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).

Economy
The Employment Situation for November 2024
The latest economic release from the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that the U.S. added only 12 thousand new jobs last month, although multiple hurricanes hindered both job additions and data collection, while the unemployment rate held steady at 4.1%.
November 4, 2024

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

The unemployment rate held steady at 4.1% for the second straight month, while US employers added around 12 thousand jobs, which was about 90% below growth estimates.

Not only was the labor market essentially unchanged over the month, there also wasn’t much noteworthy change over the year in terms of the unemployment rate, which rose just three-tenths of a percent from 3.8% over the last 12 months.

The number of people who qualify as long-term unemployed after remaining jobless for at least 27 weeks also showed little movement at about 1.6 million people, as did the number of people not currently in the labor force but want a job despite not actively looking for one (7.3 million). 

To be clear, however, while most of these metrics were fairly consistent from month to month, seeing the number of new payroll entries fall so far beneath the predicted levels does represent a significant departure from the norm in recent years.

Still, the vast majority of industries recorded little to no meaningful change in payroll entries over the month, including construction, natural resource extraction, wholesale, retail, information services, transportation & warehousing, and leisure & hospitality. 

The healthcare industry saw the largest number of new jobs last month at 52 thousand, which is just below the average monthly growth recorded in the healthcare industry over the past 12 months. 

The government sector recorded an increase of about 40 thousand jobs last month, as well, which was similarly in line with the monthly average of about 43 thousand.

The number of temporary employees and manufacturing employees, however, declined by about 50 thousand each over the course of October, with manufacturing strikes playing a significant role in the latter reduction.

Meanwhile, the average workweek was essentially unchanged at 34.3 hours per week while average hourly pay spiked 13 cents for the second straight month based on initially-reported figures, rising to $35.46 per hour and representing a 0.4% increase over the month before.

Mployer’s Take

From one perspective, this report looks like the picture of stability - with practically no perceptible change to either the unemployment rate or the payroll figures. Taking that angle, this report may represent a reversion to the mean after a couple of years when the market has been particularly hot, but it is generally indicative of business as usual.

From another perspective, this report looks like the job growth figures just fell off of a cliff, coming up about 100 thousand jobs short of forecasts and almost 200 thousand short of average monthly job growth over the past year. This vantage point might suggest that recession is imminent.

The reality is that this report largely represents an incomplete picture and may in fact not be a fair reflection of the current state of the labor market. Factors such as Hurricane Milton, Hurricane Helen, and the Boeing strike among others have potentially skewed the jobs data via disruptions not only in the ability of companies to conduct businesses, service customers, and hire employees according to demand, but there have also been disruptions in the data collection process that could be influencing the report, as well. 

That said, the job numbers from the last couple of months were also revised downward in the latest report by more than 100 thousand collectively, the unemployment rate was stabilized in part by job-seekers at least temporarily abandoning the job hunt, and the data collection period was still within statistically acceptable ranges despite being cut short.

Put more succinctly, hurricanes and strikes significantly impacted the latest employment release, but the softening we may be seeing in the job market may go beyond those impacts alone. 

For one, the upcoming elections and the uncertainty surrounding the distribution of power among state and federal offices alike may well be influencing business decisions in the short term before some of those uncertainties are resolved.

In any case, both hurricane season and election season will be over in a matter of weeks and we’ll get a better look at how the markets and economy are likely to respond heading into the new year.

Check out the Mployer blog here.

Economy
The Market Employment Summary for October 2024
Meta Description: 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 October’s report. 
October 23, 2024

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

The US unemployment rate average came down about one-tenth of a point for the second straight month, falling from 4.2% to 4.1% over the course of September.

The overall economic picture remains one of stability, however, with 44 states reporting no significant change in unemployment rate during the month.

There were, however, only 5 states plus Washington DC that saw an increase in unemployment rate, while only 1 state saw its unemployment rate drop in a meaningful way.

At the same time, US employers saw about a quarter million new additions to their payrolls, but only 5 states and Washington DC recorded a net increase in jobs while only 1 state saw a net decrease. 

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

States With the Highest Unemployment Rates

The latest report marks the 5th straight month in a row that Washington DC has claimed the highest unemployment rate, holding steady at 5.7% month to month.

