SHRM Tells Members Say “NO!” To Pelosi-Backed Health Care Reform

November 6, 2009

In a rare weekend meeting, the House of Representatives is scheduled to  consider H.R. 3962, the Affordable Health Care for America Act and, if Speaker Nancy Pelosi has her way, vote to pass it as early as this weekend. 

In anticipation of this action, the Society For Human Resources (SHRM) is voicing strong opposition to H.R. 3962 and  urging U.S. citizens and businesses to express their strong opposition to it as well to members of Congress immediately.

According to communications circulated this week, SHRM “strongly supports comprehensive health care reform that strengthens the employer-based system, promotes wellness programs and health promotion initiatives, strengthens the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), increases purchaser and consumer access to cost and quality information and increases access to affordable health coverage.  SHRM says the House bill fails to achieve these goals.  Accordingly, SHRM is urging American’s to contact their Representative today to urge a NO VOTE on H.R. 3962.

 SHRM’s concerns about the proposal include that H.R. 3962:

  • Does not include provisions to facilitate greater availability of wellness programs among employers and employees. 
  • Does not include meaningful cost, quality, or transparency provisions to ensure that both employers and employees have better access to health-related information.
  • Requires employers to provide and pay for “qualified” health care coverage or face an 8 percent payroll tax.  Employers must pay 72.5 percent of the premium for individuals and 65 percent of the premium for families.  In addition, even if an employer provides and pays for health insurance coverage for their workforce, that employer could still be subject to an 8 percent payroll tax if employees decline employer coverage because it is unaffordable – defined as more than 12 percent of the employee’s income.
  • Would erode the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) by applying state law remedies to employer purchased coverage  in a health insurance exchange; prohibiting post-retirement reductions of retiree health benefits by group health plans, unless reductions are also made to active employees’ health benefits; and requiring employer-sponsored plans to meet detailed federal requirements that will increase costs.
  • Includes a public insurance plan option that raises serious concerns about cost-shifting to private plans. SHRM objects because inadequate reimbursement practices under Medicare and Medicaid has resulted in significant cost-shifting to private plans, increasing costs for both employers and employees. 

In light of these concerns, SHRM is asking all members and other concerned Americans to write mMembers of Congress TODAY and urge them to oppose the Affordable Health Care for America Act. It invites members to use SHRM’s HRVoice to share thes econcernings by:

  • Log ging onto HR Voice
  • Under the heading “Take Immediate Action on these Hot Issues,” click on:   “VOTE NO on the Affordable Health Care for America Act (H.R. 3962)” and
  • Personalizing and sending individualized letters by including specific information about the organization you work for, your experiences in the workplace, and why this legislation would negatively impact your organization. 

If you have questions about or need assistance monitoring, evaluating, commenting on or responding to this or any other health care reform proposal or other federal or state health care, workforce or other legislative, regulatory or other developments or concerns, please contact the author of this article, Curran Tomko Tarski LLP Labor & Employment Practice Group Chair Cynthia Marcotte Stamer.  Board Certified in Labor & Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization and Chair of the American Bar Association RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Group, Ms. Stamer is experienced with assisting employers and others about compliance with federal and state health care, employee benefit, workforce and other legislation and regulation. Ms. Stamer has advised and represented clients about these and other health care labor and employment, compensation, employee benefit and other personnel and staffing matters for more than 20 years. Ms. Stamer also speaks and writes extensively on these and other related matters. Her public policy experience includes ongoing involvement in these concerns within the U.S. for 30 years, as well as serving as a policy advisor on Social Security Reform to the Government of Bolivia and providing input or other representation to various other clients on workforce, health care and other policies in various other regions of the world. 

For additional information about Ms. Stamer and her experience or to access other publications by Ms. Stamer see here or contact Ms. Stamer directly.   For additional information about the experience and services of Ms. Stamer and other members of the Curran Tomko Tarksi LLP team, see here.


SHRM Urges American’s To Oppose HR 3962, The Affordable Health Care For America Act

November 6, 2009

In a rare weekend meeting, the House of Representatives is scheduled to  consider H.R. 3962, the Affordable Health Care for America Act and, if Speaker Nancy Pelosi has her way, vote to pass it as early as this weekend. 

