that has become more common, political affiliation is at the heart of another public sector employee’s First Amendment claim against his ex-employer. Burkley v. Mun. Auth. of Westmoreland Cnty. (W.D. Pa. 2014). Burkley began working for Municipal Authority of Westmoreland County in 2002 as their attorney. He was also a prominent Democrat in the county. He served as the party’s chair, ran as a democratic candidate for U.S. Congress in 1990 and 1992, and regularly acted as spokesperson for the county’s Democratic Party. In January 2013, two Republicans were elected to the county’s board

of commissioners, creating a Republican majority on the board. Burkley alleged that the new commissioners set up interviews for a new county attorney, inviting only four registered Republicans to apply. The board then fired Burkley and replaced him with a Republican. Burkley sued claiming the county’ s action violated his First Amendment right to freedom of association. The court ruled that political patronage dismissals could violate First Amendment, unless the employer could show that party affiliation is an appropriate requirement for the public office involved. The county argued that the The Bulletin

March 2014

MSEC.org

high-level advisory role of the county attorney made party affiliation a job requirement. The court was not convinced and allowed Burkley’s case to go forward to trial. As politics becomes more polarized in cities and counties across the country, we can expect to see more cases like this. Those advising elected officials need to help them understand the protections afforded to the employees and consultants they work with in their role as county commissioners and city and town council members.

Survey News

Notice of Surveys Being Conducted 2014 Benchmark Compensation Survey The questionnaire for the 2014 Benchmark Compensation Survey for Arizona, Colorado, and Wyoming employers is emailed in early March. This survey includes positions that cross all industries in the following job families: general support, financial, human resources, legal, sales/marketing, engineering, production, procurement, as well as information technology, and executive jobs. Participants can go to MSEC.org and download the job descriptions, questionnaire rate sheet, and general information form for completion. If you would like to participate in this survey but have not received a questionnaire invite, please contact the Surveys Department at 800.884.1328 or surveys@msec.org.

FREE Program: Survey Job Matching Workshop March 15, 2014 – 8:30-11:30am Are you confused about how to match your organization’s incumbents to jobs in MSEC’s Benchmark Compensation Survey? If so, join us for a half-day workshop. MSEC survey staff will work with you to match jobs in your organization to positions in this benchmark survey. This workshop is designed exclusively for persons completing the Benchmark Compensation Survey questionnaire for the first time. It is essential that participant’s bring copies of their organization’s job descriptions to use during the hands-on workshop. Space is limited to 15 participants. Call 800.884.1328 to reserve your seat today!

To request copies of the surveys, please contact the MSEC Surveys Department. Copies of these resources are available to authorized personnel of MSEC members. Call 800.884.1328, email surveys@msec.org, or go online to MSEC.org.

Survey Highlights: 2013 Miscellaneous Benefits & Pay Practices Survey – Arizona, Colorado, and Wyoming What are other organizations paying toward automobile reimbursement? Do organizations provide paid time off for employees to volunteer? How often are pay days? How often do organizations review salary ranges? What types of incentive/bonuses programs are offered? These are a just a few of the questions answered in the 2013 Miscellaneous Benefits and Pay Practices Survey. This survey provides data from 492 organizations located in Metropolitan Denver/Boulder, Northern Colorado, Colorado Springs, Pueblo, Resort Areas, the Western Slope, and Wyoming. The Arizona edition has 39 organizations located throughout Metropolitan Phoenix, Tucson, and other regions throughout the state. Other topics included in this report are: Hiring/Employment Practices, Review Period for New Hires, Hours of Work, Performance Appraisals, Communication Methods/Practices, and Employer Sponsored Programs. This survey also includes questions on Pay Practices comprising Incentives/Bonuses, Overtime, Compensation Administration, and Severance Pay.

Colorado Survey Highlights Technology Eighty-nine percent of organizations provide one or more employees with some sort of wireless communication device. Sixty-two percent allow the use of personal phones/smartphones in the workplace. Thirty percent of organizations are using tablets as personal computers. Automobile/Mileage Reimbursement Seventy-five percent of participants pay the IRS per-mile reimbursement. Tuition Aid Fifty-eight percent of employers offer Tuition Aid. Of those, 14 percent have no limit on the amount an employee may receive in one year – down slightly from 2011 when 18 percent reported no limit. Twenty-one percent of employers offer up to the tax-free limit of $5,250 per year. Alternative Work Arrangements Of the 92 percent of employers offering Alternative Work Arrangements, 68 percent allow employees to work at home or at off-site locations during work hours (not on a regular basis) – slightly higher than the 62 percent reported in 2011. Thirty-four percent have telecommuting (regular off-site work arrangement) – up slightly from 32 percent reported in 2011. Volunteer / Community Service Thirteen percent of employers provide a specific number of days per year for employees to have a paid day from work to do volunteer or community service. The average number of days provided is 3 days per year. Two percent of employers allow paid time off with no limit to the number of days per year that can be taken. Moving Allowance Nine percent of employers pay full moving expenses for new hires, while 31% will pay partial expenses. Twelve percent will pay full moving expenses for transferees, and 30 percent will pay partial expenses. Thirty-eight percent of these organizations have a required time period that the employee must stay after relocation or have to “pay back” the company for the moving expenses.