Nevada wasn’t far behind at 5.6% - and worse, Nevada’s rate increased one-tenth of a point over the month climbing to 5.5%, so it’s moving in the wrong direction.

5 other states saw their unemployment rates go up, with the largest increases (plus 0.2% each) recorded by South Carolina and Utah, while Indiana, Montana, and Tennessee each recorded a 0.1% increase in unemployment rate.

Over the last 12 months, just under half of all states (23) saw an increase in unemployment rate over the last 12 months, with South Carolina and Rhode Island recording the largest rate increases at 1.5% and 1.4%, followed by Ohio at plus 0.9% and Washington DC and Indiana each at plus 0.8%.

States With The Lowest Unemployment Rates

For 9 straight months now, South Dakota has claimed the lowest unemployment rate among states, which has been remarkably steady at 2% over the last several months.

Next on the list are Vermont, North Dakota, and Nebraska, which also held steady month to month at 2.2%, 2.3%, and 2.7%, respectively, followed by Mississippi and Maine at 2.8%.

For the second month in a row, Connecticut was the only state to record a net reduction in unemployment - falling from 3.4% to 3.2%. 

Over the last year, 6 states have recorded a decrease in unemployment rate, led by Connecticut at minus 0.8%, followed by Arizona at minus 0.7%, Wisconsin at minus 0.5%, Mississippi and Maine at minus 0.4%, and Arkansas at minus 0.3%.

States With New Job Losses

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

States With New Job Gains

Over the last month, 5 states plus Washington DC have seen a net increase in their number of in-state payroll entries. 

New Jersey added the largest number of jobs, with a net gain of more than 19 thousand, followed by Colorado with almost 13 thousand, and Arizona with just over 11 thousand.

In terms of net job gains as a percent of total jobs with in-state employers, Idaho saw the biggest increase with a 0.7% bump; followed by Washington DC and Rhode Island, which grew 0.6% each; Colorado and New Jersey recorded 0.4% increases, and the number of employed people in Arizona rose by 0.3%.

Over the last 12 months, Idaho and Montana have seen the largest percentage growth at 3.4% each. South Carolina payrolls grew by 3.3% over the past year, while Alaska and Minnesota grew by 2.9%, and North Dakota grew by 2.2%.

New Jersey and Minnesota recorded the smallest job growth over the past year at 1.2%, followed by Kansas at 1.3%. 

Mployer Advisor’s Take: 

Less than 2 weeks out from the election, all eyes are on the races to determine who will control the reigns of government for the coming terms.

Currently, the DOW is predicting a Harris win, while the betting markets are favoring Trump, and the polls are nearly split right down the middle.

One last jobs report will be coming out next Friday, the first of November, which will be the last economic release prior to Election Day, but with the polls already open in many if not most places, that data certainly won’t be influencing the decisions of the entirety of the electorate, at the very least.

One more interest rate cut before year’s end seems likely regardless of how the elections play out, but for the moment at least, the most important factor in determining the trajectory of the US economy and job market in the coming years is currently being decided at the ballot box.

By the time we check back in with November’s Market Summary analysis, we will hopefully have a better idea about what comes next in the bigger picture sense.

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

Economy
The Employment Situation for October 2024
The latest economic release from the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that the U.S. added an impressive 254 thousand new jobs last month, while the unemployment rate fell slightly to 4.1%.
October 7, 2024

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

The unemployment rate fell one-tenth of a point for a second straight month, dropping from about 4.2% to 4.1% after inching up for the 5 consecutive prior months.

The payroll figures were even more impressive, with over 250 thousand new jobs added through September, beating estimates of 150 thousand jobs by nearly 70%. 

The number of unemployed people essentially held steady at about 6.8 million which is up approximately half a million people from where it was 12 months ago when the unemployment rate was 3.8%.

Interestingly, the number of people who were jobless for less than 5 weeks fell by more than 10% down to 2.1 million, while the number of long-term unemployed was essentially unchanged at 1.6 million, which is up slightly from 1.3 million at this time last year. 

The food services and drinking establishment industries were responsible for the largest portion of the 254 thousand jobs that were added last month, netting almost 70 thousand additional workers over the course of September, which is almost 5 times the monthly hiring rate that food services and drinking establishments have averaged over the last 12 months.

