Worker Tensions About Returning To Office Bubbling Over

Office buildings are opening back up. Not all employees want to return.Source: BenefitsPRO, by Trudy Knockless

Some workers are so unhappy about returning to the office that they’re playing a legal card—asserting that they have a disability that necessitates that they work from home full time, employment attorneys say.

“Many are arguing COVID-related reasons, but it doesn’t have to be,” said David Barron, a member of the law firm Cozen O’Connor in Houston. “It could be some other type of disability that would warrant a reasonable accommodation to work from home.”

Workers seeking disability accommodations are relatively rare, attorneys say, but nonetheless reflect the strong resistance a sizable slice of employees are showing to any in-the-office mandates.

It’s a tricky landscape for corporate legal departments to navigate, attorneys say, in part because they could expose their companies to discrimination claims if they apply extensive flexibility to certain similarly situated workers but not others.

It doesn’t help that some workers are outright angry. Recently, a group of Apple employees, dubbed “Apple Together,” signed an open letter to the tech giant, rejecting a hybrid work model and asking the company to allow them to make their own decisions.

“Stop treating us like school kids who need to be told when to be where and what homework to do,” they wrote.

Apple suffered at least one high-profile resignation in resistance to its hybrid model, which requires that employees report to the office three days a week. The Verge’s Zoë Schiffer reported on Twitter that Ian Goodfellow, the company’s director of machine learning, resigned, writing in a note to staff in early May that “I believe strongly that more flexibility would have been the best policy for my team.”

About 60% of 200 contract workers for Google Maps in Bothell, Washington, recently signed a petition demanding that the outsourcing firm Cognizant Technology Solutions rescind a plan that they return to the office five days a week starting June 6. The workers, who cited health, child care and financial concerns, including an inability to afford the commute, won a 90-day reprieve late last week.

While employers do have a right to require that employees return to the office, employment attorneys and other experts say, they also need to take employee sentiment into account—or risk losing talent in a tight labor market.

“The request to return [to the office] is reasonable, but so are workers’ preferences for remote work,” said Jason Winmill, managing partner at Boston-based legal department consulting firm Argopoint.

“Many companies receive clear benefits from their staffs working in person, from enhanced collaboration to increased productivity from some employees,” he said. “Some workers, however, see the end of remote work as a new job benefit being taken away.”

‘Stakes have never been higher’

A survey released in late April by ADP Research Institute underscored how passionately workers want their flexibility. The survey of 32,000 workers in 17 countries found that 64% would consider looking for a new job if they were required to return to the office full time. Younger workers felt even more strongly, with 71% of 18- to 24-year-olds saying a full-time office mandate would lead them to consider another job.

“The pandemic signaled a paradigm shift as today’s workers re-evaluate the presence of work in their lives, and the stakes have never been higher for employers,” Nela Richardson, ADP’s chief economist, said in a statement.

During the pandemic, many workers have justified to supervisors that they must work at home by saying they are immunocompromised, employment attorneys say.

But Cozen O’Connor’s Barron said some workers seeking a more permanent work-from-home arrangement are seizing on disability protections in the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Title I of the ADA requires that an employer provide reasonable accommodation to qualified individuals with disabilities who are employees or applicants for employment, except when such accommodation would cause undue hardship.

A qualified individual with a disability is someone who has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits a major life activity, has a record of such an impairment, or is regarded as having such an impairment.

For disabled employees to qualify for the work-from-home accommodation, they also must be able to perform the essential functions of the job.

Employees might be able to use their performance record in 2020 and 2021 to shoot down arguments that working from home prevents them from meeting that standard, Barron said.

“So now, if the employer says, ‘Well, it is a hardship to let this person work from home in 2022,’ that argument is going to be tough because people have been doing it,” Barron said.

‘Employers are really struggling’

Employment attorneys say companies must carefully craft return-to-office policies and enforce them uniformly in order to avoid claims of discrimination.

