Will COVID-19 Cause PTO Plans to Become Extinct?

The leave landscape has changed this year, yes, but our answer to this question, in a word, is no.

PTO plans have grown in popularity over the past 20 years with an estimated 50% of employers now offering this type of model compared to the traditional time off models that create separate banks of time based on reason (i.e. sick time, vacation time, etc.). The high adoption of PTO plans has been driven by the flexibility they provide to employees while lowering the administrative burden and decreasing unscheduled absences for employers.

With all the benefits of PTO, there is an inherent risk that employees won’t use their PTO time for illness, and instead will save it for vacation time. Before COVID-19 this was a small price to pay for most employers; however, this is no longer the case with so many companies leveraging its use. This potential risk, while critical to consider, should not cause significant concern for employers as there are ways to minimize it without sunsetting your PTO plan.

In this new landscape it is important for all employers – regardless of their PTO adoption – to hit the pause button to ensure their current time off offering remains optimal for their employee population, business model, COVID-19 response plan and strategic direction.

To determine if a PTO plan is still the right approach for your organization, consider the following:

  1. Utilization
    Although your time off data should not be the only thing you consider, it is a good starting point to understand how much time is used, by whom and when. Tracking utilization can help you to recognize absence patterns and discover where deficiencies exist. It can also help to identify areas of your organization that may not be accurately tracking time.
  2. Holistic Absence View
    For most employers, PTO is just one piece of their absence plan. Therefore, it is important to evaluate absence holistically. Plans like salary continuation, short term disability, quarantine leave, etc. are also pieces of the puzzle that must be part of the discussion. Thinking about both plan design and process for all absence plans becomes critical.
  3. Alternative Work Options
    Working from home decreases the likelihood that employees with mild illnesses will “go to work”. This flexibility is important for organizations with aggressive paid time off plans who do not have other paid time available for quarantining if COVID-19 is suspected. Not all organization have this level of flexibility; the key is to ensure care is taken to manage transmission of the virus at work to other employees and/or customers.
  4. Corporate Culture
    Regardless of written policies, corporate culture often dictates not only the approach to absence plans and process but utilization and tracking patterns. Ideally time off should be used to recharge and create balance, allowing greater productivity upon return.
  5. Benchmarks
    Understanding what your peer group provides from a time off perspective is paramount. The most optimal plan for your organization should be in line with benchmarks to attract and retain your top talent. Applicants and current employees will compare time off plans, and in some instances view the flexibility of PTO plans more favorably than separate banks with more days available.

 

As with most benefit programs, time off is not one size fits all.  Comprehensive PTO plans remain a competitive option in the market even during and as a result of the COVID-19 crisis.  The key is to make sure you are taking a holistic view that includes time for  employees needing to take care of themselves or their family members.

To talk about your specific plans or gather more information, please contact Spring Consulting Group.

Spring Hits it Big in Captive International’s US Awards

The Spring team is delighted to announce that we have been recognized in a number of categories by Captive International through their US Awards. Captive International is one of the most well known industry publications, and we are honored to have made this list among such impressive company. We are proud of our team members for their commitment to excellence; they are truly deserving of this recognition:

  • Actuarial Firm – Highly Commendedcaptive insurance consultants
  • Actuary: Steven Keshner – Winner
  • Actuary: Peter Johnson – Highly Commended
  • Feasibility Study Firm – Winner
  • Feasibility Study (Individual): Karin Landry – Winner

We want to congratulate all firms and individuals who appear on this esteemed list, and to thank Captive International for the acknowledgement. As with all industries, our work and priorities shifted a bit this year, but we were glad we were able to offer captives as a unique solution to difficult circumstances for our clients.

The full list of winners can be found here.

Why All Businesses Need an Insurance Broker

“Why do I need a broker?” This is a question that surprisingly gets asked more than you would expect.  In today’s society of consumerism, the internet, and “do it yourself” mentality, tied with the desire to save money, this is a valid question. I would ask in turn – would you go to court without legal representation? Of course not.  It makes financial sense to use a broker as in most cases, you do not get charged for their services. Typically brokers are paid by the insurance carrier, the one that you jointly decide best meets your needs as an employer.  More importantly, brokers protect your best interests as an objective third party. There is no specific financial incentive for brokers to decide on one insurance provider over another.

An insurance broker acts as an intermediary between you and your insurer, lessening the administrative burden for you and negating the need for you to weed through complex policy jargon. We bring over 200 years of training and experience and our insurance know-how, and our goal is to always find a policy that best suits your coverage needs at the best possible price. Brokers do the shopping and analysis on your behalf, saving you the time of plodding through quotes from various carriers and trying to determine the optimal solution. We provide impartial advice based on the client’s unique situation.

