Healthcare Reform Update: Dependent Coverage to Age 26

Effective for plan years beginning on or after September 23, 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 requires group health plans and health insurers that offer group or individual coverage that cover dependents to cover dependents on a parents plan until the dependent’s 26th birthday.

For plan years beginning before January 1, 2014, a group health plan that was in existence on March 23, 2010 does not have to make coverage available to an adult child if the child is eligible to enroll in another employer-sponsored group health plan.

There is no requirement to make coverage available to a grandchild even if that child’s parent is covered as a dependent. Regulations are to be issued defining which dependents to whom coverage must be made available because of this requirement. The definitions of a dependent under existing law, however, remain unchanged.

Employers will likely have to cover additional dependents because of this provision. Keeping track of the coverage eligibility of dependents has always been a problem for employers. Employers are advised to obtain all the information needed for determining dependents’ coverage eligibility before this provision impacts their plan and keep it up to date to minimize paying for ineligible dependents.

Many states have existing laws that require insured plans to provide similar or more expansive coverage of dependents. These provisions still apply to insured plans in those states.

Source: BLR

OSHA Steps Up Enforcement of Worker Training Requirements

OSHA will step up enforcement of worker training requirements, especially for non-English speaking workers, according to a recent announcement from Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis. She announced a number of major new OSHA enforcement initiatives during her April 14 speech at the National Action Summit for Latino Worker Health and Safety. OSHA currently requires that training provisions under OSHA standards be provided in a language or a form workers can understand. OSHA further requires that its compliance officers check and verify that workers have received the training required by OSHA standards. The Agency will expand upon this and effective on April 28—Workers Memorial Day—Secretary Solis explained, "OSHA will also assure that its Compliance Officers check and verify not only that the training has been provided, but that it was provided in a format that the workers being trained can understand.”  To review OSHA’s guidelines for providing safety training in languages other than English, visit: http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=INTERPRETATIONS&p_id=25658

Trainers need to find ways to hurdle language barriers. While English is a second language for an increasing percentage of the workforce, employers are still obligated to make sure that immigrant worker training is understood by employees. It's not enough to make a presentation if you know that members of your audience may not be able to comprehend or use the information effectively. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Department of Labor (DOL), and other government agencies are keenly aware of this.

Following are some commonsense tips for Hispanic worker training:

• Establish companywide safety policies for bilingual training supported by top management.
• Hire supervisors who are bilingual.
• Provide signage (safety guidelines, emergency evacuation, warnings) in Spanish and include diagrams or symbols.
• Pair new employees with bilingual veteran employees who comply with safety and health guidelines.
• Conduct periodic jobsite visits and work with employees in the field.
• Follow up formal training with demonstrations and have employees demonstrate to one another.
• Conduct safety meetings and toolbox talks to reinforce formal training.

Additional OSHA compliance assistance and resources for Hispanic workers may be found at:  http://www.osha.gov/dcsp/compliance_assistance/index_hispanic.html.

Source:  BLR

HR Is Making a Green Effort

Companies are incorporating and working toward integrating a number of green practices, according to the Greening of HR Survey, which examines the types of environmentally friendly "green" initiatives that companies are utilizing involving their workforce and human resource practices. While the study's questions and results are broad, they hint at several areas for HR practitioners to consider in the green space.

Over half of the companies surveyed have incorporated environmental management into business operations and have a formal green program in place or plan to implement one in the next 12 months. More than half of the survey participants currently have the following green programs in place:

• Using the internet or teleconferencing to cut down on business travel (78 percent);
• Putting Summary Plan Descriptions (SPDs) or other company information online to reduce printing (77 percent);
• Promoting the reduction of paper usage (76 percent);
• Implementing wellness programs around proper nutrition, fitness, and healthy living (68 percent);
• Offering opportunities for employees to "telework" or work from home (57 percent); and
• Ride/Share programs (52 percent).

Greater than 60 percent of companies surveyed have made environmental responsibility a part of their organization's mission statement and view the promotion of social responsibility as the most critical objective of their green programs. However, in nearly 50 percent of companies, only five percent or less of their employees are actively involved in green programs.

Findings illustrate that companies who have appointed individuals to lead organizational green efforts have a much higher prevalence of employees actively involved in their green practices than companies who have not. Findings also demonstrate that corporate Operations and HR departments are most often responsible for green programs.

Source:  CCH

Did Worker Fall on Employer’s Premises?

An employee returning from lunch slipped just inside the building in which her employer had offices. Was she close enough to work for this accident to have occurred in the course of employment?

What happened. “Carla” worked for American Trucking Association (ATA) in the Regent Building in Arlington, VA. On December 5, 2007, a snowy day, she walked to a local restaurant for lunch. On her way back to work, she slipped on ice as she walked past the electronic card reader and gate that controlled access to the building’s underground driveway and garage. She injured her knees, back, and neck.

Carla filed a claim for workers’ compensation medical benefits. ATA countered that she had not been injured in the course of employment. The deputy commissioner found that the injuries had occurred within ATA’s extended premises and awarded her benefits. The full commission affirmed this finding. ATA appealed.

What the court said. Under the Virginia Workers’ Compensation Act, an injury must arise out of and in the course of employment in order to be compensable. Injuries that occur while going to or from work are usually not compensable, but this is a fairly flexible rule. Courts have often found that “employment” includes a reasonable amount of time and space through which an employee must pass to get to work. Injuries incurred on the employer’s premises in the course of coming to work are often found to have occurred in the course of employment. This is fairly common with cases in which employees slip on ice just outside building entrances.

Carla fell inside the Regent Building’s premises. She had left the public road and passed the card reader and gate that were used to grant access to the building. Carla was required to cross the area in which she fell in order to reach her workplace; there was no way for her to get to her office without passing through some common spaces within the building. The parking garage area effectively functioned as “extended premises” of the workplace. She was taking the most direct route from the restaurant back to work, and she was not engaged in any personal enterprise when she fell.

ATA argued that it did not control the parking lot. It is true that Virginia courts have sometimes found that parking lot injuries are not compensable because employers do not control them. The court found that this argument was not relevant because the accident had nothing to do with parking. Carla was not entering the parking garage itself, and the fact that her car was in the garage had nothing to do with her accident. The relevant question was where Carla was when she hurt herself. She was definitely on Regent Building property, traversing one of the few convenient and available paths to her office. As an ATA employee she had the right to be in this area, and it was an area in which her employer could reasonably expect her to be at that time on a workday. The court therefore upheld the award of benefits. American Trucking Assoc. v. Stallings, Court of Appeals of Virginia, No. 0980-09-4 (2/23/10).

Point to remember: “Extended premises” is a flexible concept, but generally covers any place an employee must be to get into the workplace.

Source: BLR