BAN Blog

Sharing Success: Owen & Associates

From Elisabeth Nunes

https://owenandassoc.com/group-benefits/

Just 6 months ago, in April of 2021, Benefit Advisors Network expanded its membership across the border with our first two Canadian firms. The addition of Owen & Associates and The Leslie Group has been a pivotal step towards facilitating the opportunities and connections our North American members need to collectively provide seamless international service to their customers.

This Summer, our team set up a call with Owen & Associates to hear more about their approach to the Employee Benefits industry and the journey that led them to join BAN Canada as one of its founding members. Michael Owen, the owner and CEO of Owen & Associates, and Steven Owen, who stepped into the President role in June of 2021 were more than happy to answer all of our questions.

Background

Owen & Associates (O&A) is a consulting and brokerage firm based out of Toronto, Canada; with additional locations in Collingwood, Ontario, and Kelowna, British Columbia. Established on a referral basis, their business sees a 98% client retention rate. They continue to service 400+ national clients with 20,000+ insured lives.

Their business model places clients and their needs at the center of all that they do. They strive to meet the unique demands of each business by providing both individual and group solutions for their customers.

On the home page of their website, you’ll see the tagline “Local Service. Global Perspective.”, Our conversation with Michael and Steven clearly highlighted how they embody that statement as a company.

A Unique Approach with First-Class Service

Many Canadian benefits companies are not designed to handle small groups with big brand needs – that’s where O&A comes in to fill the gap in the market. Their focus does not reside on the number of insured lives, but rather on addressing all aspects of their client’s needs. Quality of service continues to remain at its absolute forefront in all operations.

Historically, many of the companies they’ve served have been start-ups based in California’s Bay Area. Recognizing that some of these businesses may be two-life groups forever, they also know that occasionally they turn into 500, 1,000, or 2,000-life groups. Companies such as Yahoo, Square, Spotify, and Yelp have grown at incredible rates while supported by O&A as their partner.

Steven notes that in “the environment we work with, every client has the potential to be a unicorn”. O&A supports the up-front investment they make, by delivering first-class scalable services. This approach has allowed them to hold onto those fast-growing start-ups that scale up to become large companies and has led to their team receiving countless referrals.

O&A approaches business with a holistic technique, to act as a single point of contact for group benefits, group retirement, and third-party administration services. Through this method, their goal is to simplify the client relationship and streamline potential cross-functional enhancements and communication opportunities.

As they were working with global clients, Michael and Steven recognized two reoccurring factors. First, for many clients, Canada represents a smaller population and marketplace. Second, as companies trended toward centralization of HR and administrative functions with international providers, there was a need for Canadian expertise and support.

Administrative responsibilities can create significant financial liabilities if not performed in a timely and accurate fashion and they were identifying gaps in the services provided by carriers. Michael and Steven developed a special service where the O&A team acts as an extension of their client’s HR teams and handles the benefits administration in Canada. They advocate on behalf of their employees and are the dedicated point of contact for all things benefits related in Canada. This reduces the administrative function for the employer and allows them to build stronger relationships with their clients and directly with their employees.

The company now sits at just under 30 full-time employees working with clients across North America, Europe, East Asia, and Australia.

Once they joined Benefit Advisors Network, O&A wasted no time in making connections. They have had the opportunity to work with several U.S. members such as Alera Group Northeast in Hartford, CT; Benico Ltd. in Huntley, IL; Clark & Lavey Benefit Solutions in Merrimack, NH; GCG Financial in Deerfield, IL; and Genesys Enterprises in Atlanta, GA to support their Canadian operations.

The Owen and Associates Legacy

Michael (Mike) Owen started his career with Standard Life as one of the first Toronto hires given the challenge of establishing Standard Life as a viable group life and health carrier with consulting firms and brokerages. Later on, through his involvement in international business at Standard Life, it became clear to Mike that clients were underserved in the Canadian market, and that this was a niche he was interested in pursuing.

In his career, Mike has held various senior roles at Standard Life, WF Corroon, and Liberty Health, through which he helped establish their businesses in the Toronto marketplace. As a result of his experience in these areas “It was clear that the clients were underserved by both the carriers and on the consulting side of the business. Service was a key element that was missing and this was what led me to establish Owen and Associates – a firm whose vision was to put clients first, find solutions for their issues, and does so regardless of size.” Michael and Steven both believe that this was and remains the key to their success to this day.

“Our broker and consulting partners include the major houses, international networks, many of whom we have worked with since the mid-eighties. We continue to expand our business services, knowledge of the global market, and clients’ needs. We relish the challenge and the excitement of dealing with global companies and solving their issues.”

Prioritizing Relationships & Prioritizing People

Mike has always seen people as one of their business’s greatest long-term investments. Specifically, in regard to the strategic opportunity found in forming relationships with their southern neighbors in the United States. “We always believed that the United States is the greatest exporter of business globally”

Those relationships, paired with a strong service delivery, led to more opportunities and now O&A works through various international networks and their international relationships span 25+ years.

O&A has created client rapport that often results in recurring or longstanding relationships and opportunities. They’ve been serving their client Aligntech since 2002 when they were starting out with just 2 employees. Though just one of their client contacts, they have been led to 9 new engagements over the past 5 years, even as she moved through various employers to assist with global expansions.

