Product Updates
Product Updates, June 2026
June's product updates are here, and there's a lot to be excited about. We're continuing to build on the foundation we've established across Catalyst and Insights benchmarking, with this month's updates focused on giving users more precision in how they search, prospect, and manage data.
Author:
June 2, 2026

June's product updates are here, and there's a lot to be excited about. We're continuing to build on the foundation we've established across Catalyst and Insights benchmarking, with this month's updates focused on giving users more precision in how they search, prospect, and manage data.

On the Catalyst side, that means expanded AI assistant capabilities, more flexible export controls, and deeper CRM customization. For benchmarking, we've added AI-powered recommendations and made meaningful improvements to the report experience, including how you access completed reports and how data flows through the submission wizard.

Read on for the full details.

Catalyst

  • Proximity-Based Geographic Search — The AI assistant now supports radius-based company searches around a city, so territory prospecting works the way territories actually do — not just by state, city, or zip.
  • Product Line Gap Queries — Ask the AI assistant which product lines — Stop Loss, EAP, Voluntary, TPA — an employer has or is missing. Cross-sell identification now happens in a conversation, not a spreadsheet.
  • Headcount Milestone Flags — The AI assistant can surface employers who've recently crossed key thresholds: 50, 100, 500 employees. Growth signals and compliance triggers, surfaced automatically.
  • Flexible Export Range Selection — When exporting data, users can now choose the current page, a page range, or a specific record count. Providing precise control without bumping into system limits.
  • Experience Mod Data on Account View — Experience Modification data now appears directly on the Company Overview and Commercial P&C tab, so risk context is right there when you need it.
  • Custom CRM Field Mapping — Account admins can now map platform fields to custom CRM fields, including custom schemas. Providing full control over how data flows in without overwriting existing records.
  • Retirement Search: Total Assets Filter — The Retirement Search Assets filter now filters on Total Assets.

 

Insights+

  • AI-Powered Recommendations in Insights+ Users can now access AI-generated recommendations directly within Insights+. The new recommendations tool surfaces actionable guidance across four categories. Highest Impact, Cost Strategy, Coverage Gaps, and Underwriter Notes, giving users a faster path from report data to next steps.
  • Completion Email Links to HTML Report — When your report is ready, the notification email now links directly to the interactive HTML report including Mployer AI and all report tools, instead of a PDF download.
  • Redesigned Chart Layout — Plan Score and Cohort Market Data sections are now clearly differentiated, and Dental and Vision pages consolidate their left-side tables. Easier to read, faster to interpret.
  • Report Opens Without Losing Your Place — Clicking a company name in the Request History Grid now opens the HTML report in a new tab, so your search state stays exactly where you left it.
  • Rate Availability Edits No Longer Clear Rate Data — Adjusting Rate Availability selections mid-wizard no longer wipes Medical, Dental, or Vision rate and contribution data previously entered. No more lost work.
  • Age-Banded Entry Hidden When Not Applicable — When 'Use employee contributions only' is selected, Age-Banded rate entry is no longer shown — cleaner form, fewer distractions.

That's a wrap! Stay tuned for what's coming next month.

Employee Benefits
The Boring Yet Obligatory Guide to Dental & Vision Insurance For Employers
Between 8 and 9 out of 10 organizations offer dental and vision insurance, but that figure can vary significantly based on factors like company size, industry, and region.
September 18, 2024

Key Takeaways

  • Between 8 and 9 out of 10 organizations offer dental and vision insurance, but that can vary based on factors like company size, industry, and region.
  • Dental and vision plans are typically designed as PPOs, HMOs, traditional Indemnity Insurance, Point of Service, or Direct Reimbursement plans, which are largely distinguished by how restrictive they are in terms of allowing/requiring services in or out of network, as well as by who pays the care provider and when.
  • The size of the US dental insurance market is nearing $100 billion annually while the vision insurance market in the US is about $60 billion.

ARTICLE | The Boring Yet Obligatory Guide to Dental & Vision Insurance For Employers

Dental and vision insurance have often been looked at as more of an afterthought than a necessity, but those views are quickly becoming outdated.

Not only are an increasing number of organizations offering supplemental dental and/or vision insurance options, but more and more organizations are choosing to contribute to the coverage costs, as well, which further encourages participation.

In addition to that organic growth, a slew of recent changes in vision and dental insurance-related law both at the state and federal level indicates that this space currently has the attention of policymakers, as well, with one new federal rule poised to expand demand levels for dental and vision services in the coming years, potentially leading to some upward pressure on the costs associated with these services in the future.

Let’s take a look at dental and vision coverage in terms of where we’ve been, where we are, and where we’re going.

Employer Coverage Trends for Dental and Vision Benefits

According to the most recent Mployer Insights data for 2024, the vast majority of employers offer dental insurance (93%) with a slightly smaller proportion offering vision insurance (82%) as well, but smaller organizations are less likely to offer these supplemental forms of health insurance than larger organizations.

In fact, only about 40% of employers with between 2 and 24 employees offer dental insurance, but that number climbs significantly to about 90% and up for employers with 100 or more employees. About 60% of employers with between 25 and 49 employees offer dental insurance, while about 75% of employers with between 50 and 99 employees offer dental insurance, so the employee count and dental insurance trend are pretty closely correlated, although there is some additional variance depending on industry and geographical region, as well.

Interestingly, the percentage of employees who choose to enroll in dental insurance plans if offered by their employer is much less correlated with employee count and more consistent across variously sized companies. The enrollment rate for companies with between 3 and 24 employees is about 71% and about 75% for companies with 500 or more employees.

Employer contributions toward employee dental coverage aren’t strongly correlated with employee count, either, with about 16% of employers covering 100% of the premium, about 16% of employers making no contributions toward employee dental plan costs, and the remainder (about 68%) making partial contributions.

As for vision insurance, about 62% of employers with between 3 and 24 employees offer it, which is significantly above the 40% of comparably-sized employers that offer dental insurance, but only about 83% of employers with 100 or more employees offer vision insurance, which is a bit under the approximate 90% of employers with 100 or more employees offering employee dental plans.

Participation rates among employees who are offered vision insurance hovers in the low 70% regardless of company size, which is comparable to dental insurance as well. Employer contributions toward employee vision plan costs are comparable - although slightly more generous - than dental plan contributions, with about 19% of employers making a 100% contribution to employee vision plans and about 64% providing a partial contribution.

It is also worth noting how these trends have evolved over time with half of the growth in small business dental insurance offering rates since the beginning of the millennium occurring in just the four years between 2019 and 2023.

The proportion of smaller organizations offering vision coverage has seen comparable growth, with the percentage of large employers who offer vision insurance doubling between 2006 and 2023, while the percentage of small employers offering vision insurance quadrupled over the same time period.

Smaller organizations clearly lagged behind larger organizations in terms of adding dental and vision benefits to their offerings, but they have nearly caught up at relatively low employee counts in terms of participation, although there is still room for differentiation on the contribution front, both with dental and vision coverage, which is especially relevant given how consistent demand seems to be for these offerings at employers of all sizes.

How Many Employers Offer Dental & Vision Plans?

Chart
Chart

Regulatory Requirements for Dental and Vision Benefits

There are no laws that require employers to provide employees with dental or vision insurance, although doing so has certainly become the norm amongst organizations, regardless of size.

Further, the ACA does not require parents to provide children with dental insurance, but it does label dental insurance for children as an essential health benefit, thereby requiring that such coverage be either included in a plan or offered as a separate plan in order for an insurance plan to meet the minimum qualifications necessary to appear on the exchanges.

A few months ago, however, the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services issued a new rule that will allow states to designate non-pediatric dental care for adults as an essential health benefit as well, which will broadly expand the dental coverage options for many of the residents of states that opt-in.

