Justices Seem Unlikely to Strike Down Entire Affordable Care Act
The U.S. Supreme Court appears hesitant to invalidate the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in its entirety, based on questions the justices posed during oral argument Nov. 10.
The ACA requires that most Americans either maintain a minimum level of health care coverage or pay a specified amount to the Internal Revenue Service. In a 2012 opinion written by Chief Justice John Roberts Jr., the Supreme Court upheld this mandate as a legitimate exercise of Congress' taxing power. In 2017, and effective in 2019, Congress amended the ACA to set the penalty to zero, making the individual mandate provision unenforceable.
In two consolidated cases, California v. Texas and Texas v. United States, the Supreme Court has been asked to decide whether reducing the penalty to zero rendered the minimum-coverage provision unconstitutional—and, if so, whether the rest of the ACA can remain enforceable without it.
"The justices seem to be leaning toward, at a minimum, finding the individual mandate severable and preserving the remainder of the law," observed Benjamin Conley, an attorney with Seyfarth Shaw in Chicago. The most notable takeaway from the arguments, he said, was that Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh "all but stated that they believe the individual mandate is severable."
Questions Before the Court
The court will first consider whether the plaintiffs have standing to challenge the ACA, then it will move to the merits of the case. Texas and other states that challenged the ACA argued that "Congress may not use its power to regulate interstate commerce to order Americans to buy health insurance" and that the only reason the individual mandate survived a legal challenge was because it was "fairly possible" to read the ACA's mandate as a tax trigger. "Because the mandate raises no revenue, it can no longer be read as a tax," they wrote in a brief to the Supreme Court.
The U.S. House of Representatives and a group of Democrat-led states are fighting to keep the ACA intact. If Texas successfully challenges the ACA, "more than 20 million Americans could lose their health care coverage, 130 million Americans with pre-existing conditions could lose protections, and drug costs could skyrocket for seniors," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi tweeted Nov. 10.
In December 2019, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with Texas, holding that the mandate is unconstitutional since there is no longer a penalty for people who fail to buy health insurance.
But the Supreme Court justices raised doubts about that argument. "I think it's hard for you to argue that Congress intended the entire act to fall if the mandate were struck down when the same Congress that lowered the penalty to zero did not even try to repeal the rest of the act," Roberts said during oral argument. "I think, frankly, that they wanted the court to do that. But that's not our job."
Justice Amy Coney Barrett, the court's newest justice and sixth conservative on the bench, has previously raised concerns with the Supreme Court's 2012 ruling. "Justice Barrett has criticized Justice Roberts' decision to uphold the ACA," said Sage Fattahian, an attorney with Morgan Lewis in Chicago. "The general view is that her vote may be the deciding vote in invalidating the ACA, but all of that remains to be seen."
Seyfarth Shaw's Conley noted that votes from Roberts and Kavanaugh, plus the three liberal justices—Justices Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor—would be enough to preserve the remainder of the law.
"The most interesting questions and comments, for me, came from Justice Kavanaugh," Fattahian observed. At oral argument, Kavanaugh said he thinks there is "a very straightforward case for severability" under Supreme Court precedent.
"Chief Justice Roberts also asked questions that seemed to indicate that the proper remedy in this case would be to sever the individual mandate from the rest of the ACA," Fattahian said. "This would mean that the ACA's plan mandates and employer mandate, along with ACA reporting requirements, would all remain intact."
Employer Takeaway
So what will a ruling in the case mean for employers? "While a ruling striking down the entire law could definitely have an impact in the long term, we don't think any short-term action is required," Conley said.
Even if, for instance, the Supreme Court invalidates the provision of the law allowing dependents to remain on their family's plans until age 26, an employer could certainly continue to offer such coverage even if it is no longer required. "So any plan-driven changes resulting from the ruling would be more incremental and long term," Conley added.
A decision in the case is not expected until June 2021. "In the meantime, employers should note that the health care law remains fully in effect during the litigation, including all coverage obligations and reporting requirements," said Chatrane Birbal, vice president of public policy for the Society for Human Resource Management. If there are changes to the health care law, employers should be aware that the changes will not take effect immediately, she noted.
