fbpx

IRS Eases Access to Chronic Disease Treatment

New guidance from the IRS will help people enrolled in high-deductible health plans get coverage for pharmaceuticals to treat a number of chronic conditions.

Under the guidance, medicinal coverage for patients with HDHPs that have certain chronic conditions – like asthma, heart disease, diabetes, hypertension and more – will be classified as preventative health services, which must be covered free with no cost-sharing under the Affordable Care Act.

The background

The guidance, which takes effect immediately, is the result of a June 24 executive order issued by President Trump directing the IRS to find ways to expand the use of health savings accounts and their attached HDHPs to pay for medical care that helps maintain health status for individuals with chronic conditions.

The executive order was in response to a number of reports that have shown that people with HDHPs will often skip getting the medications they need or take less than they should because they cannot afford to foot the full cost of the medication even before they meet their deductible.

This can lead to worse issues like heart attacks and strokes, which then require more and even costlier care, according to the guidance.

The latest move is a significant step that should greatly reduce the cost burden on individuals with chronic conditions, as many of the medications they need to treat their diseases can be extremely expensive.

The IRS, the Treasury Department and the Department of Health and Human Services have listed 13 services that can now be covered without a deductible, and have promised to review add or subtract services from the list on a periodic basis, according to the guidance.

Here is the full list of the treatments, and the conditions they are for:

Angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors – Congestive heart failure, diabetes, and/or coronary artery disease.

Anti-resorptive therapy – Osteoporosis and/or osteopenia.

Beta-blockers – Congestive heart failure and/or coronary artery disease.

Blood pressure monitor – Hypertension.

Inhaled corticosteroids – Asthma.

Insulin- and other glucose-lowering agents – Diabetes.

Retinopathy screening – Diabetes.

Peak-flow meter – Asthma.

Glucometer – Diabetes.

Hemoglobin A1c testing – Diabetes.

International Normalized Ratio testing – Liver disease and/or bleeding disorders.

Low-density lipoprotein testing – Heart disease.

Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors – Depression.

Statins – Heart disease and/or diabetes.

The items above were chosen because they are low-cost, proven methods for preventing chronic conditions from worsening or preventing the patient from developing secondary conditions that require further and more expensive treatment.


Is Your Workplace Prepared for Legal Marijuana?

Christina Barbuto has Crohn’s disease, a debilitating gastrointestinal disorder. Her physician prescribed medical marijuana to treat the symptoms, as allowed by Massachusetts state law.

When she interviewed for a job that required a drug test, she informed her would-be supervisor of her condition and prescription. The supervisor assured her that this would not be a problem, and she got the job.

But, after her first day of work, a representative of her employer’s human resources department called her at home and fired her for failing the drug test.

She sued the company for discrimination, and in July 2017 the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court agreed, holding that a lower court was mistaken when it threw out her complaint.

For decades, employers have tried to keep their workplaces drug-free, relying on federal laws against possession of marijuana. However, in recent years more than half the states have legalized the drug for medical purposes, and several have legalized its recreational use.

This split between federal and state laws has left many employers in a quandary: How to balance their interests against those of employees who wish to use a product that is legal under state law.

Employers have responsibilities to maintain safe workplaces, and many state laws recognize that fact.

Massachusetts law specifically exempts employers from having to permit or accommodate marijuana consumption in the workplace, and it affirms their rights to restrict its use in workplaces.

Employers in all states still have the right to test their employees for drug use and take disciplinary action they feel is warranted.

However, where medical marijuana is legal and an employee has a valid prescription for it, disciplinary action against the individual could result in a claim of discrimination or wrongful termination.

State courts have been inconsistent on these claims. The employee won the above-mentioned case, while a 2008 California Supreme Court decision reached the opposite conclusion.

Some states, such as New York, protect medical marijuana users from discrimination. Employers with operations in multiple states should verify what protections, if any, those states require. They should also make an effort to stay current on changes to the law and court decisions.