As a caveat, it is important to bear in mind that this expansion will only apply to those states that take proactive steps to label adult dental care as an essential health benefit as a matter of law, which is not a cause that will be taken up by all state legislatures in the near future, so not all states will see a meaningful shift in demand as a result.

There has also been significant activity in recent years addressing issues including transparency, patient choice, downcoding, network access, and loss ratios.

How Many Employees Enroll In Dental & Vision Plans?

Chart
Chart

Employer Contributions To Dental & Vision Plans

Chart

Dental Benefit Plan Design

While there are several different plan designs for dental benefits, by far the most common are Preferred Provider Organization (PPO) plans, accounting for more than 8 out of 10 employer-sponsored dental plans.

Typically, DPPO plans contain an annual cap on all expenses, which is the most money that an insurer will pay out for a claimant in total over a single year.It’s important to also point out that these annual caps often exclude orthodontic work, which may have a separate lifetime cap - meaning that orthodontic work doesn’t count against the annual cap but instead has its own separate maximum dollar figure that an insurer will pay out for orthodontic work over the life of the policy.

Additionally, DPPOs will typically require insurance to cover a predetermined percentage of any given service up to that annual limit after a small annual deductible is met.For example, a DPPO plan may have a $1,500 annual cap and a small annual deductible, which is often waived for class 1 preventative services. Coinsurance amounts are usually broken down by class of service, with plans typically covering preventative services like teeth cleanings at 100% (deductible waived), 80% coverage for basic restoration work (after deductible is met), 50% for major restoration work, and 50% for orthodontic work up to a lifetime max (e.g. $1,500).

Other relatively common types of dental plans include Dental Health Maintenance Organizations (DHMO), which prepay dentists for potential services and account for about 4% of dental plans; traditional indemnity plans, which are similar to DPPOs but without the same in-network emphasis and account for about 3% of dental plans; Point of Service plans, which further emphasize discounts for in-network services; and Direct Reimbursement plans, which reimburses policy holders for their expenses after the fact according to a predetermined reimbursement schedule.Some of the key elements that distinguish plans are:

  • Network emphasis: Whether policy holders can seek care with any dental provider of their choosing without consequence, or whether they are encouraged or required to seek out the services of in-network care providers

.

  • Payment plans: Who pays the dental care provider, and when - payment by insurer to provider before services are provided, payment by insurer to provider after services have been rendered, or payment by policy holder to provider after services have been provided followed by reimbursement from insurer to policy holder for all or part of that payment.

You can read more about the various types of dental plan designs and their differences in this piece from the American Dental Association.

Vision Benefit Plan Design

Four of the main types of vision plans closely mirror prominent plan types for dental insurance coverage: Preferred Provider Organization plans, Health Maintenance Organization plans, Point of Service plans, and Indemnity insurance plans.

Beyond plan structure, some of the main factors to consider that distinguish one plan from another are:

  • Annual benefits: How often are eye examinations covered each year (usually 1 every 12 months)? How often are frame and lens replacements covered?
  • Network: How large and accessible is the network of care providers?
  • Frame and lens allowances: How much does each plan allot per frame/lens purchase/replacement?
  • Enrollment costs: Are low monthly fees being supplemented by high, hidden initiation fees?

While deductibles are less common with vision insurance than dental and traditional medical coverage, copays and annual coverage caps are standard.

Dental & Vision Insurance Markets in the US

The US dental insurance market crossed the $80 billion threshold in 2021, and is expected to grow by 6% compounded each year between 2024 and 2029, while the US vision insurance market is expected to hit about $60 billion this year.

Top market share leaders in the US dental insurance market are:

  • Aetna
  • Aflac
  • Ameritas
  • Cigna
  • Delta Dental Plans Association
  • United Healthcare Service

The top market share leaders in the US vision insurance market are:

  • Vision Services Plan (VSP)
  • Vision Benefits Group
  • Delta Dental
  • SightCare Inc.
  • Essilor Luxottica

Mployer’s Take

On one hand, it is understandable why dental and vision care have historically been dealt with as separate offerings from traditional medical care.

For one, professionals in each field are typically trained at separate institutions on separate courses of study with little overlap, and much dental and vision related care takes place at separate sites apart from hospitals and traditional medical practices.

But these distinctions are becoming less and less relevant given a modern understanding of how closely tied dental health can be to overall bodily health, not to mention the correlation between proper progressive lens care and productivity.

As with many other aspects of life and business, regular maintenance and an ounce of prevention can be worth a pound of cure, and employers have an opportunity not only to provide employees with a valuable benefit offering, but they can also stand apart from competitors on the talent attraction and retention front by not only offering dental and vision insurance but also making contributions to that coverage to further encourage employees to opt in.

With as many as 3 in 10 US adults currently without dental insurance, and with up to 8 in 10 US adults currently without vision insurance, there is no better time than the present for employers to review their benefits offerings to determine how best to help employees meet their dental and vision insurance needs.

Economy
The Employment Situation for September 2024
The latest economic release from the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that the U.S. added a respectable 142 thousand new jobs last month, while the unemployment rate fell slightly to 4.2%.
September 9, 2024

Editor's Note: This report is based on survey data from August 2024 that was published in September 2024. This is the most recent data available. (Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics)

For the first time in 5 months, the US unemployment rate has started coming down again, albeit ever so slightly from about 4.2% to 4.1%.

US employers also added 142 thousand jobs to their payrolls, which was a decent performance although about 20 thousand jobs fewer than expected. Downward revisions of the job numbers from the previous 2 months were a bit more substantial, however, accounting for about 80 thousand fewer jobs than previously reported.

The labor force participation rate held steady at about 62.7 million and has been pretty consistent all year long.

The number of people who have part-time jobs because full-time work was not available also essentially held steady at 4.8 million, but it is worth noting that this figure is up almost 15% from 4.2 million just 12 months ago. This change may in part represent a growing number of both employers and employees that have been navigating the softening economy and labor market and waiting for interest rates to come down before reevaluating their labor demand - a wait that will likely soon be over.

Among the 142 thousand jobs added to US employer payrolls last month, the construction industry claimed the largest share, with 34 thousand new jobs - almost an 80% increase over the approximate 19 thousand jobs added by the construction industry on average each of the last 12 months.

The healthcare industry wasn’t far behind with 31 thousand jobs added last month, but that figure represents a significant slow down in healthcare hiring and a major underperformance relative to the approximate 60 thousand jobs by which payrolls in the healthcare industry have increased on average each month over the last year.

The social services industry also added about 13 thousand jobs, down from an average monthly gain of 21 thousand.

While there was little to no change in job figures across the majority of the remainder of industries, the manufacturing industry actually saw a fairly significant reduction in jobs last month, losing 25 thousand positions in the durable goods production industries.

Average hourly pay rose by 4 cents last month, climbing to $35.21 per hour and representing a 0.4% increase over the month before. Average hourly pay has increased by 3.8% over the last year, outpacing inflation by nearly a percentage point over the same time frame.

The average workweek on the other hand increased by one-tenth of an hour up to 34.3 hours per week. In the manufacturing sector, however, the average workweek held steady at about 40 hours per week, but the average amount of overtime inched up one-tenth of a point as well to 3 hours per week.

Mployer’s Take

Last month, Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell said that Fed policy goals no longer include any further softening of the labor market, which paves the way for the first interest rate cuts since the Fed began raising rates 2 and a half years ago.

The Fed is expected to lower interest rates when they meet next week and this latest jobs report further solidifies that likelihood, but the main remaining question is how big of a cut they will implement. 

With inflation now down below 3% on an annualized basis, some Fed watchers are expecting a 50 basis point interest rate cut, but the majority seems to be rallying around a more modest 25 basis point cut given the remaining resilience in the job market and economy in addition to the continuing upward pressure on wages.