All of this to summarize we have seen an average year over year fully organic growth of approximately 15% which has held consistent through the pandemic. Most of all, these longstanding relationships are a testament to the value and strength of our services

We are so delighted to expand the BAN network by partnering with our first set of Canadian members and giving that edge to each of our partners so that we can provide better coverage to our clientele.

Start collaborating today and utilize their expertise! Reach out to Maria Stephens or Steven Owen to connect with our Canadian members today.

For information on Owen & Associates, please contact:

Steven Owen

(866) 251-2841

steven.owen@owenandassoc.com

For information on joining BAN Canada, please contact:

Steve Yarcusko

(216) 789-6147

syarcusko@benefitadvisorsnetwork.com

DOL Delays Enforcement of Health Plan Cost Reporting

Rule aims to identify medical and drug pricing trends to control costs

By Stephen Miller, CEBS

November 19, 2021

The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL), working with the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the Department of the Treasury, and the Office of Personnel Management, issued an interim final rule that spells out upcoming requirements for self-funded health plan sponsors and insurers of fully funded plans to report annually the cost of prescription drugs and certain medical expenses under their plans. The rule also delays enforcement of these reporting requirements by a year, until the end of 2022.

The rule, Prescription Drug and Health Care Spending, released Nov. 17 and to be published in the Federal Register on Nov. 23, is the latest in a series of regulations implementing price transparency provisions in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, which was signed at the end of 2020. The law includes the No Surprises Act and other measures to curtail unscheduled “surprise” out-of-network health care charges and improve the transparency of health care costs.

“The No Surprises Act has helped to end surprise billing. This rule monitors pricing trends and builds on that work so we can find other barriers to affordable care,” said Ali Khawar, the DOL’s acting assistant secretary for employee benefits.

fact sheet from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services provides additional details on reporting requirements, including data collection and analysis.

Earlier this year, federal agencies issued No Surprises Act interim final rules on limiting surprise medical bills and implementing surprise billing arbitration,as well as a proposed rule on requirements for plans and issuers to report on the cost of air ambulance services.

Applicability Dates

The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, requires plans and issuers to begin submitting the required information to federal agencies by Dec. 27, 2021, and to submit this information by June 1 of each year thereafter. However, under the interim final rule, regulators will not initiate enforcement action against a plan or issuer that submits the required information for 2020 and 2021 by Dec. 27, 2022.

The deferred enforcement of reporting requirements will “give health plans and insurance issuers time to come into compliance,” wrote Ayla Ellison, editor-in-chief of Becker’s Hospital Review.

Taking Advantage of Delayed Enforcement

“Although HHS said they will not enforce the rule until December 2022, employers should certainly be having conversations now with their carriers and third-party administrators [TPAs] to confirm who will be handling this reporting and when they expect to be able to comply,” Kim Buckey, vice president of client services at DirectPath, a benefits advocacy and education firm, said in an e-mail.

“Unfortunately, it’s reasonable to expect that TPAs and carriers will pass on the added costs of this required reporting to employers/plan sponsors and then, ultimately, to plan participants,” she noted.

Denise Stefanoff, interim executive director of Benefit Advisors Network (BAN), a consortium of health and welfare benefit brokers, advised that “despite the delays, employers should use  this time to prepare by reviewing their contracts with carriers and other administrators to determine if they are in compliance with the regulations. In the meantime, employers should continue to track any updates to the provisions and work with their advisors, if applicable, to get educated on what this means to them and the employees.”

Reporting Requirements

Reportable cost-sharing information includes average monthly premiums and drug spending by plan enrollees in comparison with spending by their employers or health insurance issuers.

Plans and issuers will also need to report total health care spending by the type of care patients receive. This includes spending on hospital care, primary care and specialty care, as well as on prescription drugs and wellness programs.

Because prescription drugs account for a significant portion of health care spending, the interim final rule includes requirements to identify specific cost drivers. Plans and issuers must now provide federal agencies with an annual overview of their top 50 drugs across key areas of concern, including:

  • The brand-name prescription drugs dispensed most frequently.
  • The prescription drugs generating the highest total annual spending.
  • The drugs that resulted in the greatest increase in total annual spending over the previous year.

Additional information on drug rebates paid by drug manufacturers to plans, issuers and pharmacy benefit managers, including details on the top 25 drugs generating the highest rebate amounts, is intended to give regulators a better picture of prescription drug costs and fluctuations in their costs.

To reduce administrative burden while ensuring data is as valuable as possible for experts and consumers, the rule allows for data collection at an aggregate level and on a calendar-year basis. Plans and issuers will be able to provide information based on all their offerings collectively, rather than the more difficult details associated with plan-specific data.

Educating Employees About Costs

Although HHS intends to release aggregate reports every two years and use them to identify pricing trends and barriers to care, “given how quickly things move in the health care space, I’m not sure what value these reports will have, other than to confirm what the industry already knows,” Buckey said. “It remains to be seen just how this data will promote competition and curb the rising cost of drugs.”

