Employee benefits

Commentary: Having quality data is great for comparing health plan, facility and treatment performance, but it unfortunately hasn’t led to predictable costs.

Organizations don’t necessarily focus on building engagement tools for team leaders, said consultant Marcus Buckingham during this week's SHRM conference, and, as a result, these tools are being developed for the wrong audience.

Commentary: Questions plan sponsors should be asking of their insurance carrier, payroll vendor and benefits technology provider in advance of the ACA’s information reporting requirements.

The DOL’s proposed definition of fiduciary advice remains worrisomely broad, according to financial and legal experts who are calling upon the industry to flood the DOL with letters of concern about the rule’s possible implications.

Plan sponsors’ loyalty to their retirement service providers is slightly down year-over-year, presenting an opportunity for advisers to advocate for their clients.

Known as Explanation No 9, the document is to be used in conjunction with Form 8387, Worksheet 9 – Determination of Qualification and Form 8399, Deficiency Checksheet 9.

Although the Supreme Court upheld subsidies on the exchanges, there remain key aspects of the ACA that broker and employer lobbyist organizations continue to seek to amend and/or repeal.

Student loan debt and jobs that don’t offer 401(k) plans put added pressure on retirement savings for millennial workers.

Commentary: The Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 allows quality measurement organizations to develop quality measures using Medicare data and share it with employers and insurers for the purposes of designing their health plans.

OneAmerica announces plans to buy BMO Financial Group’s Milwaukee-based U.S. retirement services business.

Friday’s landmark ruling on gay marriage poses both challenges and benefits to employers.

The landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision being cheered as a step toward equality is also poised to carry unintended consequences, including some that could make life harder for employees, gay and straight alike.

Women more likely than men to take advantage of workplace financial wellness programs, yet still experience more financial stress than men.

Commentary: With the Supreme Court decision behind us, there are a series of critical concerns employers and their advisers must focus on now.

Commentary: The next case to watch, launched by Speaker John Boehner last November, could once again put public exchange assistance in jeopardy.

The Supreme Court’s ruling in King v. Burwell that subsides on the federally-facilitated marketplace can continue may present an opportunity for struggling state-based marketplaces to switch to Healthcare.gov, as other challenges remain for exchanges nationwide.

Eliminating subsidies ‘would destabilize the individual insurance market in any state with a federal exchange,’ Chief Roberts says.

Today, in a 6-3 decision written by Chief Justice Roberts, the Supreme Court ruled in King v. Burwell that subsidies used to purchase health insurance in the 36 states on the federally facilitated marketplace are legal, thus avoiding the “death spiral” so often referred to by Congress. What does this ruling mean for employers?

The time of “what-ifs” for employers ended Thursday as the U.S. Supreme Court issued its ruling upholding the challenge to state subsidies in King v. Burwell, and employers should maintain business as usual going forward, according to most industry observers.

A 6-3 decision in favor of the HHS secretary in King v. Burwell means tax credits can continue to be used to purchase health coverage in states using the federal exchange.