In anticipation of this action, the Society For Human Resources (SHRM) is voicing strong opposition to H.R. 3962 and  urging U.S. citizens and businesses to express their strong opposition to it as well to members of Congress immediately.

According to communications circulated this week, SHRM “strongly supports comprehensive health care reform that strengthens the employer-based system, promotes wellness programs and health promotion initiatives, strengthens the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), increases purchaser and consumer access to cost and quality information and increases access to affordable health coverage.  SHRM says the House bill fails to achieve these goals.  Accordingly, SHRM is urging American’s to contact their Representative today to urge a NO VOTE on H.R. 3962.

 SHRM’s concerns about the proposal include that H.R. 3962:

  • Does not include provisions to facilitate greater availability of wellness programs among employers and employees. 
  • Does not include meaningful cost, quality, or transparency provisions to ensure that both employers and employees have better access to health-related information.
  • Requires employers to provide and pay for “qualified” health care coverage or face an 8 percent payroll tax.  Employers must pay 72.5 percent of the premium for individuals and 65 percent of the premium for families.  In addition, even if an employer provides and pays for health insurance coverage for their workforce, that employer could still be subject to an 8 percent payroll tax if employees decline employer coverage because it is unaffordable – defined as more than 12 percent of the employee’s income.
  • Would erode the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) by applying state law remedies to employer purchased coverage  in a health insurance exchange; prohibiting post-retirement reductions of retiree health benefits by group health plans, unless reductions are also made to active employees’ health benefits; and requiring employer-sponsored plans to meet detailed federal requirements that will increase costs.
  • Includes a public insurance plan option that raises serious concerns about cost-shifting to private plans. SHRM objects because inadequate reimbursement practices under Medicare and Medicaid has resulted in significant cost-shifting to private plans, increasing costs for both employers and employees. 

In light of these concerns, SHRM is asking all members and other concerned Americans to write mMembers of Congress TODAY and urge them to oppose the Affordable Health Care for America Act. It invites members to use SHRM’s HRVoice to share thes econcernings by:

  • Log ging onto HR Voice
  • Under the heading “Take Immediate Action on these Hot Issues,” click on:   “VOTE NO on the Affordable Health Care for America Act (H.R. 3962)” and
  • Personalizing and sending individualized letters by including specific information about the organization you work for, your experiences in the workplace, and why this legislation would negatively impact your organization. 

If you have questions about or need assistance monitoring, evaluating, commenting on or responding to this or any other health care reform proposal or other federal or state health care, workforce or other legislative, regulatory or other developments or concerns, please contact the author of this article, Curran Tomko Tarski LLP Labor & Employment Practice Group Chair Cynthia Marcotte Stamer.  Board Certified in Labor & Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization and Chair of the American Bar Association RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Group, Ms. Stamer is experienced with assisting employers and others about compliance with federal and state health care, employee benefit, workforce and other legislation and regulation. Ms. Stamer has advised and represented clients about these and other health care labor and employment, compensation, employee benefit and other personnel and staffing matters for more than 20 years. Ms. Stamer also speaks and writes extensively on these and other related matters. Her public policy experience includes ongoing involvement in these concerns within the U.S. for 30 years, as well as serving as a policy advisor on Social Security Reform to the Government of Bolivia and providing input or other representation to various other clients on workforce, health care and other policies in various other regions of the world. 

For additional information about Ms. Stamer and her experience or to access other publications by Ms. Stamer see here or contact Ms. Stamer directly.   For additional information about the experience and services of Ms. Stamer and other members of the Curran Tomko Tarksi LLP team, see here.


US and UK Agree to Share Information & Cooperate On Pension Security As US Defined Benefit Plan Sponsors Face Tough New Defined Benefit Plan Funding Requirements

November 5, 2009

Rising business failures, constricting budgets, employment losses and other business and workforce dislocations associated with the recent economic downturn are adding new urgency to efforts by U.S. and international leaders to act to mitigate threats to the security of worker pensions.   