To be clear, however, a 50 basis point rate cut is still a very real possibility, and is only slightly less likely than a 25 basis point cut.

It’s only a little over a week before September 18th when the Fed is expected to announce whether or not they will be cutting interest rates, and if so by how much, so the speculation about whether and how much rates will be cut this time will very soon be replaced by speculation about whether and how much interest rates will be cut next time when the Fed meets again in the first week of November.

Nothing is certain, of course, but it does seem like some interest rate relief may at long last be at hand. 


While it took less than a year and a half for the Fed to increase interest rates from practically 0 to over 5 and a half percent (in increments of a quarter and half point at a time), however, it is likely going to take much, much longer to bring interest rates back down by even half of the increase we’ve seen since the pandemic.

We still appear to be on track for a relatively soft landing where inflation is tamped down without triggering a swift onset recession, but in order to maintain the delicate balance necessary to avoid some of the worse potential outcomes, this soft landing is going to occur over a very long period of time. 

Check out the Mployer blog here.

Health Insurance Trends
Preliminary Health Insurance Premium Rate Increases for 2025
Preliminary health insurance premium rate increases are starting to be filed by state and are expected to climb considerably on average next year.
August 22, 2024

Key Takeaways

  • Preliminary health insurance premium rate increases are starting to be filed by state and are expected to climb considerably on average next year.
  • These rates cover small group plans but tend to correlate closely with the renewal rates for self-funded insurers as they generally face the same macro-demographic shifts and utilization patterns.
  • These rate hikes are not evenly distributed across states with some seeing major increases and some seeing modest increases or even rate reductions on average in some cases.
  • These rate hikes are only preliminary requests and are typically still subject to review and revision by state regulatory agencies before they can be implemented.
  • Some of the reasons for these rate increases that carriers provide include inflating costs associated with hospital care, pharmaceuticals, and healthcare in general; growing demand for and utilization of medical services; ongoing underestimated COVID-19 expenses; the unwinding of Medicaid; aging populations in some states; better risk analysis; improved quality of carrier services; increased silver loading; premium alignment; and paid-out claims exceeding premiums collected.

ARTICLE | Preliminary Health Insurance Premium Rate Increases for 2025

Preliminary rate changes for 2025 for small group health insurance policy premiums through exchanges have started to be filed. 

For context, the rate at which US healthcare expenditures are rising is expected to hit a 13 year high next year, with data from PwC indicating that medical costs are set to rise by about 8% for group coverage (7.5% for individual coverage), which is half a point above the 2024 growth rates and up significantly from a recent low of 5.5% growth in medical costs recorded in 2017.

At this stage in the process, these proposed rate changes are still open for public comment in many cases and are usually subject to further approval by in-state agencies that cover these insurance-related matters before the changes can be enacted.

Although these rates are not yet finalized, preliminary rates will often pretty closely mirror final rates.

While these proposed rates are not the exact same rates that companies can ultimately get if they are self-funding their employee insurance plans, these rates will usually correlate fairly tightly with the rates that self-funding companies can expect as the employee demographic and healthcare utilization patterns are similar in a given geography.

Proposed 2025 Rate Increases for 2025 Range

Preliminary Rate Changes By State

Here are the proposed rate changes for 2025 plans from all states that have released this information to date.

Alabama

Individual health insurance plan premiums on the exchange are preliminarily set to decrease on (unweighted) average by -3.1% in 2025, while small group plan rates are proposed to climb by an unweighted average of 7.41%.

The largest average rate decrease for individual policies was proposed by Celtic Insurance Co. at - 7.28%, while the smallest increase in small group plan rates was 4.96%, requested by Blue Cross Blue Shield of Alabama.

The largest individual policy average rate increase was proposed by UnitedHealthcare Insurance Co. with a meager rate increase of just 0.55% on average, while VIVA Health requested the largest average rate increase among small group plans at 14.95%.

Alaska

Health insurance premiums in Alaska are currently set to climb by about 17.1% on average for individual plans and plus 11.71% on average unweighted for small group plans next year.

Premera Blue Cross Blue Shield of AK requested the smallest average rate increase for individual policies at 16.26% on average, while UnitedHealthcare Insurance Co. requested the smallest average rate increase for small group plans at 8.65%.

Moda Assurance Co. made the largest requested average rate increase for individual plans among carriers at 19.63%, and the largest average rate increase requested for small group plans was Moda Health Plan, Inc. with an average premium rate increase of 14.77%.

Insurance carriers requesting rate increases largely attribute the need for those increases to inflation in medical/pharmacy costs and utilization. 

Arkansas

Requests to increase premiums for individual and small group health insurance plans through the exchange in 2025 average to about 4.2% for individual plans and about 9.6% for small group plans.

One insurance carrier in Arkansas - QCA Health Plan, Inc. - proposed a decrease of 2% on average for individual policy premiums, while the smallest increase for small group plans was QualChoice Life and Health Ins. Co. Inc. which requested an average rate increase of 4.53%.

USAble HMO Inc. (Octave) requested the largest average rate increase for individual policies at 8.57%. while UnitedHealthcare Insurance Company had the largest small group plan premium rate hike at 15.98%.

Connecticut

Individual and small group health insurance plan premiums via the exchange are currently slated to increase an average of 8.3% in 2025, which is down from 12.4% in 2024. Small group plan rate hike requests average to about 11.9%.

Rate increases were requested by 8 health insurance carriers in Connecticut and are presently under review by the Connecticut Insurance Department, although the public comment period has closed.

CTCare Benefits requested the smallest average rate increase for individual policies at 7.4% while Oxford Health Plans CT had the smallest small group plan premium rate hike at 5.1%.

The largest requested average rate increase for individual plans was made by CTCare Insurance Co. at 12.5%, and the largest average rate increase requested for small group plans was Anthem Health Plans with an average premium rate increase of 13.6%.

The carriers making these requests attribute the increases to overall trends, higher than expected COVID-19 expenses, and the unwinding of Medicaid.

Delaware

Insurance carriers have proposed increasing Individual and small group health insurance plan premiums via the exchange in 2025 by 13.3% and 8%, respectively. 

In the individual market, one carrier proposed reducing premiums by 14%, while the smallest rate increase proposal for the group market was Highmark BCBSD at 8%.

Aetna Health requested the largest average rate increase for individual policies at 34.53%. while UnitedHealthcare had the largest small group plan premium rate hike at 18.2%.

Idaho

Individual and small group health insurance plan premiums are currently slated to increase an average of 6.6% and 9.3% in 2025, respectively.

Mountain Health Co-Op proposed decreasing premiums for individual policies by 2.7% while PacificSource Health Plans requested the smallest premium rate hike among carriers with at least 1% market share for small group plans at 4%.

The largest requested average rate increase for individual plans was made by Regence Blue Shield of Idaho at 11.9%, and the largest average rate increase requested for small group plans was UnitedHealth Insurance Co. with an average premium rate increase of 13%.

Carriers are attributing rate increases in Idaho to health claims paid outpacing premiums collected.

Illinois

Requests to increase premium rates in 2025 for individual health insurance plans in Illinois average to about 4.6%, while the average proposed rate increase to small group plans is an unweighted 9.5%.

Molina Healthcare of IL, Inc. requested the smallest average rate increase for individual policies at 1.6% on average, while MercyCare HMO requested the smallest average rate increase for small group plans at 6.52%, but it is unclear how much market share that MercyCare HMO serves.

Oscar Health Plan, Inc. made the largest requested average rate increase for individual plans among carriers at 19.9%, and the largest average rate increase requested for small group plans was Health Alliance Medical Plans, Inc. with an average premium rate increase of 19.9%.

Indiana

Insurance carriers expect to decrease policy premium expenses for individual health insurance plans through the exchange by an average of - 1.5% in 2025, although the majority of plans are requesting rate increases. Small group plan rates are expected to rise by about 8%.

