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 also 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 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 row when they are not scheduled to work on Election Day during when the polls are open. 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, and employees. The early voting period in Arizona is different in different areas but begins about 15 days before Election Day in most districts.

Arkansas: In Arkansas, employers are required to adjust employee’s 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, which combined with voting hours before/after the shift provide sufficient time for an employee 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 while the polls are open that they are not required to work. 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 open poll 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 in certain cases employees who utilize voting leave but fail to actually vote. 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 they either voted or tried to vote if they utilized that voting leave. 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 there are 3 consecutive non-working hours when the polls are open already, 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 election 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 employees for whom it would be impractical to vote before or after work with paid voting leave - 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 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 the election 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 voters 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 Islands 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 as a result of 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 when 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 to employees if they 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 that employee doesn’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 any employee 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 disruption 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.

Clear expectations surrounding voting leave policy for both employers and employees best serves the interests of both parties.

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.

Workforce Management
The Employers’ Guide To The Gender Pay Gap
Women in the US are being paid about 84% as much as men, although there can be significant variation in the size of the gap depending on factors like age, education, industry, and geography.
September 19, 2024

Key Takeaways

  • Women in the US are being paid about 84% as much as men, which has come a long way since 1979 when that figure was about 62%.
  • Factors like education, location, industry, age, and race/ethnicity can meaningfully affect the size of the gender pay gap.
  • Louisiana, Utah, and Washington are the states with the largest gender pay gaps, while California, Vermont, and Maine are the states with the smallest gender pay gaps.

ARTICLE | The Employers’ Guide To The Gender Pay Gap

From our research, the pay gap is smaller than it has ever been before, with women’s pay relative to men’s pay climbing from about 83% in 2022 to about 83.6% as of 2023.

Despite the somewhat smaller pay gap, however, women who worked full-time at either a wage or salaried job in 2023 earned about $1,005 per week, while similarly situated men earned about $1,202 per week.

Although the pay gap has been closing fairly consistently over the last 40 plus years with only a few relatively minor setbacks along the way, the rate at which the gap is closing has been much slower over the most recent 20 years than it was in the 1980s and 1990s.

While the pay gap has been shrinking at a somewhat quicker pace in recent years than it had throughout most of the millennium to date, there is still more work to be done, with more than a 16% difference remaining. 

While this difference in pay still exists, it is also worth noting that the gap can narrow or can expand considerably based on a number of other variables, including age, ethnicity, education, and location.

How Age Affects The Gender Pay Gap

There are some interesting comparisons that can be made between how age impacts men’s and women’s pay rates differently.

Both men and women experience their highest earning years between the ages of 35 and 64 broadly, but women tend to hit their peak earning years earlier than men do. 

The data indicates that women tend to earn the most in their careers between the ages of 35 and 44 with a slight drop off from 45 to 54, while men tend to see their earnings peak between the ages of 45 to 54 with a slight drop off from 55 to 64.

Interestingly, the size of the pay gap is smallest between men and women when they are starting their careers, and it grows consistently through retirement age. 

For example, there is only a 6.2% difference between women’s and men’s pay rate in the 16 to 24 age group before it grows to an 11.2% difference in the 25 to 34 age group. The pay gap jumps again to 16.8% in the 35 to 44 age group, then climbs to 20.2% for men and women between the ages of 45 and 54, before peaking at 22.8% at for people 55 to 64, and finally receding a bit to 17.3% in the 65 and up age group.

The most inter-demographic growth in the pay gap occurred between the 25 and 34 age group and the 35 and 44 age group, which saw a 5.7% increase in the pay gap, followed by the increase between the 16 and 24 age group and the 25 to 34 age group, which was a 4.9% bump. The smallest occurred between the 45 and 54 age group and the 55 to 64 age group, which only recorded 2.6% pay gap growth.

While it may be tempting to interpret these data patterns with a smaller pay gap in the younger demographics as reflective of some kind of generational change, that is unlikely to be the case given that these data patterns are in line with historical expectations.

How Race & Ethnicity Affect The Gender Pay Gap

While women as a whole are paid a little under 84% of what men as a whole are paid, there is a fair amount of variation in the size of that pay gap between different races and ethnicities.

Black women and men have the smallest pay gap, at about 92%, with median weekly earnings for black women at $889 compared to $970 for black men. 

The pay gap between Latina women and Latino men is about 87% and exceeds the national median, with Latina women earning a median weekly wage of $800, and Latino men earning about $915 per week. 

The pay gap between white women and men, on the other hand, is about 83% - just under the national median - with white women earning a median $1,021 per week compared to the $1,225 white men earn per week. 

According to the data, the largest pay gap exists between Asian women and men, with Asian women earning about $1,299 per week, which is about 79% as much as the median $1,635 Asian men earn. 

Interestingly, the races/ethnicities with higher median weekly pay had larger gender pay gaps than those with lower median weekly pay, which aligns with the smaller pay gaps recorded in early career stages compared to later career stages when earnings typically peak.

Also, while the gender pay gap remains substantial in each of these examples, it is also narrowing in each case, with black women recording a 2.2% inflation-adjusted increase last year, and Asian women seeing an increase of about 1.1% to their median pay. White and Latina women each saw their inflation-adjusted pay rise by less than 1%.

How Education Affects The Gender Pay Gap

While women have narrowed the pay gap more than 20 percentage points between 1979 and 2023, the vast majority of those gains have gone to women with college degrees.

Women who did not graduate from college saw their inflation-adjusted earnings grow by only 4% between 1979 and 2023. Women who graduated high school but did not attend college only did marginally better with a 6% inflation-adjusted pay increase over that time. Women who attended some college or earned an associate’s degree didn’t do much better at 8%.

Women who earned a bachelor’s degree or higher, however, saw their median weekly pay increase by 38% between 1979 and 2023, which stands in stark contrast to the pay scale increases earned by less-educated women over the last near half century.

For context and comparison, men with bachelor’s degrees or higher saw their weekly median pay rise by 20% over the same time span, while male groups with associates degrees, some college, high school degrees, and no high school degrees actually saw their median pay fall between 10% and 23% during those years, depending on their level of education.

Gender Pay Gap By State From Largest To Smallest

The following figures represent the median pay of women relative to the median pay of men in each state as of 2023.

The range runs from Louisiana (where women earn a median 74% of what men earn) to California (where women’s median pay is 90% of men’s pay). 

  • Louisiana - 74%
  • Utah - 75%
  • Washington - 77%
  • Wyoming - 77%
  • New Hampshire - 78%
  • New Jersey - 78%
  • South Dakota 78%
  • Virginia - 79%
  • West Virginia - 79%
  • Alabama - 81%
  • Alaska - 81%
  • Tennessee - 81%
  • North Dakota - 81%
  • Iowa - 82%
  • Idaho -82%
  • Indiana - 82%
  • Rhode Island - 82%
  • Colorado - 82%
  • Ohio - 82%
  • New Mexico - 82%
  • Hawaii - 82%
  • Pennsylvania - 82%
  • Arizona - 83%
  • Michigan - 83%
  • Minnesota - 83%
  • Oklahoma - 83%
  • Texas - 83%
  • Montana - 84%
  • Nebraska - 84%
  • Illinois - 84%
  • Kansas - 84%
  • Missouri - 84%
  • Arkansas - 84%
  • Mississippi - 84%
  • New York - 84%
  • Wisconsin - 84%
  • Nevada - 85%
  • South Carolina - 86%
  • North Carolina - 86%
  • Massachusetts - 87%
  • Florida - 88%
  • Connecticut - 88%
  • Georgia - 89%
  • Maryland - 89%
  • Oregon - 89%
  • Delaware - 89%
  • Kentucky - 89%
  • Maine - 89%
  • Vermont - 90%
  • California - 90%

Gender Pay Gap History & Trends

The first comparable earnings data comparing pay by gender was collected in 1979 and indicated that women earned about 62% as much as men did at the time.

While the progress has been pretty consistent in terms of narrowing the pay gap over the last 45 years, the rate of improvement itself has been less consistent, with a few short periods of rapid advancement interspersed with periods of slower change and in some cases even minor regression.

Between 1979 and 2023 as women’s pay rates relative to men’s pay rates climbed from 62% to 84%, the total percentage change over that 44-year window amounts to only a 22% narrowing of the pay gap, which equals 2% per year on average.

That said, the vast majority (~70%) of that pay-gap-narrowing occurred between 1980 and 2003 when women’s pay relative to men’s rose from 64% to 79%. In the last 20 years of data collection, however, the pay gap has only decreased by an additional 5%, with women’s earnings relative to men’s increasing from 79% to 84%.

It’s also worth pointing out that there have been several occasions over the years when the data has indicated that the pay gap may be moving in the wrong direction. For example, from 1993 to 1997, women’s pay relative to men’s fell almost 3 points from 77.1% to 77.4%, which was the longest stretch of backslide in terms of closing the pay gap since this data began being collected. 

A much smaller widening of the pay gap occurred between 2005 and 2008, as well, when women’s pay relative to men’s pay fell from about 81% to about 79.9%, and there have been a few other steps in the wrong direction of about a point or less that were recorded in 2001, 2012, 2015, and 2018.

Despite those outlier regression years, while it is clear that women’s pay relative to men’s pay has been trending upward for the most part, it is equally clear that the rate of improvement has stalled significantly over the last 20 years.

Notably, however, the most recent 5 years of data pulled from 2019 through 2023 do show the pay gap narrowing at a somewhat faster pace than it had for much of the current millennium, with the most recent 5 years accounting for almost 66% of the narrowing of the pay gap that has occurred over the last 20 years.

Still, the average percentage by which the pay gap has narrowed each of the last 5 years is only 0.42%, which is less than a quarter of the 2% average annual pay gap narrowing that has been recorded since data collection began.

In sum, not only is there still more than a 16% pay gap between women and men, but even though the pace at which the gap has been closing over the last 5 years has been picking up, the rate of change is still considerably slower than it has been on average over the past half century. 

Mployer’s Take

Beyond the demographic factors affecting the gender wage gap addressed in this piece (i.e. age, race/ethnicity, education, and state) there are of course some structural factors that can influence the size of the gender pay gap, both in general and for a given subset of women workers. 

One prime example is how different industries and jobs often compensate workers differently and in some cases have significantly different participation levels by gender, as well. Primary school teaching jobs are disproportionately held by women and pay relatively less, while the energy and construction industries pay relatively more and are disproportionately male, which can exacerbate the pay gap.

These kinds of structural disparities will make it difficult to entirely close out what remains of the gender pay gap without a major shift in both how women and men distribute themselves among the workforce, and how the value of some types of work is perceived and compensated.

Still, the progress that has been made over the last 50 years is very real and should be celebrated, but not without keeping an eye on what may be the most consistent trend evident throughout this data - the more money involved, the greater the pay gap. Accordingly, while it is certainly important to minimize the pay gap at the point of entry level jobs for those interested in increasing gender pay equity, continuing progress will require greater emphasis on eliminating the gender pay gap at top-salaried positions. 

For the time being, however, it seems employers that can competently address the gender pay gap within their own organizations and can confidently share those results with talent will continue to maintain a distinct advantage in the labor market among a population of historically underpaid workers.

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.

Compliance & Policy
Legal/Compliance Roundup - September 2024
Each month, Mployer collects and presents some of the most relevant and most pressing recent changes in law, compliance, and policy in areas related to employee benefits, health care, and human resources.
September 4, 2024

Each month, Mployer Advisor collects and presents some of the most relevant and most pressing recent changes in law, compliance, and policy in areas related to employee benefits, health care, and human resources.

Ban On Non-Competes On Hold

A federal judge in Texas issued a ruling on August 20, 2024 that currently applies nationwide and overturns the FTC’s rule banning non-compete agreements.

The judge indicated that the ban is too broad and that the FTC is limited to challenging unfair competition on a case-by-case basis but lacks the authority to issue a blanket ban and the evidentiary basis to justify such a ban were it permitted..

The FTC has until the latter part of October to appeal the decision, but the non-compete ban will likely remain unenforceable in the meantime.

That said, other cases addressing the non-compete ban are working their way through other federal districts, and should one of those cases rule differently, these issues may get fast tracked for resolution by the US Supreme Court.

Federal Tip Credit Rule Is Simplified

On August 23, 2024, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals overruled the Department of Labor’s 80/20/30 rule for tip credits.

As a result, employers no longer need to distinguish between tip-producing and tip-supporting work when calculating tip credits.

It is important to note that this ruling only applies to the federal DOL rule, and does not affect any state or local labor rules regarding minimum wage and/or tip credits.

You can read more about the 80/20/30 rule being vacated here

Voting Leave Required Notice

Though election day is still just over 60 days away, voting for some eligible Americans begins at the end of this week. 

As an advanced reminder, employers in California, New York, and Washington DC are all required to post conspicuous notices in the workplace informing employees of their voting rights, which can differ by state and municipality.

You can find the California notice here.

You can find the New York notice here.

You can find the Washington DC notice here.

Check back next month for additional voting leave information by state.

I-9 Form Expiration Date Extended

US Citizenship and Immigration Services have extended the expiration date of the latest updated version of the I9 form issued on August 1, 2023. I-9 forms are used for employment eligibility verification. 

The expiration date for these forms has now been extended to May 31, 2027, but forms listed with the previous expiration date of July 31 2026 must be used or updated by the date of expiration listed on the form. 

You can read more about the I-9 form expiration date extension here.

Health Insurance
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.