Archive for category: Uncategorized

Prefer to listen instead of read? No problem! Listen to the blog post by clicking here. 

Most leaders don’t mean to surround themselves with people who think and act the same way, but without realizing it, that’s often what happens. Something feels familiar, and we trust it more. That sense of comfort shows up everywhere, and it makes us feel safe and aligned, yet it quietly blocks progress. 

One of the biggest drivers of this comfort is something called similarity bias. It’s the tendency to favor people who seem like us. Maybe they grew up in the same type of town, have a similar personality, talk with the same communication style, or approach problems in a familiar way. It gives us the illusion of alignment and trust. 

However, when everyone thinks and acts the same, we stop questioning things and challenge each other, and that’s when the echo chamber begins to form. Read more

Prefer to listen instead of read? No problem. Listen to the blog post by clicking here. 

We tend to celebrate the finish line. The product is delivered. The campaign is launched. The deal is closed. That final moment gets the credit, but what about everything that led up to it? 

A thriving organization isn’t built on execution alone. The best teams are made up of all kinds of strengths: visionaries, communicators, thinkers, implementors, and leaders. Each strength plays a different role at different stages, and every one of them contributes something essential to the process:  

• Visionaries push boundaries.  

• Thinkers poke holes in assumptions and shape better strategies.  

• Communicators hold the glue that keeps everything from falling apart.  

• Implementors turn ideas into reality. 

These distinct and varying skills carry the dynamic functions that keep a team agile, balanced, and high-performing. 

Many tools, like the Kolbe Index, Working Genius, and StrengthsFinder, help us map out where each person on a team shines. Understanding what lights your people up and what drains them can (and should) change how you manage, recognize, and support them. It gives you the context to differentiate between “they’re capable of it” and “they thrive doing it.”  

In the book The Big Leap, Gay Hendricks coined the term “Zone of Genius” to describe this same concept: the place where passion, strength, and talent overlap. This concept matters more than most people realize. Read more

Prefer to listen instead of read? No problem! Listen to the blog post by clicking here. 

Picture this: Your competitor’s top performer has automated half their workload with AI. They’re using the extra time they have gained to find new business, solve complex problems, and generate fresh ideas. Meanwhile, your best employee is drowning in manual tasks and bogged down by work that could easily be streamlined. 

The difference? Access. 

AI is becoming necessary to keep a competitive edge. Companies that use it in their daily processes empower their teams to operate at a higher level, in turn unlocking efficiency, creativity, and innovation.  

If you want to stay ahead, the question isn’t whether to use AI. That question is easy to answer. The question is how fast you can make it a core part of your team’s workflow. 

  Read more

Prefer to listen instead of read? No problem! Listen to the blog post at any time by clicking here. 

Several notable developments have already occurred within the employee benefits compliance domain. Below are two updates that we want to ensure don’t slip past employers.  

Expiration of telehealth relief for High Deductible Health Plans 

When the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act) was signed into law in 2020, one of its provisions was to allow qualified high deductible health plans (HDHPs) to provide telehealth services with little or no cost-sharing without requiring participants to satisfy their deductible, and without jeopardizing participant eligibility to contribute to a health savings account (HSA). The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023 extended this relief through December 31, 2024. 

Many anticipated that The American Relief Act, 2025 would further extend this relief for employer-sponsored group health plans, but it was ultimately absent from the final version of the law. This means that once a group’s plan renews in 2025, providing cost-sharing for telehealth services at less than fair market value before a participant’s deductible is satisfied will disqualify the participant from HSA eligibility unless the telehealth service is for preventive care. Employers with non-calendar year plan years can continue to take advantage of the telehealth relief for a bit longer until their plan’s 2025 renewal, while employers with calendar-year no longer qualify for the relief. 

For employers that want to maintain HSA eligibility for participants of their 2025 HDHP offering, we encourage those impacted by the expiration of this relief to (1) charge fair market value for telehealth (at least until the minimum HDHP deductible is met), (2) amend their plan documents to reflect any changes in cost-sharing, and (3) determine how they want to communicate those changes to employees (e.g., by distributing summaries of material modification).  