In response to these concerns, the U.S. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. (PBGC), the United Kingdom’s The Pensions Regulator and Pension Protection Fund recently have reached an information sharing agreement intended to help the agencies in both countries protect retirement benefits earned by workers and retirees on both sides of the Atlantic.  Meanwhile, businesses that sponsoring defined benefit pension plans now are required to comply with newly released final Internal Revenue Service regulations that increase minimum contributions required by many sponsors, and impose other new mandates designed to accelerate plan funding and otherwise promote greater security of these benefit programs in an economically challenged business environment. 

Under a Memorandum of Understanding, signed on November 4, 2009, the three agencies will share any unrestricted information that advances the security of defined benefit plans sponsored by private sector companies. Confidential financial information from those companies will not be shared. While the agreement facilitates broad access to data, intelligence, and other records, it is not legally binding. Additionally, the agencies are not compelled to lend assistance to each other, especially if legal proceedings are underway, and such assistance would be contrary to the interests of either country.  The agreement can be canceled at any time by any party.

The Pensions Regulator oversees private sector defined benefit plans in the UK and is charged with protecting the retirement benefits of plan members. The Regulator is also charged with reducing the risk of claims for compensation from the Pension Protection Fund (PPF). The PPF was created to pay compensation to members of eligible defined benefit pension plans when the plan’s sponsor was unable to pay benefits.

The PBGC is a federal corporation created under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. It currently guarantees payment of basic pension benefits earned by 44 million American workers and retirees participating in over 29,000 private-sector defined benefit pension plans. The agency receives no funds from general tax revenues. Operations are financed largely by insurance premiums paid by companies that sponsor pension plans and by investment returns.

The Memorandum of Understanding is one of a variety of actions that the U.S. regulators are taking as part of their efforts to shore up the security of private retirement benefits and funding. On October 15, 2009, the Internal Revenue Service published final regulations regarding the “Measurement of Assets and Liabilities for Pension Funding Purposes; Benefit Restrictions for Underfunded Pension Plans” construing the amended single employer defined benefit plan minimum funding rules in Internal Revenue Code (“Code”) §§ 430(d), 430(f), 430(g), 430(h)(2), 430(i), and 436, added to the Code by the Pension Protection Act of 2006 (PPA ’06), Public Law 109-280 (120 Stat. 780) taking into account subsequent amendments made by the Worker, Retiree, and Employer Recovery Act of 2008 (WRERA ’08), Public Law 110-458 (122 Stat. 5092). These new final regulations implement new federal rules that accelerate the time within which employers are required to fund defined benefit retirement benefit commitments made in single employer defined benefit pension plans and impose other complicated new requirements intended to improve the funding and security of these programs.  As implementation of these new rules proceeds, the PBGC is working to respond to the growing wave defined benefit pension plans whose plan sponsors have already gone bankrupt or otherwise have proven unable to meet already existing funding obligations.

If you have questions about or need assistance evaluating or complying these minimum funding rules or other employee benefit, employment, compensation, workplace health and safety, corporate ethics and compliance practices, concerns or claims, please contact the author of this article, Curran Tomko Tarski LLP Labor & Employment Practice Group Chair Cynthia Marcotte Stamer.  Board Certified in Labor & Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization and Chair of the American Bar Association RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Group, Ms. Stamer has more than 20 years experience advising and representing employers, plan sponsors and fiduciaries, and others about these and other related workforce, benefits, compensation and compliance matters.  Ms. Stamer also speaks and writes extensively on these and other related matters. For additional information about Ms. Stamer and her experience or to access other publications by Ms. Stamer see here or contact Ms. Stamer directly.   For additional information about the experience and services of Ms. Stamer and other members of the Curran Tomko Tarksi LLP team, see here.

Other Information & Resources

We hope that this information is useful to you. If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information – including your preferred e-mail – by creating or updating your profile here or e-mailing this information here or registering to participate in the distribution of our Solutions Law Press HR & Benefits Update distributions here.  

For important information concerning this communication click here.   If you do not wish to receive these updates in the future, send an e-mail with the word “Remove” in the Subject here.

©2009 Cynthia Marcotte Stamer. All rights reserved. 