Policy changes employers can make
Some employers, particularly in those states where recreational use is legal, may choose to take a more flexible attitude toward the drug. Here are some changes you may want to consider making to your policy:

  • Define the specific terms in the policy, such as “work hours,” “cannabis use” and “under the influence.” Marijuana can be eaten in baked goods as well as smoked, so the meaning of “use” should be clear.
  • Specifically explain your procedures for investigating and the penalties for using the drug.
  • Require employees who want protection under the Americans with Disabilities Act to self-disclose their use, and protect them from reprisal.
  • Differentiate tests for other drugs, such as cocaine, from tests for marijuana.
  • Have a program to refer employees with drug abuse problems for medical treatment.
  • Educate employees on the health issues of marijuana use and the effect it can have on work performance.

Whatever policy an employer decides to implement, it should be communicated clearly to all new and current employees during orientation and staff meetings. The policy should be enforced consistently and impartially to avoid allegations of favoritism or discrimination.

The legal landscape around marijuana use is changing rapidly. With thoughtful and well-communicated policies, employers should be able to keep their workplaces safe and sober while adapting to the changes.


The Costliest Claims for Catastrophic Conditions and the Drugs Used to Treat Them

A new report by Sun Life Insurance Co. highlights the top high-cost claim conditions that plague the U.S. health care system and account for more than half of all catastrophic or unpredictable claims costs.

The top 10 costliest claim conditions comprised over half (51.8%) of the $3 billion that Sun Life reimbursed to stop-loss policyholders from 2014 to 2017.

Stop-loss insurance (also known as excess insurance) is a product that provides protection against high-cost claims. It is purchased by employers that self-fund their own health plans, but do not want to assume 100% of the liability for losses arising from the plans.

The “2018 Stop-Loss Research Report,” which Sun Life has been publishing annually for the past six years, provides a glimpse into the kinds of claims that can have an outsized effect on both insured and self-insured employers’ health plans, and can drive overall expenditures.

Here are some of the other main highlights from the study:

  • Cancer treatment costs comprised 27% of all stop-loss claim reimbursements between 2014 and 2017.
  • The number of health plan enrollees that had claims costing more than $1 million increased by 87% during the four-year study period. In 2017, this group comprised 2.1% of claims but accounted for 20% of all stop-loss claims reimbursements.
  • The aggregate costs of injectable drugs that were part of claims that cost more than $1 million grew 80% from 2014 to 2017.

The most expensive catastrophic claims and the amounts Sun Life paid out in the aggregate between 2014 and 2017 are as follows:

  • Malignant neoplasm (cancer) – Total paid out: $564 million (a portion of total catastrophic claims: 19%)
  • Leukemia, lymphoma, and/or multiple myeloma (cancers) – $235 million (8%)
  • Chronic/end-stage renal disease (kidneys) – $153 million (5%)
  • Congenital anomalies (conditions present at birth) – $115 million (4%)
  • Transplant – $103 million (3.5%)
  • Septicemia (infection) – $88.5 million (3%)
  • Complications of surgical and medical care – $78 million (2.5%)
  • Disorders relating to short gestation and low birth weight (premature birth) – $74 million (2.5%)
  • Liveborn (short gestation/low birth rate, and congenital anomalies) – $69 million (2%)
  • Hemophilia/bleeding disorder – $68 million (2%)

Injectable drug costs

Injectable drugs (which include those delivered by IV or that are self-administered injectable medications) accounted for 8.5% of the total paid out for high-cost claims.

But that’s just the average for the four-year period. Injectable drugs are accounting for a greater share of overall catastrophic claims costs, reaching 9.3% in 2017.

In 2017 alone, 418 drugs contributed to the total $186.3 million that was spent on injectable medications for high-cost claims. But, 62% (or $114.7 million) of the cost was attributed to the top 20. The top five medications accounted for nearly 30%.

Please note that the injectable drugs on the high-cost list are there for different reasons. Some are on the list because of the frequency (how often they are used and how many patients are given the drugs) that they are administered, and others are there because their cost is extremely high.

As an example, the report points to the two top injectable treatments – cancer drugs Yervoy and Neulasta.

Neulasta (used to reduce the chance of infection in patients undergoing chemotherapy) was administered to 354 patients and cost on average $33,800 per dose.

On the other hand, Yervoy, used to treat melanoma that has spread or cannot be removed by surgery, was administered to just 43 patients, but the cost per dose was $323,000.


Off-the-clock Work Ban Can Save You from Legal Troubles

Wage and hour lawsuits are on the rise, usually with non-exempt employees claiming they weren’t paid either for overtime or for work they may have performed before or after their shift.

But, if you have ironclad policies in place, you can greatly minimize both the chances of being sued and also losing the case.

One California case illustrates how one employer, thanks to its policies on prohibiting work off the clock, was able to avoid a trial and payment of damages after an appeals court threw out a potential class-action suit by employees claiming they hadn’t been paid for overtime work for which their employer lacked knowledge.

The California Appellate Court dismissed the case, Jong vs. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, finding that Kaiser could not be held liable for overtime pay because:

  • The company explicitly prohibited off-the-clock work;
  • The employee worked off-the-clock contrary to this policy; and
  • The employer had no actual or constructive notice of the employee’s unapproved off-the-clock work and, thus, could not be liable.

This case illustrates the importance of putting your off-the-clock policy in writing and following through with consistent enforcement.

The case

In 2009, Kaiser reclassified its outpatient pharmacy manager (OPMs) as non-exempt as part of a settlement of an earlier lawsuit in which it had been accused of improperly classifying OPMs as exempt.

After Kaiser had reclassified its OPMs, three OPMs filed suit, alleging that Kaiser refused to pay overtime and that it had not adjusted the responsibilities of OPMs so that they could perform their jobs in 40 hours a week.

OPMs were also required to hit budget targets and Kaiser had disciplined one of the OPMs for going over budget, partly due to overtime that he reported and was paid for. In the lawsuit, the OPM asserted that Kaiser knew or should have known about the off-the-clock hours that he worked and therefore should have paid the unreported overtime.

In dismissing the lawsuit, the court cited the plaintiff’s deposition that he was aware of Kaiser’s overtime rules, including that it would pay for overtime work even if it had not been pre-approved. The OPM had also signed an affirmation acknowledging that off-the-clock work was prohibited.

During his deposition, the OPM also said that he wasn’t sure if any of his managers knew he was working off the clock. He also had not recorded his off-the-clock work and didn’t know how many hours he’d worked off the clock.

The takeaway

This case illustrates the importance of having strong and well-documented policies, including procedures for requesting approval for overtime as well as a prohibition on off-the-clock work.

Kaiser was granted case dismissal thanks to its explicit policies on off-the-clock work and that it had required its employees to sign an acknowledgment that they would not work off the clock.

You may want to consider instituting policies and procedures that are similar to Kaiser’s if you want to avoid any off-the-clock work complaints. Its policies were:

  • All non-exempt employees will be paid overtime for all overtime hours recorded.
  • All non-exempt employees should be clocked in whenever they are working.
  • All non-exempt employees must request approval to work overtime.
  • All non-exempt employees are required to sign an attestation form acknowledging that they will not work off the clock.

You should review your wage and hour policies with an employment attorney and implement policies and procedures that can keep your firm from being sued by employees for overtime, meal break, and off-the-clock violations.

Your last line of defense should be an employment practices liability policy. For more information on such coverage, call us.


Make Sure Your Safety Equipment Fits Women on Your Team

Perhaps you remember the embarrassing scenario for NASA in early 2019, when the space agency was forced to cancel its first-ever all-woman spacewalk because they didn’t have two suits on the International Space Station that fit them. While most people were shocked, women in professions that require them to wear personal protective equipment (PPE) know the challenges they face in getting equipment that fits properly. The problem has really come to the fore as more and more women enter professions that have traditionally been jobs that men gravitate towards. For example, nearly 10% of construction jobs in the U.S. are now held by women. It’s not uncommon for women in those types of work to have to use equipment that is made for men, forcing them to don overalls, gloves, vests, footwear and more that are too large,If you have jobs that require specialized protective equipment, now is the time to also make sure that you have items in smaller sizes if you have women on your team. It may not always be easy to find everything in smaller sizes. It’s usually not too difficult to find protective shoes in women’s sizes, but coveralls and tools for smaller hands are rare. Getting the right fit for your workers is imperative because loose-fitting items can lead to accidents that cause injuries or worse, especially if loose coveralls get caught in machinery. Items that you should consider having in smaller sizes include:

  • Safety glasses
  • Hard hats
  • Protective shoes
  • Coveralls
  • Safety harnesses
  • Safety gloves
  • Ear plugs

You should also not ask your female workers to take shortcuts, like rolling up sleeves or pantlegs that are too long. If they are rolled up, they’re not providing protection to parts of the arms and legs, experts say. And it’s not just women who are small. Clearly, many men are also smaller than average, and they often have the same issues with ill-fitting protective equipment as women do. The problem is that most employers that buy protective equipment for workers order it in bulk, and they will usually opt for large or extra-large sizes.

Apply standards uniformly

If you have women in your workforce, you should apply the same standards to their PPE as you do for men. To make sure that you have equipment that fits all of your workers:

  • First, talk to your employees and ask them to give honest assessments of how the PPE they have been issued fits.
  • Don’t ask women to wear equipment that is too large. It can create a safety hazard and may not protect them properly.
  • Don’t alter equipment yourself. Safety equipment is manufactured to provide safety if it fits properly. Altering the equipment can make it unsafe and noncompliant with safety standards.
  • Don’t criticize, ignore or retaliate against employees who report ill-fitting PPE.
  • When selecting safety equipment, consult with your employees to make sure you order items that will fit them.
  • Provide the same range of sizes for women as for men and ensure that suppliers have properly assessed the appropriateness of their equipment to women and men.
  • Require your workers to try on different sizes of equipment before choosing the ones that fit best.

Insurers Will Pay Record Amount of Rebates to Small Group Plans

While most businesses rarely get rebate checks from their group health insurer, this year may be different as insurance companies are expected to pay back record excess premiums, as required by the Affordable Care Act.

The landmark insurance law requires that insurers spend at least 80% of their premium income on medical care and medications, but expected payouts in 2018 came in way below expectations. That means they have to pay out rebates for the overcharge.

Analysts expect that insurers will pay out $1.4 billion in rebates, $600 million of which would be paid to small and large group health plans, according to a report by the Kaiser Family Foundation.

The reason for the sizeable expected rebate is that insurers raised rates substantially for 2018, which was right after Congress had passed a law that eliminated the individual mandate penalty, as well as uncertainty about the law after the Trump administration introduced regulations to expand the use of short-term health plans and association plans.

As mentioned, plans must spend 80% of premiums they collect on medical claims or quality improvements if they are in the individual or small group market. The threshold is 85% in the large group market. The rest can be spent on claims administration, marketing and other overhead, as well as set aside for profit.

Rebates to small group plan and large group plan members have typically overshadowed rebates to those who purchase plans individually on government-run exchanges. In 2017, according to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, insurers paid out nearly $707 million in ACA rebates, as follows:

  • $132.5 million to individual market enrollees.
  • $309.4 million to small group market enrollees.
  • $264.8 million to large group market enrollees.

But this year, rebates to the individual market are expected to be $800 million, while the remaining $600 million would be paid to enrollees in group plans.

The premium increases that many insurers pushed through led to much higher rates – benchmark premiums were up 34% going into 2018 – because of market uncertainties, such as:

  • In October 2017, the Trump administration ceased payments for cost-sharing subsidies, which led some insurers to exit the market or request larger premium increases than they would have otherwise.
  • The administration reduced funding for advertising and outreach.
  • Congress repealed the individual mandate penalty, effective for 2019.
  • The administration introduced regulations extending the time people could be on short-term plans, and also introduced association health plans as an alternative for the small group market.

But the insurers’ fears didn’t materialize. Despite payments per enrollee growing 26% to $559 in 2017 on exchanges, per person claims increased only 7% to $392 year over year.

Also, the repeal of the penalties and increased premiums did not drive younger, healthier consumers out of the marketplace as had been expected.

How to disburse rebates

If you are one of the employers whose health plan gets to receive a rebate, the big question that always comes up is “how do you distribute the funds?”

ACA regulations require insurers to pay rebates directly to the group health plan policyholder, who will be responsible for ensuring that employees benefit from the rebates to the extent they contributed to the cost of coverage.  

But remember, since you as the employer also contributed to the premiums, you are entitled to your portion of the rebate. Your take should be in the same proportion as the premium you pay compared to your employees.

The way that you disburse the rebate is up to you, but whatever you do, it must be in accordance with ERISA’s general standards of fiduciary conduct.

Typically, if the rebate works out to be small for each participant, it would likely not be worth your time to cut each employee a check.

The preferred method in most cases is to provide the rebate in the form of a premium reduction or discount to all employees participating in the plan at the time the rebate is distributed.


Protecting Your Workers in the Rain

Employees working in the rain face specific hazards, such as poor visibility and wet, slippery surfaces.

When it’s wet and windy, potential hazards at a worksite can be exacerbated. Working in the rain can cause slippery surfaces and limited visibility. It’s also riskier to use heavy equipment in the rain, particularly when moving heavy loads, putting workers on the ground – and even the public – in danger.

However, steps can be taken to mitigate such hazards.

It’s imperative that you as an employer ensure your employees’ safety, especially during this heavy year for rain. When working in the rain, train your employees to:

  • Move cautiously – While workers may be tempted to move fast in the rain to avoid getting wet, this can be dangerous, especially on slippery surfaces. If anything, they should work more slowly and deliberately in all of their tasks.
  • Use the correct equipment – If workers must use electrical tools or equipment, they need to check that they are specifically rated for outdoors. Also, the tools should have textured, no-slip grips and handles.
  • Don proper footwear – Workers should wear footwear with heavy treads that can reduce the chances of slipping.
  • Remember rain gear – Proper rain gear includes rain pants and a raincoat. The best clothing is ventilated to help your workers stay comfortable. If it’s cold and rainy, they should also wear wool or synthetic materials that can stay warm even when wet.
  • Wear non-slip gloves – Workers should wear gloves that provide a sticky grip even when wet. Gloves should be snug and long enough for a jacket sleeve to prevent water from entering.
  • Keep vision clear – Workers who wear glasses (if they must wear goggles for certain jobs) should apply anti-fog spray to them. It’s also advisable to wear a hat to keep rain from their eyes. They shouldn’t use headgear that narrows their field of vision.
  • Work in proper lighting – When working at night, workers should make sure lighting is adequate and the lights used are rated for outdoor use.
  • Ensure visibility – When it’s raining, visibility decreases and it’s easy for motorists and machine operators to have trouble seeing properly. Workers should wear high-visibility clothing, especially in areas with vehicle traffic and heavy machinery. Don’t wear rain gear or vests that have become dull or are no longer reflective.

Cold stress

When it rains, it’s often cold, too – and wet clothing can exacerbate the cold.

Employees working outdoors for prolonged periods of time when it’s cold must be protected from cold stress. Cold stress can cause frostbite, hypothermia and trench foot.

OSHA advises that cold stress is not limited to freezing temperatures, but can occur in outdoor temperatures in the 50-degree Fahrenheit range when rain and wind are present.

OSHA requires addressing this hazard by using protective clothing, in particular the use of layers with an outer material that protects against wind and rain. Although OSHA generally requires employers to pay for their workers’ protective equipment, employers are not required to pay for ordinary clothing such as raincoats.

Heavy-work dangers

Rain makes operating cranes, derricks and hoists more dangerous as well, particularly when moving large and heavy objects. Heavy rain combined with wind speed can make loads difficult to control.

Also, if a rainstorm is accompanied by lightning, equipment such as a crane can become a lightning rod.

If you feel you cannot adequately protect your workers during a storm, you should not conduct operations in the rain.


DOJ Tells Court to Nullify ACA; What’s Next?

After a period of relative stability, the future of the Affordable Care Act has once again been thrown into uncertainty.

In a surprise move, the Department of Justice announced that it would not further pursue an appeal of a ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Reed O’Connor, and instead asked the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to affirm the decision he made in December 2018.

O’Connor had ruled that Congress eliminating the penalty for not complying with the law’s individual mandate had in fact made the entire law invalid.

But, even though the DOJ won’t be pursuing defense of the law and challenging the ruling on appeal, a number of states’ attorneys general have stepped up to fight the ruling.

What this means for the future of the employer mandate is unclear, as the court process still has a long way to go. The ruling could be overturned on appeal and invariably whatever the 5th Circuit decides, the case will likely be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Already there has been fallout in the private health insurance market since the individual mandate penalty was eliminated, but the employer mandate, which requires that organizations with 50 or more full-time or full-time-equivalent workers offer health coverage to their employees, remains intact.

As the case winds on, it will be some time before anything changes. The 5th Circuit has not yet scheduled arguments. The DOJ has asked for a hearing date for July 8, and Democratic states’ attorneys general agreed.

Despite the DOJ’s announcement, the law stands and applicable large employers must continue complying with its requirements.

Analysis

The move was surprising because in the past President Trump had signaled that he wanted to keep parts of the ACA, particularly the barring of insurers from denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions. If the entire law is scrapped, so will that facet – as well as other popular provisions, like allowing adult children to stay on their parents’ policy until the age of 26.

Trump said his administration has a plan for something much better to replace the ACA.

Democrats have introduced some legislation to try to stabilize markets and improve on some ACA shortfalls. Their legislation aims to cut premiums for individuals buying on exchanges by expanding premium tax credits. Another bill would reaffirm the pre-existing condition protections, and restore enrollment outreach resources, which have been cut back under the Trump administration.

But with a divided Congress, the likelihood of anything reaching Trump’s desk are slim to none.

Meanwhile, the success of the ACA has been spotty. In some parts of the country, usually in areas with high population density, competition among plans ensures lower prices for people shopping on exchanges. But in smaller regions, cost increases are rampant.

A new analysis by the Urban Institute, a liberal-leaning think-tank, finds that more than half (271) of the country’s 498 rating regions have only one or two insurers participating in the ACA marketplace. Those regions are disproportionately in sparsely populated areas.

Regions with little competition tend to have much higher premiums. In a region with only one insurer, the median benchmark plan for a 40-year-old nonsmoker is $592 a month. That compares to $376 for the same consumer in a region with at least five plans.


Protect Your Firm from Hacking by Disgruntled Former Employees

While hacking by outsiders is posing a larger and more significant threat to companies of all sizes, the threat of insider jobs – particularly by disgruntled former employees – is often an even bigger one.

These attacks, carried out with malicious intent to hamstring a company’s operations, can cause serious problems. Take, for example, the following recent events:

  • A former employee of Spellman High Voltage Electronics Corp. is facing charges after strange things started happening to the company’s systems after he resigned, due to allegedly being passed over for a promotion.

Shortly after he left, employees at Spellman began reporting that they were unable to process routine transactions and were receiving error messages. An applicant for his old position received an e-mail from an anonymous address, warning him, “Don’t accept any position.” And the company’s business calendar was changed by a month, throwing production and finance operations into disorder.

The mayhem cost his former employer more than $90,000, and he was arrested. “The defendant engaged in a 21st-century campaign of cyber-vandalism and high-tech revenge,” said Loretta Lynch, the United States attorney for the Eastern District.

  • A former employee of McLane Advanced Technologies was sentenced to 27 months in prison and ordered to pay $35,816 in restitution after pleading guilty to hacking into McLane’s systems and deleting payroll files to the point that staff could not clock in and the company could not issue payroll checks.

He was upset after the company had fired him and then refused to help him obtain unemployment benefits.

  • A network engineer, who was fired by the American branch of Gucci, stands accused of breaking into the computer systems of the Italian luxury goods organization, shutting down servers and deleting data.

The New York County District Attorney’s office accuses the former employee of using an account that he had secretly created while employed by Gucci to access the network after his employment was terminated.

He has been charged with computer tampering, identity theft, falsifying business records, computer trespass, criminal possession of computer-related material, unlawful duplication of computer-related material, and unauthorized use of a computer. The intrusion is said to have cost the company some $200,000.

What you can do

With these cases in mind, there are internal steps you can take to avoid this sort of thing happening at your company.

Route all offsite access through a VPN – This can typically prevent someone from entering your system altogether. But, once you have such a system in place, all outside connections need to be logged and monitored for suspicious activity.

Test your disaster recovery plan – You need to have a disaster recovery plan in place that includes backing up data every day, just in case someone deletes it from your servers. That way, if data is deleted you can immediately switch to a back-up IT environment.

A lot of times, organizations do disaster recovery, but unless they practice the actual recovery, they don’t know if it will work, and it doesn’t matter whether they have a physical or a virtual environment. So, don’t forget to test any plans you have.

Block unapproved software – Sometimes your employee hackers will install extra software that makes it easier for them to root through your system and create havoc. You should have systems in place that do not allow anybody to install unapproved software.

Disable ex-employee accounts and passwords – Whenever an employee or contractor ceases to work at your business – or in the case of layoffs, beforehand – you must disable their network access, accounts and passwords. You should regularly review which users have access to your systems, and know that changing passwords and resetting access rights is essential when a member of your staff leaves your employment.

Think like a malicious insider – IT managers must think like an inside attacker, and identify the weak points of their infrastructure that they themselves would exploit were they so inclined. As a senior manager, you should ask your IT managers just what they are doing to thwart any possible insider attacks.

Make suspect behavior cause for concern – Watch for human-behavior warning signs, such as complaining to others about the company and a more than usual amount of time spent accessing company data on your network. Develop a response plan for when such signs get spotted.

Beware resignations, terminations – Most insider attacks occur within a narrow window. Most people who steal intellectual property or destroy systems do so within 30 days of resignation. Accordingly, keep a close eye on departing or departed employees, and what they viewed.

If someone resigns who has had access to your most sensitive company information, including trade secrets, you need to pay special attention to ensure it’s not compromised.

Marshal forces – Businesses that prepare for attacks in advance tend to better manage the aftermath. When it comes to combating cases of suspected insider threat, include human resources, management, upper management, security, legal and software engineering.


Commercial Auto Rates Face New Headwinds

More accidents attributed to smartphone use while driving, coupled with much higher costs of repairs, have led to double-digit increases in commercial auto insurance rates over the past few years.

Distracted driving is just one of many factors that have converged on commercial auto insurance claims, resulting in sustained premium increases. Now there are new factors that are coming into play that will ensure that rates continue climbing, at least in the near term.

Commercial auto rates are increasing for companies with large fleets as well as for businesses with just a few vehicles and drivers. Here’s what’s at play and what you need to be aware of in the future.

Continuing factors

Distracted driving – This is the biggie. Starting a few years after the advent of smartphones in 2009, the steady decline in vehicle accidents and claims costs started to reverse when vehicular deaths started increasing for the first time in decades. The culprit, say many transportation safety experts, is distracted driving.

Repair costs – The cost of repairing vehicles has skyrocketed as cars have become more technologically advanced. A 2018 research paper by AAA found that vehicles equipped with advanced driver-assistance systems (ADAS) can cost twice as much to repair following a collision, due to expensive sensors and calibration requirements.

AAA cited the cost of repairing a car with windshield damage if it has an ADAS. The system uses cameras that are installed behind the windshield. These cameras need to be recalibrated after a windshield is replaced. This has increased the cost replacing such windshields to about $1,500, compared to $500 for a standard windshield.

Medical costs – Health insurance premiums and medical costs have been rising at a steady clip. Those increases carry over into the costs auto insurance companies incur when drivers and passengers are injured in an accident.

More miles driven – According to AAA, Americans are spending more time on the road. Driving more miles increases motorists’ likelihood of having an accident.

New and future risks

Weather-related property claims – A recent report in the insurance publication National Underwriter noted that commercial auto insurers say that the increasing frequency of large hurricanes, floods, hailstorms and wildfires are leading to higher auto physical damage claims. The number of property claims has been steadily increasing in the past decade as both the frequency and severity of major weather events grow.

Lack of experienced drivers – As the economy expands, it’s become more difficult to find experienced drivers. Many experienced commercial drivers are retiring, and there are not enough job candidates with the skills and expertise needed to drive commercial vehicles.
The American Trucking Associations estimates that the industry is understaffed by more than 50,000 drivers, and this could increase more than threefold within eight years if current trends continue.

Security with onboard systems – As more vehicle functions become automated, new risks could surface from system failures that may result in accidents. There are number of technologies that come into play in new vehicles and a highly automated vehicle will rely on array of devices, including radar, light detection and ranging, cameras, graphics-processing units and central processing units.


Malcare WordPress Security