Employee Benefits
2026 Benefits State of the Union: High-Cost Drugs and What They Mean for Your Health Plan
According to Mployer Insights’ 2026 analysis of 50,000+ employer health plans, prescription drugs account for over 25% of total benefit expenses, with Tier 4 specialty drugs driving the majority of high-cost claims. While Tier 4 copays average $123 with coinsurance requirements in 31% of plans, individual oncology therapies like Darzalex Faspro ($170,800/yr) and Keytruda ($158,200/yr) frequently exceed average individual stop-loss deductibles ($141,938). To mitigate exposure, self-funded employers are increasingly turning to independent, transparent PBM models and biosimilar substitution—which yields up to a 73% net cost reduction per patient.
August 9, 2026

The Likely Fastest-Growing Line in Your Benefits Budget

Modern medicine has produced remarkable advances. Cancer therapies that were not available five years ago are now extending and saving lives. Treatments for autoimmune diseases, multiple sclerosis, and rare genetic conditions are giving employees and their families real options where few existed before. As an employer, providing access to these treatments through your benefit plan is one of the most meaningful things your organization does for the people who work there.

It also comes with a financial reality that every benefits decision maker needs to understand clearly. Over 25% of total employer health benefit expenses are now driven by prescription drugs, and within that figure, a small number of specialty drugs account for an outsized share of the cost. A single covered employee on an oncology therapy can generate $100,000 to $170,000 or more in annual drug spend. A handful of members on these treatments can represent a larger budget impact than the entire pharmacy spend of the rest of your workforce combined. The goal is not to restrict access to these medications. The goal is to understand how the system works, how costs flow, and how to structure your plan so that both your employees and your organization are best positioned for the long term.

This piece covers how the pharmacy benefit system works, how your plan’s tier structure determines who pays what, how stop-loss insurance interacts with high-cost drug claims, and what employers can do to manage this exposure thoughtfully.

The tier structure in the chart above reflects how plans already account for the cost complexity of specialty drugs. Tier 4, which is where specialty biologics and injectables are typically placed, carries significantly higher cost-sharing than the other tiers: an average employee copay of $123 and coinsurance requirements in 31% of plans. But Tier 4 behaves very differently from the other tiers. On Tier 1, 2, and 3 drugs, cost-sharing is relatively predictable and manageable. On Tier 4, the combination of high drug cost and percentage-based coinsurance can generate out-of-pocket exposure that approaches or exceeds a patient’s annual out-of-pocket maximum in a single month of therapy. How Tier 4 is structured, what controls are in place, and how the plan manages cost is one of the most consequential design decisions an employer makes.

Understanding Your Benefit Plan’s Pharmacy Options

How Pharmacy Benefit Managers Work

Most employer health plans do not manage pharmacy benefits directly. That function is delegated to a Pharmacy Benefit Manager, or PBM, which acts as the intermediary between the health plan, the pharmacy, and the drug manufacturer. The PBM builds and maintains the formulary, negotiates drug prices and rebates with manufacturers, contracts with pharmacy networks, and processes pharmacy claims. The three dominant PBMs, Express Scripts (owned by Cigna), CVS Caremark (owned by CVS Health / Aetna), and OptumRx (owned by UnitedHealth Group), together manage the pharmacy benefits of approximately 80% of covered lives in the United States. Each is affiliated with a major carrier, meaning that employers who use an ASO medical arrangement often default to the carrier’s affiliated PBM without realizing it. Independent PBMs such as Capital Rx, Navitus, and MedOne Pharmacy Benefit Solutions operate on transparent, pass-through pricing models that return all rebates to the plan rather than retaining them as PBM revenue. PBMs are compensated through administrative fees, spread pricing (charging the plan more than the pharmacy receives and keeping the difference), manufacturer rebates in exchange for formulary placement, and specialty pharmacy margin. For any employer managing meaningful specialty drug spend, understanding which of these revenue sources applies to your contract is essential.

How Drug Tiers and Cost-Sharing Work

Every pharmacy benefit plan organizes covered drugs into tiers, with cost-sharing that increases as you move from Tier 1 generics (avg. $12 copay) through Tier 2 preferred brands ($40), Tier 3 non-preferred brands ($71), and into Tier 4 specialty drugs ($123 copay, with coinsurance in 31% of plans). The tier placement of a drug affects both what the employee pays and, indirectly, what the plan pays, since tier placement drives utilization patterns. Plan sponsors have real levers here: step therapy (requiring a patient to try a lower-cost drug first), prior authorization, specialty pharmacy channel mandates, and formulary exclusions all affect Tier 4 cost without eliminating clinical access. These controls require balancing cost management with the reality that for many specialty drugs, no lower-cost alternative achieves the same clinical outcome.

How Stop-Loss Insurance Interacts with High-Cost Drug Claims

For self-funded employers, specialty drug claims are now among the most common triggers for individual stop-loss reimbursement. A single employee on a cancer therapy or rare disease treatment can generate pharmacy claims that exceed the plan’s specific stop-loss deductible, which averages $141,938 nationally for self-insured plans, within a single plan year. The mechanics: the employer pays all claims up to the deductible threshold, and the stop-loss carrier reimburses costs above it. Several dynamics are specific to high-cost drugs. At renewal, stop-loss carriers may laser a known high-cost member by raising their individual deductible or excluding them from coverage. Some carriers now specifically carve out GLP-1 medications or other high-utilization drug categories from stop-loss reimbursement, so employers adding new drug coverage should verify what their contract covers. Specialty drugs can also be administered under either the pharmacy benefit or the medical benefit depending on whether they are self-administered or clinic-administered, and some stop-loss contracts apply different terms to each channel. Employers should model their actual specialty drug cost distribution against their stop-loss deductible at every renewal to understand where the plan’s real exposure sits.

The Costliest Specialty Drugs: What They Treat and What They Cost

The chart below shows the highest-cost specialty and biologic drugs by average cost per patient, ranked from most to least expensive. Cancer therapies dominate the top of the list, but treatments for autoimmune conditions, MS, and inflammatory disease also appear, reflecting how broadly specialty drug spending is distributed across a workforce.