 


Congress Considering Extending & Expanding Group Health Plan COBRA Subsidy Mandates On Heels of Enactment of Expanded Military Leave-Related Family Leave Mandates

November 5, 2009

Following up on its October expansion of federal requirements that employers and their group health plans provide family leave rights in relation to certain military related absences, Congress now is considering extending and expanding the “COBRA Premium Subsidy” rules for group health plans enacted by Congress on February 17, 2009 as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) beyond their currently scheduled December 31, 2009 expiration date and further to restrict the amount that group health plans can charge former employees and their dependents covered by the COBRA Premium Subsidy rules to maintain coverage under the coverage continuation mandates of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985, as amended (“COBRA”).

COBRA generally allows employee and dependents who otherwise would lose eligibility for group health benefits under union or employer sponsored plans temporarily to continue enrollment in the group health plan by paying up to 102 percent of the full cost of that coverage (the “COBRA premium”) and fulfilling certain other conditions set forth in COBRA.  Under ARRA’s COBRA Premium Subsidy Rules, Congress among other things amended COBRA through December 31, 2009 to require that employers “subsidize” 65% of the otherwise applicable COBRA premium for employees or dependents electing COBRA coverage following a loss of eligibility due to the involuntary employment termination between September 15, 2008 and December 31, 2009 who otherwise qualify as “assistance eligible individuals” under ARRA.  The COBRA Premium Subsidy rules created a mechanism through which employers providing the required COBRA Premium Subsidy can claim a payroll tax credit for COBRA Premium Subsidy amounts paid with respect to assistance eligible individuals in accordance with ARRA’s mandates. 

Senator Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) and Robert P. Casey (D-PA) now are proposing that Congress extend and expand ARRA COBRA Premium Subsidy requirements applicable to group health plans as proposed by the “COBRA Subsidy Extension and Enhancement Act” (S. 2730).  Introduced on November 5, 2009, the Government Printing Office had not published the text of S. 2730 as of the release of this publication.  However, It is expected that the official text of S. 2730 will be made available for review soon here. In the meanwhile, the reading of S. 2730 into the record when introduced in the Senate on November 4, 2009 and its sponsors’ news releases, the “COBRA Subsidy Extension and Enhancement Act” (S. 2730) proposes that Congress:

  • Extend the COBRA Premium Subsidy requirements an extra six months to 15 months;
  • Increase the required subsidy amount during the extended COBRA Premium Subsidy period from 65 percent to 75 percent of the COBRA premium; and
  • Clarify that the employees and dependents eligible to qualify as assistance eligible individuals under ARRA includes those losing group health plan eligibility due to an employment loss, whether from an actual employment termination or a decline in hours of employment.

Expanded FMLA Military Leave Related Mandates Added Under Defense Appropriations Laws Already Require Immediate Action

The proposal in S. 2730 to extend the ARRA COBRA Premium Subsidy mandates is the latest in a series of recently enacted and proposed federal laws and implementing regulations imposing an ever-expanding list of federal eligibility mandates on employment based group health plans.  These include not only an expanding list of federal mandates that group health plans make available continued coverage to individuals whose eligibility for coverage otherwise would end on account of an employment decline or loss such as those enacted as part of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010, Public Law 111-84 (“2010 NDAA”), signed into law by President Obama on October 28, 2009 and the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 the (“2008 NDAA”) signed into law by President Bush in January, 2008.  These FMLA military leave-related mandates are in addition to separate group health coverage continuation mandates separately imposed upon employers and group health plans under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA).

For instance, the 2008 NDAA amended the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) to add new family military-leave provisions, which were further expanded by the 2010 NDAA.  The 2008 NDAA adds two new qualifying circumstances under which eligible employees must be allowed to take FMLA leave and to continue group health plan coverage during that FMLA:

  •  “Qualifying exigency leave” and
  •  “Military caregiver leave,” also referred to as “leave to care for a covered servicemember.”

Final regulations implementing the 2008 NDAA FMLA mandates and other FMLA requirements took effect on January 16, 2009. The NDAA for 2010 further amended these family military-leave mandates to expand the circumstances under which the FMLA leave mandates employers and their group health plans extend FMLA leave rights in relation to military members. 

Beyond these military-leave related group health plan mandates, group health plans also are required to comply with a host of other recently-expanded federal eligibility and other mandates such as new mandates to offer up to 12-months coverage continuation for dependents whose coverage otherwise would terminate due to a medically required break in school enrollment, expanded group health plan special enrollment and nondiscrimination rules imposed under ARRA, the Genetic Information and Nondiscrimination Act (“GINA”) and the Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act  (“HIPAA”) and various others.  Congress is considering further amendments to these and other federal mandates under proposals included in the various health care bills being heavily debated in Congress, as well as others included in legislation proposed separately from these broader health care reform proposals.

Take Prompt Action to Manage Risks

In addition to monitoring and sharing their input with Congress about S. 2730 and other proposed legislation impacting their group health plans, group health plans, their sponsoring employers or unions, insurers, fiduciaries and administrative service providers also should take prompt action to ensure that their group health plan documents, notices and other communications, processes and procedures have been properly updated in response to the statutory regulatory changes to federal group health plan eligibility and other mandates.

If you have questions about or need assistance reviewing or sharing your input with Congress about S. 2730 or other proposed legislation, evaluating and updating, administering or defending your group health plan in light of these or other federal regulations, or with other employee benefit, employment, compensation, workplace health and safety, corporate ethics and compliance practices, concerns or claims, please contact the author of this article, Curran Tomko Tarski LLP Labor & Employment Practice Group Chair Cynthia Marcotte Stamer.  Board Certified in Labor & Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization and Chair of the American Bar Association (ABA) RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Group and past chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, Ms. Stamer has more than 20 years experience advising and representing employee benefit plans, employers, plan sponsors and fiduciaries, administrative services providers, insurers and others about these and other related matters.  Ms. Stamer also speaks and writes extensively on these and other related matters. For additional information about Ms. Stamer and her experience or to access other publications by Ms. Stamer see here or contact Ms. Stamer directly.   For additional information about the experience and services of Ms. Stamer and other members of the Curran Tomko Tarksi LLP team, see here.

Other Information & Resources

We hope that this information is useful to you. If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information – including your preferred e-mail – by creating or updating your profile here or e-mailing this information here or registering to participate in the distribution of our Solutions Law Press HR & Benefits Update distributions here.

For important information concerning this communication click here.   If you do not wish to receive these updates in the future, send an e-mail with the word “Remove” in the Subject here.

©2009 Cynthia Marcotte Stamer. All rights reserved. 


November 15, 2009 Is Deadline To Send Required Group Health Plan Medicare Part D “Creditable Coverage” Notice

November 3, 2009

November 15, 2009 is the deadline for group health plans providing prescription drug coverage to send the annually-required notification (the “Part D Notice”) to Medicare-eligible participants whether the plan’s prescription drug coverage is or is not “creditable coverage” (“Creditable Coverage”) for purposes of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003 (the “MMA”) “Part D” prescription drug coverage program.  Before distributing the required Part D Notice, group health plan sponsors and administrators should review and update the Part D Notice as needed in light of 2009 revisions to the Part D Notice requirements issued earlier this year by CMS.

The MMA generally mandates that covered employer-sponsored group health plans send a Part D Notice that complies with the form and content requirements established by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”) to all Medicare Part D-eligible individuals covered under, or who apply for, enrollment in a group health plan providing prescription drug coverage at each of the following times:

  • Before the Medicare Part D annual coordinated election period (November 15 – December 31) each year;
  • Within the 12 months before an individual’s initial enrollment period for Medicare;
  • Before the effective date of coverage for a Medicare-eligible individual beginning participation in the group health plan;
  • When the plan’s prescription drug coverage ends or is no longer creditable; and
  • Upon a beneficiary’s request.

Because CMS posted revised model notices and updated guidance regarding creditable coverage disclosures earlier this year, plan sponsors and administrators before distributing their Part D Notice generally will need to:

  • Determine whether their group health plan does or does not provide creditable coverage for purposes of Medicare Part D regulations;
  • Determine which Medicare Part D notification should be provided in light of the existing group health plan design; and
  • Review and update, if necessary, the content and form of the Part D Notice to comply with the updated guidance issued earlier this year.

