Tag Archives: NYC Top Group Benefit Broker

New York Moving to Value-Based Payment

Like the rest of the country, New York is moving—somewhat begrudgingly—toward a future in which hospitals and doctors are paid to keep patients healthy rather than be reimbursed based on the volume of procedures they perform on sick patients. Most providers and health plans agree that this shift from fee-for-service reimbursement to a model based on quality and lower costs is inevitable. There is far less consensus on how to arrive at that point.

At a Crain’s event held Tuesday in Manhattan, senior executives from local health care providers and insurers made the case that collaboration between the two industry segments—which often are at odds during contract negotiations—is critical to making the shift to value-based payments a success.

“UnitedHealthcare can’t do this alone. We all can’t do this alone,” said Dr. Samuel Ho, chief medical officer at the Minneapolis-based insurer, which provides services to 85 million Americans.

Commercial health plans and Medicaid, which collectively insure 16.3 million New Yorkers, tie about one-third of their payments to providers to value, according to a report released last week by the New York State Health Foundation. The federal government, through Medicare, wants to accelerate the process of linking payments to health outcomes. It hopes to use the model to avoid unnecessary hospital readmissions and manage such chronic illnesses as diabetes and high blood pressure. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has set a goal to make half of all Medicare payments tied to value by 2018.

Numerous challenges stand in the way. Insurers differ in the ways they define quality, and smaller physician practices have limited resources to invest in the information technology systems necessary to track the data needed to receive incentive payments.

To read more, click here.

Jeffrey R. Ungvary President

Jeffrey R. Ungvary


FAQs For Small Group Expansion to 1-100 Employees

Q-1. What is the definition of “small group” as of January 1, 2016?

A. Under New York law and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), the definition of “small group” will be 1-100 employees as of January 1, 2016. See Q-6 thru Q-11 below for who is an employee.

Q-2. Will New York adopt the ACA definition of “small group” as of January 1, 2016?

A. Yes. All non-grandfathered groups with 1-100 employees renewing on or after January 1, 2016 must be issued small group coverage.

Q-3. Will New York adopt the Department of Health and Human Services “transitional policy” (available athttp://www.cms.gov/CCIIO/Resources/Regulations-and-Guidance/Downloads/transition-to-compliant-policies-03-06-2015.pdf) permitting groups with 51-100 employees to retain their existing large group coverage for an additional plan year after January 1, 2016?

A. No. Allowing groups with 51-100 employees to choose whether or not to enter the small group market could allow for adverse selection, which would have a negative impact on small group premiums.  Therefore, all non-grandfathered groups with 1-100 employees renewing on or after January 1, 2016 must be issued small group coverage.

Q-4. Do the guaranteed renewability provisions of the ACA allow an employer to keep its current coverage if it is reclassified as a different size group?

A. No. Pursuant to 45 C.F.R. 147.106(h), guaranteed renewability rights do not allow a group to continue its existing coverage if it would not otherwise be permitted to enroll in such coverage per federal law.  Consequently, any group experiencing a reclassification as a large or small group on renewal is required to be issued coverage appropriate for that size group.

Q-5. Should groups with 51-100 employees which are covered under a large group policy in 2015 be issued small group policies on their renewal date occurring on or after January 1, 2016?

A. Yes. Pursuant to Insurance Law §§ 3231(a)(1) and 4317(a)(1) all groups with 1-100 employees renewing on or after January 1, 2016 must be issued small group coverage. This includes 2015 calendar year policies.

An insurer is required to provide the group policyholder with at least 30 days prior written notice of nonrenewal of the large group policy due to the group ceasing to meet the requirements for a large group.  If a longer notification period is provided for in the group policy, an insurer must provide notification within the contractual time frame.  However, in all cases, insurers are encouraged to provide at least 45 days prior written notice.  See Insurance Law §§ 3221(p)(2)(E) and 4305(j)(2)(E); 11 NYCRR 52.18(c)(1).

An insurer is not required to send notification of proposed rate adjustments to a group not currently covered under a policy that is subject to the rate adjustment notification requirements of Insurance Law §§ 3231(e)(1) and 4308(c).