However, employers on their own, she added, can “educate employees about the value of generics and the importance of shopping for the best prescription pricing—sharing plan data such as the 50 most frequently dispensed brand drugs, the 50 costliest drugs and the 50 drugs with the greatest cost increase over the previous year—and how individual choices can lead to big savings on the cost of their medications.”

Comments Requested

Federal agencies are accepting comments on the interim rule through Jan. 24, 2022. Written comments may be submitted electronically at https://www.regulations.gov.

OSHA Emergency Temporary Standard for COVID-19 Vaccine and Testing Stayed By 5th Circuit Court of Appeals

On September 9, 2021, President Biden announced that he ordered OSHA to develop an emergency temporary standard (ETS) that would require private employers with 100 or more employees to mandate that employees either receive one of the three available COVID-19 vaccines or submit to weekly COVID-19 testing.  On November 5, 2021, OSHA published its COVID-19 Vaccination and Testing Emergency Temporary Standard, which included a summary, fact sheet, and FAQs.  The ETS was immediately challenged by a number of petitioners, including states and private companies, seeking to permanently enjoin enforcement of the ETS.  On November 6, 2021, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (the 5th Circuit), temporarily stayed enforcement of the ETS pending briefing by the parties and expedited judicial review. 

After completing its expedited review, on November 12, 2021, the 5th Circuit affirmed its initial stay, holding that petitioners met all four factors to establish the need for a further stay, and ordered OSHA to take no further steps to implement or enforce the ETS pending adequate judicial review of the request for a permanent injunction.  The U.S. Department of Justice disagreed that an immediate stay was necessary given that a “multi-circuit lottery” will occur on or about November 16, after which all lawsuits challenging the ETS will be heard by one federal appeals court. 

OSHA ETS

As a reminder, the ETS requires employers with 100 or more employees to develop and implement a mandatory, written COVID-19 vaccination policy by December 5, 2021, or a written policy requiring employees to either be vaccinated or produce a negative COVID-19 test result and wear a face covering at work. Employers are required to begin enforcing the policy on January 4, 2022, meaning most employees of covered employers would have to submit to regular testing and wear a face covering or be fully vaccinated by January 4, 2022.

The ETS permits covered employers to allow for reasonable accommodation for employees who cannot be vaccinated and/or wear a face-covering due to a disability, as defined by the ADA, or if vaccination, and/or testing for COVID-19, and/or wearing a face-covering conflicts with an employee’s sincerely held religious belief, practice, or observance.

Further, the ETS requires employers to provide employees with time off for obtaining their vaccinations.  Specifically, the ETS requires employers to provide employees with a reasonable amount of paid time (up to 4 hours at their regular rate of pay per dose, as applicable) to travel to and receive their COVID-19 vaccine dose(s).  Further, employers are required to provide reasonable time and paid sick leave to employees who need the time to recover from the side effects of either dose, as applicable, of the vaccine.

Temporary Injunction Order

As the 5th Circuit recognized, OSHA rarely implements an ETS, as this is an extraordinary power provided to the agency.  The OSHA ETS powers have only been used ten times in fifty years.  Six ETS’s were challenged in court; only one survived.  In this instance, the 5th Circuit found many issues with the ETS, including that it appears to be overly broad as it applies to employers in almost all industries and workplaces in the country without accounting for obvious differences in risks facing employees given these differences, and for not addressing how the ETS purports to save workers from grave danger in workplaces with 100 or more employees, but workers, including vulnerable workers, in workplaces with fewer than 100 employees do not require similar protection.

While OSHA attempted to address its basis for focusing on larger employers in its ETS (i.e., larger employers it believed would be better equipped to administer the mandate), the 5th Circuit points out that the agency’s mission is to ensure “safe and healthy working conditions and to preserve human resources.”  Thus, if COVID-19 is a true workplace emergency, then it should be targeted to ensure workplace safety for all employees. Moreover, the 5th Circuit recognized that taking almost two months (from the date of the President’s directive) to develop an ETS when we are almost two years into the pandemic calls into question the true “emergent” need for the ETS.

In its motion to oppose the stay, OSHA explained that it acted now because voluntary safety measured proved ineffective, COVID grew more virulent (e.g., the Delta variant), and fully approved vaccines and tests are increasingly available.  OSHA believes the contention that it incorrectly applied the ETS to all job sites and employees of all ages disregards OSHA’s explanation, supporting evidence, and permitted exemptions (e.g., for those working from home, alone, or outdoors).  OSHA noted that its standards are not required to operate on an employer-by-employer basis or employee-by-employee basis.  

Moreover, OSHA believes the petitioners did not show that their claims would outweigh the harm of staying the ETS, which OSHA believes will save thousands of lives and prevent hundreds of thousands of hospitalizations.  OSHA’s analysis indicates that the stay would likely cost dozens or even hundreds of lives per day.  OSHA believes that the petitioners’ claims are speculative and remote and do not outweigh the interest in protecting employees from COVID-19 while the case progresses. 

What Does This Mean for Employers?

With the temporary stay in effect, covered employers are, at this time, not required to meet the December 5, 2021, and January 4, 2022 deadlines to, among other things, develop their vaccine policies and require employees to be fully vaccinated or submit to regular testing and wearing face coverings at work, respectively.

