| View this email online if it doesn't display correctly |
| | | Special #87 March 31, 2021 |
|
HR and Employment Law News |
| ¶45,749 Unemployment rate edged down to 6.0% in March — SURVEY RESULTS,(Apr. 5, 2021)
Taken from GEA HR Answers Now
Total nonfarm payroll employment rose by 916,000 in March, and the unemployment rate edged down to 6.0 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported on April 2. The rate is down considerably from its recent high in April 2020 but is 2.5 percentage points higher than its pre-coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic level in February 2020. The number of unemployed persons, at 9.7 million, continued to trend down in March but is 4.0 million higher than in February 2020. These improvements in the labor market reflect the continued resumption of economic activity that had been curtailed due to the pandemic.
Job growth was widespread in March, led by gains in leisure and hospitality (+280,000), public and private education (+190,000), construction (+110,000), professional and business services (+66,000), manufacturing (+53,000), transportation and warehousing (+48,000), other services (+42,000), social assistance (+25,000), wholesale trade (+24,000), retail trade (+23,000), mining (+21,000), and financial activities (+16,000). Employment in health care and information changed little in March.
Among the major worker groups, the unemployment rate for Asians rose to 6.0 percent in March, following a decline in the previous month. The jobless rate for Hispanics edged down to 7.9 percent over the month, while the rates for adult men (5.8 percent), adult women (5.7 percent), teenagers (13.0 percent), Whites (5.4 percent), and Blacks (9.6 percent) changed little.
Among the unemployed, the number of persons on temporary layoff declined by 203,000 in March to 2.0 million. This measure is down considerably from the recent high of 18.0 million in April 2020 but is 1.3 million higher than in February 2020. The number of permanent job losers, at 3.4 million, was little changed in March but is 2.1 million higher than February 2020.
The number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks or more), at 4.2 million, changed little over the month but is up by 3.1 million since February 2020. In March, these long-term unemployed accounted for 43.4 percent of the total unemployed. The number of persons jobless 5 to 14 weeks declined by 313,000 to 1.9 million. The number of persons jobless less than 5 weeks, at 2.2 million, was essentially unchanged over the month.
The labor force participation rate changed little at 61.5 percent in March. This measure is 1.8 percentage points lower than in February 2020. The employment-population ratio, at 57.8 percent, was up by 0.2 percentage point over the month but is 3.3 percentage points lower than in February 2020.
The number of persons employed part time for economic reasons, at 5.8 million, changed little in March but is 1.4 million higher than in February 2020. These individuals, who would have preferred full-time employment, were working part time because their hours had been reduced or they were unable to find full-time jobs.
The number of persons not in the labor force who currently want a job was about unchanged at 6.9 million in March but is up by 1.8 million since February 2020. These individuals were not counted as unemployed because they were not actively looking for work during the last 4 weeks or were unavailable to take a job.
Among those not in the labor force who currently want a job, the number of persons marginally attached to the labor force, at 1.9 million, was essentially unchanged in March but is up by 416,000 since February 2020. These individuals wanted and were available for work and had looked for a job sometime in the prior 12 months but had not looked for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey. The number of discouraged workers, a subset of the marginally attached who believed that no jobs were available for them, was 523,000 in March, essentially unchanged from the previous month.
Impact of COVID-19. In March, 21.0 percent of employed persons teleworked because of the coronavirus pandemic, down from 22.7 percent in the prior month. These data refer to employed persons who teleworked or worked at home for pay at some point in the last 4 weeks specifically because of the pandemic.
In March, 11.4 million persons reported that they had been unable to work because their employer closed or lost business due to the pandemic--that is, they did not work at all or worked fewer hours at some point in the last 4 weeks due to the pandemic. This measure is down from 13.3 million in the previous month. Among those who reported in March that they were unable to work because of pandemic-related closures or lost business, 10.2 percent received at least some pay from their employer for the hours not worked, little changed from the previous month.