Some of the benefits of using an insurance broker are as follows:

  • We review, listen, and understand to what you are trying to accomplish
  • We search the entire marketplace looking for the best coverage at the most affordable price
  • Once we find the ideal coverage, we review and discuss with you the cost, coverages, and exclusions in simple language so there are no misunderstandings
  • We walk you through the appropriate paperwork and submit it on your behalf to the insurance company
  • Once we have approval, we continually assist and advise you throughout the year to ensure you are getting the most from your plan
  • We assist with issues like billing and claims questions
  • We have compliance experts who will deal with issues like healthcare reform and COVID-19 regulations, ensuring your policies pivot as necessary
  • Come renewal time, we are there to negotiate for you and handle much of the legwork involved

These are very important considerations for you to take into account when deciding if a broker is right for you. The alternative is to spend a lot of your own time educating yourself, taking away valuable time from your day job and family. Insurance brokers go through strict educational and licensing requirements and have significant knowledge in the industry. Our deep understanding of your local market and the players involved ultimately yield enhanced, cost-effective coverage for you.

All that said, it’s important to note that not all brokers are the same. Some have specialized services and products or are focused on specific markets.  For example, there are brokers with expertise in the property and casualty or life insurance areas but that just dabble in health insurance. Today some payroll companies are even offering employee benefit services as well but again, their bread and butter is payroll, not benefits. To offer an analogy – you would not go to a foot doctor to address a heart condition, so make sure your broker’s core competencies are the ones you need.

In summary, your insurance needs are best met by a broker who works for you and not by an insurance company, who have their own interests to look out for. Brokers yield more choices, usually at a much lower cost to you and your business. Unless you happen to be an expert in insurance plans, why risk the headache and lose the resources needed to do it on your own? Further, a consultative broker like Spring will take the time to truly understand your business so we can constantly be on the lookout for new and innovative solutions that will align with your objectives.

People are typically the largest investment a company makes. Taking care of those people through employee benefits is a niche area of your business, and you need an insurance broker who has the training and expertise necessary in today’s complicated and competitive marketplace. Spring’s approach to brokerage is collaborative and strategic, but we ultimately remove the legwork for you and ensure you have the best plan options available.

DOL Issues Updated FFCRA Regulations In Light Of Recent Federal Court Decision

On September 11, 2020, the U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”) released a temporary rule updating certain FFCRA regulations.  The temporary rule is scheduled to be published on September 16, 2020, and will be effective immediately through the expiration of the FFCRA’s paid leave provisions on December 31, 2020.

COVID-19 law

The temporary rule updates FFCRA regulations issued in April 2020 in response to a recent federal District Court decision which found four portions of the initial regulations invalid:  provisions related to whether the FFCRA applies if employers do not have work available for employees; the timing for which employees must request the need for leave; the definition of health care provider; and the availability of intermittent leave.

While many anticipated that the DOL would appeal the decision, the DOL elected to reaffirm and clarify its position on some of these issues, while choosing to revise or update others. Thus, while the court’s order was limited to companies operating in New York (or potentially only those in the Southern District of New York), the DOL’s revisions to the regulations apply to all employers subject to the FFCRA (inside and outside New York).

The District Court’s order and the updated regulations are discussed in more detail below.

New York Federal District Court Decision

Soon after the FFCRA regulations were implemented, the State of New York sued the DOL in the United Stated District Court for the Southern District of New York claiming the DOL exceeded its authority when it implemented several provisions of the FFCRA regulations. The District Court agreed in part and, in August, the court issued an order invalidating several portions of the FFCRA regulations.

  • Work Availability Requirement – The original regulations limited the availability of emergency paid sick leave and expanded FMLA leave to certain situations where theemployer’s business is open or the employer has work for the employee, but employee is unable to work due to a COVID-19 qualifying reason.  The court vacated this requirement, making the FFCRA available even if the employer does not have work for the employee, such as situations where the employee is furloughed or the business is closed.
  • Documentation – The FFCRA statute requires employees to notify an employer of the need for leave “after the first workday” during which an employee requires paid sick time; however, the initial FFCRA regulations required documentation to be provided to the employer before any sick time is taken. The court determined this was beyond the scope of the statute and vacated this requirement. The content of the documentation and the need for documentation was not eliminated, just the timing of when it must be provided.
  • Definition of Health Care Provider – The initial FFCRA regulations used an expansive definition of health care provider, which included individuals who work in support of health care operations, such as cleaning staff, food service professionals and cooks, maintenance workers, IT staff, or other administrative support staff who support health care operations.   The district court vacated the definition of health care provider, finding it overbroad.
  • Intermittent Leave – The initial regulations allowed employees to take intermittent leave in certain situations with employer approval/agreement.  The court found this inconsistent with the statute and rejected this aspect of the regulation as an impermissible limitation on the availability of intermittent leave.