The healthcare industry added the next most net jobs  last month at 45 thousand, although that figure represents underperformance relative to the 57 thousand jobs that the healthcare industry has been averaging for the past year. 

Government payrolls increased by about 31 thousand jobs, while the social assistance and construction industries each saw their ranks grow by about 26 thousand. 

No industries saw a significant decrease in jobs throughout September while the remainder of industries including natural resource extraction, manufacturing, wholesale, retail, information, transportation & warehousing, finance, and business/professional/other services all remained essentially unchanged.

Average hourly pay spiked by 13 cents last month, jumping to $35.36 per hour and representing a 0.4% increase over the month before. Average hourly pay has increased by 4% over the last year, which is two-tenths of a point higher than it was in last month’s report.

The average workweek, on the other hand, increased by another tenth of an hour down to 34.2 hours per week.

Mployer’s Take

Just over 2 weeks ago, the Federal Reserve announced the long-awaited 50 basis point (or half percent) cut in the benchmark interest rate, which is the first rate cut since 2020.

With those rates still around 5% however, another rate cut before the year ends remains possible at this point - especially in light of inflation in consumer prices hovering at 2.5%, just over the Fed’s long-stated target of 2% - but the strength of this of this jobs report has probably reduced the chances of another rate cut in the next few months.

From an economic perspective, it is hard to find much to complain about in this data, and the long-sought soft landing that the Fed has been aiming for appears to be coming to fruition.

Looking at the political perspective given the upcoming election, the strength of this report would certainly be welcome news by any incumbent candidate who can fairly claim some credit, and that may be increasingly true the closer we get to Voting Day.

As it turns out, however, this particular jobs report won’t be the last to arrive in advance of the election, as the November report covering October’s data will come out on November 1st this year, which happens to be the last Friday before ballots are cast on Tuesday, November 5th. 

The strength of this jobs report is undeniable, but the contents of next month’s report may ultimately be significantly more influential. 

Check out the Mployer blog here.

Compliance & Policy
The Employers’ Guide to Voting Leave Regulation and Early Voting
There are just 26 business days left not only to make sure your organization is up-to-date with state and local election rules governing employee voting leave requirements, but also to communicate and coordinate your Election Day plans with employees in order to ensure the minimal disruption to your workflow.
September 29, 2024

Key Takeaways

  • Election Day is 36 days away.
  • Make sure your organization is in compliance with relevant voting leave regulations.
  • Coordinating vote absences and encouraging early voting can help minimize election-related disruption to your productivity.

ARTICLE | The Employers’ Guide to Voting Leave Regulation and Early Voting

Election Day is Tuesday, November 5th, which is just 5 weeks away as of this posting.

That leaves just 26 business days not only to make sure your organization is up-to-date with state and local election rules governing employee voting leave requirements, but also to communicate and coordinate your Election Day plans with employees in order to ensure the minimal disruption to your workflow.

Below, we have compiled a list of relevant voting regulations by state as well as information about early voting that you can share with employees and potentially reduce the number of absences concentrated on Election Day, as well.

The process of early voting has already begun in many places and will soon begin in many more, so let’s get to it.

Alabama: Employees in Alabama that begin work less than 2 hours after polls open or end work less than 1 hour before polls close are entitled to 1 hour of voting leave if they give reasonable notice. There is no early voting in Alabama. 

Alaska: For employees that don’t already have at least 2 consecutive hours off duty when the polls are open on Election Day, employers are required to provide paid voting leave and allow as much time off as is reasonably necessary for employees to vote. The early voting window can differ in different districts but 15 days prior to Election Day is the norm.

Arizona: Employers in Arizona must provide employees with up to 3 hours of paid leave if they do not already have 3 hours in a row when they are not scheduled to work when polls are open on Election Day. Employees must apply for voting leave in advance of Election Day, and employers can specify the hours on Election Day when employee’s utilize their voting leave. The early voting period in Arizona varies by location but begins about 15 days before Election Day in most districts.

Arkansas: In Arkansas, employers are required to adjust employees’ work schedules on Election Day in order to enable employees to vote. Early voting will begin 15 days prior to Election Day.