  • Darzalex Faspro (daratumumab/hyaluronidase) | $170,800 avg. annual cost per patient. Janssen (J&J). Multiple myeloma, a blood cancer. The highest-cost drug on the list by average patient cost. The subcutaneous formulation allows home administration, increasing the likelihood it flows through the pharmacy benefit rather than the medical benefit.
  • Keytruda (pembrolizumab) | $158,200 avg. annual cost per patient. Merck. FDA-approved across more than 40 cancer indications including lung, melanoma, head and neck, and bladder cancers. One of the most prescribed oncology drugs globally and one of the most common high-cost pharmacy claims in large employer plans.
  • Yervoy (ipilimumab) | $149,800 avg. annual cost per patient. Bristol-Myers Squibb. Melanoma and in combination with Opdivo for lung and other cancers. Combination Yervoy plus Opdivo therapy is among the highest per-patient drug cost regimens in common use.
  • Enhertu (trastuzumab deruxtecan) | $139,800 avg. annual cost per patient. AstraZeneca / Daiichi Sankyo. HER2-positive and HER2-low breast and gastric cancers. A significant recent clinical advance for patients with cancers that previously had limited options after first-line treatment.
  • Opdivo (nivolumab) | $135,600 avg. annual cost per patient. Bristol-Myers Squibb. Melanoma, lung, kidney, bladder, and other cancers. Frequently used in combination with Yervoy, compounding cost significantly when both are prescribed together.
  • Ocrevus (ocrelizumab) | $106,200 avg. annual cost per patient. Genentech. Relapsing and primary progressive multiple sclerosis. MS therapies are a persistent specialty drug cost driver because patients remain on therapy for years, making each diagnosed member a multi-year plan cost.
  • Entyvio (vedolizumab) | $56,600 avg. annual cost per patient. Takeda. Moderate-to-severe Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis. Inflammatory bowel disease therapies are among the most common specialty drug claims in employer plans because the conditions are prevalent in working-age adults.

Biosimilars: The Cost Opportunity Most Employers Are Not Fully Using

A biosimilar is a biologic drug that is highly similar to an already-approved reference biologic, with no clinically meaningful differences in safety, purity, or potency. Biosimilars are not generic drugs in the traditional sense, because biologic drugs are complex proteins manufactured from living cells and cannot be chemically replicated exactly. But they go through an FDA approval pathway that confirms their clinical equivalence to the reference product, and they cost significantly less. The biosimilar market has expanded rapidly as major biologic patents have expired. Humira, the world’s best-selling drug for much of the past decade, now has multiple biosimilar competitors in the U.S. Stelara has followed. The oncology biosimilar pipeline is maturing, with more approvals expected in the next two to three years.

The chart above shows what biosimilar substitution looks like in dollar terms. For Humira, the net price after rebates and negotiated discounts is $2,370 per box. The biosimilar Yusimry has an estimated net price of $635, a 73% reduction. For Stelara, the reference drug net price is $7,636 per box. The biosimilar Starjemza has an estimated net price of $4,010, a 47% reduction. For an employee on monthly Humira therapy, the difference between the reference drug and the biosimilar is approximately $21,000 per year in net plan cost. For a Stelara patient, the annual difference is approximately $43,500. Across even a small number of members on these therapies, biosimilar substitution is one of the highest-return cost management interventions available.

Plan sponsors have four main tools to drive biosimilar adoption: preferred formulary placement (putting the biosimilar on a lower tier and the reference drug on a higher tier), step therapy for new patients, automatic substitution where state law permits, and formulary exclusion of the reference drug entirely. The most important variable in any biosimilar strategy is whether your PBM has a financial incentive to keep the reference drug preferred. A PBM earning a large rebate on Humira has a direct financial reason to keep Humira on the preferred formulary, even when the biosimilar costs the plan less on a net basis. Independent PBMs operating on pass-through pricing remove this conflict entirely, because all rebates return to the plan and formulary decisions are made without a competing financial interest.

What Employers Should Be Asking About Their Pharmacy Benefit

High-cost drug management requires active decisions about PBM contract structure, formulary design, specialty pharmacy strategy, and stop-loss alignment. The questions worth asking at every renewal:

  • Is your PBM contract pass-through or spread-based? A pass-through model means you pay exactly what the pharmacy receives and all rebates come back to the plan. A spread-based model means the PBM earns revenue that is not visible in the administrative fee. Request full compensation disclosure under the CAA requirements.
  • Are you receiving all available biosimilar savings? Ask your PBM for a net cost comparison of each reference drug plus rebate against the available biosimilar net price. The answer will tell you whether your formulary is designed around the plan’s cost interest or the PBM’s rebate interest.
  • What is your specialty drug channel strategy? Are specialty prescriptions being filled through your PBM’s affiliated specialty pharmacy? Carving specialty to an independent pharmacy or using a white-bagging program for clinic-administered drugs can generate meaningful cost differences.
  • How does your stop-loss deductible interact with your specialty drug exposure? Model your actual specialty drug claims against your stop-loss threshold. If most of your high-cost drug claims fall below the deductible, the plan is absorbing those costs without triggering reimbursement.
  • Does your formulary have appropriate Tier 4 controls? Step therapy, prior authorization, and quantity limits on specialty drugs reduce cost without eliminating clinical access. Without these controls, high-cost therapies can be approved and dispensed without any plan-level review of whether a lower-cost alternative exists.

Know How Your Pharmacy Benefit Compares

Pharmacy is now one of the two or three most consequential cost management decisions in health plan design. The employers managing it well are not restricting access to the medications their employees need. They are ensuring that the structure of the benefit, the PBM contract, the formulary design, and the stop-loss coverage work together in the plan’s interest, and that every dollar spent on high-cost drugs is spent as efficiently as possible.

