People who drive 50 or more miles a day — and or an hour-plus — to and from work have a higher risk of health problems than those with shorter commutes, a recent study found. That means higher costs for your health plan.

1. Higher rates of obesity

Left to their own devices, people with long daily commutes tend to exercise less — often they have less free time and want to spend it with loved ones, not working out.

They are also more likely to fall into bad dietary habits — think drive-through breakfasts and coffee shop fare.

2. The ravages of stress

For many of these folks, the most stressful part of their day isn’t what happens at work — it’s hurrying to beat rush-hour traffic to get to work on time and pick up their kids from after-school activities.

Also, according to the study, the average rush hour commuter’s blood pressure and heart rate are higher than that of a fighter pilot heading into combat.

3. ‘Commuter’s amnesia’

People’s brains develop a coping mechanism for handling the stress — the scientific term for it is “commuter’s amnesia.”

Ever driven somewhere and, upon arrival, had no recollection of the drive? You’ve experienced it.

And when someone’s mind regularly goes into shut-down mode like that, its can affect things like workday productivity and safety. That’s especially true for those with poor sleeping habits.

Proven solutions

Far and away, companies with widely used wellness programs are the best equipped to minimize the toll long commutes have on employees’ health.

Telecommuting programs and flex-time are other proven ways to cut the risk.

The Senate came out of conference with its version of health reform. The 2,074-page bill contains two key differences from the House version that affect employers and employees.

1. Employer contribution

• Senate: Would not require employers to offer coverage, but employers with 50 or more full-time workers would pay a penalty — $750 for each worker in the firm — if any of their workers receive federal subsidies to buy insurance through the exchange.
• House: Would require most employers to provide insurance to workers or pay a tax equal to 8%  of payroll.

2. Employee payments

• Senate: Would impose an excise tax on high-cost insurance plans provided by employers — so-called “Cadillac plans.” The Senate proposal would levy a 40% tax on the premium amounts that exceed $8,500 for individuals and $23,000 for families. And the Medicare payroll tax rate would increase 0.5% for individuals with annual incomes over $200,000 and couples over $250,000. A person without insurance would be required to pay a financial penalty, starting at $95 in 2014 and rising to $750 in 2016, up to a maximum of $2,250 for a family.
• House: Would impose a 5.4% surtax on high-income people.

The two bills contain some other differences on controversial topics:

Subsidies

• Senate: Individuals and families making up to 400% of the federal poverty level — $88,200 for a family of four — would receive a subsidy.
• House: Essentially the same as the Senate version, but the subsidies would be offered on a sliding scale.

Abortion

• Senate: Would allow people who receive insurance subsidies to choose a plan that covers elective abortions, but insurers must use premium money or co-payments contributed by consumers, and not subsidy money, to cover the cost of the abortions. Would also require that every state offer at least one insurance plan that covers abortion and one that doesn’t.
• House: Would bar low- and middle-income people who receive federal subsidies to buy insurance from choosing a plan that covers elective abortions.

Coverage for illegal immigrants

• Senate: Would bar illegal immigrants from buying insurance from a national exchange, even if they could pay the full cost and didn’t receive subsidies.
• House: Would allow illegal immigrants to buy coverage from a national insurance exchange, but they wouldn’t be eligible for federal subsidies.

No doubt you’ve seen those TV ads for prescription sleep meds.

You know the ones: People sleep peacefully as a glowing butterfly floats overhead. Abe Lincoln playing chess with a groundhog.

Ever since the ads launched, use of these meds has skyrocketed.

The good news: Proper use of the meds can have its advantages for employers. When workers get enough sleep they’re more productive and energetic at work.

Costly concerns

The bad news: Unnecessary prescriptions appear to be on the rise — with employers getting clobbered by heavy costs on their health plans.

The cause? Employees with sleep disorders are heading to their primary care doctor and not a sleep specialist.

For people with legitimate sleep disorders (sleep apnea, restless-leg syndrome, etc.), there may be treatments out there other than “sleeping pills” that may help — and even eliminate any future need for costly prescription meds.

Meds as the last resort

The TV drug ads may give employees the impression that medication is the only — or the best — solution to their problem.

But many people can successfully combat sleepiness without meds.

Tell them to try these fixes first:

• cutting caffeine intake in the afternoon and at night
• reducing alcohol consumption
• exercising more — but not in the four hours prior to bedtime, and
• establishing — and sticking to — set sleep and wake-up times.

The latest healthcare reform bill just passed the House. But making it through the Senate will be even harder as a few rough edges still need some smoothing.

Three things both the House and Senate do agree on:

• Requiring most people to carry health insurance or pay a penalty
• Providing “affordability credits” to lower-income individuals, and
• Expanding Medicaid by reducing thresholds for eligibility.

But that’s pretty much where the similarities end. There’s still a lot to be resolved in both bills.

Three must-watch points of contention:

Public option

The House bill includes the creation of a government-run insurance plan, which is meant to spark competition with private insurers.

The Senate is working to combine two different proposals — one from the Senate Finance Committee and one from the Health Education, Labor and Pension Committee — into a single bill.

And while the exact provisions of the merged bill are being kept under wraps, it is also expected to include a public option — but it could allow individual states to opt out.

Cost

$1.1 trillion – that’s what the House version is expected to cost over 10 years. The Senate version is expected to be less expensive.

President Obama has already said he’d like reform to cost no more than $900 billion, which could improve the Senate bill’s chances.

