SHRMingham

42% of Tampa Bus Drivers Have Signed Up for Intermittent Leave..(!)

WOW.  It's been a few years since I supported a big consumer call center as part of my practice, so I had really forgotten about the pain that Intermittent Leave under FMLA can cause employers. 

The desire for maximum flexibility and at times, the avoidance of accountability, can cause Intermittent Leave to spread like a virus through an operating unit of a company.

For me, I thought bad news in this area would be about 3-4% of all employees in a division or company being approved for Intermittent Leave (10-12 employees in a call center of 300 would cause a big impact to scheduling, etc.).

But 42% of all employees?  You're kidding me, right?  Apparently not - from the Tampa Tribune:

"...Case in point is HARTline, the county's(Tampa metro) public transit service. Forty-two percent of the bus drivers have signed up for a benefit the federal law calls "unscheduled intermittent leave." Many of them are using the law to extend weekends and go home "sick" to avoid unwanted assignments.

The law designed to cost nothing is costing HARTline and other employers many millions of dollars. The family leave act was intended to cost little or nothing while providing 12 weeks of job security to help workers through challenges (sic) times - such as bringing home a new baby, recovering from illness, or helping an incapacitated relative.

Some workers, including many HARTline drivers, have discovered that minor ailments also qualify, such as back pain and headaches. A one-time doctor's certification can give a worker a perpetual excuse for going home early, sleeping late, or not showing up at all.

Lawmakers were wrong in thinking that two features would minimize employee abuse and employer expense: One, the worker on leave under the act gets no pay and thus has no incentive to malinger, and two, the law applies only to organizations with 50 or more workers, which seems to be ample manpower to make up lost productivity."

But employers like the bus agency can't make up in the afternoon for a bus that doesn't run in the morning. In many businesses, schedules must be kept.

To keep its buses on time, HARTline is spending $2 million a year on overtime, an agency spokesman says, and 39 percent of that cost is attributed to FMLA absences."

42% of all employees.  Maybe it would be easier for that HR Team to certify the people who don't need intermittent leave....

Ralph Kramden would never approve...

WOW.  It's been a few years since I supported a big consumer call center as part of my practice, so I had really forgotten about the pain that Intermittent Leave under FMLA can cause employers. 

The desire for maximum flexibility and at times, the avoidance of accountability, can cause Intermittent Leave to spread like a virus through an operating unit of a company.

For me, I thought bad news in this area would be about 3-4% of all employees in a division or company being approved for Intermittent Leave (10-12 employees in a call center of 300 would cause a big impact to scheduling, etc.).

But 42% of all employees?  You're kidding me, right?  Apparently not - from the Tampa Tribune:

"...Case in point is HARTline, the county's(Tampa metro) public transit service. Forty-two percent of the bus drivers have signed up for a benefit the federal law calls "unscheduled intermittent leave." Many of them are using the law to extend weekends and go home "sick" to avoid unwanted assignments.

The law designed to cost nothing is costing HARTline and other employers many millions of dollars. The family leave act was intended to cost little or nothing while providing 12 weeks of job security to help workers through challenges (sic) times - such as bringing home a new baby, recovering from illness, or helping an incapacitated relative.

Some workers, including many HARTline drivers, have discovered that minor ailments also qualify, such as back pain and headaches. A one-time doctor's certification can give a worker a perpetual excuse for going home early, sleeping late, or not showing up at all.

Lawmakers were wrong in thinking that two features would minimize employee abuse and employer expense: One, the worker on leave under the act gets no pay and thus has no incentive to malinger, and two, the law applies only to organizations with 50 or more workers, which seems to be ample manpower to make up lost productivity."

But employers like the bus agency can't make up in the afternoon for a bus that doesn't run in the morning. In many businesses, schedules must be kept.

To keep its buses on time, HARTline is spending $2 million a year on overtime, an agency spokesman says, and 39 percent of that cost is attributed to FMLA absences."

42% of all employees.  Maybe it would be easier for that HR Team to certify the people who don't need intermittent leave....

Ralph Kramden would never approve...

Pharma Rep Playbook - 4 Minutes with Doctors = 52% Jump in Scripts Written...

I want all of our employees to have the medical care they need.  Let's start there before anyone brands me as a fiscal hawk looking at numbers rather than employee well-being...

If there's one area of Medical care that drives me crazy, it's got to be big Pharma vs. doctors, patients, and yes, your local company medical plan. 