Fattahian said, "Employers should continue down the path of compliance. Should the ACA be held to be unconstitutional, it will remain to be seen how it will all unwind and what, if anything, will take its place."
How to bridge the health insurance knowledge gap for younger employees
More often times than not, when younger employees are searching for their own health insurance plans, they make common and costly mistakes due to the lack of education in regards to health care plans. Proper education could help the young generation of employees for their health, wellness, and future. Read this blog post to learn more.
With the passage of the Affordable Care Act, young adults were able to stay on their parents health insurance plans until the age of 26. But once they get their own health insurance, many young employees make common and costly mistakes because they don’t have the proper education when choosing their own programs.
This information gap could result in employees being hesitant to seek care, resulting in higher medical expenses for employees and reduced productivity from sick leave.
“It’s a challenge— there’s a fair number of employees that will come off of their parent's insurance at the age of 26,” says Amanda Baethke, director of corporate development at Aeroflow Healthcare. “There's not a lesson that you go through in order to understand insurance.”
How can employers help younger workers avoid health insurance mistakes?
It's beneficial for HR to do a training where they're going over what co-pays, premiums, deductibles and coinsurance are. When signing up for insurance, employees are trying to decide which insurance to pick and may not understand the full impact of that decision. Employees could pick the cheapest one because they want less out of their paycheck. There's just not a lot of discussions happening and employees are left blind.
What mistakes do young workers make when it comes to health insurance?
I’ll get a lot of questions from my team like ‘What’s an HSA and what’s the benefit?’ It's truly a lack of understanding, because nobody teaches it. A lot of mistakes will happen with out-of-network providers. They don't realize that there are insurance networks and then within those networks, there are more narrow networks underneath.
For example, an employee can call a doctor's office and ask if that office is in-network and the receptionist may respond that they are — especially for the national brands like UHC, Aetna, Cigna, Humana. However, many of those plans have narrow networks under them that allow them to better control cost. So the employee would want to ensure their particular group/plan is in-network.
Another thing is making sure employees know that even though they have a deductible, some preventative care is likely covered under their insurance. This will help them choose the right physician so if they do get sick later on, they can see that physician, rather than going to a hospital which would be more costly for them.
What specific role should HR take when it comes to educating younger employees about health insurance?
HR is responsible for making sure that employees understand the benefits that they're offering. HR works incredibly hard to deliver the best benefits possible and advocate for each and every employee. So why not just go the extra step and have a consultation with the insurance company to explain what the benefits mean, what is covered, what may not be covered, how to really navigate through the insurance company and work back with them.
SOURCE: Schiavo, A. (19 October 2020) "How to bridge the health insurance knowledge gap for younger employees" (Web Blog Post). Retrieved from https://www.employeebenefitadviser.com/news/how-to-bridge-the-health-insurance-knowledge-gap-for-younger-employees
How the Supreme Court Could Rule on the Affordable Care Act
On Nov. 10, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments on whether the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is constitutional, in whole or in part. The court is expected to rule on the matter before its term ends in June 2021.
Only those justices sitting on the court when the case is heard will vote, and it is not yet known if a new Supreme Court justice will be confirmed when the case is argued. A vacancy on the nine-justice court was created by the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on Sept. 18.
In the meantime, "the health care law remains fully in effect during the litigation, including all employer coverage obligations and reporting requirements," said Chatrane Birbal, vice president of public policy at the Society for Human Resource Management.
Complex Case History
The Supreme Court's options for deciding this case are shaped by the complicated history of litigation over the ACA.
The origins of the case go back to 2012, when the court upheld the constitutionality of the ACA's penalty on individuals who lack health coverage—the so-called individual coverage mandate—as a justifiable exercise of Congress' power to tax.
In December 2017, however, President Donald Trump signed into law a tax bill that eliminated the ACA's penalty on individuals who lack health coverage. Afterward, several Republican state attorneys general, led by the state of Texas, filed a lawsuit arguing that the health care statute itself, or at least the parts of the act closely linked to the individual mandate, were no longer valid. Democratic states and the House of Representatives, led by Democrats, stepped in to defend the statute.
In December 2018, a Texas district court struck down the ACA but stayed its ruling pending appeal, concluding that the individual mandate is so connected to the law that Congress would not have passed the ACA without it.