The process is especially complex for companies whose operations span different jurisdictions in the United States and overseas, each of them with their own regulations and laws.

“[We would] have to analyze everything, because what might be legal in one jurisdiction may be illegal somewhere else,” said Stephen Kim, chief legal officer of Avicanna, which develops cannabis-based medical products. The Toronto-based company has 70 employees spread out among Canada, the United States, Colombia and the United Kingdom.

The human element makes the calculus even more challenging.

Last week, Tesla CEO Elon Musk issued an ultimatum to the company’s employees, saying they have to return to the office at least 40 hours per week. If they’re not willing to put in the hard work, he said on Twitter, “They should pretend to work somewhere else.”

JPMorgan Chase & Co. CEO Jamie Dimon has a similar mindset. At a conference last month, he said working from home doesn’t work for people who want “to hustle.

Meanwhile, some rank-and-file employees feel just as strongly that they need and deserve flexibility, but even they don’t always agree on the right mix of office days and home days.

“Employers are really struggling with finding the right balance,” Barron said.

Kim added: “It’s tough. Do you create a system where you have at least three separate categories of employees? You have some employees that want to be in the office all the time, some employees that prefer hybrid, and then you have others that want to work from home all the time.

“If you try to roll out one policy or three policies, your company could quickly find itself in a position where it’s not able to defend or substantiate or really give strong support to any one of them,” Kim said.

He said a blanket return-to-office mandate creates a host of problems. Among them is that it impedes diversity and inclusion, since it doesn’t accommodate the challenges of single parents, multigenerational families or factor in cultural or religious beliefs.

Whatever companies come up with, they need to engage employees in the discussion, Winmill said.

“More important than the precise strategy … is that companies are careful to work with their employees in this change, rather than simply imposing it on them. I recommend companies looking to transition to consider well-thought-out change management strategies that can guide them through the most effective way to structure and communicate return-to-office plans,” he said.

Barron said employers are tilting toward hybrid models because that’s what employees want and alienating them could create retention problems. But he said that doesn’t mean companies can operate without firm rules.

“Many employers are just agreeing to it as a perk because their competitors are doing it, and people like it. But like any other perk, it has to be done on a nondiscriminatory basis. So, you can’t just let your high-performing employees do it. You have to have a policy,” he said.

Employers Pay 224% Of Medicare Prices For Hospital Services

Employers pay 224% of Medicare prices for hospital services | BenefitsPRO

Source: BenefitsPRO, by Scott Wooldridge

Employer-sponsored health plans paid on average 224% of what Medicare paid to hospitals for the same services at the same facilities, according to a new study from RAND Corporation. The report covers billing for hospital inpatient and outpatient services in 2020.

The study said that there were significant variances in prices across states or geographic areas and added that the difference in cost seemed to be linked to hospital market share rather than hospitals’ share of Medicare and Medicaid patients.

The researchers found that in Hawaii, Arkansas, and Washington, relative prices were under 175% of Medicare, while other in states, such as Florida, West Virginia, and South Carolina, relative prices were at or above 310% of Medicare.

In addition, the study found that prices for COVID-19 hospitalization were similar to prices for overall inpatient admissions and averaged 241% of what was paid for Medicare patients.

“Employers can use this report to become better-informed purchasers of health benefits,” said Christopher Whaley, the study’s lead author and a policy researcher at RAND, a nonprofit research organization. “This work also highlights the levels and variation in hospital prices paid by employers and private insurers, and thus may help policymakers who may be looking for strategies to curb health care spending.”

Cost variation: a “defining characteristic” of US health care

The researchers described the wide variation in prices paid for medical services as “a defining characteristic of the U.S. health care system.”

In 2019, the study said, spending on hospital services accounted for 37% of total health care spending for privately insured Americans and came to approximately $434 billion. “Hospital price increases are key drivers of growth in per capita spending among the privately insured,” the study added.