It is unclear when the ETS will, if at all, be effective and enforceable against covered employers, though it is likely that this issue will move quickly through the courts.  The next step for the ETS involves consolidating all outstanding lawsuits challenging it via a “multi-circuit lottery” to determine which federal appeals court will decide them.  The lottery is expected to occur on or about November 16, 2021. 

It is worth noting, however, the 5th Circuit’s order only applies to OSHA’s ETS and does not prevent employers from mandating on their own that their employees be vaccinated, subject to the ADA and Title VII if a reasonable accommodation is required. Employers have already successfully implemented such mandates that have withstood challenges in federal court.  In the meantime, employers should be prepared to implement a mandatory vaccine policy if the 5th Circuits temporary stay is lifted or overturned.

Finally, because the ETS does not apply to federal contractors (who must comply with the President’s Executive Order and the Safer Federal Workforce Task Force COVID19 Workplace Safety: Guidance for Federal Contractors and Subcontractors) or employees providing healthcare services or healthcare support services who are subject to the Healthcare ETS while the Healthcare ETS is in effect, the 5th Circuits stay does not impact employers covered by these requirements.  Employers and employees subject to these requirements must continue to comply at this time.

___________________________________________

About the Authors.  This alert was prepared by Marathas Barrow Weatherhead Lent LLP, a national law firm with recognized experts on the Affordable Care Act.  Contact Stacy Barrow or Nicole Quinn-Gato at sbarrow@marbarlaw.com or nquinngato@marbarlaw.com.

This article is a service to our clients and friends.  It is designed only to give general information on the developments actually covered.  It is not intended to be a comprehensive summary of recent developments in the law, treat exhaustively the subjects covered, provide legal advice, or render a legal opinion.

Benefit Advisors Network and its members are not attorneys and are not responsible for any legal advice.  To fully understand how this or any legal or compliance information affects your unique situation, you should check with a qualified attorney.

© Copyright 2021 Benefit Advisors Network. All rights reserved.

Marketing Your Community to Attract New Employees

The latest numbers from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics show that there are 10.4 million job openings across the U.S. No wonder the topic of employee attraction has been a key topic this year for employers with businesses of all sizes, industries, and geographic locations. The labor market and the multi-generations currently in the workforce – including Baby Boomers, Gen Xers, Millennials, and Gen Z’s – has certainly made the ability to attract quality employees more difficult than ever. We’ve addressed many of the best practices that employers need to be focused in on establishing their recruiting strategies, including:

• Understanding the difference in the needs of each generation in the workforce.
• Elevating HR within the organization to be strategic versus task-oriented.
• Recognizing that outside influences (workforce dynamics) disrupt business continuity and play a vital role in the ability to attract and retain quality employees.
• Employees are the greatest asset a company has and that should be the focus of strategic initiatives used to attract and retain a viable workforce.

Another practice that may not even be on the employer’s radar, but is certainly worth adopting in their recruiting and retention strategy: marketing their community. This strategic branding opportunity helps highlight the multitude of benefits of a specific region or city while demonstrating to employees the opportunities that exist to live out the lifestyle that embodies the work life balance they seek.

During the COVID-19 shutdowns, many employees choose to isolate in place. With an opportunity to try out a new location, others found alternative places to isolate, whether it was with family members or other attractive places across the country. In fact, United States Postal Service change-of-address data from February to July 2020 shows a 27% increase in temporary movers compared to 2020. The top five areas that lost the most people were major metropolitan areas: New York City; Brooklyn, NY; Chicago, IL; San Francisco, CA; and Los Angeles, CA.

This geographic shift in the ability to pull employees from outside the local area brings new opportunities for a business to continue to market itself. In addition to marketing the perks and benefits of working for a particular company, such as the mission, culture, and benefits, employers should also be marketing their community and the culture of that community.

What does it take to market your community? It is about knowing your audience and understanding what population(s) you are looking to hire and what would attract them. Is your city vibrant with younger communities and activities or is it a more family-oriented suburban area or small town?

What is the tie between your company and the community? Does your company have a longstanding history in the community? Is it a family grown organization with roots? Is it an entrepreneurial company that settled there because of economic advantages or does it provide a solution to challenges within the community? Use whatever story exists to connect the community to the history of the workplace.

A good place to gather information to use in promoting the community to prospective candidates is the local chamber of commerce. From schools to home pricing to social services, local chambers have a plethora of information that would provide vital information to use as marketing tools and is informational for applicants considering a specific area.

If the company is civic-minded, how do employees engage with local charities and team-building activities in the community? It can be surprising today to find that many companies may only sponsor an event around the winter season holidays and forget that employee engagement can occur all year round. These year-round events provide great opportunities to engage employees, their families, and the community as a whole, in turn providing a sense of social well-being for the betterment of all.

Companies in rural areas may find it hard to attract candidates when the nearest town is miles away. However, the sense of community may be stronger in these smaller communities. Look to find out what events are held for singles, families, etc. Consider sponsoring events and joining with other businesses as a way to meet prospective candidates.

No matter where a company is located, employee engagement and culture committees can assist in providing opportunities. Internal committees should be filled with representation from all departments – from line to leadership – to bring a variety of ideas to the table.