Updated Regulations

In the updated regulations, DOL reaffirms its regulations related to the work availability and intermittent leave requirements, but provided further clarification or explanation of its regulations.  The DOL revised regulations related to the definition of “health care provider” and notice requirements.  The rationale and changes are discussed more fully below:

Work Availability

Specifically, for purposes of the work availability requirement, the DOL affirms that neither emergency paid sick leave nor expanded FMLA under the FFCRA may be taken unless the employer has work available for the employee (the “work availability” requirement).  The FFCRA statute provides that leave under the FFCRA is available if an employee is unable to work (or telework) “because of” or “due to” a qualifying reason under the FFCRA.  The DOL cites to U.S. Supreme Court authority that interprets “because of” or “due to” language to create a “but for” test or analysis. Thus, FFCRA leave must be the “but for” cause of the employee’s inability to work.  Furthermore, the DOL reasons that the plain meaning of the word “leave” in this context, and based on longstanding DOL interpretation, means that someone has to be absent from work at a time the employee would otherwise be working. Thus, the DOL stands by its original regulation and provides that an employee cannot take FFCRA leave if there was no work available from the employer for the employee to perform.

Finally, the DOL explains that this requirement was intended to apply for all qualifying reasons under the FFCRA, not just those that were initially listed in the original regulations.

Intermittent Leave

The FFCRA is silent about the availability of intermittent leave, but as the DOL notes in the preamble to the updated regulations, the DOL was given broad authority to develop rules under the law.  Thus, consistent with FMLA regulations, the DOL interpreted the availability of intermittent expanded FMLA leave for employees working onsite similar to how it applies for purposes of FMLA, which may also require employer approval.  For emergency paid sick leave, however, there is opportunity for spreading COVID-19 in the workplace.  Thus, it would be contrary to the purpose of the FFCRA to allow someone to take emergency paid sick leave intermittently (unless caring for a child whose regular day care provider is unavailable due to COVID-19). Therefore, for employees working on-site, the DOL reaffirms its decision to only allow intermittent leave for expanded FMLA leave purposes.  The DOL confirmed, however, as originally provided, that intermittent leave may be available for any FFCRA qualified reason if an employee is teleworking, as there is no risk the employee would spread COVID-19 at a worksite.  In any intermittent leave context, however, permission from the employer is still required.

Health Care Provider Definition

In an effort to ensure the public health system could maintain its necessary function during COVID-19 pandemic, the FFCRA allowed employers to exclude employees who are “health care providers” or “emergency responders” from eligibility for expanded FMLA leave and emergency paid sick leave.

The DOL took an expansive approach in defining “health care provider” in its initial FFCRA regulations to ensure health care operations would not be hampered, such as ensuring maintenance to health care facilities, trash collection, food services for hospital workers, and other similar services.  The District Court found this approach to be overly broad and, therefore, per the District Court’s order, the DOL opted to revise its definition of health care provider.  In the updated regulations, health care providers include employees who are health care providers under existing FMLA regulations and “any other employee who is capable of providing health care services such as diagnostic services, preventive services, treatment services, and other services that are integrated with and necessary to the provision of patient care and, if not provided would adversely impact patient care.”

This could include a variety of health care practitioners other than doctors, including nurses, nurse assistants, medical technicians, and laboratory technicians.  The preamble and rule provide numerous examples of what would constitute diagnostic, preventive or treatment services, and services integrated with these that are necessary for patient care, such as bathing, dressing, or feeding patients, among several others.  Food service professionals, IT professionals, building maintenance workers, HR professionals, or other individuals who do not provide health care services even though their work impacts health care services are no longer included in the definition of health care providers.

Employees falling within the new definition of health care provider can work in a variety of settings including, but not limited to, hospitals, clinics, doctor’s offices, medical schools, local health departments, nursing or retirement facilities, nursing homes, home health providers, laboratories, or pharmacies.

