Summer 2006 / No. 68
Voluntary
participation rates—are they too low? (Part 2)
By Bonnie Brazzell
In our last issue of Outside Input, we examined the
issue of participation levels for voluntary products and whether
they are too low (as found by a study of a generalist consulting
house). In this issue, we address the second conclusion from
the study—that too many choices for employees are the cause
of low participation.
While we agree that
too many choices are confusing, we think that the conclusion
masks a couple of very different questions that, unfortunately,
get merged together in many circles. We should ask ourselves:
- Are choices a
good or bad thing for employees?
- Is confusion
on the part of employees the result of having choices or
a failed process?
As regular readers
of Outside Input well know, we believe that having
choices can be a positive for employees. We believe that
“one size fits all” does not meet employee needs
and that a single product offering closely mimics this approach
(since it assumes that everyone has the same product need and
only the amount of the benefit may vary). So, our belief is that
the “problem” really isn’t choice. Instead,
it’s the lack of an efficient enrollment process that helps
employees easily sort through choices and make decisions. Sure,
one solution/choice simplifies the employee’s decision
with a single “yes” or “no,” but that
is somewhat like cutting off your arm to get rid of a hangnail.
Although this may be an exaggeration, it makes a good point:
the “simple”
decision may solve the problem of the hangnail but it’s
not in your best interest to get rid of the arm!
Multiple choices
(within reason) can be offered without employees becoming so
confused that they simply make no decision. But it takes some
work and requires that we change some long-held beliefs of
some carriers and brokers. As an industry, we have to develop
the capabilities that help employees assess and prioritize
their needs and choose solutions based on this process (as
well as on the employee’s ability to pay for the solutions).
This probably won’t be possible using passive enrollment
methods like self-enroll or large group meetings with generic
materials.
Traditionally, the
face-to-face, one-on-one meeting has (at least in some cases)
come close to this. But there are also other alternatives/models
being tried today to achieve maximum participation while meeting
consumer needs. Whatever the method or tools, however, the
process needs to:
- Educate the consumer
- Identify an individual
employee’s needs and priorities
- Propose solutions
- Offer advice
on the best solution given the employee’s situation
With the right enrollment
environment, employees will be able to sort through their choices
quickly and make decisions—and help participation levels
for voluntary products. However, as we wrote in our last issue,
we may also need a new perspective on participation as well
as what is considered “good” or “bad.”
For information
on how Eastbridge can help you develop or fine-tune your
enrollment approach, give us a call at (860) 676-9633. |