Use a company website or intranet to promote these local benefits and use links to tie into the chambers or other reference sites.

Once the story is created, the next step is to generate the interest of applicants. How does this information get shared?

Use it on the company website or job board advertising. The goal is to be creative. Companies can create videos walking around the community, having civic leaders share the story – create the visual story.

Remember the relocation package. When considering relocation packages, employers have so many options, ranging from a “hands-off” approach by providing direct services to employees to offering thousands of dollars to have employees move from one location to another. The less burdensome and the more resources a company can provide to make the move easier for all involved, the better the outcome is for everyone. Let the offering become part of the storyline

Do not let the story die there. Talk about it with candidates, sell the job, the company, the community. Be enthusiastic about the opportunity offered. No longer is it about a company having what a candidate needs. In today’s labor market, the applicants have what employers need. Jobs are plentiful and people are choosy. They have decisions and opportunities available today more than ever and companies have to sell themselves to establish the company as The Best Place to Work.

________________________________________

Bobbi Kloss is the Director of Human Capital Management Services for the Benefit Advisors Network, an exclusive, national network of independent employee benefits brokerage and consulting companies. For more information, please visit: www.benefitadvisorsnetwork.com or email the author at bkloss@benefitadvisorsnetwork.com.

OSHA Releases Emergency Temporary Standard for COVID-19 Vaccine and Testing

On September 9, 2021, President Biden announced that he ordered OSHA to develop an emergency temporary standard (ETS) that would require private employers with 100 or more employees to mandate that employees either receive one of the three available COVID-19 vaccines or submit to weekly COVID-19 testing.  On November 4, 2021, OSHA released an unpublished version of the COVID-19 Vaccination and Testing Emergency Temporary Standard.  The published version is set to be released on November 5, 2021.  A summary, fact sheet, and FAQs are also available.

Background

On August 23, 2021, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine, one of the three COVID-19 vaccines approved for emergency use in the United States.  Due to this approval and the rampant spread of the COVID-19 Delta variant, on September 9, 2021, President Biden announced that OSHA will issue an ETS mandating employers with 100 or more employees to either be vaccinated or submit to weekly testing.  At that time, there were many unanswered questions about how the ETS would apply – how the headcount is determined, who pays for the testing, what type of documentation would be permitted to show proof of the vaccine, etc.  

On November 4, 2021, OSHA released its COVID-19 Vaccination and Testing ETS which is described more fully below.  We expect the ETS will be challenged, particularly in states where state law prohibits employers from mandating vaccines; however, the ETS is intended to preempt inconsistent state and local requirements relating to these issues, including requirements that ban or limit employers’ authority to require vaccination, face-covering, or testing, regardless of the number of employees.  In the meantime, employers should familiarize themselves with the ETS, begin developing their written policies, and communicate the requirements and expectations to employees.

Below summarizes the specific requirements of the ETS.

COVID-19 Vaccination and Testing ETS

With certain limited exceptions, the ETS requires employers with 100 or more employees to develop, implement, and enforce a mandatory, written COVID-19 vaccination policy, or a written policy requiring employees to either be vaccinated or elect to undergo regular COVID-19 testing and wear a face covering at work in lieu of vaccination.

If employers have employees who request a reasonable accommodation because they cannot be vaccinated and/or wear a face-covering due to a disability, as defined by the ADA, or if vaccination, and/or testing for COVID-19, and/or wearing a face-covering conflicts with an employee’s sincerely held religious belief, practice, or observance the employee may be entitled to reasonable accommodation.

Employers must begin complying with the requirements of the ETS within 30 days from the date of publication, which means employers will need to, among other things, develop their written policies by that time.  The deadline for employers to begin testing employees who are not vaccinated is 60 days from the date the ETS is posted in the Federal Register, which is January 4, 2022.

Essentially, this means employees must be fully vaccinated by January 4, 2022.  Fully vaccinated means the individual received the second dose (of a two-dose vaccine or combination of two doses of a vaccine) or the first dose (of a single-dose vaccine) 2 weeks prior to January 4, 2022.  For two-dose vaccines (Moderna or Pfizer), the doses must have been provided within at least the minimum recommended interval between doses, in accordance with the approval, authorization, or listing by the FDA or WHO, or administered as part of a clinical trial at a U.S. site (if the recipient is documented to have primary vaccination with the “active” (not placebo) COVID-19 vaccine).

The ETS requires employers to provide employees with time off for obtaining their vaccinations.  Specifically, the ETS requires employers to provide employees with a reasonable amount of paid time (up to 4 hours at their regular rate of pay) to travel to and receive their COVID-19 vaccine doses (first and second doses, as applicable).  To be clear, it is four (4) hours total that must be paid for a two-dose shot.  Further, employers are required to provide reasonable time and paid sick leave to employees who need the time to recover from the side effects of either dose, as applicable, of the vaccine.  

The ETS sets minimum standards within the workplace, though employers are permitted to implement additional measures (subject to collective bargaining for union employees).