Big Pharma gets paid off of blockbuster drugs that they hold exclusive rights to.  That part of the system I get, since there are development costs tied to the R&D effort.  It's the repackaging of brand name drugs, once generics are available, that drives me crazy.  Hey, why take that generic every day?  We've just revamped the brand name equivalent with enough potency to last 5 days.   Uh, yeah... It'll cost your medical plan $1,000 more per year, but who cares?  Your employee contribution is the same regardless.

In case you needed more examples of the power of the Pharmaceutical Rep over most doctors, consider this article in a recent BusinessWeek entitled "Just Say No to Drug Reps":

"Dr. Adriane Ugh-Beman wishes more doctors would greet marketing pitches from drug companies with skepticism. So she is taking her message to medical schools. An associate professor of physiology and biophysics at Georgetown University, she has spent the past six months lecturing med students at Georgetown and neighboring schools on how to resist sales reps' overtures, such as doling out free drug samples to physicians and bringing lunches for office staff.

Often, the audience starts out belligerent, Ugh-Beman says, protesting that they're "too smart to be bought by a slice of pizza." But that changes when "we correct them with the numbers," she says. A doctor who spends just one minute with a sales rep typically ends up prescribing 16% more of that rep's product than he or she was prescribing before. And a four-minute encounter is likely to prompt a 52% jump in prescriptions, says Ugh-Beman."

I didn't dig around on the net for the white-paper behind Ugh-Berman's claims, but I am assuming if it made BW, it's legit research.

Let's assume programs like this can prepare doctors for the drug rep pushing product.  No sweat to Big Pharma, because they've got an even more powerful marketing tool.   It's called the demands of their patients after watching 20 Pharma ads every night during American Idol... What's a busy M.D supposed to do when someone brings him an ad for Paxil during a routine visit?  Prescribe (gasp) exercise? 

Every seen a Viagra ad?   All they have to do is create a market with a couple of Billion dollars worth of ads, and all of a sudden the pressure is on to pick up the full tab for each new class of drugs that's introduced... 

Man, am I tired of scrambling for the remote during a basketball game on the weekend or during prime time when the Viagra ads come on (hello? kids are watching when these things run!).  But those guys throwing the football sure are accurate throwing it through that tire in the back yard... 

I want all of our employees to have the medical care they need.  Let's start there before anyone brands me as a fiscal hawk looking at numbers rather than employee well-being...

If there's one area of Medical care that drives me crazy, it's got to be big Pharma vs. doctors, patients, and yes, your local company medical plan. 

Big Pharma gets paid off of blockbuster drugs that they hold exclusive rights to.  That part of the system I get, since there are development costs tied to the R&D effort.  It's the repackaging of brand name drugs, once generics are available, that drives me crazy.  Hey, why take that generic every day?  We've just revamped the brand name equivalent with enough potency to last 5 days.   Uh, yeah... It'll cost your medical plan $1,000 more per year, but who cares?  Your employee contribution is the same regardless.

In case you needed more examples of the power of the Pharmaceutical Rep over most doctors, consider this article in a recent BusinessWeek entitled "Just Say No to Drug Reps":

"Dr. Adriane Ugh-Beman wishes more doctors would greet marketing pitches from drug companies with skepticism. So she is taking her message to medical schools. An associate professor of physiology and biophysics at Georgetown University, she has spent the past six months lecturing med students at Georgetown and neighboring schools on how to resist sales reps' overtures, such as doling out free drug samples to physicians and bringing lunches for office staff.

Often, the audience starts out belligerent, Ugh-Beman says, protesting that they're "too smart to be bought by a slice of pizza." But that changes when "we correct them with the numbers," she says. A doctor who spends just one minute with a sales rep typically ends up prescribing 16% more of that rep's product than he or she was prescribing before. And a four-minute encounter is likely to prompt a 52% jump in prescriptions, says Ugh-Beman."

I didn't dig around on the net for the white-paper behind Ugh-Berman's claims, but I am assuming if it made BW, it's legit research.

Let's assume programs like this can prepare doctors for the drug rep pushing product.  No sweat to Big Pharma, because they've got an even more powerful marketing tool.   It's called the demands of their patients after watching 20 Pharma ads every night during American Idol... What's a busy M.D supposed to do when someone brings him an ad for Paxil during a routine visit?  Prescribe (gasp) exercise? 

Every seen a Viagra ad?   All they have to do is create a market with a couple of Billion dollars worth of ads, and all of a sudden the pressure is on to pick up the full tab for each new class of drugs that's introduced... 