Hospital indemnity notices no longer required 

In the spring of 2024, the Departments of Health and Human Services, Labor, and the Treasury issued final rules governing employer-sponsored indemnity insurance. One requirement within these rules was a mandate that, for plan years beginning on or after January 1, 2025, any employer offering indemnity insurance include a prescribed notice spelling out the differences between fixed indemnity coverage and comprehensive coverage within any marketing, application, and enrollment materials that they provide to participants. 

Several insurance companies challenged this requirement as not being authorized by law, and a district court judge agreed with those companies and struck down the new notice requirement at the end of 2024. Though an appeals process is possible, for now, employers that offer indemnity insurance do not need to provide these notices. 

Read more

Prefer to listen instead of read? No problem! Listen to the blog post at any time by clicking here. 

The Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and the Treasury, along with the Office of Personnel Management (collectively, the Departments), recently released a set of FAQs that provide additional insight for employers on compliance with the Consolidated Appropriation Act of 2021’s (CAA, 21) gag clause prohibition and attestation requirements. The CAA, 21 (1) prohibits gag clauses within health plan provider agreements that restrict access to price and quality information, and (2) requires employers to file an annual attestation with CMS confirming that such gag clauses are not in place. Employers that sponsor fully insured plans may rely on their carrier to satisfy this reporting requirement on their behalf. Those with self-funded or level-funded plans are permitted to contract with their TPA to complete the attestation on their behalf; however, the legal obligation to file the attestation ultimately remains with the plan sponsor.   

The FAQs provide welcome guidance to employers as plan sponsors, suggesting that more information about their plan should be available upon request. Specifically, the new FAQs clarify that: 

1. Downstream agreements qualify as a prohibited gag clause under the CAA, 21. A “downstream agreement” exists where a plan sponsor has contracted with a TPA or other service provider and that TPA/service provide has a contract in place with a third party (e.g., an owner of a network) that prohibits the TPA/service provider from sharing price and quality information with the plan sponsor and/or plan participants, beneficiaries, referring providers, etc. To prevent these indirect restrictions on the plan, the Departments expect plan sponsors to include provisions in their contracts with TPAs/service providers that prohibit them from entering into downstream agreements that permit such restrictions. 
2. Prohibited gag clauses under the CAA, 21 include provisions in agreements between plans and service providers that prevent the plan sponsor from sharing de-identified claims data with a business associate or limit their ability to do so. The circumstances that qualify as impermissible restrictions on de-identified claims and encounter information include any limitation on the scope, scale, or frequency of electronic access to such data. 
3. When a plan sponsor is unable to remove a prohibited gag clause from a contract they have with a TPA/service provider, including one reflected in a downstream agreement that vendor has with another party, the plan sponsor should nonetheless ensure that their annual gag clause compliance attestation is submitted to CMS. In this instance, the plan sponsor is supposed to provide in their attestation at least: 
4. The non-compliant provision(s) their TPA/service provider won’t remove from the agreement; 
5. The name of the TPA/service provider; 
6. Information about the TPA/service provider’s conduct that confirms the service provider interprets the agreement to contain a prohibited gag clause; 
7. Information about the plan sponsor’s requests that the prohibited gag clause(s) be removed from such agreement; and 
8. Any other steps the plan or issuer has taken to come into compliance with the provision. 

The Departments will take this information into account when establishing the plan sponsor’s compliance with the CAA, 21’s gag clause prohibition requirements, and may ultimately investigate the TPA/service provider, particularly if this vendor restricts the plan sponsor’s access to de-identified claims and encounter data. 

These FAQs the Departments have provided are particularly notable because they affirm that plan sponsors should have access to important claims data that will help them fulfill their fiduciary duties towards the plan. Furthermore, they provide valuable clarity regarding how plan sponsors should attest when they are unable to fully comply with the gag clause prohibition requirements, despite their best efforts. We encourage plan sponsors, particularly those with self-insured or level-funded plans, to carefully consider the TPA/service provider contracts they have in place, add any provisions necessary to prohibit gag clauses in downstream agreements, and thoroughly document any and all efforts made to remove any prohibited gag clauses before the next gag clause compliance attestation is due at the end of 2025. MZQ is happy to provide assistance through MZQuick Attest, our Gag Clause Compliance Attestation service; more information about this is available here. 

Read more