California: Employees who give their employer at least 2 working days notice of their intent to take time off work in order to vote are allowed up to 2 hours of paid voting leave at either the beginning or end of a shift. Employers must provide enough leave so that when it is combined with voting hours before/after the shift, employees will have sufficient time to vote. Although there is some variation from one county to the next, in general early voting in California begins 29 days before Election Day.

Colorado: Employees that request voting leave and who do not already have 3 consecutive non-working hours during which the polls are open are entitled to paid voting leave. Employees can request that leave be at either the beginning or end of their shift, but employers can determine when leave is granted. Early voting begins in-person 15 days before Election Day in general, though there may be some variance between counties.

Connecticut: There are currently no voting leave rules in place in Connecticut as the last law regulating that issue expired in June 2024 and has not yet been replaced. Early voting begins 15 days prior to Election Day.

Delaware: Employers in Delaware are not required to provide employees with voting leave. Early voting begins 10 days before Election Day. 

Florida: Florida law does not require employers to provide employees with voting leave. Early voting schedules can differ from one county to another, but early voting in Florida typically begins at least 10 days in advance of Election Day.

Georgia: Employees in Georgia are entitled by law to up to 2 hours of voting leave that can be used on Election Day or before via in-person early voting. That leave can be unpaid except for employees who can’t have their pay decreased due to absence from the job. Early voting begins the fourth Monday before Election Day, which is October 14th this cycle.

Hawaii: Elections in Hawaii are conducted by mail, and all registered voters should receive mail-in ballots automatically about 18 days in advance of Election Day. Voters can also turn in ballots or vote in person at service centers beginning 10 days prior to election day.

Idaho: There are no laws or regulations in Idaho that require employers to provide voting leave to employees. Some Idaho counties allow no early voting at all, but for the counties that do allow early voting, it begins the third Monday in advance of the election, which is October 21st this cycle.

Illinois: Employers are required to provide employees with up to 2 hours of paid voting leave if an employee doesn’t already have 2 consecutive hours of non-working time when the polls are open. Employers can use their discretion as to when the voting leave is exercised, and employees must apply for voting leave in advance of Election Day. Early voting in Illinois begins 40 days before Election Day.

Indiana: Indiana has no rules with regard to voting leave for employees. Early voting in Indiana begins 28 days before the election.

Iowa: Employees who request voting leave in writing in advance of Election Day are entitled to 3 consecutive hours of paid voting leave, assuming that there is not already a period of 3 consecutive non-working hours when the polls are open. Employers, however, can set the time during which employees are allowed to exercise their voting leave. In-person absentee voting in Iowa starts 20 days prior to Election Day.

Kansas: Kansas law ensures that employees have at least 2 consecutive hours that they are not required to work while the polls are open. If the polls are open before or after an employee’s shift but for less than 2 consecutive hours, employers are required to provide complementary paid voting leave sufficient to amount to 2 consecutive hours when combined with the pre or post-shift polling hours. Other than lunch hours, employers can also set when the voting leave is utilized. Early voting varies by country and begins up to 20 days prior to Election Day.

Kentucky: Employers in Kentucky must give employees up to 4 hours of leave that can be used either to cast a ballot on Election Day or to apply for an absentee ballot. To qualify, however, employees must request voting leave at least one day before they intend to utilize it, but employers can set the hours during which that voting leave is available on a given day and can penalize employees who utilize voting leave but fail to actually vote in certain cases. Early voting in Kentucky starts 5 days before the election.

Louisiana: There are no laws in Louisiana that require employers to provide voting leave to employees. Early voting in Louisiana starts 18 days before Election Day this cycle.

Maine: Employers in Maine are not required to provide employees with voting leave. In-person absentee voting in Maine begins 30 days prior to Election Day.

Maryland: In Maryland, employers are required to allow employees up to 2 hours of paid voting leave if an employee does not have at least 2 consecutive hours before or after their shift when polls are open. Employers, however, are allowed to require employees to submit a form that the state will provide as proof that the employee either voted or tried to vote. Early voting in Maryland opens two Thursdays prior to Election Day, which is October 24th this cycle.

Massachusetts: In Massachusetts, the only industries in which employers are required to provide employees with voting leave are the mercantile, manufacturing, and mechanical industries. Employers in those industries must provide employees with 2 hours of voting leave, while there are no voting leave requirements made of employers in other industries. Early voting starts 17 days in advance of Election Day.