Notice of the Need for Leave

In the updated regulations, the DOL clarifies that notice of the need for emergency paid sick leave must be provided as soon as practicable (instead of before emergency sick leave is taken), which is consistent with the position the plaintiffs took when they challenged the original regulations.

Additionally, the DOL revised the regulations regarding notice of expanded FMLA leave.  For a foreseeable need to expanded FMLA leave, the employee must provide notice as soon as is practicable, which may mean the employee may have to provide advance notice of the need for leave if the facts and circumstances support prior notice.  Prior notice is not required for unforeseeable need for expanded FMLA leave.  Finally, the employer may require an employee to substantiate the need for leave as soon as practicable, which may be at the same time notice is provided.

The DOL also updated its FFCRA FAQ’s consistent with the updated regulations.

Conclusion

As mentioned previously, the DOL’s updated regulations impact all employers subject to the FFCRA, not just those with employees in New York. Thus, all impacted employers should familiarize themselves with the updated regulations and administer them accordingly moving forward.

To the extent an employer has employees impacted by the revised regulations, such as individuals previously included in the DOL’s broad definition of health care provider or employees who were denied emergency paid sick leave for failing to provide advance notice, they should consult directly with counsel to discuss how to address those specific situations.

About the Author.  This alert was prepared by Marathas Barrow Weatherhead Lent LLP, a national law firm with recognized experts on the Affordable Care Act.  Contact Danielle Capilla (danielle.capilla@aleragroup.com) with questions.

The information provided in this alert is not, is not intended to be, and shall not be construed to be, either the provision of legal advice or an offer to provide legal services, nor does it necessarily reflect the opinions of the agency, our lawyers or our clients.  This is not legal advice.  No client-lawyer relationship between you and our lawyers is or may be created by your use of this information.  Rather, the content is intended as a general overview of the subject matter covered.  This agency and Marathas Barrow Weatherhead Lent LLP are not obligated to provide updates on the information presented herein.  Those reading this alert are encouraged to seek direct counsel on legal questions.

© 2020 Marathas Barrow Weatherhead Lent LLP.  All Rights Reserved.

Make Better Healthcare Decisions Through Claims Repricing

Background

As healthcare costs skyrocket, we know that employers struggle especially with high medical claims; how to fund them, mitigate them, and understand how they impact their plan. However, it has become increasingly difficult to accurately compare costs across different health plans and networks due to low transparency and complicated relationships among employers, brokers and bidders.

What is Claims Repricing?

This is where medical claims repricing comes into play. Using a third-party actuarial expert will enable a fair comparison through a rigorous data collection process and a systematic, objective analysis.

Repricing provides clients with an objective view of medical claims cost repricing based on actual claims data to help them pick the best network for containing costs. The purpose of repricing is to choose the best network providing desired provider coverage at the lowest available cost. It can be used to evaluate reference-based pricing as well as more traditional networks.

Why Claims Repricing?

Medical claims repricing helps clients compare medical claims costs across different health plans/networks on the same basis. It gives them a clear view of their options. The primary benefit of the repricing exercise is to provide an objective and actuarially sound analysis of claims cost comparison among different networks.

An accurate repricing analysis requires bidders to reprice each procedure performed by each provider according to their contracts. Without clear instructions and rigorous practice, bidders usually provide analysis on an aggregate level that does not reflect the demographics and experience of the client. Therefore, bidders’ self-reported results usually provide an apple-to-orange comparison and could be very misleading.

Medical Repricing Case Study

Client Challenges

Spring recently conducted this repricing process for a client in the dairy industry with over 1,500 employees and four manufacturing sites across different states. They were looking to understand if their carrier rates were competitive:

  • Would utilizing reference-based pricing (RBP) save costs?
  • Would it make sense to switch to a new carrier?
  • Did performance vary by state and major service category?

Spring Approach

Spring assists clients with choosing the right network. This will often be included in a formal Request for Proposal or handled more informally.  Spring facilitated the process using the following approach:

  • Requested detailed claim data from the incumbent including billed, allowed and paid amounts
  • Forwarded detailed instructions and claim data excluding allowed and paid amounts to prospective networks for repricing
  • Provided client with an independent actuarial repricing analysis by region and major service category

Our Solutions

Spring’s actuarial team conducted a rigorous medical repricing exercise and provided client with the following solutions:

  • Spring analyzed potential savings from utilizing a reference-based pricing vendor and determined that while moving to reference-based pricing would save on facility charges, the increase in other medical costs would outweigh these savings.
    • We did note that pairing the reference-based pricing solution for facility claims with a stronger non-facility network could potentially save money.
  • Spring also looked at claim charges for two other prospective networks and found that the incumbent carrier offers the highest overall discounts on claim charges, as illustrated below. In this case, switching entirely to either network will mean higher costs.