Note the ETS does not apply to federal contractors (who must comply with the President’s Executive Order and the Safer Federal Workforce Task Force COVID19 Workplace Safety: Guidance for Federal Contractors and Subcontractors) or employees providing healthcare services or healthcare support services who are subject to the Healthcare ETS while the Healthcare ETS is in effect.

Exemptions from Vaccinations

Employers are not required to mandate employees receive the vaccine if:

  • It is medically contraindicated;
  • Medical necessity requires a delay in vaccination; or
  • They are legally entitled to a reasonable accommodation under federal civil rights laws because they have a disability or sincerely held religious beliefs, practices, or observances that conflict with the vaccination requirement.

Covered Employers

The ETS applies to employers who have a total of 100 or more employees at “any time the ETS is in effect” regardless of where the employees report to work and applies for the duration of the ETS even if the employer’s headcount subsequently falls below 100 employees. For purposes of reaching the headcount, employees include part-time employees, remote employees, employees who do not report to the worksite, and employees working exclusively outdoors. 

Even if an employer does not have 100 employees as of the effective date of the ETS, if the employer reaches the 100-employee threshold while the ETS is in effect, it must comply for the remainder of the ETS even if the count later drops below 100. Further, the count applies to different corporate structures and settings as follows:

  • For a single corporate entity with multiple locations, all employees at all locations are counted.
  • In a traditional franchisor-franchisee relationship in which each franchise location is independently owned and operated, the franchisor and franchisees would be separate entities.  In such case, the franchisor would only count “corporate” employees, and each franchisee would only count employees of that individual franchise.  Therefore, if the franchisor has 100 employees, but none of the franchisees do, then only the franchisor must comply.
  • Two or more related entities that handle safety matters as one company may be regarded as a single employer, in which case the employees of all entities making up the integrated single employer must be counted.
  • Where employees of a staffing agency are placed at a host employer location, only the staffing agency would count these jointly employed workers.
  • For a typical multi-employer worksite such as a construction site, each company represented – the host employer, the general contractor, and each subcontractor – would only need to count its own employees; however, each employer must count the total number of workers it employs regardless of where they report for work on a particular day. The ETS provides the following example:
    • If a general contractor has more than 100 employees spread out over multiple construction sites, that employer is covered under this ETS even if it does not have 100 or more employees present at any one worksite.

Workplace Definition

A workplace is defined as a physical location (fixed or mobile) where the employer’s work or operations are performed. It does not include an employee’s own home.

State or Local Government Employers

The ETS does not apply to state and local government employers in states without State Plans, because state or local government employers and employees are exempt from OSHA coverage under the OSH Act.  In states with OSHA-approved State Plans, however, the State Plans must adopt requirements that are at least as effective as the requirements in OSHA’s ETS.  Therefore, state and local government employers with 100 or more employees in states with State Plans will be required to comply with those state occupational safety and health requirements. 

Exclusion for Remote Employees and Employees Working Outdoors

While remote employees, employees working exclusively outdoors, and employees who do not report to a workplace where other coworkers or customers are present must be counted for determining the employer’s headcount, such employees are not required to be vaccinated.  This is different from the standards applicable to federal contractors and many employers with remote employees may find relief with this decision.  A list of occupations with workers who work outdoors is included in Table IV.B.1 of the ETS.

Obtaining Proof of Vaccination

Employers are required to determine the vaccination status of all employees.  Accordingly, the ETS provides that employers must require each vaccinated employee to provide acceptable proof of vaccination status, including whether they are fully or partially vaccinated. Acceptable proof of vaccination status include:

  • The record of immunization from a health care provider or pharmacy;
    • A copy of the COVID-19 Vaccination Record Card;
    • A copy of medical records documenting the vaccination
    • A copy of immunization records from a public health, state, or tribal immunization information system; or
    • A copy of any other official documentation that contains the type of vaccine administered, date(s) of administration, and the name of the health care professional(s) or clinic site(s) administering the vaccine(s)

Note, employers should be cautious about using the approach in the third and final bullets, as this could result in the employer having access to medical diagnoses or genetic information protected by the ADA or GINA. If employers allow these approaches, at the very least, they should ask employees to redact any additional medical information included in the record before providing it to the employer.

If an employee is unable to provide acceptable proof of vaccination, then they must be required to submit a signed statement that includes an attestation:

  • Of their vaccination status (fully vaccinated or partially vaccinated); and
  • That they have lost and are otherwise unable to produce proof required by this section.

The signed statement must include this statement: “I declare (or certify, verify, or state) that this statement about my vaccination status is true and accurate. I understand that knowingly providing false information regarding my vaccination status on this form may subject me to criminal penalties.”

Further, the employee should, to the best of their recollection, include the following in their attestation:

  • The type of vaccine administered;
  • Date(s) of administration; and
  • The name of the health care professional(s) or clinic site(s) administering the vaccine(s).

If an employee does not provide acceptable proof of receipt of the vaccine (or the signed statement meeting the above requirements), then they must be treated as not fully vaccinated.

How Does Paid Time Off Work

The ETS provides that the four hours of paid time off to receive the COVID-19 vaccine must be paid at the employees’ regular rate of pay and cannot be offset by any other leave the employee has accrued (i.e., other PTO, sick leave, or vacation time offered by the employer).  If more than four hours are needed, then the time is not required to be paid but is protected leave.