 

The Annual Part D Notice requirement generally applies to all group health plans not otherwise specifically excluded from coverage even those that do not provide retiree coverage.  The MMA generally requires notification to Medicare Part D-eligible employees and dependents, regardless of whether the member is enrolled under active or retired coverage or whether the group health plan coverage is primary or secondary to Medicare.

A group health plan must determine if its prescription drug coverage is “creditable coverage” in accordance with rules contained in the Medicare Part D regulations.  These regulations generally specify that prescription drug coverage qualifies as creditable coverage if the actuarial value of the coverage equals or exceeds the actuarial value of the Part D prescription drug coverage, as demonstrated through the use of generally accepted actuarial principles in accordance with CMS actuarial guidelines. This actuarial determination measures whether the expected amount of paid claims under the group health plan’s prescription drug coverage is at least as much as the expected amount of paid claims under the standard Medicare prescription drug benefit.   In lieu of an actuarial assessment, the Medicare Part D regulations alternatively allow group health plans to rely upon a safe harbor rule.  Under this safe harbor, group health plans offering prescription drug coverage qualify as providing Creditable Coverage without an actuarial assessment if the standards of the safe harbor rule are met. 

This determination of creditable coverage for Medicare Part D purposes is separate and distinct from the requirement that group health plans determine and provide notification of “creditable coverage” when group health plan coverage ends pursuant to the group health plan portability requirements imposed by the Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act of 1996, as amended (“HIPAA”). 

When distributing the Part D Notice, group health plan sponsors and administrators also generally will want to make arrangements to ensure that separately required notifications to CMS regarding the creditable coverage status of the group health plan under Medicare Part D will be timely made as well as calendar reminders to prepare and provide the Part D Notice expected to be required in November, 2010. The Medicare Part D regulations also generally require group health plans also to provide a “Disclosure Notice” to CMS informing it whether the applicable group health plan provides Medicare Part D Creditable Coverage on an annual basis during the first 60 days of the plan year, and upon any change that affects whether the group health plan provides prescription drug coverage that is or is not creditable coverage for Medicare Part D purposes..

In addition to the Medicare Part D notice requirements, group health plans also are required to provide various other annual and other notifications by ERISA, the Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act of 1996, as amended (“HIPAA”), Newborns’ and Mothers’ Health Protection Act, medical coverage e continuation requirements under the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act, as amended (“COBRA”), the Family & Medical Leave Act and a host of other federal laws, many of require updates in response to statutory and/or regulatory changes in the past year.  In addition to updating and providing the required Medicare Part D Notice, many group health plan sponsors and administrators also should review and update  their group plan language, notifications and processes in response to amendments affecting these practices as well as a series of other recent changes to federal mandates affecting group health plans.  For more information about these and other developments affecting group health plans, checkout some of the writings and recorded presentations of Ms. Stamer available here.

If you need assistance reviewing or updating your group health plan’s implications of the MMA on your group health plans or other health or employee benefit plan requirements, please contact the author of this article, Curran Tomko Tarski LLP Labor & Employment Practice Group Chair Cynthia Marcotte Stamer.  Board Certified in Labor & Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization and Chair of the American Bar Association RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Group and past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, Ms. Stamer is nationally recognized for her more than 20 years work, writing and leadership advising employers and other plan sponsors, plan administrators and fiduciaries, insurers, administrative services providers, brokers, and others about the design, documentation, administration and defense of health and other employee benefit, insurance, and other compensation and employment practices. Ms. Stamer also speaks and writes extensively on these and other related matters. For additional information about Ms. Stamer and her experience or to access other publications by Ms. Stamer see here or contact Ms. Stamer directly.   For additional information about the experience and services of Ms. Stamer and other members of the Curran Tomko Tarksi LLP team, see here.

Other Information & Resources

We hope that this information is useful to you. If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information – including your preferred e-mail – by creating or updating your profile here or e-mailing this information here or registering to participate in the distribution of our Solutions Law Press HR & Benefits Update distributions here.  Some other recent updates that may be of interested include the following, which you can access by clicking on the article title:

For important information concerning this communication click here.   If you do not wish to receive these updates in the future, send an e-mail with the word “Remove” in the Subject here.

©2009 Cynthia Marcotte Stamer. All rights reserved.