Coordinated Care Corporation proposed the largest average rate decrease for individual policies at -4.3%, while UnitedHealthcare Insurance Co. proposed the smallest increase for small group policies at 6.54%.

Aetna Health inc. requested the largest average premium rate increase request for individual policies at 10.8%, while Physicians Health Plan of N. Indiana proposed the largest average rate hike for small group premiums at 9.45%.

Maine

Requests to increase premiums for individual and small group health insurance plans via the exchange in 2025 average to about 14.2% and 14.8%, respectively.

The smallest requested average rate increase for individual plans was made by Taro Health Plan of Maine, Inc. at 3.9%, and the smallest average rate increase for small group plans among carriers with at least 1% market share was United Health Insurance with an average premium rate increase of 5.3%.

Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare requested the largest average rate increase for individual policies at 15.8%. while Maine Community Health Options had the largest small group plan premium rate hike at 19.6%.

Maryland

Individual exchange-acquired health insurance plan premiums are currently slated to increase an average of 6.7% in 2025 - with average individual policy rate increase requests ranging from 4.7% to 14.2% - while small group premiums are expected to increase by about 6.11%.

CareFirst BlueChoice requested the smallest average rate increase for both individual policies and small group policies at 4.7% and 4.9%, respectively. 

CareFirst (GHMSI) and CareFirst of Maryland, Inc. shared the largest average premium rate increase request for individual policies, as well, at 14.2%, while Aetna Life Insurance Co. proposed the largest rate hike for small group premiums at 23%.

Massachusetts

Requests to increase premiums for individual and small group exchange health insurance plans in 2025 average to about 8.4%.

Fallon Community Health Plan Inc. requested the smallest average rate increase for both individual and small group policies at 1.4% each. 

The largest requested average rate increase for individual plans among carriers with at least 1% market share was made by Tufts Health Public Plans at 10.4%, and the largest average rate increase requested for small group plans was UnitedHealthcare Insurance Co. with an average premium rate increase of 12.4%.

Rate increases are being attributed primarily to rising hospital and prescription drug costs, although other contributing factors include a population that is aging, risk analysis, general trends, an improved user experience, and use of certain inpatient and outpatient services. 

Michigan

Individual and small group exchange health insurance plan premiums are currently slated to increase an average of 10.5% and 11.2%, respectively, in 2025.

Meridian Health Plan Inc. requested the smallest average rate increase (3.1%) among carriers with at least 1% market share for individual policies, while UnitedHealthInsurance Co. had the smallest small group plan premium rate hike at 4.7%.

Priority Health requested the largest average rate increase for both individual and small group plans was made by Priority Health at 18.89% and 13.2%, respectively.

According to the insurers requesting them, these rate increases are primarily being driven by inflation in medical costs, risk adjustment, changes to plan benefits, and to more accurately reflect past experience. 

Minnesota

Individual health insurance plan premiums are preliminarily slated to increase an average of about 8.7% in 2025. Small group plan premium hike requests have an unweighted average of about 9.4%. 

Medica Insurance Co. requested the smallest average rate increase for both individual and small group policies at 1.95% and 3.71%, respectively.

The largest requested average rate increase for individual plans was made by Blue Plus (HMO Minnesota) at 12.75%, and the largest average rate increase requested for small group plans was Quartz (formerly known as Gundersen) with an average premium rate increase of 15.82%.

New York

Individual health insurance plan premiums are currently slated to increase an average of about 16.2% in 2025 while small group plans are slated to increase by 19%,  although rate increase proposals are currently being reviewed by the New York Department of Financial Services and often result in significantly reduced rates from the initial preliminary figures.

UnitedHealthcare of New York requested the smallest average rate increase for individual policies at 8.8% while MVP Health Plan, Inc. had the smallest small group plan premium rate hike at 9.5%.

The largest requested average rate increase for individual plans was made by HIP of Greater New York at 51%, and the largest average rate increase requested for small group plans was Independent Health Benefits Corporation with an average premium rate increase of 28.1%.

Vermont

The premiums for individual and small group health insurance plans from the exchanges are currently slated to increase an average of 14.9% and 15.1% in 2025, respectively.

For BlueCross Blue Shield plans in Vermont, individual policy rates are expected to climb by 16.3%, while small group rates are expected to climb by 19.1%. 

MVP Health Plans are expected to increase between 2.7% and 34.3%, with an average increase of 11.7%.

These rate increases are largely attributed to increased silver loading and premium alignment.

Washington

The premiums for individual and small group health insurance plans from the exchanges are currently slated to increase an average of 11.3% in 2025, which are presently under review by the Washington Insurance Department.

Of the 13 health insurance carriers that have filed rate increase requests in Washington, the smallest increase was the Community Health Plan of Washington with a 4.5% increase, and the largest rate increase was requested by Regence Blue Shield which requested an increase of 23.8%.

Mployer’s Take

As a reminder, some of these rate increases are likely still to be slashed by state regulatory bodies, so the sticker shock may not ultimately be as bad in some places as it currently appears to be.

Also, self-funding companies are probably going to see somewhat lower rates than the finalized exchange plan rates on average, which will also help a little on the bottom line.

That said, while there rates are still potentially in flux, the ultimate rate increases tend to correlate fairly strongly with preliminary rates. 

On the other hand, these rate increases represent averages across all insurance carriers in a given state (weighted when sufficient data is available), so it is of course a good idea to go ahead and take a look at the premium rate adjustments your insurance carrier is proposing, which may not be final yet but will more accurately reflect the approximate potential rate increases your organization may be facing next year and will help you better prepare in advance for the additional expense.

Economy
The Market Employment Summary for August 2024
Each month, Mployer Advisor breaks down the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ most recent State Employment and Unemployment Summary to highlight some employment trends across various markets. This is an overview of August’s report.
August 19, 2024

Editor's Note: This report is based on survey data from July 2024 that was published in August 2024. This is the most recent data available. (Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics)

The two-tenths of a percent increase registered last month when the US unemployment rate average climbed from 4.1% to 4.3% was the largest jump we’ve seen in almost a year since the rate spiked from 3.5% to 3.8% between July and August 2023. 

In total, 13 states recorded an increase in their state unemployment rate averages over the month of July, led by Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, and South Carolina, which all saw their unemployment rates increase by 0.3%. 

Connecticut was the only state that saw a reduced unemployment rate last month at minus 0.3%.

The 114 thousand new jobs added last month were about 35% below the predicted numbers, while only 2 states - New York and Oregon - registered a meaningful net addition to the number of payroll entries in each state. 

Missouri was the only state last month that recorded a significant net loss in jobs.

Below is the breakdown of the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ (BLS) market employment summary for August 2024.

States With the Highest Unemployment Rates

For 3 months in a row now, Washington DC has had the highest unemployment rate among ‘states’ - up one-tenth of a point from last month to 5.5% - followed by Nevada at 5.4% and California and Illinois at 5.2% unemployment, each.

Washington is the only state that currently has an unemployment rate in the 4% range at 4.9% as of last month, with all the other states coming in in the 3% and 2% unemployment range.

Last month, 13 states saw their unemployment rates climb - Delaware, Georgia, Missouri, and North Dakota each recorded a 0.1% increase; Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Nevada, and Utah each recorded a 0.2% increase; and Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, and South Carolina each recorded a 0.3% increase in unemployment.

Over the last 12 months, 29 states have seen their unemployment rates increase, led by Rhode Island at plus 1.8%, followed by Ohio and South Carolina at plus 1.1%, and Washington at plus 1.0%.

States With The Lowest Unemployment Rates

South Dakota recorded an unemployment rate of 2.0% last month and retains the title of state with the lowest unemployment rate for the 7th month in a row.