Man, am I tired of scrambling for the remote during a basketball game on the weekend or during prime time when the Viagra ads come on (hello? kids are watching when these things run!).  But those guys throwing the football sure are accurate throwing it through that tire in the back yard... 

San Francisco Universal Healthcare - They're Going To Need More Ca$H....

There's been a lot of coverage lately about San Francisco and Universal Heathcare, namely the city's Health Benefits Ordinance, which would provide coverage for 73,000 uninsured adults in the city.    Lately, there's been some volleys back and forth whether the plan is legal.

Not sure if the plan is going to make it or not, but I am assuming it eventually will.   If it does make it and the city implements the plan, my layperson math indicates their best case assumptions will result in a plan that is dramatically underfunded. 

Check out these notes From SF Gate:

"As written, San Francisco’s ordinance would require private employers with at least 20 employees, and nonprofits with at least 50 employees, to provide health coverage at certain minimum levels or to pay a fee to the city. The fee would pay part of the cost of a $200 million-a-year program of care for the 73,000 uninsured adult city residents.

Without the employer fee, city officials say they will limit enrollment to those making no more than three times the federal poverty level, or about $32,000 a year for an individual."

Here's what I don't get.  By math, the city is planning on spending about $2,800 per covered individual annually.  That's great, but there's no way that's going to cut it, right?

Why won't it cover it?  By the very nature of the risk pool, the cost per covered individual is going to skew higher than average.  The uninsured includes people who can't work or are otherwise deemed uninsurable due to heath concerns.

A similar program for universal coverage in Connecticut failed, in part because the legislators were shocked about what the cost was (from Managed Care Matters):

"An effort in Connecticut to implement a single payer, universal coverage program is just about dead, after the state's Office of Fiscal Analysis determined it would cost as much as the entire state budget.

Politicians were shocked by the estimated total cost, which ranged from $12 billion to $18 billion (cost range per covered individual - $4,000 to $6,000).

I'm shocked that they were shocked."

That's why I don't get the plan in San Francisco.  The State of Connecticut runs the entire risk pool for the state and comes up with 4k to 6k per covered individual, and SF handles a risk pool that skews more severe and they're only going to pay $2,800?

When people underestimate things, I also think of that great line in the original "Jaws" - "We're going to need a bigger boat..."  That seems to fit here.... 

There's been a lot of coverage lately about San Francisco and Universal Heathcare, namely the city's Health Benefits Ordinance, which would provide coverage for 73,000 uninsured adults in the city.    Lately, there's been some volleys back and forth whether the plan is legal.

Not sure if the plan is going to make it or not, but I am assuming it eventually will.   If it does make it and the city implements the plan, my layperson math indicates their best case assumptions will result in a plan that is dramatically underfunded. 

Check out these notes From SF Gate:

"As written, San Francisco’s ordinance would require private employers with at least 20 employees, and nonprofits with at least 50 employees, to provide health coverage at certain minimum levels or to pay a fee to the city. The fee would pay part of the cost of a $200 million-a-year program of care for the 73,000 uninsured adult city residents.

Without the employer fee, city officials say they will limit enrollment to those making no more than three times the federal poverty level, or about $32,000 a year for an individual."

Here's what I don't get.  By math, the city is planning on spending about $2,800 per covered individual annually.  That's great, but there's no way that's going to cut it, right?

Why won't it cover it?  By the very nature of the risk pool, the cost per covered individual is going to skew higher than average.  The uninsured includes people who can't work or are otherwise deemed uninsurable due to heath concerns.

A similar program for universal coverage in Connecticut failed, in part because the legislators were shocked about what the cost was (from Managed Care Matters):

"An effort in Connecticut to implement a single payer, universal coverage program is just about dead, after the state's Office of Fiscal Analysis determined it would cost as much as the entire state budget.

Politicians were shocked by the estimated total cost, which ranged from $12 billion to $18 billion (cost range per covered individual - $4,000 to $6,000).

I'm shocked that they were shocked."

That's why I don't get the plan in San Francisco.  The State of Connecticut runs the entire risk pool for the state and comes up with 4k to 6k per covered individual, and SF handles a risk pool that skews more severe and they're only going to pay $2,800?

When people underestimate things, I also think of that great line in the original "Jaws" - "We're going to need a bigger boat..."  That seems to fit here.... 

