Survey calls law firm benefit changes ‘stealth cost shifting’

April 9, 2014
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Large law firm benefit trends paint a somewhat  “conflicted picture” as firms try to manage plan expenses while at the same time lag behind the broader market’s adaptation of consumerism to save costs, based on results of a national survey.

Frenkel Benefits, the independent employee benefits division of Frenkel & Co., an insurance brokerage firm, released the results of its 2013 biennial Law Firm Survey. The survey looks at emerging trends in the benefit programs of large law firms.

Adam Okun, who wrote a blog post on the results for the company, called the design changes made by firms “stealth cost shifting,” – changes that preserve the more visible features of the health plans but reduce the plans’ cost in less recognizable ways.

Some key points highlighted by Okun based on the 51 participating law firms surveyed:

•    PPO/POS plans are the most popular, which include more than 50 percent of law firm employees. High deductible health plans are only popular with partners, who enroll in them because of their favorable tax treatment.

•    Health care inflation at law firms was 7 percent, which exceeded national employer-sponsored health care plan inflation by 2 percent. Okun says this reflects the industry’s reluctance to dilute benefit levels.

•    Wellness offerings from law firms have scaled back.

•    There is also a noticeable movement away from blanket coverage of post-retiree medical for partners and more firms are offering transgender surgery coverage, infertility benefits and domestic partner coverage.

“Given the ongoing contraction in demand for legal services and the consequential imperative to examine the underlying cost/expense structure of big law firms, it will be interesting to see when the industry will pivot from traditionally paternalistic, high-cost benefits plans to consumer-directed, employee-activating models,” Okun writes.

I was unable to find a link to the actual survey, but you can read a little more about it on Frenkel Benefits’ blog. Here’s a link to the 2011 survey results if you’re interested to see how this year’s results compare.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
  1. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT