401(k)s Still A Top Retirement Resource

Employers and employees are "still strongly committed" to matching and contributing to 401(k) retirement programs despite the economic hit they've taken, says WorldatWork's Cara Welch. So say the results of a December 2008 survey conducted by the non-profit and the American Benefits Council. Here, Welch, WaW's director of public policy, expands on those results.

Suspending Match Considered Extreme Move

The 401(k) market is standing strong in the face of the economic turmoil, a December 2008 survey from the American Benefits Council and WorldatWork reveals. Nearly three-quarters of respondents reported no change in their matching contributions.

That’s the good news, but for those companies thinking of reducing or dropping 401(k) matching all together (11%), employers should beware of the impression this could send to employees if ABC’s Lynn Dudley’s comments at a press conference today are any indication.

“By and large, employers are consistently making this match. The economic downturn hasn’t caused them to drop off their match,” says Dudley, senior vice president of policy. “Where that has occurred, it has been a response to a particularly devastating circumstance for an industry or company, and maybe some of the challenges that they’re experiencing in the defined benefit/pension area as well.”

Dudley says dropping the match doesn’t mean employers won’t bring it back eventually. In fact, that’s been the experience she’s seen so far.

Still, just because the match comes back doesn't mean employee confidence in the company will.

How do you think employers reducing or dropping the 401(k) match is impacting employee morale? Have you seen your customers experience any consequences from doing so? Share your thoughts below.

We're Looking For A Few Good Blogs!

Know of any good benefits blogs? We're looking for benefits-related blogs for an upcoming article and we'd like to know, where do you go for your benefits news? Have a blog yourself? Send us the link. Our blog wants to meet your blog.

If you'd rather e-mail, send the link to elizabeth.galentine@sourcemedia.com.

Will A Public Plan Lead To Lost Coverage?

During the Senate Finance Committee hearing on FY 2010 health care budget proposals yesterday, ranking member Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) questioned the President's campaign promise that under his reforms, "If you've got a health care plan that you like, you can keep it."

Citing The Lewin Group, Grassley was concerned that a public plan offering government rates competing with private insurers could lead to 118 million people losing their current coverage. Peter Orszag, director of the Office of Management and Budget, offered this response:

"We're trying at this point in the process to keep everything on the table ... There are obviously different ways of designing a public plan that would have different effects, and one of the things that we would look forward to working with you on is, if there is a public plan, how to minimize some of the concerns that you identified."

What's your opinion, are you concerned? Share your thoughts below.

'Now Is Really The Time To Do This'

As one of 150 attendees at yesterday's White House Forum on Health Care, Becky Patton of the American Nurses Association was one of the few to participate first hand in the opening round of health care reform. Here, she shares what was discussed and why "the attitude is significantly different" from past reform attempts.

Engaging EAPs

What is the definition of employee assistance? What's the value proposition for employers to provide employee assistance programs? What should these programs look like, and how should EAPs' effectiveness be measured?

These are all questions addressed in the National Business Group on Health's Employer's Guide to Employee Assistance Programs. We spoke with Paul Heck, manager of global employee assistance and worklife services at DuPont, about his role as one of 27 committee members who developed the guidebook.

Senators Unsure About CE

The topic was underinsurance, but during Q&A at last Tuesday's Health, Education, Labor and Pensions committee hearing at least two senators expressed their doubts about funding comparative effectiveness research.

"I agree ... only in terms of looking at clinical effectiveness, and not for making treatment and coverage decisions based on costs. There's too much variability from patient to patient that directly effects the treatment outcomes, and therefore such decisions should be left up to the physician and patient."

—Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT)

"The thing that worries me about comparative effectiveness as a physician that's practiced 26 years is the art of medicine is totally ignored. Totally ignored in comparative effectiveness."

—Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK)

What do you think about CE? Share your thoughts below.