Funding

The House wants to impose a 5.4% income surcharge on individuals with an adjusted gross income of more than $500,000 a year and on couples with more than $1 million.

The Senate Finance Committee has proposed charging an excise tax on high-end health plans – “Cadillac Plans” – and charge new annual fees to various industry sectors.

The fees would look something like this:

• $6.7 billion from insurance companies
• $4 billion from manufacturers of medical devices, and
• $2.3 billion from drug makers.

Info: Click here to view a side-by-side comparison of the House and Senate proposals.

The vast majority of HR managers say missing open enrollment has a big impact on employees’ wallets, according to a recent CareerBuilder.com survey.

How big of an impact?

• 34% of HR managers say missing open enrollment costs employees at least $500 a year in out-of-pocket expenses (for things like medical care and school tuition, which could’ve been covered by their employer)
• 20% say it costs employees more than $1,000, and
• 10% say it costs workers more than $2,500.

That’s distressing news when you consider that half of hiring managers say more than 10% of their workforce misses annual open enrollment deadlines.

In addition, 25% of workers admit they don’t pay attention to benefits changes, figuring their benefits will roll over — or because they feel the whole process is too confusing.

Employees don’t realize what they’re missing

Another big reason employees don’t participate: They don’t realize everything their employer is offering.

When asked which benefits employees aren’t taking advantage of, HR managers said:

• Wellness benefits (45%)
• Flexible healthcare spending (43%)
• Tuition Reimbursement (38)
• Banking programs (25%), and
• Discounts on personal entertainment (24%) and technology (22%).

The Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 was passed last fall and is set to take effect on Jan. 1, 2010.

It says employers will now have to offer equivalent costs and treatment limits for mental health and substance abuse benefits as medical and surgical benefits.

So if your health plan offers mental health or substance abuse benefits, it cannot have:

• lower annual or lifetime dollar maximums for those benefits as medical and surgical benefits
• more restrictive limits on the number of covered office visits or days of inpatient care to treat mental health or substance abuse
• higher copays, deductibles or out-of-pocket limits for mental health and substance abuse treatments
• separate cost sharing applied to mental health and substance abuse benefits, or
• exclusions for out-of-network treatment for mental health and substance abuse issues — if out-of-network treatment is provided for medical and surgical issues.

Employers will need to realign their benefits policies to meet these new requirements. These new regs must also be reflected in at-a-glance summaries and summary plan descriptions.

Note: Employers with 50 or fewer employees during the preceding calendar year are not required to comply with these new regs.

Get a good night’s sleep.

The more you sleep, the less likely you are to come down with a respiratory virus, found researchers at Carnegie Mellon University.

People who sleep less than seven hours a night are three times more likely to get sick after being exposed to a virus than those who sleep eight or more hours per night.

Some scientists even say that for adults to maintain a completely healthy immune system they need to get nine and a half hours of sleep every night.

Looks like employees finally have a good excuse to sleep on the job.

A bill was introduced last week that, if passed, would require employees to provide at least five paid sick days to workers with a contagious illness who are sent home or told to stay home.

Workers deciding to stay home on their own, claiming to be sick, would not be guaranteed paid sick days.

The legislation, called the Emergency Influenza Containment Act, was introduced by Rep. George Miller (D-CA), the chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee. It would apply to businesses with 15 or more employees and would take effect 15 days after being signed — and expire after two years.

Reason for the bill: Miller says he’s concerned that more than 40 million workers don’t have paid sick days.

What are the chances of sickness spreading? A sick employee reporting to work infects one in 10 co-workers, says to the Centers for Disease Control.

Currently, 39% of all private-sector workers don’t have paid sick days, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. And out of the lowest 25% of wage earners, 63% don’t have paid sick days.

Hearings on the bill have been scheduled for next week.

Legislation introduced in the House of Representatives by Rep. Joe Sestak (D-PA) would extend the subsidy and make those laid off from Jan. 1, 2010 through June 30, 2010 eligible.

Under the proposed bill, the subsidy would be provided for up to 15 months.

Currently, the subsidy is available for up to nine months for people who lost their jobs after Sept. 1, 2008 — and it won’t be available to employees laid off after Dec. 31, 2009.

Without an extension, people who began collecting the subsidy March 1 — when it first became available — will lose it at the end of November.

Yes — if the employer sponsors the activity, said a New York appellate court in a recent workers’ comp case.

What happened

Frank Torre worked for Logic Technology, a company that performed on-site contracting work for General Electric.

Torre suffered a spinal cord injury while participating in an exercise class at the General Electric fitness center during work hours. He claimed workers’ comp should pay for it.

The court agreed. Although it found that Torre’s employer didn’t require him to participate or compensate him for taking the class, it did pay a portion of his membership fee.

Also, Torre’s job required him to develop contacts with current and prospective clients. And Logic Technology’s president stated that participating in the class would help him develop those contacts.

Result: The court ruled that his injury arose out of, and in the course of, his employment.

What the law says

New York follows this general rule: Employees cannot collect workers’ comp benefits for injuries that result from their “voluntary participation in an off-duty athletic activity not constituting part of the employee’s work-related duties.”

However, there are exceptions to this rule — like if the employer sponsors the activity or requires workers to participate in it.

While this particular ruling only applies in New York, it’s something other employers should keep in mind when designing wellness programs.

Cite: Torre v. Logic Technology.