Jen’s Half Cents: Employers’ Role In Ending the HIV Epidemic, Addressing Health Equity, and Retaining Talent

For more than a year, employer voices have complained about an inability to fill open positions and retain talent. Often referred to in news media as “The Great Resignation”, it is a backdrop that also includes labor voices being dissatisfied with certain aspects of their work environment. A Pew Research survey asked those leaving their jobs for insights as to why and the findings centered around shifts as a result of realizing just how the workplace might look in a more modernized world. For two decades, employers of all stripes argued the necessity of being “in office” and the crisis phase of the COVID-19 pandemic proved just how easily modern technology would allow for greater flexibilities in work hours and work place. It also shook open the reality that many workplaces face the same problems experienced in society at large, with Pew’s findings highlighting a general complaint of “feeling disrespected” as a “major” reason for resignations in 35% of respondents. Other areas of employee complaint included a “lack of opportunities for advancement”, “child care”, and “benefits weren’t good” (arguably, child care could be considered a “benefit” offered by an employer, though very few do as United States labor law does not require such an offering). We’re gonna focus on this benefits piece because of a survey published by the Employee Benefit Research Institute earlier this month.

The survey, entitled “Workplace Wellness Programs and the LGBTQ Community”, showed where some of the contours of employee satisfaction can be defined. The survey found LGBTQ employees were generally less satisfied than their non-LGBTQ peers with their jobs across all income brackets, with an overall 44% of LGBTQ employees being satisfied with their jobs and 61% of non-LGBTQ employees being satisfied. Interestingly enough, the difference with satisfaction with benefits offerings (including health, paid leave, and retirement benefits) was less of a gap than overall job dissatisfaction between these cohorts (overall 34% of LGBTQ employees were satisfied with their employee benefits with 45% of non-LGBTQ employees). More dramatically, the survey found LGBTQ employees would prefer higher wages over enhanced benefits. The reason why might be found in the fact that LGBTQ employees were less likely than their non-LGBTQ peers to qualify for benefits, even if they were as likely or more likely to use them when those benefits were offered. Even when getting into the details of what benefits were offered, LGBTQ employees were about as knowledgeable as their non-LGBTQ peers). So what gives?

First, lets acknowledge that, according to this survey, queer folks are more likely to value “work-life balance” over their non-LGBTQ peers to an extraordinary degree (this area being the greatest difference between these cohorts in “What Workers Value”). LGBTQ employees were more likely to have financial struggles and concerns than their non-LGBTQ peers as well. This, combined with the unique health needs of LGBTQ people and the need to identify a queer-friendly provider and the ever-growing threat of violence under a more and more caustic political atmosphere leading to LGBTQ people valuing retirement benefits as high as their non-LGBTQ peers, helps explain why the dollars matter more than the paper of insurance coverage. This is a plight many queer people can personally identify with pin-point precision: “If my life expectancy doesn’t reach the age of retirement, why should I plan for it?” And that’s not too terribly different from “If my insurance isn’t going to cover competent care of my needs, why does it matter if it’s offered?” These things might work for a cisgender, heterosexual couple with 2.4 kids, but they’re not meant for us.

Let’s start with a concrete example. In 2021, the National Women’s Law Center launched a class action lawsuit against Aetna for its fertility benefit design because the design of the benefit offering and language of the policy required those seeking the benefit to document or attest to 12 month or more of “failed” attempts to conceive through penis-in-vagina sexual activity. That type of benefit necessarily excludes single people, same-sex couples, and couples where at least one partner is transgender.

Periodically over the last year (and honestly for years prior but with less of a focus on the role of employers), I’ve spent time discussing with partners how important it is for employers to consider their role in Ending the HIV Epidemic and addressing issues of Health Equity. With employer-sponsored health plans covering nearly 50% of the country’s population, according to Kaiser Family Foundation, these issues don’t come down to the mere fact of offering health benefits but the quality of those benefits as it relates to employee needs. Benefit designs which race to the bottom of a sponsor’s costs are more likely to have narrowed provider and pharmacy networks and restrictive formularies. And despite the fact that Bostock did not necessarily carve out a means for queer employees to argue benefit design might constitute a discriminatory compensation scheme, that is exactly what our community considers when evaluating their job satisfaction and what “competitive” compensation is supposed to look like. And that’s not unique to LGBTQ people, it’s true for employees of all marginalized status. When speaking with a Black, Women colleague recently she stated most directly “If my network doesn’t include a Black doctor for my kids to see, the plan doesn’t matter to me – I can’t count that as part of my compensation, regardless of how my employer looks at this.”

Adding another layer of consideration for employers, as sponsors with some of the greatest amount of leverage to influence the insurance marketplace, ensuring parity in pharmacy benefits with medical benefits is important. The details of those plans matter. To go beyond birth control as an easily relatable example, if an employee living with HIV doesn’t see the provider they’ve gone to for the last decade in-network or an expansive formulary lacking the burdens of prior authorizations for innovative therapies, they’re not gonna find as much value in that benefit. An employee that has to spend hours every six months navigating a prior authorization for their injectable preventative medication is gonna have less personal “bandwidth” to dedicate to work and find less value in that coverage. They might even decide to go out-of-pocket to over those costs and that translates into a meaningful reduction in wages, from the employee perspective. This also speaks directly to the role employers play in Ending the HIV Epidemic – broader coverage of antiretrovirals and infectious disease providers in-network with lower administrative burdens means employees have more meaningful access to care.

At the end of the day, every employee is a patient. We well know in patient advocacy that speaking to these intimate, personal health needs makes people feel cared about and appreciated. It’s why we do what we do in the first place. If employers want to address employee satisfaction, they could invite their employee resource groups for listening sessions on what adequate health benefit offerings look like and then demand those offerings from their contracted payers. It’s a simple series of actions where employers can come out on top in a variety of ways; addressing health disparities, hearing and meeting employee needs, contributing meaningfully to public health goals around HIV, and overall integrating their stated social values into tangible action.

Honestly, it’s all employees and communities really want from their employers - just a little bit of integrity. Evaluating and elevating health benefit offerings is an excellent place to start.