"An effort in Connecticut to implement a single payer, universal coverage program is just about dead, after the state's Office of Fiscal Analysis determined it would cost as much as the entire state budget.

Politicians were shocked by the estimated total cost, which ranged from $12 billion to $18 billion (cost range per covered individual - $4,000 to $6,000).

I'm shocked that they were shocked."

Why You May Add 7 Sick Days to Your PTO Policy in 2009...

Went to last week's SHRM-Birmingham chapter meeting this week and heard Mike Aiken, a Governmental Affairs expert from the National Office of SHRM, talk about what was going on in Washington.  Great talk, very knowledgeable guy...

One of the things that caught my attention was the proposed Healthy Families Act (HFA), which would require employers with more than 15 employees to offer full-time employees seven days of paid sick leave.  The HFA would also mandate the sick time could be used for the employee's illness or to care for a child/parent/spouse/individual related by blood/domestic partner.   Here's some commentary on the merits of the bill....

It's a broad bill that is likely to get a lot of traction in 2008/2009, if Congress continues to be controlled by the Democrats and the White House goes "blue state" as well. 

My take?  Who can be against providing paid sick time for employees?  Most employers already do this.  My company offers 10 sick days a year that can be rolled over year after year, providing a nice cushion for those that have to go out on FMLA leave related to a health condition for them or their families.  Package the sick days with a benefit like Short-Term Disability, and you've got a great safety net for employees, in addition to what's required by law.   

Employers of choice already do this since they have to compete for talent.  Organizations with mostly entry level jobs - food service, poultry processing plants, etc., probably don't offer that type of leave.  You show, you get paid, you don't - tough - regardless of the circumstances.  That's harsh and worthy of trying to come up with a better way.

Here's the catch and why more government isn't always the best solution - the bill as currently written would also prohibit employers from eliminating existing leave coverage in order to comply with the Act.  That can get complicated.  Early readings suggest that if you are an employer trying to do the right thing by offering a Paid Time Off (PTO) plan, you couldn't adjust the total number of PTO days to reflect the legal requirement for a stand-alone sick-time policy.   You would have to simply add the seven to what you currently offer to be in compliance.  For those of us offering a great benefit, that's crazy talk...

Here's hoping someone gets to the bill's sponsors and explains that if an employer is already offering 3 weeks of PTO to new employees, they're taking care of people.   Otherwise, expect companies to start breaking out their PTO policies into vacation/sick designations, if it looks like the bill will pass. 

Went to last week's SHRM-Birmingham chapter meeting this week and heard Mike Aiken, a Governmental Affairs expert from the National Office of SHRM, talk about what was going on in Washington.  Great talk, very knowledgeable guy...

One of the things that caught my attention was the proposed Healthy Families Act (HFA), which would require employers with more than 15 employees to offer full-time employees seven days of paid sick leave.  The HFA would also mandate the sick time could be used for the employee's illness or to care for a child/parent/spouse/individual related by blood/domestic partner.   Here's some commentary on the merits of the bill....

It's a broad bill that is likely to get a lot of traction in 2008/2009, if Congress continues to be controlled by the Democrats and the White House goes "blue state" as well. 

My take?  Who can be against providing paid sick time for employees?  Most employers already do this.  My company offers 10 sick days a year that can be rolled over year after year, providing a nice cushion for those that have to go out on FMLA leave related to a health condition for them or their families.  Package the sick days with a benefit like Short-Term Disability, and you've got a great safety net for employees, in addition to what's required by law.   

Employers of choice already do this since they have to compete for talent.  Organizations with mostly entry level jobs - food service, poultry processing plants, etc., probably don't offer that type of leave.  You show, you get paid, you don't - tough - regardless of the circumstances.  That's harsh and worthy of trying to come up with a better way.

Here's the catch and why more government isn't always the best solution - the bill as currently written would also prohibit employers from eliminating existing leave coverage in order to comply with the Act.  That can get complicated.  Early readings suggest that if you are an employer trying to do the right thing by offering a Paid Time Off (PTO) plan, you couldn't adjust the total number of PTO days to reflect the legal requirement for a stand-alone sick-time policy.   You would have to simply add the seven to what you currently offer to be in compliance.  For those of us offering a great benefit, that's crazy talk...

Here's hoping someone gets to the bill's sponsors and explains that if an employer is already offering 3 weeks of PTO to new employees, they're taking care of people.   Otherwise, expect companies to start breaking out their PTO policies into vacation/sick designations, if it looks like the bill will pass.