If an insurer writes coverage in the small group market, it must offer the 51-100 group policyholder the option to purchase all other comprehensive hospital/medical coverage currently being offered by the insurer in the small group market. In addition to offering all of its available coverages, an insurer may opt to designate or automatically assign a default replacement policy that is the most similar to the group’s existing large group coverage. Groups must be provided with the option to opt-out of the designated replacement policy and choose another policy.

If an insurer does not write coverage in the small group market, it does not have an obligation to replace the terminated large group policy with a small group policy. In such case, the notice of nonrenewal should:

  1. advise the group policyholder of its options to purchase small group coverage through the New York State of Health’s Small Business Marketplace (“the Marketplace”) or directly from another health insurer or through a broker; and
  2. may also designate or automatically assign a default replacement policy offered by an affiliate of the insurer that is the most similar to the group’s existing large group coverage.  Groups must be provided with the option to opt-out of the designated replacement policy and choose another policy.

Who is an employee?

Q-6. Who is an “employee” eligible for coverage under an employer group policy or contract?

A. Pursuant to the ACA, New York adopted the federal definition of employee in Insurance Law § 4235(d). Common law employees who are “employees” as defined in 42 U.S.C. 300gg-91(d)(5) are eligible for coverage.

Q-7.  Who is a common law employee?

A. Generally, anyone who performs services for an employer is an employee if the employer can control what will be done and how it will be done. The common law test to determine control would look at behavioral control, financial control and the type of relationship between the parties. An “employee” does not include the sole owner of a business or a spouse of the business owner.  More information on determining who is a “common law” employee is available at on the IRS website at http://www.irs.gov/Businesses/Small-Businesses-&-Self-Employed/Employee-Common-Law-Employee andhttp://www.irs.gov/Businesses/Small-Businesses-&-Self-Employed/Independent-Contractor-Self-Employed-or-Employee.

Q-8. Are 1099 workers (i.e. independent contractors) considered employees eligible to be covered under an employer’s group policy or contract?

A. All individuals who are “employees” as defined in 42 U.S.C. 300gg-91(d)(5) may be covered by a group policy or contract. Insurers may not prohibit a “1099 Employee” from being treated as an employee eligible for coverage. U.S. Department of Labor regulations and the Internal Revenue Code apply a common law definition of employee based on a case-by-case factual analysis. Department of Financial Services Office of General Counsel opinions on coverage for independent contractors are available at http://www.dfs.ny.gov/insurance/ogco2005/rg051117.htm andhttp://www.dfs.ny.gov/insurance/ogco2008/rg081001.htm.

Q-9. Are leased employees eligible to be covered under an employer’s group policy or contract?

A. Whether a leased employee is eligible for coverage should be made on a case-by-case basis. If the leased employees are “employees” of the lessee as defined in 42 U.S.C. 300gg-91(d)(5), then they will be considered employees of the lessee.

Q-10. Will individuals who were previously covered under an employer group policy be permitted to stay on that policy if they are not considered “employees” of the policyholder?

A. Individuals who were previously covered under a group policy but are not considered a common law employee are not eligible to be covered on the group policy when such policy is renewed on or after January 1, 2016, except for COBRA participants, retirees and owners.  These individuals may be eligible for conversion coverage pursuant to the terms of their policy.

Q-11. Do employees need to be United States citizens to be eligible for coverage?

A. No. All employees who are “common law” employees as defined in 42 U.S.C. 300gg-91(d)(5) are eligible for coverage regardless of whether they are U.S. citizens.

Group Size Determinations/Counting Methodology

In determining group size an insurer shall ask and may rely upon the information provided by employers, including appropriate tax documentation.

Q-12.  How should employees be counted when determining group size?

A. The “full-time equivalent” (FTE) employee counting method in 26 U.S.C. 4980H(c)(2) must be utilized to determine group size.  This method is the same calculation used to determine employer liability under the “Shared Responsibility for Employers” provisions of the ACA and Internal Revenue Code.

Q-13. How should part-time employees be counted when determining group size?

A. When determining the employer’s group size, part-time employees should be counted using the FTE counting method in 26 U.S.C. 4980H(c)(2).

Q-14.   Should part-time employees of an employer be counted towards group size if they are not being offered coverage by the employer?

A. Yes.  Part-time employees are counted using the FTE counting method in 26 U.S.C. 4980H(c)(2).

Q-15.   What period of time is considered when determining group size?

A.  Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 18024(b), group size is determined based on the average number of employees employed by the employer on business days during the preceding calendar year.

