Denis Storey, Editor, Benefits Selling
Media bias or voter envy?
DENVER — It's hard not to get swept up by the convention here in Denver. As a student of politics, it's almost intoxicating.
In college, my passion for politics very nearly stole me away from my first love: the pen. In fact, for nearly four semesters, I seriously flirted with the idea of pursuing a career as a speechwriter. Peggy Noonan's musings about her years with Reagan and Bush were junk food for this diabetic political kid lost in the candy store.
But one disappointment after another steered me away from stormy partisan waters into the calm seas of journalism (relatively speaking, of course).
There are two schools of thought when it comes to journalists and the democratic process. And the middle ground between them is as elusive as a straight answer. I had a professor in college who preached to me emphatically about the responsibility reporters (and editors) have to step up to the voting booth. He argued that with more information than the average voter, we had a duty to act on that and cast our ballot.
Later, near the start of my career, a grizzled old editor barked at me that under no circumstances should a journalist ever pull that curtain behind them. Objectivity remained sacrosanct, he preached, and something as simple as pulling that lever stained it beyond repair.
Nearly two decades later, this aging Gen X journalist still struggles with this manufactured moral dilemma. I've spent more than a few sleepless nights wondering what I'm going to do in November. But every morning, I wake up with the ghosts of history whispering in my ear, reminding me men and women from both sides of the aisle have fought and died for my right to cast a ballot.
I'm told it's why we're still in Iraq. So why am I still on the outside?
Retiring 401(k)s?
It’s an offer you can’t refuse.
Employer-matched 401(k) plans really are the closest thing to a sure thing since Jenna Jameson retired. As the people over in HR are always saying, it’s free money.
But the grumblings have begun in the back rooms about bringing these employer handouts to an end. Seems a cabal of pencilnecks over at some think tank have decided that money would be better spent on other things. They claim it would serve employees better if it were used to pay down 401(k) plan fees, lower health costs or on different benefits entirely.
They’ve also suggested using that money to help people not saving for retirement at all — which one would think would grow if matching contributions were to end.
It doesn’t sound like the number crunchers will get much traction with this, anyway. According to Hewitt Associates, 70 percent of companies said they don’t plan any changes. Another 12 percent plan on addition or contribution boosts.
All of these numbers inspired me to look into this whole thing myself.
I walked around the office yesterday (I do that a lot) and conducted a little informal poll (I do that a lot, too). See, not too long ago, this growing media conglomerate bought our division from a small, private family company. We went from a 1980s-era non-matching plan to a healthy, 21st century matching one, rich with diverse investment options. Enrollment — which also became automatic — skyrocketed, at least according to my informal survey results. But that could be skewed since I skipped the mailroom guy.
A celebration of mediocrity
Spent a little time perusing the morning headlines while killing time at the Jeep dealership, and from what I can tell, there's good news and there's bad news.
The bad news is health care costs are estimated to jump 10.6 percent heading into next year.
The good news is health care costs are predicted to climb only 10.6 percent heading into next year.
Sounds a little kooky, huh? Well, it seems that the increase in health care costs still manages to outpace inflation by a two-to-one margin. Although, given the credit market collapse and the runaway energy train, that might not last long.
And yet, that 10 percent tick also represents the smallest jump in something like six years. The consultants — who always seem to talk more than they actually do — say that it means those wellness and disease management programs are catching on, reducing costs.
Better yet, those same sage consultants are quick to add that the actual employer-employee costs will hover three or four points lower, inciting further cause for celebration.
Although, I have to admit, it feels an awful lot like celebrating yesterday's $50 trip to the gas pump because last week that pimply teenager behind the counter took three twenties from me.
Not-so-happy meals
Listen, I'll be the first to admit I just don't get kids these days. And, no, I never thought I'd say that. In fact, my own kids are often the biggest mystery of all. And I'd like to think I know them better than any of the others.
So I can kind of see a little logic behind the latest Center for Science in the Public Interest study that picks apart fast food meals like my daughter at the dinner table.
According the group's data, 90 percent of kids' meals at fast food chains are brimming with more calories than they need — along with extra helpings of fat and salt. Yum. (I bet even the toys have more lead than they need, too.)
Seems the group looked at meals from 13 of the most popular restaurant chains in the country.
Perhaps most jarring, the wee ones frequently get more than two meals' worth of energy in a single visit to a Chili's restaurant.
"Chili's has 700 possible kids' meal combinations, but 658, or 94 percent, of those are too high in calories, including one comprised of country-fried chicken crispers, cinnamon apples and chocolate milk (1,020 calories) and another comprised of cheese pizza, home-style fries and lemonade (1,000 calories)," the group said in a released statement.
Ouch. I sympathize with the cause; I do. And I've written about it more times than my publisher cares to count. But did we really need another study telling us restaurant food isn't good for kids? Honestly? It's like spending thousands of dollars on a survey to spell out professional athlete infidelity rates.
I could have saved them the cash and wrote this column yesterday.
Happy paper trails
LAS VEGAS — File this one in the “if it makes sense, don’t count on the feds to get it” file.
Just last week, the Department of Labor threw out a couple of new rule ideas that would at least part the shrouded veil draped over 401(k) fees. But they can’t even get that right.
The proposed rules — set to kick in Jan. 1 — complicate what should be a pretty simple fix. See, the feds want the different fees disclosed in separate documents, at different intervals and in completely different ways. Yeah, I know. We need more paperwork, right?
So, one statement would offer a breakdown in actual dollars, and the other would come across as a percent of one’s assets. And one would arrive quarterly, while the other would be an annual affair.
