Hot Topics: Posts http://members.msec.org/hottopics/Lists/Posts/AllPosts.aspx RSS feed for the Posts list. Fri, 30 Jul 2010 18:52:55 GMT Windows SharePoint Services V3 RSS Generator 60 Hot Topics: Posts /hottopics/_layouts/images/homepage.gif http://members.msec.org/hottopics/Lists/Posts/AllPosts.aspx Additional Patient Protections under Health Care Reform http://members.msec.org/hottopics/Lists/Posts/ViewPost.aspx?ID=147 Body:

The Department of Labor (DOL), IRS, and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) have issued final regulations regarding certain patient protections under health care reform rules.  These regulations will be effective for plan years beginning on or after September 23, 2010.  They cover group health plans and insurers.  The new rules will not apply to grandfathered health plans; only new and non-grandfathered plans will be affected. 

The patient protections relate to the choice of health care professionals and coverage of emergency services.

Regarding choice of health care professionals, plans that require a participant to designate a primary care provider from the network must allow any participating provider to be designated as a primary care provider.  This also applies if plans require designation of a pediatrician.  Plans that require designation of a primary care provider cannot require females to get authorization or referral for gynecological or obstetrical care provided by an in-network provider.

With respect to coverage of emergency services, plans that cover emergency services in a hospital emergency room cannot require prior authorization, even if services are out-of-network or provided by a non-participating provider.

Employers are required to provide notice regarding choice of health care professional no later than the first day of the first plan year beginning after September 23, 2010, and this notice must be provided whenever the plan issues a summary plan description or other similar description of benefits.  The DOL has prepared a sample notice which can be found here.

Category: Healthcare
Published: 7/26/2010 2:11 PM
]]> Curtis Graves Healthcare Mon, 26 Jul 2010 19:26:45 GMT http://members.msec.org/hottopics/Lists/Posts/ViewPost.aspx?ID=147 President Signs Unemployment Benefits Extension http://members.msec.org/hottopics/Lists/Posts/ViewPost.aspx?ID=146 Body:
On July 22, 2010, President Obama signed a new law extending emergency unemployment benefits to an estmated 2.5 million people until November 30th.
 
Voting on the law was split along party lines with most Democrats in favor and most Republicans opposed. Because approval of the law was delayed, benefits will be paid retroactively.
 
Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.) said of the law, "While nothing replaces a good paying job, providing basic support for families out of work through no fault of their own is the decent and right thing to do."
 
President Obama is encouraging Congress to turn their focus to passing a jobs bill to assist small businesses and boost job creation. 
Category: Unemployment Insurance
Published: 7/26/2010 2:13 PM
]]> Tina Harkness Unemployment Insurance Fri, 23 Jul 2010 17:13:59 GMT http://members.msec.org/hottopics/Lists/Posts/ViewPost.aspx?ID=146 Employers Beware: Employees are Preparing to Quit http://members.msec.org/hottopics/Lists/Posts/ViewPost.aspx?ID=148 Body:

In February 2010, the number of employees voluntarily quitting surpassed the number being discharged for the first time since October 2008, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. In a poll conducted by HR consultant Right Management at the end of 2009, 60 percent of workers said they intend to leave their jobs when the market gets better.

 

For some companies, it may be too late to avoid the painful effects of a big turnover.  A tech company recently posted an inquiry on its job board asking what could persuade the employees to stay in their jobs if they found another opportunity. More than 57 percent of the 1,273 surveyed said nothing could persuade them to stay. These findings point to the need for companies to learn ways to reengage and rebuild trust within the workforce. 

 

Employers can no longer count on employees to stay in their jobs because of a bad economy. The problems imposed upon remaining employees over the last couple of years—increased workloads and job insecurity—have not fostered a contented workforce. The cost and efforts required for reengaging employees more than likely outweighs the impact of a large hiring and training initiative should the turnover rate predicted actually come to pass.  

 

Category: Human Resources
Published: 7/26/2010 2:08 PM
]]> Curtis Graves Human Resources Mon, 26 Jul 2010 19:34:20 GMT http://members.msec.org/hottopics/Lists/Posts/ViewPost.aspx?ID=148 Hiring Executive Coaches Yields High ROI http://members.msec.org/hottopics/Lists/Posts/ViewPost.aspx?ID=143 Body:

The growing popularity of executive coaching (also often referred to as leadership, management, or life coaching) has led to important advances in research regarding the impact of coaching and Return On Investment (ROI). Companies are evaluating the results of their coaching initiatives and are compiling data that clearly point to the advantages of working with a coach in today’s competitive and rapidly changing economy.

 

A 2009 study of Fortune 100 executives by Manchester Consulting Group found that coaching resulted in an ROI of almost six times the cost of coaching as well as a 77 percent improvement in relationships, 67 percent improvement in teamwork, 61 percent improvement in job satisfaction, and a 48 percent improvement in work quality. Further, a study by MetrixGlobal of a Fortune 500 telecommunications company found that executive coaching resulted in a 529 percent ROI. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company found that productivity among salespeople who had participated in an intensive coaching program rose by an average of 35 percent.