Mployer’s benefits rating evaluates pharmacy benefit design as part of the Medical pillar score, benchmarked against a custom cohort matched by size, region, and industry. Knowing where your pharmacy benefit stands relative to employers who actually look like you is the starting point for making better decisions.

See how your benefits package compares to your custom cohort at MployerAdvisor.com.

Sources

Mployer Insights: Average Spend by Setting, Prescription Structure, and High-Cost Specialty Drugs. Source: Mployer Insights analysis.

MedOne Pharmacy Benefit Solutions: Biosimilar substitution impact data for Humira/Yusimry and Stelara/Starjemza. MedOne is a leading independent PBM focused on improving health outcomes and reducing net costs for self-funded employers. [email protected].

Mployer 2025 and 2026 Employee Benefit Plan Design Study, covering 50,000+ employer plans. Individual stop-loss avg $141,938 self-insured.

Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021, Section 202: broker/consultant compensation disclosure requirements for group health plans.

FDA Biosimilar approval framework: 42 U.S.C. Section 262(k).

Insurance Brokers
Should I Do An Annual RFP for a New Insurance Broker?
The article discusses whether employers should conduct an annual request for proposal (RFP) process for selecting a new insurance broker. While some benefits of an annual RFP include potentially finding better coverage or lower costs, the article notes that the process can be time-consuming and may not always yield better results than simply renegotiating with the current broker. Ultimately, the decision to conduct an annual RFP should be based on the specific needs and circumstances of the employer.
December 19, 2022

Is It Time for a New Broker?

Do you question whether you are getting the most value from your insurance broker? Are you doing everything possible to keep costs down and or feel that your benefit package is a commodity and not necessarily an employee retention tool?

Are you starting from scratch and need a new insurance broker?

The best first step is an insurance broker Request For Proposal, or RFP.

What is an RFP?

The first step when seeking health insurance for your company or commercial insurance coverage for your business whether you’re purchasing coverage for the first time or whether you’re considering changing policies, brokers, or carriers – usually starts with sending out RFPs to several insurance brokers and/or brokerage firms.

As the name implies, RFPs are simply requests made on behalf of the company which are typically sent to multiple brokerage firms in order to begin the process of vetting potential brokers with which the company may be interested in working.

While RFPs are in many ways synonymous with getting ‘quoted a price,’ these proposals often include additional information beyond merely the cost of services and coverage, which can be greatly beneficial in determining the range of services offered as well as the benefits (and potential detriments) of working with the particular brokerage firm providing each proposal.

Of course, in order to send out these RFPs, a company must first have identified potential brokers that they believe may be a good fit for assisting in their insurance coverage acquisition process and from which they attain more information.

Learn what makes a good insurance broker and see how to identify ones best suited to the needs of your business.

How Regularly Should I Be Sending Out New RFPs?

The short answer to this question is that RFPs should be sent out anytime your business is considering new or different commercial insurance coverage, but there are a number of other considerations that should be taken into account as well as potential events that may serve as good catalysts to trigger the need for change in an insurance broker and the accompanying issuance of new RFPs.

  • Company Size: Often the most important consideration to evaluate when reconsider your company’s insurance brokerage needs is simply the relative size of your company. Operational efficiency is the primary consideration here, as larger companies tend to have greater institutional controls in place and a more regimented system that requires the use of resources that could otherwise be repurposed to another endeavor more immediately necessary for the furtherance of the company’s core business interests. Simply put, your HR team or whomever may be running the RFP process presumably has other responsibilities to attend to beyond endlessly reevaluating your insurance and benefits packages. Additionally, larger companies typically have more stakeholders with a greater variance of interests that need to be accounted for, which can take time and additional resources to properly survey.
  • For larger companies (over 1,000 employees is a good benchmark for these purposes) without any other specific catalyst that triggers a reevaluation of your insurance needs/coverage a good timeline to adhere to, with an accompanying issuance of RFPs whenever that reassessment leads to the desire to explore additional options.
  • For smaller companies, the process of insurance and broker evaluation is usually much simpler and can be conducted more regularly without encountering the degree of inefficiency that larger companies often face. In such cases, the 3 year timeline between broker reevaluation mentioned above would be on the longer end of the spectrum, with annual or biennial reevaluations often being appropriate.
  • Other Catalyzing Events: Beyond company size and a regular brokerage reevaluation schedule, there are a number of events that often indicate that it’s a good time to reassess your company’s insurance coverage and potentially issue a new round of RFPs.
  • Strategy: The most proactive reason to reconsider your company’s insurance is for strategic purposes. With cost cutting as a motivation for seeking cheaper insurance options falling on one end of the strategy continuum, the other end of that is occupied by comprehensive benefit strategies that have become critical tools for attracting and retaining top talent. In pursuit of such a comprehensive benefit strategy, an annual survey of employees needs and satisfaction-level with current coverage and benefits options can be very helpful in making sure your company stays highly competitive in the talent market.
  • Change: While not as deliberately proactive as reevaluating your company’s insurance needs for strategic reasons, there are a number of changes that can serve as opportune catalysts for just such a reevaluation. Change in your company’s HR manager tends to be a good time to reassess the insurance coverage. Also, change in personnel at your brokerage firm, especially with your company’s direct contact or trusted advisor, might be a good time for a reassessment. Finally, and not to be understated, change in your level of satisfaction with your insurance coverage may be the most important catalyst for reevaluating your insurance coverage needs.

With all these considerations in mind, it’s also important to note that aside from the potential inefficiencies involved with the time and resources required to do so, there is no bad reason to reevaluate your insurance coverage and business insurance broker. The desire to refresh a policy that may feel otherwise stale or outdated is more than enough reason to look into making a change. Such decisions should always be made on a case-by-case basis and with the needs and context of your individual company in mind at the forefront.

How Many RFPs From Different Brokers Should I Request?

Because RFPs are non-committal, there is theoretically no cap on the number of RFPs that a given company could issue, but there are practical limitations and efficiency considerations that should be accounted for when deciding how many proposals are requested.

