Sobering lesson on importance of unambiguous forms for plan participan

[Dave Baker]

A sobering example of the importance of clear plan administration forms to be completed by participants (beneficiary designations, annuity waivers, etc.) -- there is strong evidence that several thousand people who voted for one candidate have had their votes counted for another candidate due to the way they marked a ballot form. From the Associated Press 11/8/2000:

"Buchanan got 3,407 votes for president in the heavily Democratic county Tuesday, more than he received in any other Florida county, according to unofficial returns. Statewide, Gore was behind George W. Bush by fewer than 1,800 votes, and Florida held the key to the national race.

"It was so hard to tell who and what you were voting for. I couldn't figure it out, and I have a doctorate," voter Eileen Klasfeld said.

"Two larger counties south of Palm Beach both had much lower Buchanan results-- 789 in Broward County and 561 in Miami-Dade County. In Duval County, a much more conservative county in northeast Florida, only 650 Buchanan votes were cast.

"The confusion apparently arose from the way Palm Beach County's punch-card style ballot was laid out for the presidential race. Candidates are listed in two columns, with holes down the middle between the columns, to the right or the left of each candidate's name."

Copy of the ballot: http://www.sun-sentinel.com/images/PalmVot...otConfusion.gif

A better photo of the asymetrical form, showing candidates' name blocks like staggered dominos lined up to face each other down the center of a page, where each of the tiny holes in the center lines up with a border between two of the dominos: http://wire.ap.org/APnews/center_story.htm...IMAGEID=1594562

[jeanine]

We have had ballots like this in Ohio before and I was never confused as to whom I was voting for. By the way, my husband saw a report on TV that Buchanan got 2900 votes in that county in 1996. Perhaps he has a loyal cluster of constituents in the area.

[Chester]

I'm sorry but I don't get it. The ballot clearly has arrows showing where the ballots should be punched for each candidate. The person who has a doctorate needs glasses if she can't figure out how it works. It appears to me that certain voters did not take their time when they were casting their ballots--they have only themselves to blame for their haste. This is yet another example of people not taking responsibility for their actions, and looking to blame someone else.

[Guest michaelv]

It has been my understanding that how and where a candidates name appears on a ballot is not something that happens by chance or randomly.

Representatives of the candidates, along with the state/local election bureau, meet ahead of time to make decisions on these matters. Once decided, the names go onto either the paper ballots or into the voting booth.

In other words, Gore's people previously agreed to the appearance of the ballots. To complain about it now comes across as more like sour grapes than a legitimate complaint.

I also do not recall these type of ballots causing confusion in prior elections.

What's unfortunate about this entire scenario is that we stress to all people to get out and vote because every vote counts. Then, when there's an election when every vote actually does count, there are threats to do it all over again because it's too close.

[david rigby]

Yes, there does seem to be some lack of responsibility, but there may also be some colossal lack of common sense on the part of whoever designed the ballots. Just looking at what we saw on the news programs, I agree that the ballot was not well designed. Perhaps we should ask why this is a problem now, and why not in earlier elections.

Also, are there other races on the same ballot with the similar layout? The problem may have existed for much longer but did not seem so important because this race is so close.

These may be questions for Florida citizens and elections officials primarily, but, as Dave says, it is a lesson in how mistakes made by some can affect us all. Those to whom we owe our primary allegiance are not those in our own state, and certainly not any political party, but are called "Americans."

[Kristina]

Cook County Illinois has this same style of ballot, but without the arrows. It was easier on the presidential candidates as they were only one side of the ballot. My thought as I was voting for judges which were listed on each side of the column was that I wondered how many votes were disqualified because the names were directly across from each other and the two top holes were yes and the next two holes were no.

I understand that the representatives got together to determine which would be first, but it is my understanding that each precinct designs their own ballots to fit the voting equipment they have. Why, oh why can't there be an immediate tabulation of the votes cast with paper backup. Oh, wait, I live in the "vote early and often" state.

[actuarysmith]

Pardon me folks, but it appears that this thread has become nothing more than a political forum for airing sour grapes.

Let's stay focused on BENEFITS!! That's what this website is all about.

[Guest GregSelf]

Somebody aught to enlighten actuarysmith about the individual who started this thread.

I think the phrase "he can do whatever he wants" applies.