Vermont, North Dakota, and New Hampshire posted the next lowest unemployment rates at 2.1%, 2.2%, and 2.5%, respectively.

The only state that recorded a reduction in its unemployment rate was Connecticut, which saw its unemployment rate drop by 0.3% over the month.

Over the last year, only Arizona and Michigan recorded net reductions in their unemployment rates at minus 0.5% and 0.4% each.

States With New Job Losses

Missouri was the only state to record a net decrease in job numbers over the course of July, dropping a little more than 22 thousand jobs and seeing their payrolls in state reduced by 0.7%.

No state recorded a net reduction in jobs over the course of the last year.

States With New Job Gains

Only New York and Oregon saw their payroll figures climb last month. New York added about 41 thousand jobs and Oregon added about 8 thousand jobs, amounting to about a 0.4% increase each.

Over the last 12 months, California has added the most jobs in terms of raw job numbers at plus about 284 thousand, followed by Texas at plus 265 thousand, and Florida at plus 229 thousand.

The largest proportional job increases over the last year have occurred in South Carolina (plus 3.7%), Nevada (plus 3.3%), Alaska plus (3.1%), and Montana (plus 3.0%).

Mployer's Take: 

Despite a respectable 100 thousand plus new jobs added to US payrolls last month, the employment data from July renewed a lot of speculation about an imminent economic downturn. 

In fact, one of the many metrics used to identify recession known as the Sahm Rule now indicates that we have in fact already entered one - although the accuracy of this metric as applied to the current economic conditions may be less useful than they normally would be as a result of the continuing effects of the COVID dip and recovery.

The stock market saw a steep decline of more than 5% over the first 5 days of the month, as well - which also added fuel to the recession predictors' fire and led to significant speculation that a past-due market correction was at hand.

As of this writing two business weeks later, however, the DOW has recovered 99.5% of the losses in the dip from earlier this month in part due to an influx of cash from retail investors looking to take advantage of some relatively cheaper prices, and a major correction no longer appears to be at hand. 

With the Fed set to meet again in just over 4 weeks and most forecasts predicting a quarter to half point cut in baseline interest rates, we may be in a position soon in which an economic downturn looks less likely than it did even just a few weeks ago.

The fact that trends sometimes appear to be shifting in a matter of weeks speaks to a degree of volatility in the current economic climate, however, and with elections coming up in just a couple months in which control of Congress and the presidency are up for grabs, increased volatility is certainly possible if not likely.

We may soon get the opportunity to find out how much of a stabilizing factor the presumed interest rate cut turns out to be, assuming that it comes to pass in September as expected. 

Looking for more exclusive content? Check out the Mployer blog.

Employee Benefits
The Employers' Guide To Ozempic and GLP-1 Drugs
There's growing demand by employees for increasingly expensive prescription weight-loss solutions as employers weigh the costs and benefits of providing coverage for these drugs when used for weight-loss purposes.
July 22, 2024

Key Takeaways:

  • Ozempic and other GLP-1 drugs have a number of different uses with more still being tested and discovered, but their (sometimes off-label) effectiveness as a weight loss drug has led to a spike in demand in the last couple years that continues to climb
  • These drugs can cost as much as $15 thousand per year per user and represent a growing proportion of total employer health care costs that may have accounted for almost 9% in 2023 - a 2% increase from 2022
  • Some employers are abandoning GLP-1 coverage in the face of those growing expenses, but others are expanding coverage in pursuit of the reduced long-term health care expenditures and a competitive advantage in terms of talent attraction and retention, with about 1 in 3 employers currently covering these drugs for weight loss purposes
  • Some ways employers are attempting to offer these drug treatments for weight loss purpose while also limiting their exposure to excessive expenses include lifetime use caps, minimum body mass thresholds, and limiting drug offerings

ARTICLE | The Employers' Guide To Ozempic and GLP-1 Drugs

The meteoric rise of Ozempic has been widely documented. 

More than just the traditional drug marketing via billboards, commercials, and pamphlets at primary care offices, some of the most heavily publicized evidence of Ozempic’s effectiveness has been found on magazine covers, streaming platforms, and in social media feeds, all providing the kind of organic promotion that even huge sums of money can’t (always) buy.

While to some it may seem like a miracle drug - with potential health benefits including blood sugar regulation, cardiovascular issue risk reduction, and of course weight loss - there is, it seems, at least one catch - Ozempic is very expensive.

The sudden surge in demand as a result of Ozempic’s success has left manufacturers scrambling to keep up, which has contributed to soaring prices and in turn sent employers and insurance providers struggling to adapt to the rapid rise in popularity of a drug that can cost more than $1,000 per person per month. 

Not all employers are addressing that tension between the growing employee demand and the accompanying growing expense in the same way, however, and in this piece we’ll take a look at some of those potential approaches as well as some of the potential costs and benefits associated with each.

Background

Ozempic is a type of drug known as a GLP-1, which is a relatively new class of drugs that first gained approval from the FDA in 2005. 

There are currently at least 10 different GLP-1 drugs, but treating diabetes, cardiovascular conditions, and/or weight loss seem to be fairly consistent among them, although new uses such as treating kidney disease are still being explored.

Ozempic was approved by the FDA as a diabetes medication in the final month of 2017 before hitting the market in earnest the following year, but it wasn’t too long before users and their doctors started taking note of the weight loss side-effect.

Nearly 20 thousand Ozempic prescriptions were written in 2018, which grew to just over 60 thousand active prescriptions in 2019, 100 thousand in 2020, and 160 thousand in 2021. 

But in 2022, Ozempic seems to have crossed the tipping point, with prescriptions doubling to more than 300 thousand over the year before then growing by another 25% - up to about 375 thousand - within the first couple of months of 2023, which is the most recent data available.

Collectively, prescriptions for Ozempic and its GLP-1 weight loss drug competitors have grown by more than 300% over the last 3 years with total US sales growing from less than $5 billion at the end of 2020 to more than $15 billion at the end of 2023. 

According to a Gallup poll released at the end of May 2024, more than 15.5 million people in the US had used one of these drugs for weight loss - representing 6% of the US population and counting. 

GLP-1 Drug Sales In US (Ozempic, Rybelsus, Wegovy)

The Problem

According to the Pew Research Center, about 3 in 4 Americans are either overweight or obese based on current medical classifications, and that number has been growing pretty consistently for a quite awhile.

As a result, the target market of potential Ozempic, et al. weight loss users is considerably larger than the (still substantial) 30 plus million Americans with type 2 diabetes, and although the resulting Ozempic shortages are certainly more problematic for the latter group, any sufficiently substantial surge in demand will make the price goes up for everyone.

While the company that produces Ozempic has plans in the works to build a more than 4 billion dollar factory in order to improve production capacity, any release of demand pressure as a result of the increased accessibility of the drug is still likely several years away at least.

Further, that patent on Ozempic will prevent the production and sale of cheaper generic alternatives until at least 2031 in the US, so no short-term cost-saving hope on that front either.

Given these market conditions, Ozempic-comparable weight loss drugs are likely to continue costing upwards of 15 thousand dollars per patient per year for the foreseeable future. 

For employers, those costs, which essentially were non-existent just a handful of years ago before doctors started prescribing GLP-1 drugs for weight loss, accounted for 8.9% of total employer health care spending in 2023 according to a survey from the International Foundation of Employee Benefits - up from 6.9% of total employer health care expenses the year before. 

Proportion Of Americans Who Are Overweight Or Obese Over Time

How Are Employers Responding

At those prices in the face of near-exponential demand growth, it is not hard to understand why multiple health systems have chosen to drop or reduce weight-loss-based GLP-1 coverage from their employer-sponsored plans, including Hennepin Health Care, University of Texas Health System, and the Mayo Clinic. 