So, the feds want employees everywhere — who can barely manage to figure out how these things work in the first place — to sit down with their solar calculator, separate statements and a nibbled No. 2 pencil to do the math on just how much they’re forking over to nurture their nest egg?
Yeah, that’s gonna be a hit. While it should be great business for CPAs and paper mills everywhere, I just don’t see how this will make anything easier for the average Joe employee. But then again, why should the government start caring about that now?
Trim the fat, not the fringe
Over the course of any given month, I hear any number of solutions to the so-called health care crisis. And they run all the way up and down the spectrum, from “feds should pay for everything” nonsense to the equally unrealistic “let’s do away with it altogether.”
Today I stumbled across something a little more down to earth.
In their latest book, authors Tom Gilliam and Jane Neill argue that — rather than cut benefits — employers should spend more on their workers, in the form of a formal weight loss program.
Granted, Gilliam and Neill are pushing their own product here, but it makes some real sense. As the authors contend, obesity remains the root cause of more health problems than nearly anything else.
And it’s hard to argue with the numbers themselves. Among other things, obese employees drive up medical costs, get hurt at work more often, miss work more frequently and are actually less productive when they are at their desks.
Hmm … who knew? And you thought that batch of smokers out front was annoying.
A light in the dark
I know, I know, as Phil Gramm told us last week, it’s all mental, but the headline in this morning’s business section glared at me from the newspaper in my hands — not one of the voices in my head.
“Inflation up 9 percent over last year,” it announced. Ouch. And that’s just the latest in an ongoing string of bad news. (And here I thought it was tough being a Nuggets fan.)
So pardon my (pleasant) surprise to see a glint of silver lining this morning by the time I dove into the second pot of coffee.
“Employers hold steady on benefits,” it declared, about the findings from Families and Work Institute’s 10th annual National Study of Employers. It was a nice counterpoint to the earlier story, which included platitudes from the Fed Chairman, quotes from posturing senators about the fate of Fannie Mae and protests from a president who wasn’t allowed to cut back Medicare payments.
"The Families and Work Institute confirms that in the face of economic volatility, companies have generally held steady or reduced benefits that carry hard costs," said Ellen Galinsky, the group’s president and founder. “Yet in certain areas, including domestic partner benefits and access to information on support service, we are seeing an expansion of benefits. We find it particularly interesting that having an employee base composed of a greater percentage of women, or the presence of women and minorities in senior positions, is correlated with a more flexible workplace."
I haven’t felt such hope since I cashed that stimulus check. Let’s hope this buzz lasts longer.
Time for the messenger to shoot back
It's easy to curse Big Oil every time you stop at the pump. Or George Bush. Or the Saudis. I know I can't fill up my Jeep without getting a little bit angry.
But how fair is that? I mean, honestly, is anything ever that simple?
When employees hear about the new year's premium increase or higher co-pay, who do they blame? The "greedy" carriers? The "cheapskate" employer? Those "blood-sucking" trial lawyers?
And how easy do you make it for them to do that? As the messenger, maybe it would make your job a little easier just to level with them. Or least give them more facts than they get from the evening news or some of those half-baked Web sites out there.
Just one example: The caregivers themselves — both doctors and hospitals — continue to bear the burden of rising costs. Congress is still debating Medicare and Medicaid payments, with reimbursement cuts looming.
Do a little research of your own before enrollment. Make sure you're able to provide "the rest of the story." Otherwise, you have no one else to blame. If you let the media and the pundits have all the airtime, can you really blame the employees for their assumptions?
Through the looking glass
So, in this business at least, transparency remains a cracked one-way glass.
I’m sure you’ve heard about this one. The U.S. Attorney out of San Diego managed to squeeze $5.5 million worth of fines and penalties out of Unum Group earlier this week. The federal prosecutor took issue with the company’s unreported “special fees” it paid to a San Diego broker, which of course runs afoul of ERISA.
It’s worth noting that Unum voluntarily reported this arrangement and cooperated fully with the feds.
“Insurance commission and fee disclosure is designed to promote transparency. Efforts to conceal payment of those fees will not be tolerated,” Hewitt declared self-righteously in her office’s own press release.
Now, if only we could extend that Saran Wrap of transparency across the industry as a whole. It’s all fine and noble that the feds are able to coerce brokers and carriers into opening their books, but when do the health care providers themselves get to join the party? It’s hardly an equitable arrangement — even by Washington standards — when the one of the three major players in the system is exempt from full disclosure.
Guess it helps to have better lobbyists.
You have to pay to play
People never cease to amaze me. Even after the daily headlines and a little bit of pulpit punching, rising health care costs still manage to shock and awe. Seriously, in this age of 24-hour news and chronic Web consumption, how is that even possible? It’s like someone pulling up to the gas pump and exploding over the $4 a gallon price tag.
And yet it is. Just this morning, employees here flocked to the conference room to hear about the changes to this year’s plan. And as the sarcasm sank into hostility, I couldn’t figure out whether my co-workers honestly had no idea about health care in this country or whether they thought they were buying a car. As if complaining about the price might get the rep to lower the co-pay just to seal the deal.
Which reminds me of the old insurance analogy. No one is surprised when they get in a car accident and their premiums go up. There’s no picketing or riots in the streets. And even though it’s the same thing — namely, insurance — lock the doors and hide your daughters if you head to the emergency room a couple of times and your co-pays get bumped up.
On a side note, for the first time this year, our broker sat out the renewal at our office this year (and, honestly, who could blame him). Instead, he brought along a carrier rep to throw to the wolves. She started off strong, but stumbled toward the finish, And it even the most disgruntled of our employees could tell she cut her presentation short, wrapping things up less than 15 minutes into the heckling. Maybe our broker should bring Michael Richards next year.
Most Popular |