Q-16.   How should group size be determined for an employer group that was not in existence in the previous calendar year?

A.  Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 18024(b)(4)(B), the calculation of group size is based on the “average number of employees the employer is reasonably expected to employ on business days in the current calendar year.”

Q-17. Do fluctuations in the number of employees during a group’s plan year change what market the group is in?

A.  No. Mid-year fluctuations in the number of employees do not affect a determination of group size.   Pursuant to 11 NYCRR 360.4(j), group size is only determined on issuance and at the time of renewal.

Q-18. Are retirees included when determining group size?

A.  Generally, retirees are not “employees” under 42 U.S.C. 300gg-91(d)(5) and thus not counted in the group size.   However, exceptions should be considered on a case-by-case basis under 42 U.S.C. 300gg-91(d)(5).

Q-19. Are individuals enrolled in COBRA included when determining group size?

A.  Generally, individuals enrolled in COBRA are not “employees” under 42 U.S.C. 300gg-91(d)(5) and thus not counted in group size.  However, exceptions should be considered on a case-by-case basis under 42 U.S.C. 300gg-91(d)(5).

Q-20. Are employees who are receiving coverage through another source (e.g. spousal coverage, VA coverage) included when determining group size?

A.  Yes. Regardless of whether an employee has coverage through another source, an employee as defined in 42 U.S.C. 300gg-91(d)(5) will be included when determining group size.

Q-21. When an employer designates different classes of employees for purposes of health insurance coverage as permitted by the Insurance Law, are all classes combined for purposes of counting employees?

A.  Yes.  For example, union employees are counted together with other employees in determining group size.

Q-22. If two or more corporations are under common control, are the employees of each corporation counted separately or combined?

A.  All entities treated as a single employer under 26 U.S.C. §414(b) are treated as one employer and all employees are counted together to determine group size.

Q-23. When companies merge, combine, and/or consolidate into a single company, how is group size calculated?

A. Group size determinations must be made on a case-by-case basis. The facts of each case should be reviewed to make a reasonable determination of group size.

Group Eligibility

Q-24.   How many common law employees must be enrolled for coverage to be considered group coverage?

A. For a group health plan to be considered a “group health plan” under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), there must be at least one common law employee enrolled.  Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. 2510.2-3(b), an “employee benefit plan” does not exist if no “employees” are covered by the plan. Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. 2510.3-1 and 29 C.F.R. 2590.732(d) an “employee” does not include the sole owner of a business or a spouse of the business owner.

Q-25.   Will groups with 51-100 employees be permitted to purchase stop-loss insurance?

A. Insurance Law §§ 3231(h) and 4317(e) prohibit the sale of stop-loss insurance to any group subject to community rating.  These sections are extended to groups with 51-100 employees beginning on issuance or renewal on or after January 1, 2016.

2016 Actuarial Value (AV) Calculator

Q-26.   How are changes in coverage necessitated due to the change in the 2016 AV calculator treated?

A. Some insurers are planning to discontinue policies that are no longer AV compliant for the existing metal tier while others plan to make cost sharing changes to keep the policy within the existing metal tier. For insurers opting to discontinue non-AV compliant policies, discontinuance notices need to be issued. Changes to keep a policy at an existing metal tier that are due solely to the mandatory application of the 2016 AV calculator will be treated as a uniform modification. Renewal notices should explain the cost sharing changes necessitated due to the application of the AV calculator and advise that plans with lower cost sharing options are also available.

Jeffrey R. Ungvary President

Jeffrey R. Ungvary

Wellness Programs at Work Clarified

Federal regulators Thursday proposed limits on how employers use financial penalties and rewards to nudge staff to participate in fast-growing workplace wellness programs.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission — which enforces laws against discrimination — said Thursday that employers can use financial incentives up to 30 percent of the cost of premiums for single coverage, provided certain other safeguards are met.

Business groups and advocates for people with disabilities are closely watching the issue. Workplace programs that encourage workers to lose weight, quit smoking, get active and better manage stress are spreading throughout American businesses. Employers look for ways to cut costs associated with chronic illnesses, which are often tied to lifestyle.

The 30-percent standard was set in President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul law.

For example, if the total premium paid by the employer and employee for single coverage is $5,000, rewards or penalties for participating in a wellness program under that plan cannot exceed $1,500.