At the same time, however, other employers and health systems are looking past the sticker shock and weighing the totality of health benefits that can accompany weight loss in the cost-benefit analysis, including potential reversal of diabetes, cardiovascular improvements, reduced incidence of certain cancers, and improved arthritic conditions. 

After looking at those net benefits, a growing number of companies including Elevance Health, Kaiser Permanente, and CVS Health are expanding coverage and concluding that it is worth paying the high ticket price of GLP-1 medication for improved patient outcomes and the expectation of reduced expenses in the long run.

In terms of proportional breakdown, those employers who see the value in GLP-1-assisted weight loss are still in the minority, but they have the momentum on their side, with the percentage of employers covering Ozempic or a comparable drug for weight loss purposes rising to 34% in 2023, up from 28% in 2022. 

Further, larger businesses are even more likely to adopt GLP-1 weight loss coverage according to the head of Cigna’s health services business, who also noted that 50% of the employers utilizing their pharmacy benefits management system already cover GLP-1 weight loss uses, and that figure is inching up.

Finding The Right Balance

For those employers who are not yet ready to buy-in completely on the long-term benefits or for whom full coverage of Ozempic and comparable drugs for weight loss purposes is economically infeasible in the short-term, there are still several measures that can be taken in order to minimize the risk of runaway costs while still providing employees with a meaningful option.

  • Lifetime Cap: Some companies are limiting their exposure to excessive GLP-1 weight loss expenses by setting a lifetime cap on the amount of funds available to covered employees. The Mayo clinic, for example, instituted a lifetime cap of $20 thousand per person in order to provide meaningful access to these drugs for weight loss purposes while also putting a ceiling in place on a rapidly growing expense line item. 
  • Minimum Body Mass Threshold: Other companies have set a minimum body mass index that must be met in order to qualify for GLP-1 weight loss drugs, limiting cost exposure by limiting the size of the population with access to these treatments. Fairview Health Services, for example, only offers GLP-1 weight loss coverage to employees with a body mass index of 40 or higher.
  • Limit GLP-1 Options Covered: Some companies also restrict the number of GLP-1 weight loss drug options to only those that are the most cost effective at any given time, which may also reduce demand.

Mployer Advisor’s Take

The appetite for these drugs among employees is likely to continue growing, especially as new treatments and functions emerge (i.e. treating kidney disease), which will likely keep the costs relatively inflated in the short term even as new production capacity comes online.

In the long run, however, short term price inflation may be a small price to pay relative to the long-term benefits that can potentially come from a reduced risk of obesity-related illnesses that go well beyond cost savings, and that’s true for both employers and employees.

But more than just putting upward pressure on the price, that demand reflects health care that is both expensive and increasingly sought after by a large portion of the talent pool, so there’s also an opportunity here to differentiate your organization from the competition in terms of employee attraction and retention.

Although some employers are moving away from Ozempic and other GLP-1 coverage to curb those growing expenses, there are more employers moving in the opposite direction and opening up coverage, and absent an unforeseen change in circumstances, that trend is unlikely to reverse course anytime soon.

Compliance & Policy
Top 25 States With Most Employee-Friendly Paid Leave Laws (Part 2)
Even among states with some paid leave requirements, the nature and degree of those requirements can vary significantly, with some states adopting relatively minimal paid leave requirements and others with paid leave laws that are significantly more involved and comprehensive.
July 11, 2024

Key Takeaways

  • Even among states with paid leave requirements, the nature and degree of those requirements can vary significantly, with some states adopting relatively minimal paid leave requirements and others with paid leave laws that are significantly more involved and comprehensive
  • Employers with operations in different locations or those seeking to expand beyond their city/county/state borders will likely have to take an assortment of paid leave rules into account in crafting and executing their own internal paid leave policies
  • While applicable laws certainly shape paid leave policy and expectation from one place to another, employers that operate in areas with relatively unobtrusive paid leave rules often adopt policies that go well beyond the minimum required of them by the government in order to comply with industry/geographic norms and/or gain a competitive advantage with regard to talent attraction and retention

ARTICLE | Top 25 States With Most Employee-Friendly Paid Leave Laws (Part 2)

In part 1 of this 2 part series, we took a look at the 25 states with the most employer-friendly laws and regulations in terms of the circumstances in which the state may require some or all employers to provide some or all employees with paid leave. 

In this piece, we’ll review the paid leave rules in the remaining 25 states that have more employee-friendly laws and regulations, which includes a much wider spectrum of regulatory involvement, ranging from a relatively minor paid leave requirements that don’t go much beyond what is required in the states covered in Part 1, all the way up to substantial, robust paid leave mandates and worker protections.

Arizona

Arizona paid leave law requires private employers with $500,000 or more in annual revenues to provide their employees with one hour of paid sick leave for every 30 hours worked. 

For employers that have more than 15 or more employees, those employees can accrue up to 40 hours of sick leave per year, while the employees of employers with fewer than 15 employees can accrue a maximum of 24 hours of paid sick leave per year. 

Employers can require employees to wait up to 90 days after the start of their employment before they can use any paid sick leave that has accrued, and employers are not required to pay out any accrued PSL upon termination, employees are allowed to roll over paid sick leave from one year to the next.

Arizona employers are also required to provide up to 3 hours of paid leave to enable employees to vote in any municipal, county, state, or federal primary or general election if those employees do not already have 3 consecutive hours available to them when the polls are open and they are not required to be at work. 

California

California enacted one of the more robust paid sick leave policies among states, requiring pretty much all employers - with few exceptions, such as railroad companies and airlines - to provide at least 40 hours of paid sick leave each year to their employees, even part-time and temporary workers, who have worked at least 30 days out of the first year of their employment. While employees begin accruing pid sick leave as soon as they begin working, accruing at 1 hour of paid sick leave for every hour worked, employees are not legally allowed to use the accrued leave until they have been on the job for at least 90 days.

California state law doesn’t require employers to offer either paid or unpaid vacations, but if an employer chooses to offer PTO, then any unused hours (not including unused paid sick leave) must eventually be paid out with the employee’s last paycheck. 

Further, while California employers are required to allow employees to roll over unused PTO days, as well as up to 80 hours of paid sick leave, they do have significant leeway in determining how many consecutive PTO days an employee can use, preventing employees from using PTO on certain dates, and implementing notice requirements that must be met before leave will be granted. 

California law entitles employees to 8 weeks of paid family leave at between 60% to 70% of employee’s income, up to $1,620 each week in 2024, although importantly this leave is not necessarily job-protected, though other state and federal laws may protect an employees job in this situation nonetheless. State Disability Insurance can also be used as support for up to 1 year with weekly payouts of between 60% -90% of income, capped at $1,325 per week. 

California employees who don’t otherwise have time to vote also get up to 2 paid hours for voting leave if they provide their employers with at least 3 days’ notice of their intent to be away from their job for the purpose of voting.

Colorado

Colorado state law requires all employers to provide paid sick leave, which accrues at a rate of one hour of paid sick leave for every hour worked. That accrued sick leave can be capped at 48 hours per year, but Colorado law requires employers to allow employees to roll over unused paid sick leave from one year to another. 

Colorado employees who earn at least $2,500 per year and have been on the job for at least 180 days are entitled to up to 12 weeks of family leave with partial pay, which can include up to an additional 4 weeks of paid parental leave in the event of pregnancy and/or childbirth complications. 

And while Colorado state law does not require employers to offer paid vacation time, Colorado does require employers to pay out any unused PTO in the event that the employee leaves the company.  

Colorado law also requires employers to pay employees $50 per day for the first 3 days of jury duty service, after which the state will take over jury service compensation. 

Finally, for any employee whose shift starts less than 3 hours after the polls open or ends less than three hours before the polls close, employers must offer up to 2 hours of PTO so that employees can exercise their right to vote, and while employers can choose when an employee votes during the middle of a shift, if the employee requests to vote at the beginning or end of a shift, the employer is obligated to honor that request.