A good analogy might be requesting quotes from multiple contractors for the construction of a new warehouse. In such a scenario, your company could (in principle) request as many quotes as there are contractors, but of course that would be a ridiculous and excessive time-wasting exercise in practice. Instead, you would be wise to narrow your search at the outset based on which factors are most important to your business, including local proximity, specific expertise (i.e. warehouse construction experience), recommendations/reputation, or any other factors you may wish to weigh in order to set the parameters of your search criteria as narrowly as desired before requesting quotes from the contractors deemed most likely not to waste your time.

The process of pre-vetting potential brokers in advance of sending out RFPs is an equally valuable preliminary step that can optimize the scope of your company’s search as well as allocating your time, energy, and resources more efficiently and effectively. To identify and locate a group of strong brokerage candidates in the pre-vetting phase of this process prior to sending out formal RFPs, search Mployer Advisor today.

About Mployer Advisor

At Mployer Advisor, our focus is creating transparency in the insurance and insurance broker, consultant and advisor space to the advantage of the employer. Analytics is our core and we will bring to light new information, tools and resources to aid employers in making more cost-effective decisions. As a phase I, we are here to help employers find the right broker or consultant and the right insurance company for them. Giving choice and initial transparency is a first step in creating an employer centric insurance marketplace.

Insurance Brokers
What Makes a Good Insurance Broker?
The first step toward determining what makes an insurance broker good is to define what it means to be a good insurance broker in the first place.
December 19, 2022

Everyone Wants a Good Insurance Broker

The first step toward determining what makes an insurance broker good is to define what it means to be a good insurance broker in the first place.

As with most qualitative assessments, what constitutes ‘good’ in this context may vary widely depending on one’s perspective. For example, from the perspective of insurance providers, a good broker might largely be defined as a great salesman who maximizes client satisfaction and retention while simultaneously minimizing claims paid out.

On the other hand, from the perspective of the company engaging a broker in order to procure commercial insurance coverage for their business and employees, the definition of what makes a broker good might be the polar opposite from the attributes and skills that the insurance provider is looking for in a good broker.

For our purposes here, the focus will remain on evaluating brokers from the perspective of the companies who are procuring insurance coverage. However, what makes for a good insurance broker can still vary considerably depending on a number of factors, including the size, market, preferences, and the specific insurance needs of any given business.

The Broker That Can Get You the Best Price

Many companies view insurance coverage as an expense to be minimized on their balance sheet, unrelated to the functioning operation of their core business. These particularly price-conscious insurance shoppers who prioritize low rates above any other consideration might define a good broker as the one who can get their company the best insurance deal possible.

Of course, how to define the ‘best’ deal requires some parsing out, as well, given the best deal in the short term may not be the best deal in the long term. Defining the ‘best deal’ would also depend upon a given company’s risk tolerance and what claims are ultimately made over the life of the policy, etc.

For the sake of simplification, however, let’s assume that ‘best deal’ means the lowest possible upfront rates for standard coverage.

Even with this simplified definition, however, merely finding the best rates may be trickier than anticipated. In some markets, for example, where businesses are seeking standard types of insurance protection with little to no company-specific customization required in their coverage plans - those companies may be surprised to find that they keep getting the same quotes from brokers representing the same payers with little price or coverage fluctuation.

In those circumstances, these standardized coverage options have become essentially commodified, which means finding a good insurance broker (or at least one that is relatively better than other available options) will require using other criteria by which to evaluate potential new insurance brokers.

The Broker Who Can Get You the Most Comprehensive Coverage

On the opposite end of the spectrum from the broker who can quote the cheapest rates is the broker who can offer the most comprehensive coverage.

Of course, implicit in the notion of comprehensive coverage is that the coverage, while thorough, is tailored to suit the specific needs of your company and not superfluous or excessive in the operation of your business. Few would label a broker as ‘good’ simply because they sold you any and every type of insurance imaginable whether you needed it or not.

Therefore, the key to a good broker offering comprehensive coverage is the ability of that broker to accurately and specifically identify the needs of your business in order to shape an insurance coverage package that addresses all of your business’s areas of concern without going overboard into the unnecessary.

In this light, a good insurance broker might be one who is thoroughly versed in your industry. This could be either through direct experience or from comprehensively learning the space in order to provide the appropriate guidance to your company.How Can a New Insurance Broker Help My Business?

The Broker Who Can Be Your Champion and Advocate

The other main idea implicit in the concept of comprehensive coverage is that you will in fact be covered and paid out for the events and incidents to which your company wished to limit its exposure. After all, what appears to be comprehensive coverage when crafting the policies initially may be of little value in situations when the insurance provider disputes that an event in question is actually covered.

Here, a good insurance broker might be defined by their ability to accurately anticipate and explain the scope of coverage so that there is no misunderstanding about when and how that coverage either will or won’t apply.

This definition of a good broker again harkens back to their experience or learned knowledge of your company’s industry and risk exposure. It also brings up a new consideration: the role of an insurance broker as an advocate for their clients, even when promoting a position adversarial to the position being taken by the payer in a given instance.

To be a good insurance broker in this regard is to put the client’s interests first and to champion their clients whether it be in seeking payment for claims, in making a case for reduced premium rates, and in any other cases where the interests of the clients and the providers may conflict.

For those companies interested in whether or not their current or potential broker meets this particular definition, it might be wise to simply ask for examples of when that broker has taken a position on behalf of their clients against the payer’s interest and gotten favorable results to their clients’ benefit.

The Broker Who Keeps Their Clients Satisfied

Perhaps the most important attribute when defining a good insurance broker, and not coincidentally the only aspect listed that overlaps with an insurance provider’s definition of a good broker, is a broker that keeps their clients satisfied.

Presumably, client satisfaction is encompassed in all the good broker qualities discussed here thus far. For example, if a broker can’t get their clients a good rate quote, isn’t knowledgeable about their client's business, is therefore unable to tailor a comprehensive coverage package, and won’t be an effective advocate for their client's interest – then it’s unlikely that broker meets the threshold to be considered good in this context.

