Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute Funding

The Internal Revenue Service recently issued a notice of proposed rulemaking about the fee health plans will pay to fund the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (Institute).

Fully insured plans will have the fee paid by the carrier. Self-insured plans (including some HRA and health FSA plans) must calculate and pay their own fee. 

Comments are also requested about the fee calculation and collection. Comments are due July 16, 2012 to the IRS.

As a business owner or executive, please review the information and submit your comments to the IRS. This is your opportunity to speak up about fees you will be required to pay, whether through your company's premiums or directly.

About the Institute:

The Institute helps people make informed health care decisions and improves health care delivery and outcomes, by producing and promoting high integrity, evidenced-based information that comes from research guided by patients, caregivers and the broader health care community. The research is intended to give patients a better understanding of the prevention, treatment and care options available, and the science that supports those options. It is governed by a paid 21-member Board of Governors and will have a staff of 30 employees according to the website’s current staff and open employment opportunities. 

The Institute’s research findings cannot influence the Secretary of Health & Human Services determination of coverage, reimbursement or incentive programs unless the process is fully transparent and considers the effect on the population. In addition, the Institute’s findings cannot be the sole basis to allow the Secretary to deny coverage nor will the Institute develop a dollars-per-quality-of-life estimate as a threshold to establish effective or recommended care. 

More information about the Institute can be found at their website www.pcori.org

What's wrong with this recruiting ad?

What follows is not fake. Perhaps whomever wrote it and then posted it on CraigsList wrote is as a joke, but it's a poor one.

While bona fide occupational qualifications can certainly be utilized in the recruiting and hiring process, we hope that companies who have such legitimate requirements would create more professional ads. Since "attractive" was misspelled in their email address, we assume they aren't receiving many replies.

========================================================================

Date: 2012-04-19, 12:09PM CDT
Reply to: see below ^{[Errors when replying to ads?]}

---

Restaurant seeking a part time sales person. This position is for a VERY attractive female only. Must reply with a full body picture. This position is 10-20 hours a week. Pay is $8 per hour, mileage reimbursemen and $100 bonus for obtaining new vending accounts.

Must have an outgoing personality and the ability to deal with men. The kind of men that would visit redneck heaven and twin peaks.

Job Duties:
obtain catering orders
seek out businesses that have a need for vending machines

Please reply to attrativesales@live.com. Do not reply to this ad. Any response without pictures will not be considered.

• Location: Denton Area
• Principals only. Recruiters, please don't contact this job poster.
• Please, no phone calls about this job!
• Please do not contact job poster about other services, products or commercial interests.

PostingID: 2967288440

========================================================================

No NLRB Posting!

We mentioned just yesterday that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit had an opportunity to clarify the disconnect between the two recent District Court opinions (D.C. District Court a few weeks ago and SC District Court on 4/13). They were amazingly swift, releasing a three page decision this morning granting the emergency motion for injunction, pending appeal, and setting oral arguments for September.

This means no posting requirement on or even shortly after the April 30th deadline. Given oral arguments scheduled for September, if the NLRB prevails, we most likely won't see a posting requirement until 2013.

More on the NLRB

There's a saying here in Texas that if you don't like the weather, go have a cup of coffee. We're beginning to think that litigation surrounding the NLRB's latest rules change as quickly as the weather in Texas.

We posted last week about the U.S. District Court of the District of Columbia's rulings on the NLRB's posting rule. Essentially, the posting requirement was upheld, but sanctions against employers for violating the posting rule were not.

Then on Friday the 13th, the NLRB was dealt a 31-page blow from the U.S. District Court of South Carolina, invalidating the posting rule in its entirety. This was a huge win for the plaintiffs.

So, what happens now you ask? Any of several things: The D.C. Circuit court can approve the first ruling or decline to approve it, which is what is expected. This leaves Judge Norton's ruling standing. Then the NLRB will most likely try to save face by postponing the requirement a few months while pursuing a stay of the ruling.

In conclusion, you simply need to be prepared to follow the NLRB's posting rule on April 30th, but stay tuned, as it may not be necessary to post the notice after all.

NLRB Posting Requirement - Final Deadline?

The National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB) new posting requirement was challenged in South Carolina and in the federal district court in Washington, D.C. The federal district court issued its final ruling a few weeks ago:

-       essentially all private businesses (there are a few exceptions, based upon annual revenue) are required to post the new notice; this portion was upheld.

-    some of the sanctions against employers were voided. The sanction providing that an employer's failure to post the notice extends or "tolls" the NLRA's six-month statute of limitations for filing an unfair labor practice charge, as well as the sanction defining any failure to post the notice as a per se unfair labor practice, were invalidated. The court's reasoning was that these sanctions were an impermissible expansion of the NLRA's scope.

As the employer, you need to:

-       print out the Notice – available on the NLRB’s webite at http://www.nlrb.gov/poster

-       post the Notice, as required, by April 30, 2012

-       develop and communicate a lawful employee relations policy

-       train your managers and supervisors on how to lawfully respond to inquiries from their employees

-       review existing policies and your Employee Handbook for policies that could result in unfair labor practice charges, such as:

o   harassment policies that are too broad and generic that could be “reasonably interpreted” as improperly prohibiting employees from partaking in union organizing

o   blanket prohibitions against your employees speaking to the media or broad social media policies that prohibit employees from disparaging an employer on such sites

o   confidentiality policies that prohibit employees from discussing their wages with co-workers or outsiders (note that the new NLRB posting expressly advises employees that they have the right to discuss their wages with co-workers and unions)

The NLRB site will also have translations of the Notice available in a number of languages. If 20% or more of your workforce is not proficient in English, then you must post the Notice in that language.

EEOC Charges for 2011

The EEOC has reported that in 2011 it received a record 99,947 charges of discrimination – up slightly from the 2010 record.

·         Employers paid $455.6 million (through enforcement, mediation and litigation); $51 million over 2010.

·         The largest number of charges (37.4%) were based on retaliation.

·         Race discrimination charges were second highest at 35.4%.

·         Race and sex discrimination charges decreased from 2010; disability and age discrimination increased.

For more detailed information:  http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/statistics/enforcement/charges.cfm

U.S. Supreme Court Hearing Obamacare Arguments

While the U.S. Supreme Court is currently hearing arguments on the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Healthcare Act for the next few days, we still will not have their final opinion until around June of this year.

The 2700+ page Act is caught in a tug of war between the Court's conservative and liberal justices. The conservatives said they thought a decision striking down the law's controversial individual mandate to purchase health insurance means the whole statute should fall with it.

Meanwhile, the court's liberal justices argued for restraint. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the court should do a "salvage job," not undertake a “wrecking operation." But she looked to be out-voted.

Stay tuned.