International Society of Certified Employee Benefit Specialists
Vol. 26, No. 6 • November/December 2007, page 5

What’s the ROI on Earning Fellowship?
by Steve Kops, CEBS

Like a lot of people, I do not enjoy sitting for exams and, therefore, there has to be a return on the investment of my time to satisfactorily complete the exam and maintain
fellowship. For me, there are several motivating factors: staying current, reinforcement of what I previously learned (and have possibly forgotten), quantification of concepts,
enhanced marketing credibility and simply my desire to learn something new every day.

At the head of the list is the need to stay current in the ever-changing world of employee benefits and compensation. As an employee benefits and human resources compliance
consultant, my clients look to me for advice concerning not only current compliance issues, but trends and pending legislation that has the potential to impact benefit
plans and administrative procedures. I read newsletters, published articles and, in some cases, the Federal Register in order to stay informed. But that is not enough.

Another tool in my arsenal is maintaining fellowship status. Preparing for the fellowship exam helps me stay current in several ways. First, the study material includes differing
perspectives on selected topics (such as the Pension Protection Act of 2006 on the exam this year). Reading differing viewpoints helps me to solidify my understanding of
the topics. Secondly, occasionally some of the topics are ones that I do not think are particularly relevant from a personal perspective, only to find out otherwise. For example,
expatriate benefits were covered in the continuing education course several years ago. At that time I had not dealt with expatriate benefits. Soon after the exam, however, some of my clients opened offices overseas and needed advice regarding benefits for their expatriate employees.
The timing was coincidental, but this type of coincidence turned into a plus for me and my clients.

In my opinion, the fellowship program picks up where the CEBS® program leaves off. CEBS provides the core knowledge, as of a point in time. That core curriculum evolves over time as it responds to industry changes, but the concept of “know something about everything, and a
lot about something” still applies. Consequently, the “core” knowledge CEBS designees obtained at whatever point in time must be built upon. If the “everything” we once learned is changing, we need to adapt. Since the fellowship program is available only to CEBS designees, it is logical to expect that the fellowship program will reinforce the“core” knowledge already learned and expand that to include trends and new developments in the field.

I cited two other motivating factors earlier in this article. One is quantification of concepts, which is simply a fact, a regulation, a ruling, etc., that supports what you have been advising clients or employees, or your method of conducting business.You knew that you were correct, but might not have had a specific reference that you could quote without researching the subject. For example, you might know from experience that a particular practice obviously is (or is not) discriminatory, even though you may not remember the specific citation.The study material for the fellowship exam often provides such quantification.

Another major factor is the ability to use fellowship status as a marketing tool. It used to be that gray hair gave the impression of experience, a certain credibility. (That doesn’t necessarily work any longer because the stress endured by benefits professionals has caused too many to gray prematurely.) I display the fellowship logo on my business card and marketing materials because it usually generates conversation. It earns me a certain amount of respect and credibility when I’m meeting people for the first time and reinforces it with my clients and colleagues. Many of my clients are professionals who must satisfy continuing education requirements and, therefore, understand the value of continuing education.

Today, there is an increasing tendency for people to view designations and academic degrees solely as a means of advancing their careers. There is great value in reinforcing your knowledge base through continuing education. People tend to forget information that they don’t use on a regular basis. It also allows you to respond to client needs outside your area of expertise.

I’ve held fellowship status since 1995, and I believe there is a great ROI. It is an excellent tool to avoid complacency and stay on the cutting edge. I encourage all Society members to take advantage of this educational vehicle and participate in the fellowship program.
—Steve Kops, CEBS

The Health Care Dilemma
by
Stephen R. Kops
CIC, CEBS, ChFC, CLU, ISCEBS Fellow
Insurance & Employee Benefits Consultant

Speaking at a session of the 24th Annual ISCEBS Symposium in Chandler, Arizona on December 7, 2005, Robert Laszewski told the audience of benefit professionals that they need to take a leadership role in finding solutions to the health care dilemma in the United States. Mr. Laszewski said "the American health care financing system is on a long walk off a short pier" unless systemic changes are made.

Mr. Laszewski, who is president of Health Policy and Strategy Associates, Inc. of Alexandria, Virginia, said the three major problems in the United States health care delivery system are cost, quality and access. The intended solutions to date have been incremental and micro in scope and insufficient to solve the problems. The Canadian and European systems, which have been macro in scope, are also experiencing problems. Therefore, the solutions will be found by adopting the most effective elements of both micro and macro approaches according to Mr. Laszewski.

The cost of health care in the United States is "unsustainable" because increases outpace the economy overall. In order to be sustainable annual increases in health care spending must be in the same range as the gross domestic product (GDP) or average hourly wage rate (e.g., between 2% - 5% in 2004). Many employers will experience HMO premium increases of 8% - 10% in 2006, but only after aggressive negotiations and/or changes to plan design.

The quality of care is impacted by both "overuse" and "underuse" of proper treatments. Wasted spending for some treatments results in under-spending on other treatments. Despite the fact that the United States spends more of its GDP on health care than any other country, the health outcomes are not as good according to many studies. The situation is compounded because there are significant differences in the quality of care across the country.

Access to care is shrinking as fewer employers offer employer-based coverage to their employees. The number of Americans with employer-based coverage in 2003 decreased to 60.4% from 63.6% in 2000. Only 30.8% of employers with fewer than 25 employees offered such coverage in 2002 and the percentage has decreased since then. The number of uninsured today is estimated to be to approximately 45.5 million, up from 45 million in 2003. This puts pressure on private health insurance premiums, which results in a further decline in employer-based coverage.

Having stated problems with our health care system, Mr. Laszewski presented several reasons why it is slow to change. First, the "players" are making big profits and the industry is consolidating. "Mergers are creating bigger health plans with no demonstrated ability to manage costs and quality," Mr. Laszewski said. Second, the people who vote are pleased with their benefits and access to the best medical care in the world. Third, Americans fear "big government." Fourth, complex health care proposals are easily criticized. Consequently, reform happens only on an incremental basis, such as implementation of managed care, pharmacy formularies, and disease management.

So what will be the catalyst for radical reform? According to Mr. Laszewski, "the tipping point will occur when costs have escalated to the point that the middle-class voters fear they have lost their health care security." Americans, especially the middle-class, have to realize the problems are systemic and be willing to accept radical reforms. Everyone must be covered, but access, cost and quality issues must be addressed simultaneously. Standardized guidelines defining appropriate care must be agreed upon, so that improvements in quality and safety can be measured.

Mr. Laszewski said that a single-payer system, such as Canada's, is not the answer because Canada's system has its own problems with cost and access. Also, politicians "will promise universal access for a reasonable cost and be afraid to limit services." Mr. Laszewski also said that consumer-driven health care is not the great panacea because the really sick will exceed their deductibles and be under full pay provisions for their costs. Healthy consumers will use their money for dental and other services, thereby reducing the money in the health care "pool."

Mr. Laszewski outlined what he thinks systemic reform should include. There should be nationalization of eligibility and a requirement that everyone pay into the system on an equitable basis. All Americans should have choices for their health care, but only an "efficient core" benefit program would be supported with subsidies and tax preferences. The current medical liability system should be replaced with a system which focuses on quality improvement. A "Health Care Fed" (similar to the Federal Reserve which manages the United States money supply) should be established in order to remove critical decisions regarding national spending on health care and quality goals from the political arena. Proposals incorporating these components need to be prepared before the middle-class finally says "enough!".

Stephen R. Kops
CIC, CEBS, ChFC, CLU, ISCEBS Fellow
Insurance & Employee Benefits Consultant