The Bulletin

March 2014

MSEC.org

Unemployment Rate DENVER-AURORABROOMFIELD MSA

COLORADO

Latest Figure / Year Ago

11/13 N 5.8% / 7.2%

11/13 N 6.1% / 7.3%

WEEKLY HOURS (MFG.) Latest Date Latest Figure / Year Ago

11/13 N 40.7 / 39.8

HOURLY EARNINGS (MFG.) Latest Date Latest Figure / Year Ago

11/13 N 28.25 / 27.64

Figures reported for Denver, Colorado and U.S. are from the Current Population Survey [Federal Method] Latest Date

PHOENIX-MESAGLENDALE, AZ

ARIZONA

WYOMING

UNITED STATES

11/13 N 6.0% / 6.5%

11/13 N 7.1% / 7.6%

11/13 N 4.2% / 4.9%

12/13 A 6.7% / 7.9%

11/13 N 39.3/ 38.6

11/13 N 41.3 / 40.3

11/13 N 40.7 / 40.4

11/13 N 38.7 / 40.9

12/13 AP 42.1 / 41.8

11/13 N 24.46/ 25.31

11/13 N 19.09 / 18.46

11/13 N 18.88 / 18.29

11/13 N 20.45/ 22.33

11/13 AP 19.50 / 19.17

(CPI) Consumer Price Index Denver, CO

Phoenix-Mesa, AZ

U.S.

1982-84 = 100

DEC. 2001 = 100

1982-84 = 100

Latest Date Latest Figure / Year Ago % Change

Jan-Jun 2013 N 219.6 / 213.6 +2.8%

Jan-Jun 2013 N 125.2 / 123.9 +1.0%

12/13 A 230.9 / 227.6 +1.4%

CPI-U* All Urban Consumers Latest Date Latest Figure / Year Ago % Change

Jan-Jun 2013 N 229.1 / 223.0 +2.8%

Jan-Jun 2013 N 125.6 / 124.1 +1.2%

12/13 A 234.6 / 231.1 +1.5%

CPI-W* Revised CPI for Urban Wage Earners & Clerical Workers

(ECI) Employment Cost Index Wages & Salaries

Private Industry Workers Manufacturing Service-providing Industries** Mountain Region*** State/Local Government Workers

Total Comp.

12 Months Ended

12/13 N

2.1% 2.1% 2.1% 3.1% 1.1%

2.0% 1.8% 2.0% 3.0% 1.9%

NOTE: Denver-Aurora MSA includes 10 counties: Denver, Arapahoe, Adams, Jefferson, Douglas, Broomfield, Elbert, Park, Clear Creek, and Gilpin. * CPI data for Wyoming is not available. ** Includes the following industries: wholesale trade; retail trade; transportation and warehousing; utilities; information; finance and insurance; real estate, rental and leasing; professional; scientific and technical services; management of companies and enterprises; administrative support; waste management and remediation services; education services; health care and social assistance; arts, entertainment, and recreation; accommodation and food services; and other services, except public administration.

March 2014

(1) Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Dept. of Labor P = Preliminary Data N = Not Seasonally Adjusted A = Seasonally Adjusted D = Reflects revised population controls and model reestimation E = Reflects inputs, reestimations, and new statewide controls R = Revised C = Corrected For more information: www.bls.gov

*** Includes the states of Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming.

The Bulletin

Definitions/Sources

MSEC.org

PRSRT STD U.S. POSTAGE PAID DENVER, COLORADO Permit No. 552

1799 Pennsylvania Street P.O. Box 539 Denver, Colorado 80201-0539 800.884.1328 303.839.5177

EMPLOYMENT LAW

SURVEYS

HUMAN RESOURCES

TRAINING

Finding the Affordable Care Act a Bitter Pill to Swallow? Let MSEC make it easier with our Health Care Benefits Consulting Service We provide options and strategies to support your compliance with the ACA and other regulations impacting benefit plans. This comprehensive service, offered on an hourly basis, covers a range of critical issues including: • Plan design and design alternatives to ensure ACA compliance. • Workforce demographics to determine the most cost-effective compliance alternatives for your organization. •Various risks inherent in a compliance strategy considering each member’s unique business needs. • Existing health plan strategies and coverage options based on employer’s business goals, total rewards programs, and benefits. To schedule a meeting with a health care specialist call 800.884.1328 or email lr@msec.org Denver 303.839.5177 | Scottsdale 602.955.7558 | Colorado Springs 719.667.0677 | Fort Collins 970.223.4107 | Fax 303.861.4403 | Toll Free 800.884.1328