After the health care overhaul passed in 2010, questions arose about potential conflicts with the Americans with Disabilities Act, or ADA, which dates back to 1990 and protects people with chronic conditions against workplace discrimination. That law says wellness programs have to be voluntary.

The employment commission is trying to balance how the two laws can work together.

The proposed regulation says that wellness programs are permitted under the ADA, but employers cannot use them to discriminate based on a worker’s disability. Many wellness programs require employees to complete a health risk assessment questionnaire, and talk the results over with a counselor. Some require employees to take specific actions, such as losing weight or getting blood pressure down to recommended levels.

To read more, click here.

Jeffrey R. Ungvary President

Jeffrey R. Ungvary

Cost Effectiveness a Taboo Conversation

If I had a pill that would extend your life by one day, but it cost a billion dollars, it’s unlikely that many people would argue that health insurance should pay for it. We all understand that while the benefit might be real and quantifiable, it’s not worth the expense. But what if the pill cost a million dollars? And what if it extended your life by 10 years?

Such discussions are about cost effectiveness. For the most part, we’re avoiding them when we talk about health care in the United States.

Some think that discussing cost effectiveness puts us on the slippery slope to rationing, or even “death panels.” After all, if we decide that the billion-dollar-for-a-day-of-life pill isn’t worth it, then what’s to stop us from deciding that spending a couple hundred thousand dollars to extend grandma’s life for a year isn’t worth it either?

In fact, we in the United States are so averse to the idea of cost effectiveness that when the Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute, the body specifically set up to do comparative effectiveness research, was founded, the law explicitly prohibited it from funding any cost-effectiveness research at all. As it says on its website, “We don’t consider cost effectiveness to be an outcome of direct importance to patients.”

As a physician, a health services researcher and a patient, I have to disagree. I think understanding how much bang for the buck I, my patients and the public are getting from our health care spending is of great importance.

Research in this area can be difficult to perform. One of the reasons is that it’s not always easy to measure health outcomes. Some things, like death, can be relatively easy to define, but how do you quantify having diabetes, asthma or a seizure disorder?

To read more, click here.

Jeffrey R. Ungvary President

Jeffrey R. Ungvary


Increasing Transparency Rules Provide Consumers Informed Choices

Consumer advocates are cheering the Obama administration’s plans to strengthen transparency rules (PDF) for provider networks and drug formularies so that insurance exchange customers will be able to make informed choices.

“There are a lot of good things in here that are increasing transparency and adding to access for people with chronic conditions,” Eric Gascho, assistant vice president of government affairs with the National Health Council, said of the draft regulations issued Friday for enrollment in marketplace plans for 2016 and beyond.

Katherine Hempstead, who directs coverage activities for the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, said it appears that the “CMS really took to heart a lot of things that people were saying.”

Still, the proposal is not without controversy. Plans to scrap the administration’s current policy of automatic re-enrollments and to stick with a fall sign-up season have received less enthusiastic responses.

The CMS said it planned to change the rules that health plans must follow to establish that their drug formularies provide adequate access to pharmaceuticals. The agency wants to require insurers to establish “pharmacy and therapeutics” committees that would meet at least four times a year to review drug formularies. More than half of the panel would have to be made up of healthcare professionals and at least 20% would need to be free of any financial conflicts with insurers or pharmaceutical companies.

“This is a really major improvement,” said Carl Schmid, deputy executive director of the AIDS Institute, which has filed a complaint with the CMS charging that some exchange plans sold in Florida discriminate against customers with HIV. “The only bad thing is that that they’re not proposing it until 2017.”

To read more, click here.

Jeffrey R. Ungvary President

Jeffrey R. Ungvary


Commuters May Receive The Same Tax Breaks as Drivers

Mass transit commuters should get the same tax break as people who drive to work, Sen. Charles Schumer said Tuesday.

The New York Democrat said he has high hopes for a measure that would allow bus, subway and commuter rail riders to deduct up to $250 a month from their taxable income next year.

Currently, the figure is $130. Before this year it had been as high as $245, Mr. Schumer said, matching the amount drivers are permitted to deduct from income for parking expenses.

But the figure for mass transit commuters was reduced for 2014, although the drivers’ break was extended. The tax breaks are available if employers participate in eligible programs.
Mr. Schumer’s bill “would restore parity between commuters and drivers,” the senator said at a White Plains news conference.