Michigan: Michigan has no rules requiring employers to provide employees with voting leave. Early voting begins the second Saturday prior to Election Day, which falls on October 27th this cycle.

Minnesota: Employers in Minnesota must provide employees with paid leave for as long as necessary to enable employees to vote and return to work. In-person absentee voting begins 46 days before Election Day. 

Mississippi: No laws or regulations in Mississippi require employers to provide employees with voting leave, but Mississippi law does state that employers can’t take any adverse action against employees because they voted (or chose not to vote). Eligible absentee voters can begin casting their ballots 45 days before Election Day.

Missouri: Unless employees have  at least 3 consecutive non-working hours when the polls are open, employers in Missouri are required to provide employees with at least 3 hours in a row of paid voting leave. Employers, however, can require that employees who wish to exercise their voting leave apply to do so in advance of Election Day, and employers can choose when that voting leave is utilized. Beginning the second Tuesday before Election Day, which is October 22nd this cycle, Missouri offers in-person absentee voting in locations designated by local county election officials. 

Montana: Employers in Montana have no duty to provide employees with voting leave. In-person absentee voting in Montana begins 30 days prior to the election.

Nebraska: For employees that don’t already have at least 2 consecutive hours off when the polls are open on Election Day, employers must provide up to 2 hours of paid voting leave at a time of the employer’s choosing if the employee requests voting leave either on or before Election Day. If an employee exercises voting leave without requesting it, however, it may be possible for that voting leave to be unpaid. Early voting begins 30 days before the election in Nebraska.

Nevada: Nevada employers must provide paid voting leave to employees for whom it would be impractical to vote before or after work - 1 hour of paid voting leave for employees who must travel 2 or fewer miles to vote, 3 hours of paid voting leave for employees who must travel more than 10 miles to vote, and 2 hours of paid voting leave for all other employees. Employers can determine the window during which that voting leave is exercised, and they can require that employees apply for voting leave in advance of election day as well. Early voting starts 17 days before Election Day. 

New Hampshire: Employers in New Hampshire are not required to provide voting leave to employees. New Hampshire offers neither early voting nor in-person, no-excuse absentee voting. 

New Jersey: There are no New Jersey laws requiring employers to provide employees with voting leave. Early voting begins 10 days before Election Day.

New Mexico: If polls are not open for at least 2 hours in a row before an employee’s shift or for at least 3 hours in a row after an employee’s shift, then that employee is entitled to 2 hours of paid voting leave, although employers can set when that leave is utilized. Early voting opens 28 days before Election Day. 

New York: Employees in New York who do not have 4 consecutive hours before or after their shift when the polls are open are entitled to 2 hours of paid voting leave. Employers, however, can specify if the voting leave is utilized at the beginning or end of the scheduled work period, or at another time agreed upon by both the employer and employee. Early voting begins 10 days before Election Day. 

North Carolina: While North Carolina employers are not required to offer voting leave, employers that discharge employees for taking leave to vote may nonetheless be in violation of rules prohibiting wrongful discharge. Early voting in North Carolina begins no sooner than 3 Thursdays prior to Election Day.

North Dakota: Employers in North Dakota are not required to provide employees with voting leave. Early voting schedules can differ by county but early voting tends to begin at least 15 days prior to Election Day. 

Ohio: Employers in Ohio must give employees a reasonable length of time off work on Election Day so that they may vote. Early voting in Ohio begins on the first business day that occurs 29 days before Election Day or less. 

Oklahoma: Employees who don’t have at least 3 consecutive non-working hours when the polls are open before or after their shift are entitled to two hours of voting leave and potentially additional time beyond those 2 hours if distance to the voting site requires it. Employees must request voting leave at least one day before Election Day, but employers can set the day and hours during which employees can exercise their voting leave. Early voting this cycle begins the Wednesday before Election Day, which is October 30th.

Oregon: Employers in Oregon are not required to provide voting leave to employees, and Oregon does not have early voting in a traditional sense since Oregon elections are conducted largely through mail-in ballots. 

Pennsylvania: There are no requirements that Pennsylvania employers provide employees with voting leave. There is no statewide early voting, either, but some Pennsylvania counties allow voters to fill out absentee and mail-in ballots in person beginning 50 days before the election.

