These 20 factors are taken from IRS Revenue Ruling 87?41. There is no set number of factors that must be in your favor, so idea is to get as much insurance as possible. We suggest that you meet 15 out of 20 of factors in your favor to be “safe”.

1. Does principal provide instructions to worker about when, where, and how he or she is to perform work? 2. Does principal provide training to worker? 3. Are services provided by worker integrated into principal's business operations? 4. Must services be rendered personally by worker? 5. Does principal hire, supervise and pay assistants to worker? 6. Is there a continuing relationship between principal and worker? 7. Does principal set work hours and schedule? 8. Does worker devote substantially full time to business of principal? 9. Is work performed on principal's premises? 10. Is worker required to perform services in an order or sequence set by principal? 11. Is worker required to submit oral or written reports to principal? 12. Is worker paid by hour, week, or month? 13. Does principal pay business or traveling expenses of worker? 14. Does principal furnish significant tools, materials and equipment? 15. Does worker have a significant investment in facilities? 16. Can worker realize a profit or loss as a result of his or her services? 17. Does worker provide services for more than one firm at a time? 18. Does worker make his or her services available to general public? 19. Does principal have right to discharge worker at will? 20. Can worker terminate his or her relationship with principal any time he or she wishes without incurring liability to principal?

If you cannot easily meet standards of this 20-point test, don’t worry yet. There is another “safe harbor” provision added to tax law a few years ago. If you can show that a substantial portion of your industry uses sub-contractors in same status as your particular position, then you are safe in considering yourself also as a sub-contractor. The difficulty in relying on this safe harbor test is that you need to be reactive to your industry and IRS, rather than be pro-active in designing your business relationships for effect that you desire.

The highest-ranking private national PPO plan was Private Healthcare Systems (PHCS). This was great to see because I've always recommended PHCS and personally felt they were best option for largest group of buyers, but I had no hard evidence to back up this opinion.

PHCS health plans are available in some form to everyone in all 50 states through a variety of insurance plans and uninsured plans. The insurance plans are available to perhaps 80% of small businesses and 50% of healthy individuals, but individuals with health problems will have trouble finding one of these plans. Beware of uninsured “discount plans”. The concept is good, but price is not. It is highly unlikely that this is a good financial deal for any buyer. Unfortunately these plans are hyped on Web and junk e-mail to point where we cannot seem to get away from them.

The most attractive feature of PHSC health network plans is that they often can be combined with other cost-saving plan design features like preferred-risk and preferred-industry discounts, high deductible plans and Medical Savings Accounts. With high deductible plans, keep in mind that you still benefit from direct in-network claims processing and substantial provider discounts even if your bill is lower than policy deductible. A benefits consultant can design a plan to fit almost any budget simply by adjusting levels of insurance coverage.

Most health plans today offer a variety of PPO network choices, and it is often possible to use more than one PPO network within a single health insurance plan. In some locations a small local PPO may be strong choice, but might not even be listed in CR rating system due to its size. Often an individual or small business located in a rural area may wisely select a PPO based solely on participation of dominant hospital system in their own community despite a lower rating in CR survey.

In any event, I think that most of us would agree that "more news is good news" when it comes to providing public information about quality of our nation's health insurance plans.