Among those not in the labor force in March, 3.7 million persons were prevented from looking for work due to the pandemic. This measure is down from 4.2 million the month before. (To be counted as unemployed, by definition, individuals must be either actively looking for work or on temporary layoff.)
Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
|
| | ¶45,752 FAQs provide details on new mental health parity compliance requirements — AGENCY GUIDANCE,(Apr. 6, 2021)
The Departments of Labor (DOL), Health and Human Services (HHS), and the Treasury (Departments) have jointly issued frequently asked questions (FAQ) on amendments made by the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (CAA), to the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 (MHPAEA). The CAA requires group health plans and health insurance issuers offering group or individual health insurance coverage that offer both medical/surgical benefits and mental health or substance use disorder (MH/SUD) benefits and that impose non-quantitative treatment limitations (NQTL) on MH/SUD benefits to perform and document their comparative analyses of the design and application of NQTLs.
Analyses should be ready now. The FAQs indicate that plans and issuers that offer both medical/surgical benefits and MH/SUD benefits and impose NQTLs must make their comparative analyses of the design and application of NQTLs available to the Departments or applicable state authorities upon request, beginning 45 days after the date of enactment of the CAA. Because the CAA was enacted on December 27, 2020, the requirement applies beginning February 10, 2021. Accordingly, plans and issuers should now be prepared to make their comparative analyses available upon request.
The FAQs also note that for plans subject to ERISA, plans and issuers must make the comparative analyses and other applicable information required by the CAA available to participants, beneficiaries, and enrollees upon request.
Information required. Plans and issuers should ensure that comparative analyses are sufficiently specific, detailed, and reasoned to demonstrate whether the processes, strategies, evidentiary standards, or other factors used in developing and applying an NQTL are comparable and applied no more stringently to MH/SUD benefits than to medical/surgical benefits. To that end, a general statement of compliance, coupled with a conclusory reference to broadly stated processes, strategies, evidentiary standards, or other factors is insufficient to meet this statutory requirement. At a minimum, sufficient analyses must include a robust discussion of the following elements:
- A clear description of the specific NQTL, plan terms, and policies at issue.
- Identification of the specific MH/SUD and medical/surgical benefits to which the NQTL applies within each benefit classification, and a clear statement as to which benefits identified are treated as MH/SUD and which are treated as medical/surgical.
- Identification of any factors, evidentiary standards or sources, or strategies or processes considered in the design or application of the NQTL and in determining which benefits, including both MH/SUD benefits and medical/surgical benefits, are subject to the NQTL. Analyses should explain whether any factors were given more weight than others and the reason(s) for doing so, including an evaluation of any specific data used in the determination.
- To the extent the plan or issuer defines any of the factors, evidentiary standards, strategies, or processes in a quantitative manner, it must include the precise definitions used and any supporting sources.
- The analyses, as documented, should explain whether there is any variation in the application of a guideline or standard used by the plan or issuer between MH/SUD and medical/surgical benefits and, if so, describe the process and factors used for establishing that variation.
- If the application of the NQTL turns on specific decisions in administration of the benefits, the plan or issuer should identify the nature of the decisions, the decision maker(s), the timing of the decisions, and the qualifications of the decision maker(s).
- If the plan’s or issuer’s analyses rely upon any experts, the analyses, as documented, should include an assessment of each expert’s qualifications and the extent to which the plan or issuer ultimately relied upon each expert’s evaluations in setting recommendations regarding both MH/SUD and medical/surgical benefits.
- A reasoned discussion of the plan’s or issuer’s findings and conclusions as to the comparability of the processes, strategies, evidentiary standards, factors, and sources identified above within each affected classification, and their relative stringency, both as applied and as written. This discussion should include citations to any specific evidence considered and any results of analyses indicating that the plan or coverage is or is not in compliance with MHPAEA.
- The date of the analyses and the name, title, and position of the person or persons who performed or participated in the comparative analyses.