He predicted it would also be “a huge shot in the arm for the local economy.” He said it would also help the environment and even benefit drivers by reducing traffic.

To read more, click here.

Jeffrey R. Ungvary President

Jeffrey R. Ungvary

High Number of Young Adults Signing Up For Health Insurance

The Affordable Care Act’s supporters and detractors have consistently agreed on one thing: the success or failure of the law hinges on the whether young adults, who tend to be healthier and less expensive to insure, enroll. New data released last week shows that more young people are getting health coverage, and in stunning numbers.

New U.S. Census data released last week shows that the number, and rate of young adults, who lack health insurance has fallen significantly since the Affordable Care Act became law in March 2010. An estimated 3.9 million more 18 to 34 year-olds were insured in 2013 than in 2009.

During that same time period, the rate of uninsured young adults has fallen, too, from 28.1 percent in 2009 to 25.2 percent in 2013. In just one year, — between 2012 and 2013 — the number of uninsured 18 to 34 year-olds dropped by over 367,000 people.

The new estimates don’t even include over a million young adults who signed up for health plans on their state’s Health Insurance Marketplace during Open Enrollment. That’s because the Census finished collecting this set of data at the end of 2013.

Open Enrollment started on October 1, 2013, but the vast majority of young adults — 1.7 million of the 2.2 million — signed up on state health exchanges after January 1, 2014. That’s 78 percent of enrollments that we won’t be able to account for until 2014 data gets released next fall.

While we will have to wait for further data to show the Marketplace system’s impact on youth insurance rates, the ACA implemented scores of systemic reforms to our health system that could account for more young adults getting covered. Systemic reforms that were in full effect, include: the provision allowing young adults to stay on a parent’s health plan until the age of 26, small business tax credits that provide health insurance to small business workers, new coverage options for people with pre-existing conditions, and the elimination of lifetime limits on coverage.

To read more, click here.

Jeffrey R. Ungvary President

Jeffrey R. Ungvary

The IRS Issues Group Insurance Compliance Form Draft

The Internal Revenue Service has issued draft versions of the reporting forms most employers will begin using next year to show that their group health insurance plans comply with the health care reform law.

The long-awaited draft forms, posted late Thursday afternoon to the IRS’ website, are the first practical application of employers’ health care coverage and enrollment reporting obligations under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act since the regulations were finalized in March.

The forms are the primary mechanism through which the government intends to enforce the health care reform law’s minimum essential coverage and shared responsibility requirements for employers.

Beginning in 2015, employers with at least 100 full-time employees will be required to certify that benefits-eligible employees and their dependents have been offered minimum essential coverage and that their employees’ contributions to their premiums comply with cost-sharing limits established under the reform law. Smaller employers with 50-99 full-time employees are required to begin reporting in 2016.

Additionally, self-insured employers will be required to submit documentation to ensure compliance with minimum essential coverage requirements under the reform law’s individual coverage mandate.

“In accordance with the IRS’ normal process, these draft forms are being provided to help stakeholders, including employers, tax professionals and software providers, prepare for these new reporting provisions and to invite comments from them,” the IRS said in a statement released Thursday.

The IRS said it expects to publish draft instructions for completing the reporting forms by late August and that both the forms and the instructions would be finalized later this year.

Last year, the Obama administration announced it would postpone implementation of employers’ minimum essential coverage and shared responsibility obligations under the reform law for one year, largely due to widespread complaints about the complexity of the reporting requirements.

Though several months have passed since the administration issued a simplified set of information reporting rules, many employers have delayed preparations for meeting the requirements until the forms and instructions are available for review, said Richard Stover, a principal with Buck Consultants at Xerox in Secaucus, New Jersey.

“A lot of employers really haven’t been doing anything about reporting requirements, even with the final regulations in place, because they were waiting for these forms,” Mr. Stover said. “This is something they’ve been anxious to see.”

Here’s the sample draft.

Jeffrey R. Ungvary President

Jeffrey R. Ungvary

HSAs Popular Among Employers

Health savings accounts are gaining in popularity with small to mid-size employers at the same time the appeal of health reimbursement accounts is waning.

