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.

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.

Consider that (a) the EFCA isn’t dead yet, (b) the White House is busy reorganizing the National Labor Relations Board to reflect the administration’s pro-labor stance and (c) labor leaders have set a goal of increasing union membership by 1.5 million a year for the next 15 years.

Those factors should lead to more vigilance about labor organizing.

Labor attorneys from the firm Fisher & Phillips say there are five major mistakes  complacent companies make that lead to union organizing:

1. Favoritism. It’s the No. 1 reason employees cite for joining a union. The term can mean a lot of things, but here’s what it amounts to:  inconsistent disciplinary action. When some employees feel they’ve been hit with discipline they didn’t deserve, while other employees got a break, expect to seen union sign-up cards floating around.

The solution is twofold: (a) clear policies and (b) managers who follow the policies. One without the other will lead to trouble.

2. Ignored complaints. A main union selling point is “giving employees a stronger voice.” Employees feel they need that voice when they perceive that no one is listening to them. The opposite of ignoring complaints: listening to them and acting on them. That doesn’t mean every complaint is valid, of course. Still, you have to give employees the feeling that at least someone is looking into it and taking some action if needed.

3. Lack of respect. Here’s the recipe for giving employees the idea they’re not respected: Disciplining them in front of others, assigning blame before reviewing the facts and  playing favorites. Those traits give employees the feeling that their managers are enemies, not advocates.

4. Lack of concern about safety. Another weak spot that unions probe: “Your employer only cares about making money, even if it puts you in danger.” The employers’ antidote: safety training, appropriate equipment and clear, uncomplicated guidelines and procedures for responding to and reporting workplace accidents. An extra gold star for employers: Willingness to help employees through the complicated workers-comp process.

5. Noncompetitive pay and benefits. Many are aware of the union promise to “put more money in workers’ pockets.” True or not, it attracts workers who feel they’re being shortchanged.

Now, that doesn’t mean opening up the wallet to every employee who complains about pay and benefits. What you can do:

• Participate in wage-benefit surveys where you can and make sure you are competitive in your industry and your location.
• Be prepared to explain why you’re not at the top of the scale, including the tradeoffs of the other nonmonetary advantages of working at your company — flexible schedules and so on — which employees may not always focus on.
• Be honest with your employees. For instance, if business is down, explain that as the reason for flat wages. The first place a union will attack is perceived dishonesty about pay and benefits.

1. Arrive early

Arriving 10 minutes early for a presentation allows you to arrange the room to your liking.

The extra time also lets you check any equipment or displays you’ll need during the session — to make sure you’re not waylaid by technical glitches.

2. Put ‘em where you want ‘em

Seasoned speakers maximize the physical space of the room by arranging chairs theater-style. Why? It keeps the entire audience focused up front.

In meetings where attendees sit at tables, try to use circular tables instead of rectangular ones. Circular tables suggest greater equality among attendees and create a steadier flow of discussion.

Rectangular tables — that make people face each other head-on — can make attendees feel like they’re talking “at” their co-workers, instead of taking part in a discussion.

3. Make selective eye contact

If you’re uncomfortable making eye contact with everyone, pick one or two friendly faces in the audience and focus on those people.

4. Pass out materials before hand

Send out any materials attendees may need for the meeting a day or two before it starts, and tell them to read it before they arrive.

This ensures they’re focused on you at the meeting, not the paperwork in front of them.

New Heath Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) security breach rules mean you’ll be responsible to notify each employee affected and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

The rules technically kicked in Sept. 23, but the feds say they won’t enforce them until Feb. 22.

What counts, what doesn’t

Not all the data your Benefits and HR folks collect is impacted:

• What counts: Individual info from group health, dental or vision plans; healthcare reimbursement flexible spending accounts; pharmacy benefits plans; employee assistance programs; and long-term care plans.
• What doesn’t: Info related to leave request, accommodation requests, and workers’ comp.

And while you must inform individual employees immediately whenever their health info falls into the wrong hands, you only have to report to HHS right away if more than 500 records are affected.

If less are affected, you’ll need to keep a log of what happened and report to HHS by the following March 1.

Good news: The feds are eliminating paperwork associated with one common fringe benefit — company-provided cell phones.

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) ruffled employers’ feathers this summer when it decided to unearth a seldom-used, 20-year-old law requiring companies to tax employee’s cell phones.

Many employers paid little attention to the old rules — which said personal calls on employer-provided cell phones were taxable — until the IRS announced it would simplify the rules for how these phones would be taxed.

No matter what the new rules would be, Benefits pros were almost certainly looking at added paperwork.

Imagine constantly having to determine which calls employees make — say to a friend in the office, for example — are personal (and taxable) and which aren’t.

It’d be a huge headache.

Well now employers don’t have to worry about it.

After reviewing the proposed new rules, the IRS backed off its stance and has decided to halt taxation on personal calls altogether.

IRS Commissioner Doug Shulman recently issued this statement: “Although some of the proposed changes would add clarity, the current law will inevitably leave widespread confusion among employees and businesses. Therefore, Secretary Geithner and I ask that Congress act to make clear that there will be no tax consequence to employers or employees for personal use of work-related devices such as cell phones provided by employers. The passage of time, advances in technology, and the nature of communication in the modern workplace have rendered this law obsolete.”