Rhode Island: There are no rules in Rhode Island that require employers to provide employees with voting leave. Early voting begins 20 days prior to Election Day.

South Carolina: Employers in South Carolina are not permitted to terminate employees due to exercising their voting rights, but there are no other rules with regard to voting leave. Early voting begins 15 days before Election Day.

South Dakota: Under South Dakota law, employees that don’t already have 2 consecutive non-working hours when the polls are open either before or after their shift are entitled to 2 hours of paid voting leave. Employers, however, can choose the hours during which voting leave is utilized. In-person absentee voting begins 46 days prior to Election Day.

Tennessee: Employers are required to provide up to 3 hours of paid voting leave if employees don’t have 3 consecutive hours when polls are open either before or after their shifts. Employer’s may demand that employees request voting leave by noon on the day before Election Day and may also set the hours during which an employee utilizes their voting leave. Early voting in Tennessee begins 20 days before Election Day.

Texas: Employers in Texas must provide employees with at least 2 consecutive hours in which to vote if they don’t already have 2 consecutive hours off duty on Election Day when the polls are open. Early voting begins 17 days before the election if it’s a business day and if not, the next business day.

Utah: If an employee’s work shift on Election Day doesn’t allow for at least 3 consecutive off-duty hours when the polls are open and that employee requests voting leave before Election Day, employers are required to provide up to 2 hours of paid leave. Early voting in Utah begins 2 weeks prior to Election Day.

Vermont: There are no rules on the books requiring employers in Vermont to provide voting leave, although state law does require employers to give employees unpaid leave to attend annual Town Hall Meetings if employees provide 7 days notice in advance. Vermont opens early voting from 45 days prior to the election until the day before Election Day.

Virginia: The only laws on the books in Virginia requiring employers to provide employees with election-related leave apply only to employees who are working as election officials. In-person absentee voting in Virginia begins 45 days before Election Day. 

Washington: Washington has no state laws or regulations that require employers to provide employees with voting leave. Early voting in Washington begins 18 days before the election.

West Virginia: Employees in West Virginia are entitled to up to 3 hours of voting leave unless those employees already have 3 consecutive non-working hours when polls are open. Employers, however, can demand that employees submit applications for voting leave at least 3 days in advance of Election Day. Early voting begins 13 days before Election Day.

Wisconsin: Employers in Wisconsin must provide their employees with up to 3 hours of unpaid voting leave during the hours of the employer’s choosing to any employee that provides at least 1 day of notice. Early voting in Wisconsin begins no sooner than 2 weeks before Election Day.

Wyoming: For employees who do not have at least 3 hours in a row outside of their work shift when the polls are open, employers must provide at least 1 hour of paid leave, although employers are allowed to determine when that voting leave is utilized within the shift. In-person absentee voting starts 28 days before the election.

Mployer’s Take

If the election process is not already underway in your area, it will be very soon.

Employers seeking to minimize election-related confusion and impacts should be proactive in coordinating absences, communicating plans, and ensuring that disruptions in workflow and productivity are kept to an absolute minimum.

For the next 5 weeks, uncertainty about the outcome of the elections is an unfortunate inevitability, but there is no need for or benefit from uncertainty about how your organization will manage employees as they exercise their voting rights.

Economy
The Market Employment Summary for September 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 September’s report.
September 23, 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)

The US unemployment rate average came down about one-tenth of a point last month, dropping from approximately 4.3% to 4.2%.

For context, the US unemployment rate hasn’t been above 4.3% since October of 2021, representing a tight labor market for an extended period of time seldom seen in US history outside of wartime.

Only 1 state saw its internal unemployment rate come down over the month, however, with Connecticut showing a 0.2% unemployment rate reduction, falling from 3.6% to 3.4%. 

On the other hand, 7 ‘states’ - Georgia, Massachusetts, Minnesota, North Dakota, South Carolina, Utah, and Washington DC - recorded increases in their state unemployment rates, ranging from plus 0.1% to plus 0.4%. The number of states with climbing unemployment rates is down from 13 the month prior.

The more than 140 thousand new jobs added last month across the US as a whole resulted in 4 states with a net increase in payroll figures, while only 1 state - South Dakota - saw a net decrease in jobs, and the remainder were essentially unchanged.

