HR professionals, get ready: New rules on disability accommodations will go into effect on January 1.

Congress recently approved a proposal to significantly overhaul the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The ADA Amendments Act will now reach the president’s desk. Earlier this week, the White House released a statement praising the bill and announcing that the president looks forward to signing it.

The changes, effective January 1, 2009:

• More “major life activities” — The bill gives a hefty list of examples of what’s considered a major life activity, which would expand the definition beyond what most courts have ruled. (The list of examples: “caring for oneself, performing manual tasks, seeing, hearing, eating, sleeping, walking, standing, lifting, bending, speaking, breathing, learning, reading, concentrating, thinking, communicating and working.”)
• No mitigating measures — The amendments would also reverse a Supreme Court decision that allows the consideration of “mitigating measures” — i.e., medicine or equipment that lessens an impairment — when deciding whether an employee is disabled.
• Protection for conditions in remission — If a condition is in remission, the employee will still be ADA-protected if the condition would qualify as a disability when active.

For more on the proposed ADA Amendments Act, go here.

Prescription drug use in the United States is on the rise, both for acute and chronic issues. Workforce Solutions, Inc. reports the number of people with at least one prescription increased from 67% to 74% between 2000 and 2007, while Caremark estimates that more than half of the insured U.S. population took prescription medication in 2007 for a chronic health condition.

According to Workforce Solutions’ Geographic Variation in Prescription Drug Utilization study, in addition to the increase in the number of Americans using prescribed medications, the intensity of use rose, too. In 2000, the number of prescriptions per person using a prescribed medication was 10.8, and this increased to 14.3 by 2007. The drug therapy classes experiencing the most growth were antihyperlipidemics (for controlling cholesterol and triglyceride levels), antidiabetics (diabetes) and antihypertensives (blood pressure).

Workforce Solutions’ Health study found that 51% of insured U.S. adults and children were being treated with prescribed medication for a chronic condition in 2007. Additionally, this study reports that 20% of the population uses three or more prescription drug treatments for chronic conditions. The most widely used drugs were those prescribed to battle high blood pressure, high cholesterol and diabetes.

Both reports point to obesity as a key factor in explaining their findings. For example, the Express Scripts report, which examines geographic variations, found a high correlation between state level obesity rates and use of medications for diabetes and high blood pressure, and a medium correlation between obesity rates and use of medication for high cholesterol.

Other factors that could be contributing to increased prescription drug use, as suggested in the Caremark report, include greater compliance rates, more dual therapy, higher screening rates for certain conditions, earlier initiation of drug treatment, and growing willingness on the part of physicians to use drug therapy instead of other types of treatment. Additionally, due to various advances in medical care, many once-fatal conditions have evolved to become chronic conditions, treatable by maintenance medications. Add the growing number of drug therapies now available for conditions that previously went untreated (erectile dysfunction, sleeping disorders, a variety of mental health-related issues), along with direct-to-consumer advertising by drug makers, and this trend of increased prescription drug usage seems sure to continue.

The increased prescription drug usage is one of the biggest factors in the annual health insurance premium increase seen by most small businesses.

Need assistance in assessing your prescription drug benefits? Contact Workforce Solution’s Inc today.

Temporary insurance can be a money-saving alternative to COBRA for  employees or dependents no longer eligible for your health plan.

For employers, it’s a no muss, no fuss way to reduce your COBRA rolls and paperwork and also save cost increases during Health Insurance renewals. The COBRA notice recipient simply declines COBRA and lines up his or her own temporary coverage. This is another benefit of doing business with Workforce Solutions, Inc. The health insurance experts at Workforce Solutions, Inc. can help your employees find the most cost effective alternative to COBRA.

But the plans aren’t right for everyone. Here are four need-to-know issues:

• Plan expiration. Coverage under a short-term plan runs out faster than COBRA. While some policies offer coverage for up to a year, the majority run out within six months. The ideal temporary coverage enrollee is someone who expects to have a source of full-time coverage available in a month or two.

• Intended for major medical issues. In most cases, short-term plans health plans aren’t designed to meet routine healthcare needs. Rather, they are there to cover serious injury or sudden illness.

• Service limitations. While the plans often cover an array of high-cost medical issues (hospitalization, emergency surgery, etc) and prescription drugs, some major services most notably pre-natal care may be excluded.

• Deductibles. While the plans often carry much lower premiums than COBRA, they often come with high deductibles. Once deductibles come into play, it may cost the employee less money out-of-pocket to accept COBRA.

If you would like to help reduce your COBRA paperwork and cost, contact one of our HR Benefit Specialists today or tell Workforce Solutions, Inc. how you manager your COBRA by leaving a comment below.

The practice of performing impromptu background checks online is become more common among hiring managers according to CarreerBuilder. Are they in danger of breaking the law?

About 22% of hiring managers say they look for job candidates’ profiles on social networking sites, according to a recent survey by CareerBuilder. That’s up from 11% who said they did so in 2006.

Also, 9% said they’re probably going to start using the Web to help in hiring decisions.