On appeal, in Texas v. United States, a split panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals deemed that the individual mandate was unconstitutional, but the panel instructed the district court to rehear the matter and "to employ a finer-toothed comb on remand and conduct a more searching inquiry into which provisions of the ACA Congress intended to be inseverable from the mandate."
However, on March 2, 2019, before the district court could carry out the appellate court's directive, the Supreme Court announced it would hear the case in its term beginning in the fall of 2020, blocking the lower courts from taking further action.
5th Circuit Ruling Was Narrowly Focused
When the 5th Circuit instructed the district court to rehear the matter and to focus on those ACA provisions that Congress intended to be "inseverable from the individual mandate," this suggested, legal analysts said, that the appellate court was unlikely to overturn the ACA in full.
"Only the individual mandate was declared unconstitutional, and the portion of the lower court's decision invalidating the rest of the Affordable Care Act [was] vacated," according to an analysis of the appellate ruling by Segal, an HR consultancy. As a result, "plan sponsors know that the entire Affordable Care Act will not be overturned."
Had the case proceeded at the appellate level, the 5th Circuit might have struck down those parts of the law directly related to the individual mandate. The appellate decision noted, for instance, that community rating, which prevents insurers from varying premiums within a geographic area based on age, gender, health status or other factors, might be among the provisions determined to be "inseverable" from the individual mandate, because the increase in revenue to insurers from the mandate was meant to offset the decrease from these restrictions.
The ACA's guaranteed-issue provisions, which ban insurers from rejecting coverage based on a person's pre-existing conditions, might also be inseverable, the appellate decision noted.
Supreme Court's Options
The Supreme Court has the following options when it decides the case, The Washington Post and other sources have reported:
- To dismiss the case on technical grounds, leaving the statute in place. The court could decide, for instance, that Texas and the individual plaintiffs lacked standing to bring the lawsuit.
- To affirmatively uphold the ACA.
- To uphold the statute while finding the individual mandate to be void without its penalty, essentially maintaining the status quo.
- To uphold the statute but void both the individual mandate and other provisions closely linked to the mandate.
- To strike down the law in full, although that option has been viewed as unlikely by legal analysts. Should it happen, however, the effect of the ruling would likely be delayed, giving Congress the opportunity to correct the statute's constitutional defects or to pass a replacement health care law.
According to an analysis by the nonprofit Kaiser Family Foundation, "If the Supreme Court adopts the position that the federal government took during the trial court proceedings and invalidates the individual mandate as well as the protections for people with pre-existing conditions, then federal funding for premium subsidies and the Medicaid expansion would stand, and it would be up to states whether to reinstate the insurance protections."
If that were to happen, Congress also could reinstate protections for people with pre-existing conditions.
Joe Biden, the Democratic presidential nominee, has voiced his support for the ACA, sometimes referred to as Obamacare, pointing out how it safeguards people who might not otherwise qualify for coverage. His campaign website says, "Because of Obamacare, over 100 million people no longer have to worry that an insurance company will deny coverage or charge higher premiums just because they have a pre-existing condition—whether cancer or diabetes or heart disease or a mental health challenge."
President Trump has also pledged to maintain these protections even as his administration supports the lawsuit that seeks to overturn the act. During his acceptance speech for the Republican presidential nomination, Trump said, "We will always, and very strongly, protect patients with pre-existing conditions, and that is a pledge from the entire Republican Party."
In Case of a Tie Vote
"If the case is heard by the current eight justices and results in a 4-4 vote, the justices could reschedule oral argument or delay consideration until [Texas vs. United States] can be reheard by a full Court," wrote Katie Keith, a former research professor at Georgetown University's Center on Health Insurance Reforms and a contributor to the Health Affairs blog. "This might mean Texas would be reheard later in the spring depending on the timing of confirmation."
Alternatively, "the Court could issue a 4-4 ruling, which would maintain the status quo and leaves the appellate decision intact. In this instance, the 5th Circuit's ruling would stand and the case would be remanded back to the district court," she noted.