You can cut hours. You can cut pay. You can cut health coverage. But you better leave my beer alone.

That’s the message Molson workers sent to management when the company announced it will no longer provide free beer to the company’s 2,400 retirees and will cut current workers’ allotment of suds.

Retirees at the company plants in New Foundland and Labrador were receiving up to 72 bottles a month gratis. That number will be scaled down to zero over a period of five years — just so nobody has to kick the habit cold turkey.

Things really came to, uh, a head when the company also informed current staffers that their annual allowance will drop from 864 free bottles a year to the miserly amount of 624 bottles a year.

Bill Bavis, who retired after 32 years with company, told reporters: “There was no consultation. We just received a letter that this is a done deal, which is totally unfair. I think with the economic downturn they’re trying to take advantage of us, as a way to cut retirees’ benefits and justify it.”

A Molson representative said the cutback would save the company about %1 million a year.  But has anyone considered the incalculable effects on morale?

After all, won’t employees’ new degrees just make them more likely to leave for greener salary pastures?

Turns out, the opposite is true.

A landmark study recently published by the National Bureau of Economic Research finds:

• among employees participating in these benefit plans, only 33% leave the employer within five years
• these employees typically rate job satisfaction as a bigger priority than salary, and
• the jump in long-term productivity usually makes the investment in the employee’s education pay for itself.

By comparison, eligible employees who don’t participate in education benefits are nearly twice as likely to leave within five years (60%).

The study also found that big employers — those with 1,000 or more employees — remain more likely than small companies to offer some form of educational assistance.

On the flip side, the dollar-for-dollar return on investment is often better for smaller employers.

The lawsuit involved the city of Mount Vernon, IL. Several city police officers were also members of the National Guard. In the past, the city had allowed the officers to use their vacation, sick or personal leave to attend National Guard training. This allowed the officers to collect their full city salary, plus military pay, for the days they spend in training.

Also, Mt. Vernon allowed the officers to rearrange their schedules when a typical work day conflicted with National Guard obligations. Mt. Vernon would “bump” other employees, allowing National Guard members to arrange their days off so that on National Guard weekends they could receive both city and military pay, without using vacation time.

This often meant National Guard employees were permitted to reschedule themselves so they were off weekends, even if another employee had requested off prior to the rescheduling.

In 2006, Mt. Vernon reversed its policy, and although National Guard members were still given time off, they were required to take it unpaid or use a vacation day.

Shortly after, one of the National Guard members sued the city, claiming its new policy violated the USERRA.

Who do you think won this case?

The decision:

The court ruled in favor of the city.

In its decision, the court said that the USERRA requires employers to offer the same benefits to National Guard (and others active military) members that are offered to other employees — but employers aren’t required to grant special privileges or benefits to members of the military.

Even though Mt. Vernon had given National Guard members preferential treatment in the past, it was allowed to reverse that policy.

Note: Under the USERRA employers must allow members of the military to take time off for National Guard duty and training. But time off was not the issue here. It was whether the employees would have to use sick or vacation days in order to receive their full city salaries, plus military pay.

In addition, members of the military are also entitled reinstatement after their service ends, as well as the benefits and promotions they would’ve received if they’d been on the job.

Source: Crews v. City of Mt. Vernon, et al., U.S. Crt. of Appeals, 7th Cir., S.D. of IL, No. 08-2435, 6/4/09.

One common glitch: Some employees enrolled in the old plan fall through the cracks when transferring to the new carrier.

What happens if, for technical reasons, an enrollee is declared ineligible for the new plan? Read the facts and decide – who won this case?

The facts: A long-time employee was forced to on long-term disability while he battled a usually fatal form of cancer. During the last stages of his lengthy illness, the company switched its supplemental life insurance plan for employees.

The employee passed away, and his family put in a claim for a $150,000 death benefit. The TPA denied the claim, because the plan documents stated that only active employees were eligible to enroll in the new plan.

The employer said: While the situation was unfortunate, the eligibility conditions spelled out in the plan document were crystal clear.   Nothing in the plan document stated that exceptions would be made to carry over inactive employees who were inactive due to a pre-existing illness or serious injury. 

The employee’s family said: The family was eligible for death benefits under the company’s old life insurance plan. Even after the plan switch, the man was still technically employed by the company. He was placed on  long-term paid disability during the final months of his life.

Who won? The employee’s family.

Why: The court said the company, as sponsor of both the old and new plans, had dropped the ball on its ERISA obligations. Simply changing carriers wasn’t enough to release the firm from all of its legal obligations to employees enrolled under the old plan.

Specifically, it was up to the company – before the new policy took effect – to inform anyone who’d soon lose their benefits. It was the firm’s duty to give the man’s family a heads up that, as an inactive employee, he’d become ineligible for the new plan. 

After all, the judge said, management at the company knew ahead of time about the employee’s failing health and inability to work.

Cite: Miller v. Rite Aid Corp.