RAND researchers found the difference between employer prices and Medicare prices was actually a bit lower since a previous study in 2018, when employers paid 247% of Medicare costs. The researchers said the change was because of an increase in claims among states that generally pay lower rates for hospital costs.

Transparency in pricing has been a challenge for the health care industry. Despite efforts by both providers and government regulators to create more transparency, both employers and consumers lack useful information on pricing. And the public data that does exist has gaps, due in part to the fact that many hospitals have not yet complied with recent regulatory requirements.

An Indiana case study: employer pressure lowered prices

The study concludes by looking at efforts in some states to address relatively high hospital prices. In Indiana, employers in the Fort Wayne area were able to prompt price changes at the Parkview Health System in that community, which the RAND study had identified as having some of the highest prices in the country.

“Equipped with information on negotiated prices, employers were able to place pressure on a large hospital system and TPAs to achieve lower prices for their workforce,” the study said. “Other employer and policymaker pressures in Indiana led the Indiana University Health system to announce plans to reduce prices to the national average rate.”

Hospital association response: “Unfounded conclusions”

The American Hospital Association (AHA), however, quickly released a statement saying the RAND conclusions were an over-reach and unfounded.

“The report looks at claims for just 2.2% of overall hospital spending, which, no matter how you slice it, represents a small share of what actually happens in hospitals and health systems in the real world,” said AHA President and CEO Rick Pollack. “Researchers should expect variation in the cost of delivering services across the wide range of U.S. hospitals – from rural critical access hospitals to large academic medical centers. Tellingly, when RAND added more claims as compared to previous versions of this report, the average price for hospital services declined.”

Employers Pay Hospitals Billions More Than Medicare

How Much More Than Medicare Do Private Insurers Pay? A Review of the  Literature | KFF

Source: Axios, by Adriel Bettelheim and Caitlin Owens

Employers and private insurance plans in 2020 paid hospitals 224% of what Medicare paid for the same services, with rates for inpatient and outpatient care varying widely from site to site, a new report from RAND finds.

The intrigue: The report found that hospital prices had no significant correlation with hospitals’ share of Medicare and Medicaid patients, which hospitals say factor into private rates. Price did positively correlate with hospital market share.

Why it matters: Hospitals account for about 37% of health spending for the privately insured — and even people who don’t use hospital services foot some of the bill through their premiums.

The big picture: Annual per-person spending growth for workplace health coverage has exceeded spending growth for government programs in nine of the past 13 years, largely because enrollment and demand for services among the commercially insured has barely changed.

  • * The divergence in pricing has been linked to mergers and acquisitions, affiliation agreements and other consolidation that increases hospitals’ leverage.
  • * In 2021, the average premium cost of an employer-sponsored family plan was more than $22,000, an increase of 47% from 2011, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.

What they found: The report draws on medical claims data from employers and state databases from 2018 to 2020 covering 4,102 hospitals and 4,091 ambulatory surgical centers that account for $78.8 billion of spending.

  • * States like Hawaii, Arkansas and Washington had relative prices below 175% of Medicare prices, while others including Florida, West Virginia and South Carolina had prices at or above 310% of Medicare levels.
  • * In 2020, COVID-19 inpatient hospitalizations averaged 241% of Medicare, which is similar to the relative price for all inpatient procedures.
  • * Prices for common outpatient services performed in ambulatory surgical centers such as imaging and colonoscopies averaged 162% of Medicare payments. However, Medicare pays the centers less than it pays hospital outpatient departments for the same services, the study notes, and the ratio would be lower if centers were paid the same way.
  • * Medicare per-procedure payments to hospital outpatient departments were 2.1 times higher than payments to ambulatory surgical centers and commercial payments were 2.6 times larger, the study found.
  • * If the same providers were paid Medicare rates for the same services, employers and private plans would have saved $49.9 billion, researchers said.