If that is the outcome, "the ACA would remain in effect while the district court undertook a provision-by-provision severability analysis," Keith noted. "The litigation would continue for years as we await a new district court decision, another appeal to the 5th Circuit, and most likely a return to the Supreme Court."
|
Thinking Ahead "Employers will be wise to give some thought to how they might react to different outcomes, Mercer, an HR consultancy, advised. "For example, if some common provisions eliminated by the ACA like annual/lifetime dollar limits on essential health benefits, ending dependent coverage at age 19/23, or the previously mentioned pre-existing condition exclusions were permitted again, would an employer reshape their plan design to curb costs? If the employer 'play-or-pay' mandate (the 30-hour rule) were struck down, would an employer move full-time eligibility back to 40 hours?" Concluded Mercer's consultants, "There is much to consider with these possible ACA changes," should they come to pass. |
SOURCE: Miller, S. (23 September 2020) "How the Supreme Court Could Rule on the Affordable Care Act" (Web Blog Post). Retrieved from https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/hr-topics/benefits/pages/how-the-supreme-court-could-rule-on-the-affordable-care-act.aspx
Health Care Nondiscrimination Notice Requirement Is Going Away
The Department of Health and Human Services' has removed requirements that employers issue non-discrimination statements to employees that will go into effect on August 18, 2020. Read this blog post to learn more.
On Aug. 18, 2020, the Department of Health and Human Services' (HHS's) finalized changes to the Affordable Care Act's Section 1557 nondiscrimination rules will take effect, removing requirements that employers issue health care nondiscrimination statements to employees and add health care nondiscrimination taglines to employee communications.
Prior to the changes under a final rule HHS published on June 19, employers had to ensure that they, along with their insurers (for fully insured plans) or third-party administrators (for self-insured plans), abided by a 2016 HHS rule requiring employer-sponsored plans to:
- Create and maintain a notice of health care nondiscrimination.
- Include it in "significant communications" along with taglines in 15 different languages advising individuals of the availability of language assistance.
- Include similar taglines for other communications but only in three different languages.
These notices are still required until Aug. 18.
"Now more than ever, Americans do not want billions of dollars in ineffective regulatory burdens raising the costs of their health care," said Roger Severino, director of the Office for Civil Rights at HHS.
Less Paperwork and Lower Costs
"The final rule eliminated the requirement to post the discrimination notice and add taglines," said John Kirk, an attorney at law firm Graydon in Cincinnati. "The final rule also eliminated the requirement that the discrimination notice and taglines be included with all significant publications sent by the organization. This change will be a significant cost and administrative timesaver for most entities."
Employers offering employee benefit plans that were subject to the prior 2016 rule "should review any notice and disclosure obligations and may begin revising their disclosures to remove the nondiscrimination statement and required taglines," Kirk advised.
"This is welcome news for employers that were required to create and maintain these complicated notices," according to compliance firm HUB International. "In the preamble to the new final rules, HHS stated that the notices were costing employers and other entities hundreds of millions to billions of dollars, but were not, in HHS's view, providing meaningful additional help to individuals."
HUB noted that "the onerous notice requirement is gone, but nondiscrimination rules still generally apply," prohibiting discrimination in health care on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, age or disability.
Overshadowed by Transgender Controversy
Most coverage of the HHS final rule focused on its controversial rollback of anti-discrimination protections based on gender identity, which overshadowed the rule's repeal of the notice and tagline provisions under the 2016 regulation.
A coalition of LGBTQ groups and health care providers are suing the Trump administration, alleging the new HHS rule conflicts with the Supreme Court's June 15 decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, Ga., which found that the prohibition against sex discrimination in the workplace under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act covers sexual orientation and gender identity.
SOURCE: Miller, S. (16 July 2020) "Health Care Nondiscrimination Notice Requirement Is Going Away" (Web Blog Post). Retrieved from https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/hr-topics/benefits/pages/health-care-nondiscrimination-notice-requirement-is-going-away.aspx
Supreme Court to Rule Next Year on the ACA's Validity
With the Affordable Care Act (ACA) being questioned on whether it is in-whole or in-part constitutional, the U.S. Supreme Court has decided to rule on this matter again. The ruling regarding the validity of the ACA is expected by June of 2021. Continue reading this blog post to learn more.