That said, beyond these previously discussed considerations, there are a number of other factors that brokers will likely have to meet in order to keep their clients satisfied. Managing communications comes to mind first and foremost, both in terms of regular communications under normal circumstances as well as communications in times of emergency when claims are being filed, which tend to be a regular occurrence in the insurance industry and require a greater sense of urgency.

Beyond the timing and effectiveness of communications, the tone of communications can be very important and speaks to other issues like culture, emotional intelligence, and the importance of building a productive working relationship between broker and client for maximum client satisfaction. This can be tricky when not all clients have the same expectations about the ideal form that such a relationship ought to take.

Recap: What Makes an Insurance Broker Good?

A good insurance broker will most likely get you a rate quote that you’re happy with, which may be fairly simple and commodified or relatively intricate and complex depending on your particular business.

A good broker will certainly be experienced in your field or at the very least eager to learn and independently research the area in order to make sure your coverage is appropriately comprehensive without making you pay for overkill coverage that you don’t really need.

Also, a good broker will certainly be a strong advocate on behalf of their clients whenever there is conflict with the insurance provider. Additionally, a good broker will keep their clients satisfied with their services through effective communication, culture, and relationship-building.

Most importantly, what you need is not a ‘good’ broker in the first place. What you need is an insurance broker that’s best for you.

There is no one-size-fits all definition of a good broker that will apply in any and all cases. With these ideas in mind, the best way to determine the broker that can best serve your company in administering your insurance needs is to first identify what aspects and attributes are most important to your company. Then, start narrowing your search by the criteria that you’ve chosen to prioritize by asking a lot of questions of as many brokers as you see fit.

How to Find the Best Insurance Broker for Your Company

To search for insurance brokers by geography, specialty, rating, provider affiliates, customer satisfaction or other relevant criteria you may have deemed to be important, search Mployer Advisor.

We help employers find top-rated insurance brokers for their needs. In addition to broker listings, Mployer Advisor showcases customer reviews and feedback to help employers compare and evaluate different brokers. Start your search today.Find Top-Rated Brokers Near You

About Mployer Advisor

At Mployer Advisor, our focus is creating transparency in the insurance and insurance broker, consultant and advisor space to the advantage of the employer. Analytics is our core and we will bring to light new information, tools and resources to aid employers in making more cost-effective decisions. As a phase I, we are here to help employers find the right broker or consultant and the right insurance company for them. Giving choice and initial transparency is a first step in creating an employer centric insurance marketplace.


Recruiting & Hiring
Willis Towers Watson Predicts Salary Increases to Rise by 4.6% in 2023
The summary of the article would be: Willis Towers Watson predicts that salary increases will rise by an average of 4.6% in 2023 for US employees, with higher increases expected for top-performing employees and in industries with high demand for talent. The article also discusses the factors driving the projected salary increases and their potential impact on the labor market.
Author:
Abbey Dean
December 13, 2022

According to new data from Willis Tower Watson’s 2023 Salary Budget Planning Report, overall salary increases in the U.S. will rise to 4.6% in 2023. The predicted 4.6% increase is 0.4% higher than increases in 2022.  

Interestingly, survey data from the new report found that 77% of companies reported being motivated to boost earnings due to inflationary pressures, whereas 68% said they were motivated by the tight job market.  

What’s more, 57% of respondents hired candidates higher in the relevant salary range, while a further 76% adjusted or are considering adjusting salary ranges more aggressively, increasing ranges by 2% to 5%.  

Similarly, more than two-fifths of organizations have adjusted or are considering adjusting salaries more aggressively; 90% of organizations making or considering salary increase adjustments are doing two adjustments per year, according to the report.  

In addition to pay pressures, 75% of respondents noted problems with attracting and retaining talent—a figure that has nearly tripled since 2020. In fact, the tight labor market was an influencing factor in the decision of nearly seven in 10 companies (68%) to increase salary budgets.

In a release, Hatti Johannson, a Research Director of Reward Data Intelligence at Willis Towers Watson said: “As inflation continues to rise and the threat of an economic downturn looms, companies are using a range of measures to support their staff during this time. Organizations should prioritize their actions based on the needs of both employers and employees and pay close attention to market data to inform any changes.”

Looking for more exclusive content? Check out what’s trending on the Mployer Advisor blog, or tune in to listen to the latest episode of “This Week in Benefits.”

Employee Benefits
New Data Reveals Offering a 401(k) Can Save Employers $100,000 in Employee Turnover
New data from Employer Advisor has revealed that offering a 401(k) retirement plan to employees can save employers up to $100,000 in employee turnover costs. The data also showed that employees who participate in a 401(k) plan are more likely to stay with their employer for longer periods, which can further reduce turnover costs.
Author:
Abbey Dean
December 1, 2022

New research from people management platform Gusto shows that employer-sponsored 401(k) offerings dramatically increase employee retention and—even better—pay for themselves several times over in lower staff turnover.

Even more compelling, researchers found that offering a retirement plan can save small-and-medium-sized businesses (SMBs) more than $100,000 annually in reduced employee turnover costs.  

The data from Gusto also revealed that retirement benefits led to better retention across all industries. In fact, employees were 40% less likely to leave during their first year if they were extended retirement benefits. In some positions, that figure jumped to 54%.  

On average, employees with an active 401(k) were also 32% less likely to leave their job in any given month.  

What’s more, most SBMS don’t offer retirement benefits of any kind. Overall, 22% of SMBs on Gusto’s platform extend retirement benefits. Specifically, for businesses with fewer than 10 employees, retirement plans for available to 15% of employees. However, 65% of employers with more than 100 employers were offered access to retirement benefits.  

Offering Retirement Benefits Dramatically Increases Employee Retention

In a recent article, Luke Pardue, an economist at Gusto, explained that the time spent finding new workers can be a time-consuming and expensive endeavor for employers.  

“One of the best ways a company can avoid those costs is by offering a 401(k) retirement plan for its employees,” he wrote. “Our calculations show a 401(k) plan can lead to annual cost savings of more than $100,000 in reduced employee turnover costs alone or a 2x return on the initial costs of offering a 401(k).”