The other side: Hospitals say Medicare reimbursement rates are too low, so they have to charge privately insured patients more to make ends meet. The pandemic has also disrupted many hospital business models — for example, by forcing the cancellation of elective procedures.

The bottom line: Health costs are likely to keep rising for those with private insurance as employers use higher deductibles, copays and coinsurance to offset some of the rising costs.

  • * While employers back reforming how workplace health care is paid for, they don’t agree on many of the details or how significant changes would be.
  • * The more information about pricing disparities that becomes public, the more likely it is that pressure on hospitals to justify their prices will build.

Employers Still Overlooking A Big Factor That’s Fueling Burnout

Flexibility isn't the easy burnout fix employers think it is | FortuneSource: The Business Journals, by Andy Medici

Burnout has been on the rise since the start of pandemic — a trend that been a big factor in the turnover tsunami that has swept the nation.

But a new survey shows many employees who remained with their companies are hitting a breaking point.

 

The survey of more than 1,000 employees by business formation firm Inc and Go found about 71% of full-time employees feel they were overworked at least once every week and about 48% of employees feel overworked several times a week. Overworked was defined as an employee feeling like they worked more hours than they were supposed to.

Meanwhile, 42% of full-time employees want after-hours work banned by their employer.

“There’s a difference between feeling motivated to do your best work and overextending yourself because you feel pressured to keep up with employees who are intentionally trying to overwork themselves,” the company noted in a blog post analyzing the survey. “The more that happens, the easier it is for strenuous work culture to become the norm. There has been a pretty seismic shift in the thinking around hustling and even a more common acceptance that terms like ‘work family‘ are toxic and contribute to this unhealthy culture where you are expected to become wrapped up in your job.”

The survey comes amid what many have dubbed Great Resignation, which has employees shuffling to jobs that pay more or offer better flexibility. It also comes as workers are looking for better work-life balance and are willing to forgo higher pay and even promotions to get it.

But it shows the fine line companies are walking when it comes to asking their employees to work more. About 33% of workers were “extremely” willing to work overtime in the event of a labor shortage at their company, while 38% were “very willing,” according to a separate survey by invoicing software firm Skynova.

When it came to forced overtime, about 45% said they had refused to work, while 41% said they had gone on strike or walked out of the job. About 24% of workers surveyed said they had quit a job because of forced overtime. Gen Z workers were the most likely to quit at 29%, compared to just 13% of baby boomers, according to the Skynova survey.

Employees are facing high pressure to work more, and are often working early, late or long hours, including holidays or weekends, according to the Inc and Go survey. The top reasons employees end up overworking is because of employer expectations, meeting deadlines and keeping up with the workload.

About 77% of those workers found overwork harmed their work-life balance and increased their stress and emotional fatigue, according to the survey.

“One of the most extreme consequences of overworking culture is burnout, which is something that happens from a number of combined factors —not the least of which might be the mental, emotional and financial fallout from the pandemic,” the company said.

While 66% of employees said they approached their manager with concerns about overwork, only 42% of workers said their manager did anything to address their concerns. About 32% of employees said their manager ignored their concerns.

What do employees want? About 60% said they wanted their employers to set clear boundaries for work and 42% said they wanted their employers to ban working after hours. About 37% said they wanted more time off.

“The real-world ramifications of excessive commitment to work are unfortunately common. That said, there does seem to be a profound shift happening where people are finally taking charge of their professional lives and finding better situations for themselves,” the company said.

Burnout can have a real effect on employee turnover, according to a separate survey from FlexJobs, which found 42% of workers who had quit recently attributed that decision to burnout.

And a majority of workers think it should be illegal for their bosses to contact them outside of work hours — and many think the companies should be fined if they do so.

The survey of 1,000 employed Americans, conducted by invoicing software firm Skynova, found 63.3% of employed Americans believe it should be illegal for bosses to call, text or email outside of their scheduled hours, and 45% of workers believe the employer should pay the employee a fine for doing so.