How are they using the information candidates post? Of the managers who check the sites, 34% said they’d found cause to remove an applicant from consideration. Most of the time, it was because the candidate talked about drinking or using drugs, posted inappropriate pictures or had noticeably poor communication skills.

Among the disqualifying profile content:

• 41% of candidates had information or photos of them drinking or using drugs.
• 40% of the profiles had provocative or inappropriate photographs or text.
• 29% of those profiles revealed the candidate’s poor communication skills.

On the other hand, roughly one quarter of those managers found info that solidified their decision to hire someone, such as background supporting their qualification for the job, creativity, diverse interests and a general professional appearance.

Among the positive content that got candidates noticed:

• 48% of the profiles showed that the candidate had the background that qualified them for the job.
• 36% of the candidate sites conveyed a professional image
• 31% of the profiles had glowing references posted by others
• 24% of the profiles showed great creativity.

Any problems?

Of course, the big question on Workforce Solutions’ HR mind: Are there any legal dangers or other problems to worry about?

There is the possibility of a manager learning about a candidate being in protected class, which could result in a bias claim if the person isn’t hired.

Beyond legal concerns, there’s also the danger of mistaken identity, especially if the candidate has a common name. Also, some argue that what someone posts online won’t necessarily have anything to do with their job performance (even if they were dumb enough to put questionable items online in the first place).

What do you think? Have you as an HR manager ever checked out applicants on the Web? Do you think it’s a good idea, or a terrible one? Let Workforce Solutions know by leaving a comment below.

Most companies rely on general job boards for at least part of their recruiting. But how reliable are they?

Not very, say some of the people using them. When asked if most online job boards provide a “quality service” to candidates and companies, more than three quarters of HR pros answered “no” in a recent survey conducted by recruiting expert Matt Peterson of Workforce Solutions, Inc.

What are the biggest problems? The boards’ pricing strategy was a big  one, as well as the difficulty of searching through resume databases:

• More than 65% said paying for each post failed to get good results at a decent value. Most would prefer to pay only after they found a hire.
• About 55% “strongly disagreed” that resume searching uncovers quality candidates (another 20% “moderately disagreed”).

Get the most out of job boards

If satisfaction is so low, what are companies doing instead? Many companies have started posting to free job or classified sites (like Craigslist and KSL.com) or using niche sites that cover only specific industries, job types or geographic areas.

That said, the general boards are still popular. When the survey respondents were asked what they do when they have to advertise an opening, the top choice was — you guessed it — “post on general job boards.”

So what can companies do to get more value out of those tools? Avoiding these common mistakes should help:

• Writing a laundry list of “requirements” — Hiring managers sometimes fail to distinguish between skills employees can learn on the job and the qualities and experience they must already have in order to succeed. If the list isn’t whittled down to the necessities, a crop of great talent could be turned away before they even finish reading your ad.
• Being too general — The reverse is also true: Writing a job description with too few qualifications will only result in a flood of undesirable candidates. Help the manager find a balance between keeping too many people out and letting too many in.
• Putting zero thought into titles – To help job seekers find your listing, it’s important to choose an appropriate title. It should include variations on the key words that candidates are likely to search with. For example, using both “registered nurse” and “RN” in the heading of an ad will help increase your search engine exposure.

What has your company done to improve its online recruiting? Let Workforce Solutions know by leaving us a comment below.

It’s an HR question the courts have been wrestling with lately: When do psychological disorders qualify employees for protection under the Americans with Disabilities Act?

In one recent case, an employee with bipolar disorder sued his company after he was fired. The condition made him “irrational, delusional, and unable to communicate effectively.” When he had to be hospitalized,  the company decided he could no longer do his job.

He sued, claiming the termination violated the ADA. The court agreed.

First, the court determined the employee was protected by the ADA. The bipolar disorder substantially limited several of his major life functions — specifically, the life activities of “thinking, communicating, interacting with others and caring for himself.”

Then, the court ruled that he could have performed his job with a reasonable accommodation — time off to get treated. Other courts have ruled that leaves of absence are considered reasonable accommodations for employees with psychological disabilities.

The case went before a jury, which awarded the employee a $91,000 payout.

EEOC v. Voss Electric Co.
No. CIV-02-92-C (W.D. Okla. March 17, 2003)

The Dallas District Office alleged in this ADA lawsuit that defendant, a distributor of commercial lighting products, discriminated against charging party, a long-term sales employee, when it fired him because of his disability, bipolar disorder. Charging party’s psychiatric disability severely impaired a number of his major life activities, including thinking, interacting and communicating with others, and the ability to take care of himself. After he asked for medical leave to receive inpatient treatment for his bipolar disorder, defendant discharged him by taping a termination letter to the front door of his home. The case was resolved through a consent decree which provides for payment of $91,250 in compensatory damages to charging party. Defendant agrees not to discriminate on the basis of disability, perceived disability or record of disability in any employment action and further agrees not to retaliate against any person who opposes an unlawful employment practice or files a charge of discrimination.