On the other hand, if an employee needs time off to recover from the COVID-19 vaccine side effects, then they may be required to use their accrued and unused sick leave (or PTO if the employer does not distinguish between sick leave and vacation time).  If they do not have sick leave or PTO time available, then the employer must provide the time and pay for it. Employers cannot require employees to accrue negative paid sick leave or borrow against future paid sick leave to recover from vaccination side effects.  The ETS does not provide a specific amount of time that must be provided to recover from the effects of the COVID-19 vaccine, though the employer must provide a “reasonable” amount of time.  OSHA suggests two (2) days of paid sick time is “reasonable.”

Paid time off is not required for employees who must be removed from the workplace for failure to be vaccinated or failure to submit to the required testing.  Paid time off is also not required by the ETS if an employee is removed from the workplace due to a positive COVID-19 diagnosis or test result, though employers would have to comply with any other applicable law, ordinance, regulation, or collective bargaining agreement that requires such time be paid.

Employers are not, however, required to retroactively provide PTO for the time used to receive the vaccine or recover from the side effects of the vaccine to employees who received the vaccine prior to the ETS.  Moreover, employers are not required to reimburse employees for transportation costs (e.g., gas money, train/bus fare, etc.) incurred to receive the vaccination, including the costs of travel to an off-site vaccination location (e.g., a pharmacy) or travel from an alternate work location (e.g., telework) to the workplace to receive a vaccination dose.

If an employee chooses to receive the vaccine outside of work hours, employers are not required to grant paid time to the employee for the time spent receiving the vaccine during non-work hours; however, the employee must still be provided reasonable time and paid sick leave to recover from side effects that they experience during scheduled work time.

How Must Testing be Administered

If an employer opts to allow employees to be tested in lieu of vaccination, then the testing applies to any employee who reports at least once every 7 days to a workplace where other individuals such as coworkers or customers are present.  In such cases, the employee:

  • Must be tested for COVID-19 at least once every 7 days; and
  • Must provide documentation of the most recent COVID-19 test result to the employer no later than the 7th day following the date on which the employee last provided a test result.

The following applies for employees who do not report during a period of 7 or more days to a workplace where other individuals such as coworkers or customers are present (e.g., teleworking for two weeks prior to reporting to a workplace with others):

  • The employee must be tested for COVID-19 within 7 days prior to returning to the workplace; and
  • The employee must provide documentation of that test result to the employer upon return to the workplace.

If an employee does not provide documentation of a COVID-19 test result, the employer must keep that employee removed from the workplace until the employee provides a test result.  The employer is not required to pay employees for this time.

If an employee is diagnosed with COVID-19 or receives a positive COVID-19 test, then they are not required to submit to weekly testing for 90 days following the positive test result of the diagnosis.

What Tests Can be Used

If the employer will allow employees to be tested in lieu of vaccination, the employer’s written policies must specify how testing will be conducted (e.g., testing provided by the employer at the workplace, employees independently scheduling tests at point-of-care locations, etc.), how employees should provide their COVID-19 test results to the employer, and what tests are permitted. 

Tests authorized by the employer must be, (1) cleared, approved, or authorized, including in an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA), by the FDA to detect current infection with the SARS-CoV-2 virus (e.g., a viral test, (2) administered in accordance with the authorized instructions; and (3) not both self-administered and self-read unless observed by the employer or an authorized telehealth proctor.

Examples of tests that satisfy this requirement include tests with specimens that are processed by a laboratory (including home or on-site collected specimens which are processed either individually or as pooled specimens), proctored over-the-counter tests, point of care tests, and tests where specimen collection and processing is either done or observed by an employer.  Therefore, the employer cannot accept an at-home test administered by the employee or his or her family member. 

Who Pays for the Testing

The ETS provides that the employer is not required to cover any costs associated with the testing, though employers may have to comply with other laws, ordinances, regulations, or collective bargaining agreements that mandate the employer pay for testing. Thus, depending on the facts, the employer may require employees to pay for their testing.  Note, testing that is not due to an employee having recent, known exposure to COVID-19, ordered by a health care provider, or due to an employee experiencing symptoms of COVID-19 would not be covered by the employer’s health plan.  If an employer chooses to pay for the testing, it would be at the employer’s own expense and not paid through the health plan.

Records Retention

Employers are required to maintain a roster of vaccinated employees, maintain a record of each employee’s vaccination status, and preserve the acceptable proof of vaccination for each fully or partially vaccinated employee.  Further, employers who offer testing in lieu of vaccination option must maintain a record of each test result provided by each employee or obtained by the employer’s own testing.  All of these records are considered medical records and, therefore, would need to be maintained separately from an employee’s personnel file and are not subject to further disclosure by the employer except as otherwise required under the ETS or other applicable federal law.  Records are only required to be preserved while the ETS is in effect.