Medical Repricing

  • However, Spring provided further insight by state and major service category. Even though switching to bidder A means higher claim costs in total, the inpatient cost of bidder A was 26% lower than the incumbent in one state resulting in 10% overall savings for that state.

Medical Repricing

  • Spring recommended a national network solution carving out one state to maximize savings and minimize disruption.

 

Client Result

This analysis was valuable to the client in their consideration of carrier changes in certain regions:

  • Spring identified competitiveness of the incumbent carrier’s claim charges by state and service category
  • Spring’s analysis helped the client to make an informed decision not to move ahead with the reference-based pricing vendor as significant savings on facility costs were offset by increased physician and other medical costs
  • Recommended a new carrier in one state saving 10% of claim costs

As you can see, a repricing analysis can shed light on a slew of different factors at play within your network across different states and help you make the most cost-effective decision.

Spring Short-Listed for 6 Captive Review Awards

The past year has been busy and successful for the Spring team, and it shows! We are proud to announce that we have been named finalists for the 2020 US Captive Review Awards in the following categories:Captive Review Award Finalist

  • Captive Consultant of the Year
  • Employee Benefits Network
  • Captive Service Professional of the Year (Karin Landry)
  • Captive Innovation
  • Next Gen Initiative
  • Actuarial Firm

At Spring we work hard to consistently deliver creative, tailored solutions to clients; to stay abreast of industry trends and legislation; to contribute to the advancement and modernization of the industry; to expand our connections; to keep our eyes and our minds on both today and tomorrow; and provide sound actuarial guidance. We are honored to be recognized by Captive Review alongside so many thought leaders and trailblazers.

We look forward to the virtual awards ceremony in October, and hope to be popping some champagne!

Spring Launches 2nd Annual Healthcare Benchmarking Survey

Help Us Help You Benchmark Your Programs

We are excited to announce that we are in the midst of conducting our second annual healthcare benchmarking survey, and we’d love your input! The survey will yield a robust landscape of healthcare in the US and the different approaches employers are taking. Having this pulse on the market is all the more important as we continue to cope with the pandemic, and our data will help guide employers and vendors in pivoting their strategies accordingly. 

The survey, which can be accessed here, will be open through August 21, 2020 and will ask detailed questions about your company’s benefits. The contents of the survey include:

  • Background Questions
  • Benefits Offered
  • Disability
  • Life
  • Medical Plan Details
  • Pharmacy/Rx Plan Details
  • Retiree Medical
  • HSA/HRA
  • Health and Productivity
  • Dental
  • Vision
  • Retirement Benefits
  • Firmographics

It will take about 30 minutes to complete the survey. Please note that the survey will “remember” your responses, so you do not need to complete the survey in one sitting. Please be aware that there are sub-questions programmed into the survey that will only appear based on your responses to other questions. As such, the question numbering may not always be consecutive.

The data compiled will be summarized in a report that you can use to benchmark your company against others of similar size and industry. Please note that the data will be aggregated and individual responses will be kept confidential.

As an alternative to you completing the survey online, you can send us your company’s benefit information (e.g. your open enrollment kit) and we will fill in as much of the survey as we can, and come back to you to fill in any major gaps.

Please click the link below to begin and know that you are making a valuable contribution to the industry by doing so.

https://springconsulting.iad1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_6MCy4oC2ldOd4Y5?Source=Spring

 

Thank you! Please get in touch with any questions: insight@springgroup.com.

 

7 Predictions About How COVID-19 Will Change Healthcare

Covid-19 has taken the world by storm, and a myriad of markets are being impacted significantly. Businesses of all sizes are having to implement layoffs, terminations and furloughs to stay afloat, even with the federal relief being offered. At the crux of it all is health care: where we look to save the lives of our friends and loved ones, where we rely on accessibility to care, where we put our hopes for a cure.

Some would argue that health care in the U.S. was broken before the pandemic hit. Whether you agree with that or not, Covid-19 has no doubt highlighted gaps in the health care system and our abilities to handle a catastrophe. Health care providers, insurance carriers, employers and consumers will all be impacted even after the dust settles and the urgency diminishes. Here are seven ways we expect the health care markets to be affected.