 

Those who engage in a coaching relationship often enjoy enhanced thinking and decision-making skills, interpersonal effectiveness, and increased confidence in carrying out their chosen work. A number of organizations experience fresh perspectives, while individuals gain an understanding of personal challenges and various growth opportunities. People who have undergone coaching tend to demonstrate noticeable and appreciable results in the areas of productivity, satisfaction with life and work, and the achievement of personally relevant goals.

 

Coaching can work in several ways. In one approach, the team or individual being coached chooses the focus of the conversation, while the coach listens and contributes through observations and deep and poignant inquiries. This process often results in new insights on realistic changes in mindset and behavior. The coaching process/experience assists in generating possibilities and identifying actions in order for the client and the organization to realize desired change and personal/professional goals.

 

“After speaking with managers and directors who have gone through MSEC's executive leadership program, and receiving coaching myself in the program, I am not surprised to hear that the return on investment is high,” says Lorrie Ray, MSEC Director of Membership Development.  “Coaching allowed me and other participants to focus on issues that were of unique help to each of us."

Category: Human Resources
Published: 7/19/2010 11:33 AM
]]> Curtis Graves Human Resources Mon, 19 Jul 2010 17:12:51 GMT http://members.msec.org/hottopics/Lists/Posts/ViewPost.aspx?ID=143 Right to Sue Timeframe May Depend on Notices Issued by both State and Federal Agencies http://members.msec.org/hottopics/Lists/Posts/ViewPost.aspx?ID=144 Body:

Before bringing a lawsuit alleging a violation of a federal anti-discrimination act (such as Title VII or ADEA), a charging party must first file with the state or federal agency tasked with investigating allegations of discrimination or harassment.  In Colorado, the state agency is the Colorado Civil Rights Division (CCRD), while the federal agency is the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).

                  

The two agencies maintain a work-share agreement that allows each agency to receive, draft and investigate charges of discrimination for the other.  At the conclusion of an investigation, one of the agencies typically issues a notice of the charging party’s right to sue, which informs the charging party that he or she must file a lawsuit within 90 days of certain agency action.  If the charging party does not file a lawsuit within the required time, the matter is generally considered closed.

 

In Rodriguez v. Wet Ink (10th Cir. 2010), the plaintiff filed a complaint with both the CCRD and the EEOC alleging discrimination and retaliation under federal law. The CCRD concluded that some of the allegations had merit while others did not, and the case was referred to mediation. After mediation failed, Ms. Rodriguez requested her notice of right to sue. The CCRD promptly issued her notice, but the EEOC delayed its issuance for another two months. Ms. Rodriguez filed her claim in federal court more than 90 days after the CCRD issued its notice but fewer than 90 days after the EEOC issued its notice. The federal District Court for the District of Colorado dismissed the suit as untimely, using the initial CCRD notice as the triggering date. Ms. Rodriguez appealed.

 

The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, concluding that CCRD’s notice did not trigger the 90-day period for filing a lawsuit pursuant to Title VII, which is under the EEOC’s jurisdiction.

 

If you are defending against a complaint before the CCRD and the EEOC, the matter is not resolved at the agency level until each agency issues its own notice.  Although the EEOC gives “substantial deference” to the conclusions reached by the CCRD, the federal deadline will not trigger until the EEOC has issued its own notice.  Be Patient.  Keep the files open until 90 days after the EEOC has issued its own decision. 

Category: Civil Rights
Published: 7/19/2010 11:36 AM
]]> Curtis Graves Civil Rights Mon, 19 Jul 2010 17:17:46 GMT http://members.msec.org/hottopics/Lists/Posts/ViewPost.aspx?ID=144 Employers Prevailing on Litigation Generated by Ambiguous Fair Pay Act Language http://members.msec.org/hottopics/Lists/Posts/ViewPost.aspx?ID=145 Body:

The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 amends or modifies Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Rehabilitation Act “to clarify that a discriminatory compensation decision or other practice that is unlawful under such Acts occurs each time compensation is paid pursuant to the discriminatory compensation decision or other practice … .”  In short, the Act re-starts the 180-day statute of limitations for filing certain types of civil rights claims whenever compensation is paid.  However, employers, employees, lawyers and courts are left wondering what “or other practice” means. 

 

Many employees have brought claims alleging that a failure to promote because of alleged illegal discrimination is a “practice” under the Act, and that therefore, the 180-day restriction does not apply to their case.  Typically, the complaints allege that the complaining party was discriminated against in a promotion decision, and as a result, their compensation suffered and continues to suffer.

 

A growing body of cases is interpreting the Act to find that a failure to promote is not an “other practice” within the meaning and intent of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.  These cases are holding that to establish a viable compensation claim under the Act, plaintiffs must show that their employer was paying different wages or providing different benefits to similarly situated employees.  A discriminatory compensation decision or other practice does not include “promoting one employee but not another to a more remunerative position.” 

 

Employers have yet to see the full extent of the impact of the ambiguous language of the Ledbetter legislation, but they can start to breathe more easily as the decisions of the courts give some guidance on how the Act will be applied.  If you have any questions about a potential discriminatory pay issue that may be impacted by the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, please contact an attorney in MSEC's Employment Law Services department.

Category: Civil Rights
Published: 7/19/2010 11:40 AM
]]> Curtis Graves Civil Rights Mon, 19 Jul 2010 17:18:47 GMT http://members.msec.org/hottopics/Lists/Posts/ViewPost.aspx?ID=145