Types of documents. As specified by the CAA, plans and issuers should be prepared to make available documents that support the analysis and conclusions of their NQTL comparative analyses, including any documents and other information relevant to the factors used to determine the application of an NQTL and the evidentiary standards used to define the factors identified. In its most recent update of the MHPAEA Self-Compliance Tool, DOL highlighted the following types of documents and relevant information that a plan or issuer should have available to support its NQTL comparative analyses.- Records documenting NQTL processes and detailing how the NQTLs are being applied to both medical/surgical and MH/SUD benefits to ensure the plan or issuer can demonstrate compliance with the law, including any materials that may have been prepared for compliance with any applicable reporting requirements under state law.
- Any documentation, including any guidelines, claims processing policies and procedures, or other standards that the plan or issuer has relied upon to determine that the NQTLs apply no more stringently to MH/SUD benefits than to medical/surgical benefits. Plans and issuers should include any available details as to how the standards were applied, and any internal testing, review, or analysis done by the plan or issuer to support its rationale.
- Samples of covered and denied MH/SUD and medical/surgical benefit claims.
- Documents related to MHPAEA compliance with respect to service providers (if a plan delegates management of some or all MH/SUD benefits to another entity).
If the Departments conclude a plan or issuer has not provided sufficient information to review the comparative analyses, the CAA provides that the Departments shall specify to the plan or issuer the information the plan or issuer must submit to be responsive to the request.
Enforcement focus. The FAQs indicate that in the near term, the DOL expects to focus on the following NQTLs in its enforcement efforts: (1) prior authorization requirements for in-network and out-of-network inpatient services; (2) concurrent review for in-network and out-of-network inpatient and outpatient services; (3) standards for provider admission to participate in a network, including reimbursement rates; and (4) out-of-network reimbursement rates (plan methods for determining usual, customary, and reasonable charges).
SOURCE:FAQs About Mental Health and Substance Use Disorder Parity Requirements Implementation and the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, Part 45, April 2, 2021.
|
| |
HRDive.com BRIEF
Employers should offer paid leave for vaccine recovery, CDC says
AUTHOR Lisa Burden PUBLISHED March 23, 2021
Dive Brief:
- Employers should offer paid sick leave to employees with "signs and symptoms" following COVID-19 vaccination, according to guidance updated March 16 by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
- Employers should consider on-site vaccination programs if they have a large workforce with predictable schedules and enough space to run a clinic that meets social distancing requirements, CDC said. Employers that choose to offer vaccinations should record each offer and employees' decisions. Employers should consider off-site vaccination if they are a small- or medium-sized organization lacking the resources to host a vaccination clinic, it said.
- The agency also said that whether an employer may require COVID-19 vaccinations is a matter of state or other applicable law but noted that exemptions may apply: Medical exemptions for people who are at risk for an adverse reaction because of an allergy to one of the components used in the vaccine or a medical condition; and religious exemptions for people who reject being vaccinated because of their religious beliefs.......Read more>>
|
| | HRDive.com Mailbag: Can we ask employees if they've been vaccinated?
As some states begin to open vaccine spots to everyone 16 and older, it's a question employers may find themselves wanting to ask.
Q: Can we ask employees if they've been vaccinated?
A: Employers can ask workers whether they’ve been vaccinated, but they’ll need to be cautious about asking follow-up questions, according to Crowell & Morning Counsel Christine Hawes.
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has said that employers can ask workers about their vaccination status without triggering federal employment laws such as the Americans with Disabilities Act or the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, Hawes said.
EEOC specified in guidance that employers can ask workers for proof of vaccination without making a disability-related inquiry, which could potentially violate the ADA, as the question won’t likely force an employee to divulge information about a disability. Similarly, the agency said employers can ask the question without implicating GINA because "it does not involve the use of genetic information to make employment decisions."........Read More>>
|
| | | |
Georgia Employers' Association |
|
|
| |