[Kristina]

Let's not be snippy. This topic was brought up, I believe, in an effort to point out that plan participants are not the only ones who can not follow instructions and, I believe, to encourage the benefits community to contemplate better methods of communication. Many of us tend to ridicule those participants who seem to be unable to complete forms as we clearly told them. Well, did we clearly tell them? I think not, if they still got it wrong.

[R. Butler]

We do need to make our enrollment forms as clear as possible, but reallistically if 97% of the people get it right, I may still end up ridiculing the 3% that don't.

[Kristina]

To R. Butler. We all need a laugh now and then.

[Dave Baker]

I'm concerned with the "screw 'em if they can't read a ballot" perspective we're seeing on some of the "man on the street" interviews.

Yes, there is a level of individual responsibility for being careful in preparing to mark a ballot and then in marking the ballot.

But if the fact is that a large number of voters were confused, then that's the fact.

Assume a plan administrator drafts a distribution election form and its accompanying explanation of annuity options-- and a small percentage of the participants' surviving spouses later come back to the plan and honestly say that didn't understand the paperwork to say that a widow would get no benefits at all after the participant's death under the "life annuity" option they chose.

Somebody in the pension business is probably inclined to say "tough luck, lady, we can't allow adverse actuarial selection."

The big picture here is that a plan exists to provide benefits to participants and their beneficiaries (the "exclusive benefit" rule), and if it's not putting dollars into the hands of those people in the way they expect, then it's failing them to a degree. The plan administrator is a fiduciary whose job, in effect, is to "look out for" the interests of the beneficiary of the trust. If a dumber-than-average beneficiary in fact is confused, even if it's "his own damned fault," and the fiduciary knows or has reason to know that such a beneficiary is going to be confused, then shouldn't the fiduciary look out for dumber-than-average beneficiaries, too?

[MoJo]

Well put Dave, and one could say analogous to our elected and appointed officials being "fiduciaries" whose sole job is to ensure absolute accuracy in determining the "will of the people!"

Oh well, so much for politics....

True draftsmenship has given way to using tried and true forms, because changes may cause confusion (as happened with the "ballot.") Unfortunately, only by trying new and different ways of saying the same thing can we get better at what we do. We may be too close to the situations we need to account for, so that "we" think its easy to understand - but everybody has the right to be human, and perceive things they're own way. We shouldn't judge those who misunderstand - we should chastise ourselve for failing to communicate accurately to those whom we ultimately serve - participants (or voters!).

[R. Butler]

I am sure that we all agree any information given to participants should be as simple and clear as possible, but we do need to strongly encourage the participants to read all forms carefully and to ask questions if they don't understand. While the distribution scenario Dave Baker gives is unfortunate, if the notices given to the participant meets the letter of the law I seriously doubt that any administrator, investment advisor, etc. would accept additional liability.

[Guest Rob Cochran]

Benefits forms are often very wordy and technical. As benefits administrators we work with these forms every day and they're easy for us to interpret. However, most people don't view these forms the way we do. It seems that our job as benefits administrators is to facilitate proper enrollment. It is to our benefit to make sure the forms our participants are filling out are as easy to read and understandable as possible. Yes - people should take responsibility for reading instructions and make their choices carefully. But let's say for instance, your company has a couple of different medical plans to choose from. It's open enrollment and you distribute the standard paperwork. 50% of employees choose Plan A and 50% choose plan B. After the enrollment confirmations go out, you start getting calls from employees who say they thought they were enrolling in plan A but were confused by the form and enrolled in plan B by mistake. Do you simply tell them that they're out of luck until next open enrollment? Or do you take steps to correct the situation if possible? What if the participant is pregnant and the plan they accidentally selected doesn't cover maternity? Is it fair to say to that person, "Sorry, you should have been more careful filling out your enrollment form"? If your company winds up in court over the matter are you prepared to defend the clarity of your enrollment form? It seems like it would be worth it to us to make sure our forms are as easy to interpret as possible.

[Greg Judd]

Originally posted by GregSelf

Somebody aught to enlighten actuarysmith about the individual who started this thread.  

I think the phrase "he can do whatever he wants" applies.

Laffin! I also like Kristina's admonition to not be snippy...where have I heard that one before?

The thread's certainly very much on topic; we have more means by which to communicate intent than ever, but no more controls over confirmation that the "call to action" is understood the way it's intended.