1. Telemedicine is here to stay

While early adopters were already utilizing telemedicine, everyone has come to see the real value of it. Covid-19 has instilled in most people a certain degree of germaphobia that isn’t likely to go away any time soon, so many are wondering why they would go to a hospital or clinic to get a diagnosis, consultation or prescription when they don’t need to. That said, there is a demographic divide here: older generations, who often have more medical needs and appointments, are generally less comfortable switching to a digital format.

A great advantage of telemedicine is its ability to even the playing field in terms of access. It doesn’t matter if you live in Manhattan or the rural countryside, you can get the same care at a comparable price. This is extremely important as we see the ways in which Covid-19 has widened the socioeconomic divides in our country.

Telemedicine will rise in popularity for mental and behavioral health issues as well. This at a time when anxiety, depression and hardships are at a recent high. We also anticipate a boost in concierge telemedicine services as well.

An increase in telemedicine utilization may yield cost savings in the long term. In the short term, however, details are blurry in terms of pricing for visits. Further, some people now using telemedicine may not have otherwise seen a doctor at all, which skews utilization rates.

2. Deferred health costs

There are still a lot of unknowns regarding the impact Covid-19 will have on health insurance costs. At a high level, we estimate the net impact on the cost of medical claims over 12 months (April 4, 2020 to March 3, 2021) for an “average employer” to be an increase of 6%-8%, with most simulation results in the range of 2%-14%. Member demographics, location and industry will impact these projections. Further, our proprietary modeling shows that short-term drug spend is up, while short-term medical spend is down.

3. Cost shifting

The April unemployment rate for the U.S. was 14.7%. For comparison’s sake, the average unemployment rate for the year of 2019 was 3.6%. This uptick in unemployment will cause many who were previously covered under employer-sponsored health plans to move to governmental programs, such as Medicaid or Medicaid, if eligible, as these are much less costly than the employer-sponsored plan’s COBRA. In fact, commercial prices are often far more than 50% above Medicare payment rates according to the Medicare Payment Policy report to Congress. As the unemployed struggle with finances and find themselves in different income brackets, this shift will be significant.

As a result, health care facilities, which are already losing revenue due to the lack of elective procedures during the pandemic, will face further financial woes because they make less money from patients who are insured through governmental programs than they do for those insured commercially. Meanwhile, the commercial insurers (i.e., Cigna, Blue Cross Blue Shield), may actually save money amid the crisis due to a lower volume of claims (which goes back to the delay of elective procedures). This point is important for employers to be aware of as a negotiating tactic as they approach their plan renewal.

4. Expansion of coverage

With the government and carriers making exceptions to existing health plan policies through 2020, it is clear that we were dealing with critical coverage gaps, and we anticipate these areas to stay written into health plans. This goes for telemedicine benefits, counseling and mental health, extra prescription refills, relaxed utilization management requirements, specialized treatment, vaccines and changes to flexible spending account (FSA), health savings account (HSA) and health reimbursement arrangement (HRA) eligible purchases. The result will be an overall broader offering of benefits at a higher cost.

5. Push for more government involvement

Throughout the crisis, we have learned that employer-sponsored programs can only get us so far. Especially with election season upon us, we’re predicting a jump in support for programs like Medicare For All, where a public program better suited and funded for “unprecedented circumstances” would already be established. We can see this in the recent grant of additional funding for Medicaid.

6. Greater focus on claims control strategies

We expect employers to take a closer look at how they can minimize volatility and improve population health management. This might involve a stronger emphasis on risk management strategies and programs and advanced data and reporting procedures. More companies will be turning to consultants and actuaries for things like trend analyses, audits, repricing and projections. We anticipate that more businesses will be considering population health management programs as a long-term strategy for a healthier population that will, in turn, lower claims costs and lessen operational risk in the face of a similar catastrophe. More than ever, the key to a business’s success will stem in part from its ability to encourage and facilitate a healthy workforce.

7. Rethinking long-term care

Among the many hardships the world faces today lies the fear instilled in those who have loved ones in nursing homes or like facilities. Based on the observations from the current crisis, they are hubs for exposure and infection among an already high-risk population. We predict the health care system of the future to include an overhaul of home health care programs and assistance, as many will not feel comfortable in larger care facilities, something once commonplace.

In summary, the outlook for the health care industry post Covid-19 will be a mix of positives and negatives. We do expect a hike in plan costs and mentality shifts that move people beyond traditional health care. Further, organizations of all types will be carefully analyzing their health care spend and loss history, gaining a better understanding of where each dollar is going and if it can be spent more strategically. These factors and more will constitute what will gradually become the new normal.