The U.S. Supreme Court will again rule on whether the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is constitutional, in whole or in part, during its term beginning this October, the court announced on March 2. A ruling is expected before the term ends in June next year.
In 2019, Congress eliminated the ACA's penalty on individuals who lack health coverage—the so-called individual mandate. In the aftermath, several Republican state attorneys general filed a lawsuit claiming the ACA itself was no longer constitutional, while Democratic states and the House of Representatives, controlled by Democrats, stepped in to defend the statute.
Back in 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the ACA's individual mandate as a justifiable exercise of Congress's power to tax. But without an existing tax penalty, ACA critics charge that the health care statute itself, or at least the parts of the act closely linked to the individual mandate, are no longer constitutionally valid.
In December 2018, a Texas district court struck down the ACA but stayed its ruling pending appeal, concluding that the individual mandate is so connected to the law that Congress would not have passed the ACA without it. On appeal, in Texas v. United States, a split panel of the 5th Circuit instructed the district court to rehear the matter and "to employ a finer-toothed comb on remand and conduct a more searching inquiry into which provisions of the ACA Congress intended to be inseverable from the individual mandate."
Now that the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case, it will not go back to the district court judge for that analysis, leaving the high court free to uphold the entire ACA, uphold the statute but void provisions linked to the individual mandate, or strike down the law in full, although that draconian option is viewed as exceedingly unlikely by legal analysts. The same five justices that upheld the ACA in 2012 remain on the court.
The health law remains fully in effect during the litigation, including all employer coverage obligations and reporting requirements.
The Supreme Court's Packed Schedule
The Supreme Court has placed five cases—including Texas v. United States—on the 2020 docket. This suggests that the hearing could be held in early or mid-October 2020, right before the 2020 election, although we may not know the oral argument schedule until later this spring or summer. In any event, a decision in Texas v. United States would not be expected until 2021 (and presumably not until June 2021).
It is worth noting that the Court will hear a separate ACA-related challenge on the final day of oral argument during its current term. On April 29, 2020, the Court will hear one hour of oral argument in the consolidated cases of Little Sisters of the Poor v. Pennsylvania and Trump v. Pennsylvania. These cases focus on the validity of two Trump-era rules that created broad exemptions to the ACA's contraceptive mandate for religious or moral reasons. And we are still waiting on a decision from the Court over whether insurers are owed more than $12 billion in unpaid risk corridor payments; oral argument was held in that challenge in December 2019 and a decision could be issued at any time.
(Health Affairs)
Lawsuit Stoked Confusion
America's Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), the insurance industry's leading lobbying group, applauded the justices' decision to hear the lawsuit. "We are confident that the Supreme Court will agree that the district court's original decision to invalidate the entire ACA was misguided and wrong," said AHIP President Matt Eyles in a statement.
Association for Community Affiliated Plans (ACAP), a group that represents more than 70 safety-net plans, noted that the lawsuit "has cast a pall of uncertainty over the future of the individual insurance market," according to ACAP CEO Margaret A. Murray.
(Fierce Healthcare)
5th Circuit Highlighted Suspect ACA Provisions
When the 5th Circuit instructed the district court to rehear the matter and to focus on those ACA provisions that Congress intended to be "inseverable from the individual mandate," this suggested, legal analysts said, that the appellate court was unlikely to overturn the ACA in full. However, the appellate court might have struck down those parts of the law directly related to the individual mandate, such as the 5:1 ratio age band, under which insurers can't charge seniors premiums more than five times what younger patients pay, and community rating, which prevents insurers from varying premiums within a geographic area based on age, gender, health status or other factors.
The increase in revenue to insurers from the individual mandate was meant to offset the decrease from these restrictions. It's unclear whether the U.S. Supreme Court will take a similar approach when it hears the case.
(SHRM Online)
SOURCE: Miller, S. (03 March 2020) "Supreme Court to Rule Next Year on the ACA's Validity" (Web Blog Post). Retrieved from https://www.shrm.org/ResourcesAndTools/hr-topics/benefits/Pages/supreme-court-to-rule-next-year-on-CAs-validity.aspx
Cadillac Tax May Finally Be Running Out of Gas
The Cadillac tax - a 40 percent tax on the most generous employer-provided health insurance plans - may be about to change. The Cadillac tax was supposed to take effect in 2018 but has been delayed twice and recently, the House voted to repeal this tax entirely. Read this blog post to learn more about this potential change.