Face Coverings/Face Masks

If the employer chooses to allow testing in lieu of vaccination, they must ensure that all non-fully vaccinated employees wear a face covering when indoors and when occupying a vehicle with another person for work purposes, unless the following apply:

  • The employee is alone in a room with floor to ceiling walls and a closed door.
  • The employee is eating or drinking (for a limited period of time) at the workplace or for identification purposes in compliance with safety and security requirements.
  • The employee is wearing a respirator or facemask.
  • The employer can show that the use of face coverings is infeasible or creates a greater hazard that would excuse compliance with this paragraph (e.g., when it is important to see the employee’s mouth for reasons related to their job duties, when the work requires the use of the employee’s uncovered mouth, or when the use of a face covering presents a risk of serious injury or death to the employee).

Face coverings must completely cover an employee’s nose and mouth and must be:

  • Made with two or more layers of a breathable fabric that is tightly woven (i.e., fabrics that do not let light pass through when held up to a light source);
  • Secured to the head with ties, ear loops, or elastic bands that go behind the head. If gaiters are worn, they should have two layers of fabric or be folded to make two layers;
  • Fitted snugly over the nose, mouth, and chin with no large gaps on the outside of the face; and
  • A solid piece of material without slits, exhalation valves, visible holes, punctures, or other openings.

Per the ETS, face coverings also include clear face coverings or cloth face coverings with a clear plastic panel that, despite the non-cloth material allowing light to pass through, and which may be used to facilitate communication with people who are deaf or hard-of-hearing or others who need to see a speaker’s mouth or facial expressions to understand speech or sign language respectively.

Face coverings must be worn by the employee to fully cover the employee’s nose and mouth and must be replaced when wet, soiled, or damaged (e.g., is ripped, has holes, or has broken ear loops). Face shields may be worn in addition to face coverings.

Employers are prohibited from preventing any employee from voluntarily wearing a face covering or facemask unless the employer can demonstrate that doing so would create a hazard of serious injury or death, such as interfering with the safe operation of equipment. Further, employers must permit employees to wear a respirator instead of a face covering whether required or not. In addition, the employer may provide respirators to the employee, even if not required. In such circumstances, the employer must also comply with applicable law. Finally, employers cannot prohibit customers or visitors from wearing face coverings.

Employers are not required to pay for the face coverings unless required by other applicable laws or regulations or collective bargaining agreements.

Written Policy Requirements

Employers’ written policies should address all of the applicable requirements in the ETS, including: (1) whether the employer will require the vaccine or whether there will be a testing/face covering option and any applicable exclusions that may apply for an employee due to medical contraindications, medical necessity requiring a delay in vaccination, or applicable reasonable accommodations; (2) information on how the employer will determine an employee’s vaccination status and how this information will be collected; (3) paid time off and sick leave for vaccination purposes; (4) notification of positive COVID-19 tests and removal of COVID-19 positive employees from the workplace; (5) how the employer will make required information available to as described in the next section, and (6) disciplinary action for employees who do not abide by the policy.

The written policy should also include all relevant information regarding the policy’s effective date, which employees are required to comply, deadlines for being vaccinated or submitting vaccination information, testing requirements and deadlines (if applicable), and procedures for compliance and enforcement.

Informing Employees

Employers must inform each employee, in a language and at a literacy level the employee understands, about (1) the requirements of the ETS as well as any employer policies and procedures established to implement this section, (2) COVID-19 vaccine efficacy, safety, and the benefits of being vaccinated, (3) protections against retaliation and discrimination, and (4) laws that provide for criminal penalties for knowingly supplying false statements or documentation.  The following document must be provided with their policy:   “Key Things to Know About COVID-19 Vaccines,” available at https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019- ncov/vaccines/keythingstoknow.html.

Records Disclosure

Employers must provide a copy of its written policy to OSHA as well as the aggregate number of fully vaccinated employees at the workplace and the total number of employees at the workplace within 4 hours of a request and must provide OSHA all other records required to be maintained by the end of the next business day.

Further, they must make available for inspection and copying any individual COVID-19 documentation and test results by the end of the next business day after receiving a request. The employee or anyone having written authorized consent may request this information.  Additionally, an employee or employee representative may request the aggregate number of fully vaccinated employees at the workplace and the total number of employees at the workplace, which the employer must provide by the end of the next business day after the request is made. 

Conclusion In conclusion, employers subject to the ETS must determine whether they will take a vaccine-only or combined vaccine and testing/face covering approach to compliance and must develop the required written policies and communicate those policies to employees, so they have ample time to receive their COVID-19 vaccines.  Employers should work with legal counsel to develop their written policies and to address any reasonable accommodation requests received by employees.

___________________________________

About the Authors.  This alert was prepared by Marathas Barrow Weatherhead Lent LLP, a national law firm with recognized experts on the Affordable Care Act.  Contact Stacy Barrow or Nicole Quinn-Gato at sbarrow@marbarlaw.com or nquinngato@marbarlaw.com.

This notice is a service to our clients and friends.  It is designed only to give general information on the developments actually covered.  It is not intended to be a comprehensive summary of recent developments in the law, treat exhaustively the subjects covered, provide legal advice, or render a legal opinion.

Benefit Advisors Network and its members are not attorneys and are not responsible for any legal advice.  To fully understand how this or any legal or compliance information affects your unique situation, you should check with a qualified attorney.

© Copyright 2021 Benefit Advisors Network. All rights reserved.