For many working Americans, the importance placed on financial security has always been high; however, this sentiment was further exacerbated during the tumultuous ups and downs of the market due, in large part, to the COVID-19 pandemic.  

As a result, millions of Americans chose to leave their jobs for better-paying positions with competitive benefits packages, resulting in what many refer to as the Great Resignation.

In fact, according to the Pew Research Center, in September 2022 there were two job openings for every unemployed person, and the rate at which workers were leaving jobs for more attractive positions hovered near historic records.  

Additionally, it’s worth noting that more than 40 million employees currently do not have access to retirement benefits. If those workers could access a 401(k) through their employers, they’d be able to save as much as $5.7 trillion in 20 years.

Looking for more exclusive content? Check out what’s trending on the Mployer Advisor blog, and be sure to catch the latest episode of Mployer Advisor’s new podcast “This Week in Benefits.”

Podcasts
Podcast: Ford Rolls Out an Intriguing New Severance Option to Underperforming Employees
The article discusses how Ford is offering a new severance option to underperforming employees. This option allows the employees to choose to leave voluntarily with a lump-sum payment, and also includes career counseling services to help them find a new job.
Author:
Abbey Dean
November 30, 2022

Editor’s Note: To access your SHRM credits for listening to this podcast episode, click here.  

Welcome to This Week in Benefits, a new biweekly podcast from Mployer Advisor, the company that is changing the way employers search, evaluate, and select insurance advisors online.      

In each episode, our team will bring you the latest news and industry updates in the world of employee benefits. We will break down top headlines, bring you interviews with industry insiders, and highlight market trends and stories we’re following.    

In case you missed Episode 16, click here to listen and to access the show notes.    

Show Notes      

Date: November 30, 2022  

Episode Season and Number: Season 1, Episode 17    

Episode Title: In this week's episode, Abbey Dean and friend-of-the-pod Jeff Reinke (Editorial Director for Industrial Equipment News) discuss Ford’s decision to offer longtime employees with performance issues the option to voluntarily leave the company with a severance package rather than go through a performance enhancement plan.  

To listen to Episode 17 of This Week in Benefits, click here.      

Additional Recommended Reading    

Ford Offers Easy Exit to Underperforming Workers, SHRM

Ford to Offer Some Underperforming Workers Choice of Severance or Performance Improvement, The Wall Street Journal

Ford Gives Underperforming Employees Option to Take Severance Package, The Detroit News  

‘We Absolutely Have Too Many People’: Ford Ready to Wield the Axe as U.S. Economy Slips into Technical Recession, Fortune

Industrial Equipment News  

Connect With Jeff Reinke

Episode Transcript

Abbey Dean: Hi everyone, and welcome to this week's episode of This Week in Benefits, a podcast from the team at Mployer Advisor where we discuss all things in employee benefits. I hope everyone had a wonderful Thanksgiving. We're still getting out of the post Thanksgiving haze, but to help me do that, we have back on the podcast today, my friend and former boss, Jeff Reinke of IEN. And we are going to be discussing an interesting new policy that Ford Motor Company announced earlier this, well, I guess it was a few weeks ago now, but it started November 1st. So we are going to look back at that headline, dig into the kind of meat of the story, and Jeff is going to give some interesting perspectives on what this might mean and also what it could indicate for the larger manufacturing industry. So stay tuned and take a listen to my conversation with Jeff.

Hi everyone, and welcome to another episode of This Week in Benefits. We have a return friend of the podcast on today, Jeff Reinke of IEN. Thanks for coming on again, Jeff.

Jeff Reinke: My pleasure, Abbey. Thanks for having me.

Abbey Dean: Of course, always. Again, just any sort of excuse to talk to you. So <laugh>,

Jeff Reinke: Just trying to relive this Wisconsin weather from South Tennessee.

Abbey Dean: You know, I honestly am so it's a win-win for me.

Jeff Reinke: Well, hey, a couple months we can go ice fishing if you really want to get back into it.

Abbey Dean: Jeff, I never went ice fishing even when I lived there.

Jeff Reinke: Well see. There you go.

Abbey Dean: Would you actually take me?

Jeff Reinke: If you would make the track up here to do it, I would definitely take you on the ice, I think especially because you would last maybe 90 minutes and we'd be done. So <laugh>,

Abbey Dean: Okay, so this is recorded so you can't back out.

Jeff Reinke: I'm in, I'm in.

Abbey Dean: Okay, awesome. So anyway, aside from ice fishing, today, what we are talking about is some news that came out of Ford a few weeks ago. Basically what the news is, is that Ford is giving long-time employees with job performance issues, the option to voluntarily leave the company under a policy update that went into effect officially on November 1st. So what it's doing is it's altering its approach to addressing white collar employees, of which they have around 30,000 who are deemed under performers. And they're telling managers that some of those workers must choose between severance, or a performance enhancement program, and that's internally known as the performance enhancement plan, or PEP. So there's sort of like Jeff, we talked about this a little bit before, but this isn't a new type of plan. There's a lot of sort of structures out there that are similar.

But what is different about this is that the plan before has been in place for U.S. salaried workers with at least eight years of service experience at Ford? So I'm, I'm just very interested in this. Basically, Ford is giving white collar workers who have been flagged for underperformance the option to have weekly check-ins with managers and have new objectives over a six week-ish period. Or they can just go ahead and say, hey, you know, I don't think this is working out for me and take a severance check. So it's very interesting, and I wanna touch on this a little bit but Jeff, when you first heard this news, what was your reaction?

Jeff Reinke: Well, Ford's had a lot of interesting developments going on internally with the way that they're structuring or restructuring their company. And a lot of this, and they're not alone, is based on the fact of just the impact of the electric vehicle market. Earlier this year, I wanna say it was March, they came out with an announcement basically saying they were going to split the company into what they're describing as two interdependent companies.