Too bad there's no voting receipt a la many benefit plans' use of a transaction confirmation document) . That'd have numerous possibilities, one being a 30-day satisfaction guarantee....

[david rigby]

Not disagreeing with the above, and thanks to Dave for starting this thread (many of our clients should probably read this), but doesn't there seem to be a danger of "dumbing down"? That is, we (and many consultants, attorneys, etc.) seem to be attentive to the wide variety of interests and abilities of plan participants; there is no such thing as "Joe Average". The more we try to address this, we may be opening the door to others simply assuming "it is up to the plan sponsor to make me understand, and if I screw up, then I can always sue."

End of "gripe of the day."

[Guest Rob Cochran]

You're right, there is no such thing as "Joe Average" or "Jane Average" for that matter. And there is no way you can possibly tailor a form for the masses that will be understood and accepted by ALL involved. My point is that we have a responsibility to make sure our communication with participants, whether it be correspondence, documents, or forms, is as clear as possible. That means, if a form or document proves to be confusing to a significant amount of people, (let's just say 19,000) and as a result, a significant amount of people make mistakes which could seriously effect their lives, such as choosing the wrong candidate.. er.. I mean... plan, then those people should be allowed to enroll in the plan they intended to enroll in and the form should be reviewed and revised so that such a disaster doesn't occur again.

[Dave Baker]

Something I try to apply when drafting forms is the "grandmother test." I ask myself, "if my own grandmother were to get this form in the mail, how would I want it to read for her?"

[jeanine]

The problem with making things easy enough for grandma to understand is that when an issue comes up and your participant gets an attorney, the attorney will shred you apart in court. We have a delicate balance to maintain. On the one hand we want the participants to understand yet we are tied to the language we use if there is a dispute. Just a few examples: Our state dept of insurance requires a flesch test reading score of 40 to pass. Do you know how hard it is to dumb down a group insurance policy yet still state benefits accurately? Now, our state does external reviews for enrollees for questions involving plan language even though we can't express ourselves (and thereby protect ourselves) because it has to be easy to understand. The federal employees plan is worse. We had to challenge them to get the definition of experimental changed from their virtual non-definition to one nowhere near as detailed as we wanted--all in the name of plain language.

[Kristina]

Perhaps we do not have a dumbing down issue. Perhaps we have a "trying to cover too many issues in one sentence just in case we are sued" issue. The law is complex. Our communications job is to Keep It Simple. The declarative sentence could be a useful tool.

[Guest J D DeBacker]

I agree -- there's always some people (and I even think 3% is low) who don't get the forms. I think every form I've seen in the benefits world could use some improvement to be clearer. Sometimes, there's just an internal battle over changing a form that's "worked" for years, even if the goal is to make life simpler for the participants!

[Guest Rob Cochran]

I agree with JD. We had a form that our carriers required us to use that was terribly confusing to participants. I was constantly getting calls from people who were confused about which box to check, what to circle, and whether they should answer yes or no to a particular question. I finally re-designed and submitted it to the carrier for approval. It took them about 6 months to approve the form. Once it was approved, however, I noticed a significant decrease in the number of calls I received from confused participants. I also agree that it's difficult to balance necessary text with simplicity. One thing I've found is that Layout and flow are very important too, along with the use of emphasizers like bolding, italics, and underlining. Also, expensive though it may be, using color to draw focus to a particular area of importance is also extremely useful. All of my COBRA notifications are in color which I've found works really well too.

[Guest michaelv]

Both in the ballot box and on benefit forms, there is bridge between being too technical and dumbed down, and that is to ask questions if you do not understand them!!! On most benefit forms, there is a sentence or statement saying who to contact if you are confused and also to possibly have your professional accountant/attorney/financial expert, etc, involved as well. I have very little sympathy for anyone, including grandma's, who supposedly don't know enough to ask for help when completing a confusing form (or ballot) but will quickly call an attorney the moment they feel that they made a mistake and want to blame someone else for it.

[Dave Baker]

It's not so much a matter of not knowing enough to ask as it is intimidating. For a great many people, it's a big, scary deal when they're filling in "legal" forms (or when they're out in public with a lot of strangers, standing in a little booth, with a lot of people waiting in line behind them and all kinds of commotion going on). Under those circumstances, for a lot of people it's not in their nature to get assertive and demand assistance or clarification.