Banco Popular de Puerto Rico

Companies have consistently rejected the idea of terminating their health plans and sending employees to buy their own coverage, but attitudes may be shifting.

Increased engagement coupled with changing needs and an easier path to legal action put the onus on plan sponsors to ensure they can defend their strategy and investment choices.

Last week’s executive order may unleash a chaotic landscape where employers, employees and advisers don’t understand the new rules.

Given the uncertainty surrounding the individual market, intermittent workers will increasingly look to their place of employment for quality, payroll-deducted group benefits.

Recent regulations require companies to be similar in nature in order to participate, but when done right the advantages can be plentiful.

The company is working with employers to combat rising healthcare costs while developing better treatments.

Many human resource execs underestimate the potential ROI and the difference between vendors, but Nucleus Research’s Brent Skinner says the missteps are avoidable.

From cost and compliance worries to doubt in employee interest levels, these companies often incorrectly assume 401(k) plans are not for them, but advisers can clear up these misconceptions.

The changing dynamics of carrier competition, the effect of insurance M&A on the market and influence on prescription drug availability are all ways employer-based healthcare may be impacted.

Benefits professionals can educate workers about the value of another reference with on-site information sessions, communications through newsletters and printed handouts.