There is some global precedent for governments cracking down on after-hours calls. A new law in Portugal made it illegal for bosses to email, call or text workers after the end of the business day, as Triangle Business Journal Editor-in-Chief Sougata Mukherjee noted in a recent column.

Supreme Court Weighs Employer’s Challenge To California Labor Law

Supreme Court weighs employer's challenge to California labor lawSource: Los Angeles Times, by David G. Savage

The Supreme Court on Wednesday weighed an employer’s challenge to a California labor law that authorizes private attorneys to sue on behalf of thousands of workers, even if those workers had agreed to arbitrate their claims individually.

The closely watched case is the latest and perhaps most important test of whether companies can shield themselves from costly employment lawsuits through arbitration clauses that forbid group or class claims.

The court’s conservative justices said little during Wednesday’s argument in Viking River Cruises vs. Moriana, while the three liberals spoke in defense of the California law.

“This is the state’s decision to enforce its own labor laws in a particular kind of way,” Justice Elena Kagan said.

She was referring to the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, in which the Legislature authorized private attorneys to sue employers and collect penalties for violations of the labor code.

The state said it did not have enough staff to police industries where “labor law violations are the most rampant, including agriculture, garment, construction, car wash, and restaurants.”

The suits often cite complaints of wage theft or unpaid overtime work. Under the law, 75% of the penalties collected are to be returned to the state, while the remainder is divided among the employees and the attorneys.

A group of California employers told the court that the law, even if well intentioned, has become a means to enrich plaintiffs’ law firms. They file claims at a rate of 17 per day, said Washington attorney Paul Clement, and they are demanding penalties for “tens of thousands of employees at a time and extracting millions of dollars from employers.”

The issue for the court was whether the Federal Arbitration Act of 1925 preempts or trumps the California private-attorneys law.

For more than a decade, the high court has regularly sided with businesses and in favor of arbitration. The justices have ruled that businesses may enforce arbitration clauses that prevent workers or consumers from filing broad class-action claims.

The 1925 law was designed originally to uphold arbitration agreements between companies that had signed contracts to ship goods by railroad or by sea. More recently, it has been transformed into a powerful weapon for companies seeking protection from class-action claims.

But California and state courts have been holdouts, ruling that plaintiffs may sometimes join together to sue under state law. In 2014, the state Supreme Court said the Federal Arbitration Act did not prevent the state from authorizing private attorneys to enforce its labor laws.

The case before the court began when Angie Moriana quit her job as a sales agent in Los Angeles for Viking River Cruises and complained she did not receive her last paycheck. She became the lead plaintiff in a private suit alleging violations of behalf of a large group of Viking employees.

Viking asked a Los Angeles County Superior Court judge to block the lawsuit and send her case to arbitration. The company said she had agreed to arbitrate “any dispute arising out of or relating to your employment.” Moreover, she had waived any right to any “class, collective or private attorney general action.”

But the judge and a state appeals court refused and ruled that under California law, the private suit may proceed because “the state is the real party” bringing the claim. The state Supreme Court turned down an appeal, but in December, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear Viking’s appeal.

“Arbitration will be gutted,” Clement argued, if states can authorize broad private lawsuits in its place.

But workers’ rights advocates said the private lawsuits are crucial for protecting employees. They cited a recent report by the UCLA Labor Center that found 89% of claims under the Private Attorneys General Act alleged wage theft.

Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh asked whether it was correct that “California is an outlier here.”

Yes, said Scott Nelson, an attorney for nonprofit consumer advocate Public Citizen. California wanted “to enhance its enforcement” of workers rights, he said. And that decision to authorize private suits “is entitled to respect, even if California remains the only state that does so.”

The court will hand down a decision in the case by late June.