Connecticut

Connecticut law requires employers who had averaged at least 50 employees at some point in the prior year, to provide paid sick leave to employees who work at least 10 hours a week, which accrues at a rate of 1 hour of paid sick leave for every 40 hours worked for up to 40 hour per year, which can be rolled over to the next year if unused. Paid sick leave hours begin accruing immediately, but can not be used until an employee has worked 680 hours on the job. These rules cover most employees, but exceptions include employees who are exempt from overtime and minimum wage rules in accordance with the Fair Labor Standards Act. 

Paid family and medical leave is available to most Connecticut employees (including many sole proprietors and self-employed people) for up to 12 weeks per year (with a potential additional 2 weeks in the event of medical complication) so long as the employee has earned at least $2,325 in one of the previous four quarters, is currently employed, and has been employed for the preceding 12 weeks. Qualifying employees can receive up to 95% of their typical income with a cap set at 60 times the state’s minimum wage, currently $15.69 per hour. 

Further, for the first 5 days of an employee’s jury duty service, Connecticut law requires employers to pay employees $50 per day before the state then takes over those payments. 

While Connecticut voters had been entitled since 2021 to 2 hours of paid time off to vote in special elections and standard elections for state and federal representatives should they request that time off at least 2 days in advance, those rules are set to expire at the end of June 2024, after which time the voting paid time off requirement will no longer be valid absent the intervention of Connecticut lawmakers. 

Delaware

Delaware currently has no laws in effect with regard to paid time off requirements, but beginning January 1, 2026, employees who have worked at least 1,250 hours for an employer over the past year are eligible for up to 12 weeks of paid family and medical leave at a rate equivalent to the lesser of $900 per week or 80% of the employee’s weekly pay. 

Georgia

Georgia state law requires employers with 25 or more employees to allow those employees who work at least 30 hours per week to accrue up to 5 paid sick leave days per calendar year that can be used to care for close family members in need. 

Hawaii

Hawaii state law allows for partial paid leave via Temporary Disability Insurance, which requires that an employee has worked in Hawaii for 14 or more weeks and has worked at least 20 hours and earned at least $400 in each of those weeks, although the weeks need not be in a row and can be spread among multiple employers. Employees can receive up to 67% of their average weekly wages, with a cap that’s currently set around $700 per week. 

While pregnancy and childbirth applications of the temporary disability insurance program usually last between 4 and 6 weeks, the disability insurance generally is available for up to 6 months. 

Hawaiian employees that don’t already have 2 consecutive hours when they are off work and polls are open are also entitled to up to 2 hours of paid voting leave, though employers can require proof that the employee voted. 

Illinois

Illinois state law entitles employees with 1 hour of flex leave for every 40 hours worked (capped at 40 hours per year) that can be used for any purpose. Employees must, however, wait 90 days after their leave time has begun accruing before they can exercise it, and employers are allowed to require 7 days notice before accrued leave can be used and can set a minimum leave usage increment of at least 2 hours. 

Whether or not employees are allowed to roll over unused leave depends on whether employers have front-loaded leave (i.e. provided a pro rated 40 hours on the first day of the year to all employees, in which case employee leave does roll over from one year to the next) or whether employees accrue their hours of leave one at a time - 1 hour of leave for every 40 hours worked as described in the preceding paragraph - in which case leave does roll over. 

Further, while Illinois does not provide for paid sick leave statewide, Cook County and the city of Chicago both have laws in place guaranteeing paid sick leave for employees who have been with their employer for at least 6 months, worked at least 2 hours within the city/county over the last 2 weeks, and have worked at least 80 hours within the last 120 days. Paid sick leave for qualifying employees accrues at 1 hour for every 40 hours worked, capped at 40 hours annually. 

Employees in Illinois are also entitled to up to  2 hours of paid leave in order to vote if their schedule does not already provide for 2 consecutive hours off work during which the polls are open. 

While Illinois does not require most unused leave to be paid out upon termination, if leave has been specifically granted as PTO or vacation, then employers must compensate employees for it when an employee leaves the company.

Louisiana

Louisiana employers are not required to provide paid vacation time, but those employers that choose to offer such PTO are required to pay out any unused time at the conclusion of employment if the employee is eligible for a vacation at that time of their departure according to company policy.

Louisiana employers also must provide employees with one day’s wages on the employee’s first day of jury duty.

Maine

Maine law requires that most employers provide employees with 1 hour of paid leave for every 40 hours worked, capped at 40 hours per year - although there are exceptions including employers with fewer than 10 employees and employees that are seasonal or commission-based. 

If employers front-load employee paid leave banks to 40 hours at the start of each year (or at the start of an individual new employee’s employment) then that leave is not required to roll over, but if the leave is accrued, then roll over is mandated by law. Employers must also pay out any unused leave at the conclusion of an employee’s employment. 

Maryland

Maryland state law requires employers to provide 1 hour of paid sick leave for every 30 hours worked, capped at 40 hours per year, to employees who have worked for the employer at least 12 hours per week for 15 weeks, although the law excludes employees under the age of 18, independent contract workers, seasonal agricultural workers, and those operating under collective bargaining agreements. Further, unused leave can roll over but the bank is capped at 64 hours accumulated total. Employees who work at least 8 hours each week in Montgomery County have their annual sick leave accrual cap set at 56 hours.

For employers with 15 or more employees that do provide paid leave, the Maryland Flexible Leave act provides for paid time off in the event of an illness or death of an immediate family member, as well. 

Maryland employers are also required to provide at least 2 hours of paid voting leave if an employee’s schedule does not already provide for 2 consecutive non-working hours when polls are open. 

Massachusetts

Massachusetts state law does not require employers to provide paid vacation leave, but employers who have adopted such a policy are required to pay out any unused time when the employee leaves the company. 

Massachusetts employees earn 1 hour of paid sick time for every 30 hours worked - capped at 40 hours per year and unusable until the employee has been on the job for at least 90 days - which can be utilized to take care of themselves and/or close family members dealing with physical or mental illness. Employers are allowed to require 7 days notice for appointments that are scheduled in advance, and can also opt to allow employee paid sick leave to accrue on a statutorily-set lump-sum schedule if they don’t want to track the hours worked of individual employees. Employers in Massachusetts also have the option of front-loading paid sick leave for their employees, in which case roll over isn’t required, but roll over is mandated when the leave is accrued.

Massachusetts employees are also entitled to up to 12 weeks of paid family leave and 20 weeks of paid medical leave which can combine to amount to as many as 26 weeks of paid leave in a year. 

Further, Massachusetts employers are required to pay out up to 3 days of jury duty leave.

Michigan

Michigan state employers and private employers with 50 or more employees must provide paid sick leave to employees who work at least 25 hours a week for at least 26 weeks a year, which accrues at a rate of 1 hour of leave for every 35 hours worked, capped at 40 hours per year and can roll over from one year to the next if unused. Employees, however, are not allowed to use accrued leave until their 90th day on the job. Employees exempted from these paid sick leave requirements include workers operating under collective bargaining agreements or those exempt from minimum wage and overtime regulations. 

Minnesota

Minnesota employees who worked at least 80 hours over the last year in Minnesota can accrue 1 hour of paid sick leave for every 30 hours worked, capped at 48 hours per year - but that paid leave doesn’t become available to employees until they’ve been on the job for 90 days. Unused hours also roll over from one year to the next, capped at 80 hours. 

4 cities in Minnesota - Minneapolis, St. Paul, Duluth, and Bloomington - each have additional paid sick laws that go further than the statewide paid sick leave requirements. 

Minnesota employers are also required to allow employees paid leave so they can vote, though no minimum or maximum lengths of time for that leave are specified. 