A recent United Benefit Advisors survey finds HSAs are outpacing HRAs in both adoption and participation rates. The number of employers offering HSAs increased from 14.7% to 15.1% in 2013, and employee participation in these plans rose from 7.1% to 8.8% in the same period. By contrast, the percentage of U.S. employers offering plans with HRAs in 2013 was only 8.6% and employee participation in these plans dropped from 8.8% in 2012 to 8.6% in 2013.

Now that metal tier plans under the Affordable Care Act are allowed higher deductibles, employers are increasingly looking at HSA-qualified plans for their upcoming plan year, UBA says. Benefit advisers are already fielding questions from employers about what HSA funding levels will keep their plan competitive, whether to consider a consumer-driven health plan wrapped with a partially or fully funded HSA account, and whether an employer should consider partially self-funding a plan to lower premiums and deductibles, UBA says.

The ACA originally capped deductibles at $2,000 for individuals and $4,000 for families, forcing employers to buy plans with lower deductibles, explains Elizabeth Kay, compliance and retention analyst for the San Mateo-based benefit adviser group AEIS, a UBA partner firm.

“As a result, we saw premiums go up dramatically in 2014 — for some as much as 250% to 400%,” she says.

In 2014, as part of the Protecting Access to Medicare Act, ACA legislation was amended to allow metal tier plans [e.g., platinum, gold, silver, etc.] to have higher deductibles.

“I think carriers will be more creative with their plan designs next year, and we may see a comeback of higher deductible and HSA qualified plans,” Kay adds.

HSAs have “proven themselves to be better at driving consumer behavior and cost containment while maintaining compliance with the maximum allowable out-of-pocket costs under the ACA of $6,350 for individual and $12,700 for family coverage,” UBA says in its report.

The survey finds that on average, funding levels for plans with HSAs have remained constant for individuals at approximately $574 for both 2012 and 2013, while average funding for families increased from $928 in 2012 to $958 in 2013

By contrast, funding levels of plans with HRAs increased significantly for individuals from $1,605 in 2012 to $1,766 in 2013, and for families from $3,075 in 2012 to $3,506 in 2013.

To read more, click here.

Jeffrey R. Ungvary President

Jeffrey R. Ungvary

Wide Gaps in Healthcare Prices

A patient insured through an employer in Dallas might pay as little as $15 or as much as $343 for a cholesterol test, and a patient in Philadelphia could pay anywhere between $264 and $3,271 for a head CT scan, according to a new cost-comparison map from Castlight Health.

The company, which sells price transparency products and services to large employers, compared prices of four common outpatient services in more than 62 metropolitan areas of the U.S. and found tremendous variation in what patients pay, even when they are insured through their job.

Consumers often assume that by choosing an in-network plan, they are getting a better price or value, said Dr. Jennifer Schneider, president of strategic analytics for Castlight, who notes that 48% of Americans are covered by employer-sponsored insurance. The new findings highlight that more transparency on costs is needed to prevent employees, especially those in high-deductible plans, from feeling sticker shock.

“There’s no way today for someone to know what things will cost if they simply follow the rules and go in-network,” Schneider said. “It’s like letting someone shop on your credit card without any sort of limit.”

Castlight gathered medical claims data from self-insured employers, as well as rate sheets from providers, to create the city-by-city tool showing prices for four common procedures: a cholesterol test, head CT scan, an MRI of the lower back, and a visit to a primary-care doctor.

Among the most notable variations revealed were in Dallas, where the top price paid to providers of a cholesterol test was about 23 times as much as the lowest price, and in Philadelphia, where the highest cost for CT scans was more than 12 times as much as the lowest. In New York City, the lowest price for an MRI of the lower back was $416, while the highest (nearly 11 times as much higher) was $4,527. In Charlotte, N.C., a patient might pay as little as $60 or up to $241, a 300% increase, to visit a primary-care physician.

“Healthcare is a line item that just keeps increasing,” noted Schneider, who says employers need to negotiate better to help drive down the costs. Just as chief financial officers often know how much they spend on travel or marketing and can set spending parameters, she said, the same needs to happen for healthcare. The tool, she said, is meant to help drive those negotiations.

“Understanding healthcare costs is a first step in enabling employers to fix what is broken in enterprise healthcare,” Schneider said.

To read more, click here.

Jeffrey R. Ungvary


Jeffrey R. Ungvary