Prescription Drug Use Rises for the Newly Insured

A survey of more than 3,000 U.S. employers finds that 54% are paying at least 5% more for employee medical insurance this year. Nearly one in four has seen increases of at least 10%, according to a study by Arthur J. Gallagher & Co. Sixty-seven percent say that medical and pharmacy benefits are the cornerstone of their employee benefit package and an important tool to recruit and retain talent in a tightening labor market. Telemedicine, now used by 24% of employers, is predicted to reach 42% in 2018. Narrow network healthcare plans show a growth trend from 18% to a predicted 27% in 2018. A rise in adoption of consumer directed health plans is expected from 36% to 51% in 2018. Self-insuring is expected to grow from 28% to 38% in 2018. Fewer than 5% of employers have used a private exchange, but that figure is expected to triple by 2018. Employers that excel at healthcare cost management take a comprehensive, data-driven and multi-year approach to compensation and benefit planning. However, just 8% of employers do multi-year planning with multiple data inputs. Seventy-six percent plan their benefits year-to-year, which puts them in a reactive position and less able to manage costs. For more information, visit ajg.com/NBS2016.

Getting on the Track to Financial Wellness

A study by Lincoln Financial finds that 55% of workers in the U.S. say they are on the right track to achieving financial well being. The study looked into the lives of the right-trackers, and found these five factors contribute to their feelings of financial security and financial success:

  1. 71% have created a financial plan.
  2. 98% are focused on the future.
  3. 78% exercise at least once a week.
  4. 63% feel good about themselves, which makes them more optimistic.
  5. 57% are enrolled in more than three non-medical benefits.

Employees define financial wellness in these terms:

  • 29% Being prepared for unforeseen events that could affect my
  • financial situation.
  • 27% Living comfortably and having control over day-to-day finances.
  • 25% Having financial freedom that allows me to enjoy my life.”
  • 19% Other.

Voluntary benefits that improve financial wellness can boost the bottom line

People who are under financial stress are less productive employees, bringing down businesses’ bottom lines, studies show, but employers can help by offering education, tools and voluntary benefits. “In addition to securing online financial education resources, companies can take advantage of value-added programs and financial wellness platforms offered by their current benefit providers, as well as other non-traditional voluntary benefits, such as financial counseling services and employee purchase programs that address further aspects of financial wellness,” Elizabeth Halkos writes.

BenefitsPro.com (8/12)

Making the Most Out of Open Enrollment

OpenEnrollment

Nearly half of employees are stressed by the open enrollment process and only half are confident about the benefit decisions they made last year, according to a study by MetLife. Millennials are the most stressed and confused. When asked about the most effective benefit resources, respondents ranked one-on-consultations well above other resources. In fact, Millennials led their generational counterparts in valuing one-on-one consultations. However, only half of employers offer one-on-one consultations. Sixty percent of Millenials consult with their families and friends on benefits. MetLife says that employers need to help their employees connect the value of non-medical benefits to their day-to-day lives. Employers should also do the following:

  • Make sure that employees fully understand key terms such as “deductible,” “premium,” “PPO,” and “HMO.”
  • Have employees ask themselves, “Do I have a big life event coming up, such as marriage or retirement?” It’s critical to choose benefits based on present and future needs.
  • Make sure that employees review their benefits and fully understand them. Only half of employees said they thoroughly reviewed their benefits choices last year.

The survey also reveals how employees feel about their benefits:

  • Financial uncertainty: In contrast to decreasing unemployment numbers, American workers remain pessimistic about their financial future. Less than half feel in control of their finances. Even fewer expect their situations to improve in the next year (46% in 2015, compared to 52% in 2014). More than half are concerned about having enough money to cover out-of-pocket medical costs as well as meeting monthly living expenses and financial obligations. These worries that have increased every year since 2012.
  • Job Satisfaction: More than half of employees are satisfied with their jobs and are committed to the organizations’ goals. An increasing number plan to be with their companies a year from now.
  • Financial Benefits: 71% of employees consider work to be the foundation of their financial safety net. Sixty-two percent of employees want more financial security benefits. Millennials are more financially vulnerable compared to their counterparts. Gen Xrs say they are less secure than other generations.
  • Appreciation of benefits: Half of employees agree strongly that their benefits help them worry less about unexpected health and financial issues. Seventy percent of employees say that having customizable benefits would increase their loyalty to their employer.
  • Supplemental benefits: Employees continue to ask for a range of solutions, especially for more common benefits, such as medical, prescription, 401(k), dental, life, and vision care. Employers are keeping pace with many of their employees’ top benefit requests. However, there are large gaps in accident insurance, critical illness, and hospital indemnity. Most employers understand how non-medical benefits can provide financial protection, such as offsetting out-of-pocket medical expenses. Yet, only 47% of employees believe that supplemental health benefits can help close these gaps.
  • A streamlined plan design: Plan design, claims management, and implementation rank highly as advantages of streamlining the number of carriers that employers use.
  • Use of enrollment firms: Three-quarters of employers have positive attitudes towards enrollment firms. Seventy-one percent of employers say that working with an enrollment firm helped them improve benefit communications.
  • Wellness plans: More than two thirds of employees are interested in physical well-being programs that reward healthy behavior. This is especially true among Millennials (75%) and female employees (72%).
  • Retirement Benefits: Forty percent of employees say that having retiree benefits is a key reason to stay with their employer. Millennials feel the most strongly about this, probably due to their lack of financial confidence. About a third of employees plan to postpone retirement, an increase of 5% over 2015. Almost 6 in 10 employees plan to work or consult once retired. Of this 60%, 44% plan to work part-time.
  • Older workers: With today’s workers redefining what it means to be a retiree, employers must also redefine what retiree benefits look like in order to appeal to this rich reservoir of talent. For example, 63% of employees say that dental is a must-have retiree benefit while only 42% of employers offer it. Similar gaps can be found across other critical non-medical benefits, such as vision and life insurance. More than half of employees say that their employer does not offer any employer-paid non-medical benefits. With retiree benefits being such an important loyalty factor for many employees, employers have an opportunity to keep pace in 2016 and beyond.

Health Plan Offer Rates Since the ACA

A study by the Employee Benefits Research Institute (EBRI) reveals that large employers have had steady health insurance offer rates since passage of the ACA. In fact, 99% of employers with 1,000 or more workers offer heath insurance as do 93% to 95% of employers with 100 to 999 workers. However, offer rates have been falling since 2009 for employers with fewer than 10 workers, from 36% in 2008 to 23% in 2015. Offer rates for employers with 10 to 24 workers went from 66% in 2008 to 49% in 2015. Offer rates for employers with 25 to 99 workers went from 81% in 2008 to 74% in 2015.

Last Updated 06/29/2022

Arch Apple Financial Services | Individual & Family Health Plans, Affordable Care California, Group Medical Insurance, California Health Insurance Exchange Marketplace, Medicare Supplements, HMO & PPO Health Care Plans, Long Term Care & Disability Insurance, Life Insurance, Dental Insurance, Vision Insurance, Employee Benefits, Affordable Care Act Assistance, Health Benefits Exchange, Buy Health Insurance, Health Care Reform Plans, Insurance Agency, Westminster, Costa Mesa, Huntington Beach, Fountain Valley, Irvine, Santa Ana, Tustin, Aliso Viejo, Laguna Hills, Laguna Beach, Laguna Woods, Long Beach, Orange, Tustin Foothills, Seal Beach, Anaheim, Newport Beach, Yorba Linda, Placentia, Brea, La Habra, Orange County CA

12312 Pentagon Street - Garden Grove, CA 92841-3327 - Tel: 714.638.0853 - 800.731.2590
Email:
Jay@ArchApple.com
Copyright @ 2015 - Website Design and Search Engine Optimization by Blitz Mogul