You're going to have Ford Blue, which is the internal combustion engine production focused vehicle company, and then you're also going to have Ford Model E, which is obviously focused on the production of electric vehicles. So to me, when I first saw this, it seemed like they were taking additional steps to get their company the right size and with the right people to move forward with really going after the electric vehicle market. They've also made announcements by hopefully having, I think 16 electric vehicles within the next three or four years out on the market, which is very aggressive, especially cause right now they're nowhere near that. So a lot of, I think this just to me it reading between the lines, even though they didn't say anything specific, this was another move focused on electric vehicle development

Abbey Dean: Right and then a lot of the coverage I saw surrounding this, they were very clear that this is not I think there was some rumors going around that they might announce another round of layoffs. And so when this news came out, they were like, no, no, no, no, we're actually <laugh> trying to make sure we have the best people in the business who want to be here. And so it's kind of an interesting approach. Actually, the Wall Street Journal they interviewed someone named Liz Weber who's a management consultant, and she said quote, she's "never come across an approach to performance management like Ford's new policy." She also called it "impressive and very gracious, and a move that demonstrates Ford's commitment to supporting underperformers within its white collar ranks." So I don't know about all of that, but it is a very interesting approach.

Jeff Reinke: I think she's being very gracioU.S.there. I think this is kind of a half glass full approach. Basically, Ford is weeding out some of their underperformers, because the dynamic with producing marketing servicing electric vehicles is very different. Now, the supply chain is similar in many respects, but you've got a customer that's going to have to take on a real paradigm shift. You've got different design specifications, you've got just completely different production processes and models. Those models really depend on a little bit more automation fewer hands on the vehicle while it's being made potentially, and leveraging a lot of these new production technologies. So when you're looking at really refocusing so many elements of your internal operation, there's no way that can impact the folks working in the front office who are involved with designing those vehicles, marketing those vehicles, selling those vehicles, dealing with dealerships, dealing with customers.

All of those things are going to be impacted as well, especially because Ford has also taken steps in with their supply chain in terms of developing a lot of their own battery factories especially in the southeastern part of the country. So when you look at an internal combustion engine versU.S.a battery pack, the number of suppliers is less, the design elements are less. So that's going to impact things in the front office as well. And again, I think that's where a lot of this is coming from, identifying these underperformers and getting people in there that are going to be better suited to their EV business.

Abbey Dean: I should also say that I could not find any numbers anywhere about how many underperformers Ford usually has in this existing program too. So I don't know how big of a program this is or how big of a change but it is an interesting policy. Jeff, do you know of other automakers or manufacturers who do have similar programs or initiatives like this?

Jeff Reinke: Well, I mean, the buyout dynamic is not new. We've seen that a lot. But typically it was related to sort of time at the company, maybe certain positions that were being eliminated as opposed to them transferring somebody to a different job. They gave them the option of a buyout. So when it was downsizing or again, letting people retire early, essentially those things are not new for it to be directly tied to a performance program or a performance, for lack of a better word, rating program or ranking program. Yeah, that's very different. Typically, you would see automakers maybe being a little more aggressive depending on the type of job we're talking about now we're talking about front office folks as opposed to UAW workers on the plant floor. So that's a different dynamic too. But again, typically it'll be more about weeding them out more I think in a more democratic way. This is unique to look at performance.

Abbey Dean: Ford also clarified that the updated policy allows, they kind of clarified what you're talking about, what the actual severance payouts would be based on, and apparently it's based on, as you kind of said, length of employment, continuation of benefits, and then also career transition services. I don't know what that part means. Honestly, I think there's, yeah, I know. Yeah, and maybe or maybe there is a position, maybe you could move up elsewhere. I don't know. Maybe that's a different part of this that they didn't go into as much too but the process they say would remain unchanged for those who opt to go into a PAP program rather than leave. So they could be subject determination without severance if they fail to turn around their performance. So I mean it is it an interesting carrot they're putting out there?

Jeff Reinke: Well, it also allows them to move more rapidly. Hopefully we can get these folks essentially off the books. Part of this may also be trying to leverage the fact that there's been a lot of layoffs in the tech industry. Yeah. When you look at social media companies, even some of the more technologically focused companies like Cisco and Microsoft laying off a lot of people right now, Amazon's another one. Maybe Ford is looking at those types of individuals. When you look at data scientists and artificial intelligence people and other developers of different types of technologies, they may be real appealing and this allows them to, pardon the term, just sort of cut some dead weight and move on to get the right people in place. Again, I think this is really focused on advancing their electric vehicle business.

Abbey Dean: And that was going to be my next question, if this change signals anything to you about the state of Ford, but also just large, more largely speaking about the state of the industry right now and all the kind of changes and curve balls that everyone has been hit with this year.

Jeff Reinke: Well, it's unique in the fact that automotive, and again, we're looking more at the plant floor when I say this as opposed to the front office, but labor shortages have been real. I mean, especially in automotive, they've had a very difficult time finding enough workers. So to hear about a program where they're basically allowing those who have come up on the shorter end of the evaluation stick to leave with some money in their pocket is unique. That's different. We haven't heard, we haven't seen that before, how this impacts automotive going forward. I think every one of these companies is embracing the transition to the electric vehicle marketplace in a different way. Some people have gotten out way in front of it. Ford has been a little bit more, I would say, gradual in their approach. They've started with the F-150 Lightning, they started with the Mustang in electrifying those vehicles, which are two of the most popular vehicles on the planet.

I mean, the F150 has been the number one selling vehicle in the U.S.for 40 years. So their approach has been different, but I think that's what you're going to see with a lot of automakers around the world, seeing what they need to do to get the right people in place to really push these electric vehicle programs forward because they have some extremely aggressive goals in terms of the percentage of their portfolio that they want to be electric and the goals that they have in place for making sure the mass majority of the vehicles they produce are EVs.

Abbey Dean: Is there anything else you think we should touch on that's interesting about this or important to mention?

