The Readability Crisis--Why It Matters
August 15, 2008
Posted By: Kim Buckey
The DOL regulations that apply to SPDs clearly state that they are to be “written in a manner calculated to be understood by the average plan participant.” More often than not, that phrase is completely overlooked in the mad dash to meet the timing and content requirements of those same regulations.
In recent years, however, there’s been an increasingly loud drumbeat calling for increased readability.
In October 2006, the Employee Benefits Research Institute (EBRI) released a report entitled “How Readable Are Summary Plan Descriptions for Health Care Plans?” Not surprisingly, the answer was, “not very.” EBRI reviewers found many SPDs harder to read than graduate school or technical material. The best of those reviewed came in at the ninth grade reading level.
Most experts suggest shooting for a sixth grade reading level. And the Department of Education reports that 43% of adults read on or below the basic level of literacy and 34% are either at or below the basic level of literacy needed to understand information about medicines or health care.
Obviously, there’s a huge disconnect between SPDs and their intended audiences.
Why is this so important? First, if your plan participants (and remember, that isn’t just employees—that means spouses, dependent children, retirees, etc.) can’t understand their SPDs, they can’t understand their benefits. Chances are that means:
you and your employees are spending money for benefits they don’t appreciate or use
your HR department or service center will be tied up answering questions participants should have been able to answer themselves.
Equally important are the legal implications of confusing language. Cases such as Watts v. BellSouth (US Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit, Dkt. No. 02-13230, January 2003), point out the need for clear, unambiguous language. (In this case, the use of “may” instead of “must” enabled an employee to sue BellSouth in court rather than being required—as intended—to exhaust administrative procedures first.)
That’s why it’s critical that your ERISA counsel participates actively throughout the drafting and review process, and signs off on all changes—even punctuation. As any of you who’ve been challenged to punctuate the sentence “A woman without her man is nothing” knows—the placement of a comma, colon or dash can change meaning completely. (For the punctuation obsessed among you, I recommend Lynn Truss’ wonderful and hilarious book, “Eats, Shoots and Leaves: The Zero Tolerance Approach to Punctuation.”(http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/1592400876/ref=sib_dp_pt#reader-link)
So what’s an employer to do?
Make sure whoever is writing your SPDs is skilled in and knowledgeable about benefits and communications—and has at least a passing familiarity with current regulations. This reduces the chances that rewriting to improve readability will end up changing the meaning of the provisions in the plan.
Write your documents in conversational English—to the extent plan provisions and your lawyers will permit.
Review your SPDs as if you knew little or nothing about benefits. Does the language make sense?
Better yet, test your SPDs with your employees. A few focus group sessions can provide a wealth of information about what your employees understand and how they use their SPDs—or what’s stopping them from doing so.
Run readability tests. The Flesch Reading Ease and Grade Level tests, the Gunning-Fog index, and other tests can show you just how readable—or not—your SPDs are.
Start small. Simple changes, like using “if” instead of “in the event of,” or “before” instead of “prior to” can make a difference.
Don’t stop at the words—pay attention to the layout of your SPDs. White space, call out boxes and even icons can make it easier for your participants to find and understand the information they need.
For more information about improving the user-friendliness of your SPDs—or for a free readability analysis—contact us at kbuckey@highroads.com.


Seasoned compliance professional Kim Buckey joins HighRoads as practice lead for its