Nebraska

Nebraska employers are not required to provide any paid vacation leave, but if they do offer such PTO, employers are required to pay out for any PTO that remains unused when an employee leaves the company. Nebraska state law also specifically forbids Nebraska employers from enacting use-it-or-lose-it policies with regard to earned leave, so Nebraska employees are entitled to be paid out for any remaining unused leave at the conclusion of their employment.

Nebraska law also requires employers to provide paid leave for jury duty, and 2 consecutive hours of paid leave to vote in municipal, country, state, and federal primaries and general elections if the employees schedule does not already allow for 2 consecutive off-duty hours during polling hours, though employers retain the right to determine during which hours eligible employees are allowed paid leave in order to vote. 

Nevada

Nevada employers with 50 or more employees must provide flex leave time that can be used for any purpose, which employees acquire at a rate of 0.01923 hours of paid leave per hour worked, which is about 1 hour of paid leave for every 52 hours worked. The law doesn’t apply to temporary, seasonal, and on-call workers, and employers can exempt themselves from the law by providing a flat 40 hours of paid time off each year to each eligible employee. Employers who have been in operation for less than 2 years are also exempt.

Further, Nevada state law doesn’t cap the amount of PTO that employees can accrue, but it does allow employers to limit the amount that employees can use to as little as 40 hours in a benefit year. Employees must also work for 90 days before they are able to use any of the accrued PTO.

Employers are required to provide paid leave for employees to vote, as well: 1 hour of paid leave if the polling place is less than 2 miles away, 3 hours of paid leave if the polling place is more than 10 miles away, and 2 hours of paid leave otherwise. 

New Jersey

New Jersey law mandates that employees earn 1 hour of paid sick leave for every 30 hours worked capped at 40 hours per year, and employees must be on the job for 120 days before utilizing any accrued paid leave. Further, employees are entitled to roll over from one year to the next up to 40 hours of unused paid sick leave, but employers can require up to 7 days notice for appointments and can require reasonable documentation for absences that last 3 or more days in a row. 

New Jersey state law also enables employees to take up to 12 weeks per year of flexible paid family leave, which is funded by the New Jersey Family Leave Insurance Program via payroll deductions. 

New Mexico

New Mexico state law entitles employees to 1 hour of paid sick leave for every 30 hours worked, capped at 64 hours per year, which employees can roll over from one year to the next. 

New Mexico does not require PTO accrual, but if an employer adopts a policy of providing PTO and allowing earned/unused hours to accrue, then unused time off must be paid out when the employee leaves the company. 

Employers in New Mexico must also allow employees 2 hours to vote if polls are not open for 2 hours prior to the start of a shift of 3 hours after the end of a shift. 

New York

New York employers that have between 0 and 4 employees and more than $1 million in revenue and New York employers that have between 5 and 99 employees regardless of revenue must provide employees with 40 hours of paid sick leave per year, accrued at 1 hour of leave for every 30 hours worked. New York employers with 100 or more employees must provide 56 hours of paid sick leave each year.

New York employees are also entitled to 12 weeks of paid family leave per year after they have completed at least 26 weeks in a row of at least 20 hours of work per week. Those leave payments are typically covered through insurance and provide up to 67% of an employee’s average weekly salary, capped at 67% of the statewide average weekly salary, which currently puts the cap at about $1,068 per week.

New York employees are also entitled to collect up to 26 weeks of short-term disability (or 4 to 6 weeks for disability as a result of pregnancy and/or childbirth), but these disability payments are only available during times when an employee is actually, physically unable to perform the job. 

New York state law also requires that employers with more than 10 employees must pay $40 dollars a day for each of the first 3 days of an employee’s jury duty service.

New York employees that don’t have 4 consecutive hours during which to vote are also entitled up to 2 hours of paid voting leave, but employees must notify their employers between 2 and 10 days before their planned voting absence, and employers can choose what time the voting leave is exercised.

Oregon

Oregon employers are not required to provide paid vacation leave, but if they choose to offer it and their employment policies and contracts don’t specifically absolve employers of the responsibility to pay out unused PTO at the conclusion of employment, then employers are required to make those payouts when an employee parts ways with the employer.

Oregon employers with 10 or more employees are required to provide paid sick leave at a rate of 1 hour earned for every 30 hours worked, which is capped at 40 hours per year that can be rolled over to the next year when unused (unless the leave is front-loaded), but any accrued leave can not be used until the employee has worked at least 90 days. 

Oregon employees are also entitled to up to 12 weeks per year of paid family/medical/safe leave via a social insurance program.

Rhode Island

Rhode Island state law requires employers to pay out any unused PTO upon termination if the employee has been on the job for at least 1 year. 

Rhode Island employers that have 18 or more employees are required to provide paid sick leave at a rate of 1 hour for every 35 hours worked (capped at 40 hours per year and capable of roll over from one year to the next), which accrue immediately upon commencement of work but can not be used for the first 90 days of employment. 

Rhode Island employees are also entitled to up to 30 weeks of temporary disability insurance and up to 6 weeks of temporary caregiver insurance, each offering up to about $1000 per week.

Tennessee

Tennessee employers with 5 or more employees are required to provide paid leave for jury duty service, though employees must show their employer their jury summons on the day they receive their jury summons or the day after receiving summons in order to be eligible, and employers can deduct any payment received from the court from the wages owed to the employee. 

Tennessee employers are also required to provide up to 3 consecutive hours of paid vote leave to any employee that does not already have 3 consecutive hours off work when the polls are open. In order to qualify, employees must request paid voting leave by 12pm on the day prior to Election Day.

Tennessee state employees and some metropolitan employees also are eligible for up to 6 weeks of paid family leave. 

Utah

Utah employers are not required to provide PTO, but if they do they must explicitly make clear their policy of not paying out unused PTO upon termination, otherwise unused PTO must be paid out when an employee is terminated. 

Utah employees that don’t already have at least 3 hours off during polling hours are entitled to 2 hours of paid voting leave, provided that they give their employer at least 1 day of advanced notice, and employers may still choose when the leave is exercised.

Vermont

Vermont employees earn 1 hour of paid sick leave for every 52 hours worked, capped at 40 hours per year which can be rolled over from 1 year to the next if unused, but employees may have to wait up to 1 year before utilizing accrued leave. In order to be eligible, however, employees must be at least 18 years old, must have worked at least 20 weeks in the last year, and must have averaged 18 hours per week over the year, as well.

Washington

Washington employers are required to provide employees with paid sick leave that accrues at a rate of 1 hour earned for every 40 hours worked, with up to 40 hours capable of being rolled over from one year to the next. Employees may have to wait 90 days before utilizing the accrued leave, at the employer's discretion. 

The city of Seattle expands upon the statewide paid sick leave rules by allowing the employees of employers that employ between 50 and 259 employees to roll over 56 hours of accrued paid sick leave per year, while employees of employers with 250 or more employees can roll over up to 72 hours per year of unused leave.

Washington state law also provides for a paid family leave insurance program that enables employees to take up to 12 weeks of paid leave for many family and medical events including childbirth under normal circumstances, and up to 18 weeks given certain qualifying events. 

Mployer Advisor’s Take

While the range of regulatory involvement with regard to paid leave varies considerably between states, the bars set by state rulemakers can tend to be on the low-side relative to the actual paid leave benefits offered by companies within those states.

Even in states with no paid leave requirements whatsoever, industry and regional/intra-state norms often set standards that many if not most applicable employers follow, and those norms can sometimes go beyond the heftier mandates laid out by some of the states with more comprehensive regulation, as well.

As a result, in order to maintain a more complete picture of both best practices and talent expectations, it is important to keep up with a changing regulatory environment, both on the state and federal level, as well as benchmarking against comparable employers in the same industry and/or region.