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

States With the Highest Unemployment Rates

For the fourth straight month, Washington DC had the highest unemployment rate, jumping two-tenths of a point from 5.5% to 5.7%.

Nevada had the next highest unemployment rate, climbing from 5.4% to 5.5%.

California and Illinois were the only 2 other states that posted unemployment rates above 5%, at 5.3% each.

Washington State at 4.8% unemployment was the only other state above the US average, and the only other state above 4% for that matter. 

South Carolina saw the largest increase in unemployment last month, spiking 0.4% from 3.9% to 4.3% unemployment, while Washington DC, Georgia, and Massachusetts each saw 0.2% increases in their respective unemployment rates, and 0.1% unemployment rate increases were recorded by Minnesota, North Dakota, and Utah.

Half of all states plus Washington DC recorded an increase in unemployment over the last 12 months - the largest increases going to Rhode Island, South Carolina, and Ohio, with 1.7%, 1.4%, and 1.0% increases, respectively.

States With The Lowest Unemployment Rates

For the 8th month in a row, South Dakota has recorded the lowest unemployment rate, holding steady at 2%.

Vermont has the next lowest unemployment rate at 2.2%, followed by North Dakota at 2.3% and New Hampshire at 2.6%. Mississippi and Nebraska are next at 2.7%; followed by Alabama and Maine at 2.8%; and Hawaii, Iowa, Maryland, and Wisconsin at 2.9% unemployment. 

Only Connecticut saw its unemployment rate decrease over the month, dropping 0.2% from 3.6% unemployment to 3.4%.

Over the last 12 months, only 4 states have seen a net reduction in their unemployment rates, led by Arizona ( - 0.7%) and followed by Connecticut ( - 0.4%), Wisconsin ( - 0.4%), and Mississippi ( - 0.5%).

States With New Job Losses

Despite having the lowest unemployment rate, or perhaps because it has consistently had the lowest unemployment rate among states throughout 2024, South Dakota was the only state to record a net decrease in jobs over the month, dropping a little more than 3 thousand and seeing in-state payrolls reduce by 0.7%.

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

States With New Job Gains

Indiana, Minnesota, Texas, and Wisconsin all recorded net payroll increases last month.

Texas recorded the largest net gain both in terms of raw jobs figures and percentage gain, with the Texas labor force growing by 0.6% or almost 80 thousand jobs over the course of August.

Indiana tied Texas at 0.6% job growth and had the second largest number of raw jobs gains, netting almost 20 thousand.

Minnesota added a bit more than 14 thousand jobs for 0.5% growth and Wisconsin added a little less than 12 thousand jobs, accounting for 0.4% growth.

Over the course of the last year, Missouri and South Carolina have recorded the largest workforce growth rates at 3.3% each, followed by Montana at 3.1% and Alaska at 2.8%. 

The states with the smallest job growth rates over the year are Massachusetts and New Jersey at 1.1% each, followed by Wisconsin at 1.2% and Iowa at 1.3%.

In terms of raw job figures, Texas has added just over 300 thousand net jobs over the last 12 months, while California added just under 290 thousand, Florida added just over 200 thousand, New York added 140 thousand, and Pennsylvania added a bit more than 100 thousand jobs.

Mployer Advisor’s Take: 

The big economic story of the moment is the long-awaited interest rate cuts that finally arrived when the Federal Reserve reduced rates by half a percentage point last week, bringing baseline rates down to between 4.75% and 5%.

Further, the Fed is poised to lower interest rates by another half point over the remainder of 2024, and is on course to bring rates down by another percentage point over 2025, as well - assuming that inflation and employment trends hold.

While there are more than a few intervening events and trend shifts that might disrupt potential 2025 rate reductions, an additional half point cut in 2024 remains far more likely than not to occur at this point.

According to Fed projections, although inflation has yet to fall below the Fed’s stated target of 2%, we are expected to cross that threshold by 2026, and unemployment is forecast to climb slowly through 2025 before leveling out.

In sum, keep an eye out for more interest rate relief in the near-term, and maybe significant interest relief next year as well if expectations about our current economic trajectory hold. It has been a long time coming.

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

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.