Jeff Reinke: Well, I think what's interesting, remember Ford is obviously the oldest automaker in the U.S. so when they do things, people still pay attention. I think geographically, it's also very interesting with them still being very focused on Detroit. They've been one of those that has not had as strong a move away from sort of the Midwest, although they have opened, they've got a big truck plant, they've got a lot of facilities in Kentucky. So again, and they're even this year, the way that they've done things in terms of the job cuts, we heard about 3000 cuts earlier in the spring, another 8,000 that were rumored this summer. But then we've seen huge investment again in that Kentucky facility where they make trucks, where they're hiring upwards of 500 or more auto workers. So I think everybody does watch a company like Ford and sees what they do, not necessarily to emulate them, but to get a feel for what may or may not work in their plans as well. So it'll be interesting to see how this plays out, and I could see other automakers potentially taking this route in terms of, here's an easier way to, again, get the right people that we need in transitioning towards electric vehicles.

Abbey Dean: Awesome. Well, I hope they maybe do some updates. I'm assuming if it goes well, we'll hear about it. If it doesn't, then maybe we won't.

Jeff Reinke: Yeah, I, and then you kind of feel bad for these folks who didn't take the initial offering. Oh, I know. They're not able to improve their performance level, and they're letting go anyway, and I kind of feel like that Ford is going to be, even though they wouldn't say it in any type of press release or external statement, I think they're pushing these folks to take the deal,

Abbey Dean: Yeah, I bet so too. Okay. Well, thank you, Jeff, Reinke, for all of your insight and expertise. We'll have to have you back on soon. Either that or I'll just come to Wisconsin and we'll go ice fishing.

Jeff Reinke: That would be wonderful. Abbey Dean, thank you so much for having me on your podcast.

Abbey Dean: <laugh>. Awesome. Thank you, Jeff.

Jeff Reinke: All right, see you later.

Abbey Dean: And that wraps up today's episode. Thanks so much to everyone for tuning in. Now, if you have not yet, please subscribe to the podcast. If you leave us a review, I would be forever grateful. Don't forget too, that you can leave us a voicemail message if you want to send along ideas or have follow up questions to past episodes. Also, something that you guys may not be aware of, but if you are an HR professional and you need some SHRM credit, this podcast does qualify for SHRM credit, so be sure to check out our show notes to learn more about how to access that. In the meantime, I hope everyone is doing well, getting into the holiday spirit, and I will see you all next time.

Thank you for listening to this week's episode of This Week in Benefits brought to you by Mployer Advisor. Mployer Advisor is changing the way employers search, evaluate, and select insurance brokers. Our intuitive platform connects employers and employees to get great benefits and insurance plans by providing employers with actionable data to easily evaluate and select the best advisor for your company's specific needs. To learn more about Mployer advisor and our suite of products, please visit our website at mployeradvisor.com and tune in next time. Thanks.


Health Insurance Trends
What Is the Difference Between Fully Insured vs. Self-Funded Plans?
The article explains the key differences between fully insured and self-funded health insurance plans, including the role of insurance companies and employer responsibilities, and how these distinctions can impact coverage and costs for employers and employees.
August 2, 2022

It's no secret that healthcare costs have risen dramatically over the past several decades; in fact, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF) healthcare spending rose nearly a trillion dollars between 2009 to 2019 when adjusted for inflation.  

In 2019, according to the KFF’s report estimates, healthcare spending in 2019 almost hit $3.8 billion–which comes out to about $11,582 per person. By 2028, these costs are expected to reach $6.2 trillion, or about $18,000 per person. For a closer look at the cost breakdown in healthcare spending in 2020, check out these handy charts from the American Medical Association.  

With such excessive costs to contend with, employers nationwide are searching eagerly for ways to control costs without negatively affecting employees’ access to sound healthcare coverage. As such, more and more companies are choosing to set aside funds to pay for employees’ healthcare instead of offering a more traditional group healthcare plan.  

When weighing the best plan and healthcare strategy for your workforce, savvy employers nationwide often investigate the differences between healthcare plans that are fully insured or self-funded.

What Is the Difference Between Fully Insured vs. Self-Funded?

Fully Insured Plans

A fully insured health plan is a more traditional route of insuring employees. Employers pay a fixed premium to a carrier that will cover the employees’ medical claims. Although they can be more expensive, employers can save money by providing exceptional service to keep them happy and healthy, which can serve as a powerful tool to attract and retain talent.  

In fully insured health plans, employers pay a premium to the insurance carrier. The premium rates are annually fixed based on your enrolled employees in the plan each month and will only change if your number of employees changes. Employees are required to pay their deductibles or copays.

The main downside when choosing a fully insured health plan is that it stops you from customizing your health plan completely. However, this option does eliminate the administrative duties and expenses often associated with a self-insured health plan. The insurance carrier deals with the employee claims, resulting in lower risk for the employer too.

Self-Funded Plans

When selecting a self-funded health plan, also known as a self-insured health plan, the employer runs the health plan and assumes all the financial risk for providing benefits to employees. Self-funded plans are more flexible than fully insured plans because they give you the potential to design a healthcare plan that meets all employee needs; self-funded plans can also reduce the cost of premiums as a result.

However, if opting for a self-funded health plan, employers must calculate the fixed and variable costs for the plan. Costs can include administrative fees, stop-loss premiums, and other set fees. Additional costs include healthcare claim payouts that vary each month and are contingent on submissions from employees and dependents.

To mitigate the financial risk mentioned above from a self-insured health plan, employers can implement stop-loss or excess-loss insurance, which reimburses the holder for claims that exceed a set amount. This can be used to cover claims for one covered individual or cover claims that exceed the level for a group of covered employees.  

Although self-funded plans can save employers money, self-funded plans require more planning and likely warrant a dedicated internal team to navigate the inherent complexities.  

Which Plan Is Right for You?

If you want to know more about which plan type is right for your business, the next step is to connect with a top-rated, experienced employee benefits broker.  

Looking for more exclusive content? Listen to our latest episode of This Week in Benefits, and check out our By the Numbers blog series.