The politics of healthcare are changing. And one of the most controversial parts of the Affordable Care Act — the so-called Cadillac tax — may be about to change with it.
The Cadillac tax is a 40% tax on the most generous employer-provided health insurance plans — those that cost more than $11,200 for an individual policy or $30,150 for family coverage. It was supposed to take effect in 2018, but Congress has delayed it twice. And the House recently voted overwhelmingly — 419-6 — to repeal it entirely. A Senate companion bill has 61 co-sponsors — more than enough to ensure passage.
The tax was always an unpopular and controversial part of the 2010 health law because the expectation was that employers would cut benefits to avoid paying the tax. But ACA backers said it was necessary to help pay for the law’s nearly $1 trillion cost and help stem the use of what was seen as potentially unnecessary care. In the ensuing years, however, public opinion has shifted decisively, as premiums and out-of-pocket costs have soared. Now the biggest health issue is not how much the nation is spending on healthcare, but how much individuals are.
“Voters deeply care about healthcare still,” said Heather Meade, a spokeswoman for the Alliance to Fight the 40, a coalition of business, labor and patient advocacy groups urging repeal of the Cadillac tax. “But it is about their own personal cost and their ability to afford healthcare.”
Stan Dorn, a senior fellow at Families USA, recently wrote in the journal Health Affairs that the backers of the ACA thought the tax was necessary to sell the law to people concerned about its price tag and to cut back on overly generous benefits that could drive up health costs. But transitions in healthcare, such as the increasing use of high-deductible plans, make that argument less compelling, he said.
“Nowadays, few observers would argue that [employer-sponsored insurance] gives most workers and their families’ excessive coverage,” he wrote.
The possibility of the tax has been “casting a statutory shadow over 180 million Americans’ health plans, which we know, from HR administrators and employee reps in real life, has added pressure to shift coverage into higher-deductible plans, which falls on the backs of working Americans,” said Rep. Joe Courtney (D-Conn.).
Support or opposition to the Cadillac tax has never broken down cleanly along party lines. For example, economists from across the ideological spectrum supported its inclusion in the ACA, and many continue to endorse it.
“If people have insurance that pays for too much, they don’t have enough skin in the game. They may be too quick to seek professional medical care. They may too easily accede when physicians recommend superfluous tests and treatments,” wrote N. Gregory Mankiw, an economics adviser in the George W. Bush administration, and Lawrence Summers, an economic aide to President Barack Obama, in a 2015 column. “Such behavior can drive national health spending beyond what is necessary and desirable.”
At the same time, however, the tax has been bitterly opposed by organized labor, a key constituency for Democrats. “Many unions have been unable to bargain for higher wages, but they have been taking more generous health benefits instead for years,” said Robert Blendon, a professor at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health who studies health and public opinion.
Now, unions say, those benefits are disappearing, with premiums, deductibles and other cost sharing rising as employers scramble to stay under the threshold for the impending tax. “Employers are using the tax as justification to shift more costs to employees, raising costs for workers and their families,” said a letter to members of Congress from the Service Employees International Union.
Deductibles have been rising for a number of reasons, the possibility of the tax among them. According to a 2018 survey by the federal government’s National Center for Health Statistics, nearly half of Americans under age 65 (47%) had high-deductible health plans. Those are plans that have deductibles of at least $1,350 for individual coverage or $2,700 for family coverage.
It’s not yet clear if the Senate will take up the House-passed bill, or one like it.
The senators leading the charge in that chamber — Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) and Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.) — have already written to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to urge him to bring the bill to the floor following the House’s overwhelming vote.
“At a time when healthcare expenses continue to go up, and Congress remains divided on many issues, the repeal of the Cadillac tax is something that has true bipartisan support,” the letter said.
Still, there is opposition. A letter to the Senate on July 29 from economists and other health experts argued that the tax “will help curtail the growth of private health insurance premiums by encouraging employers to limit the costs of plans to the tax-free amount.” The letter also pointed out that repealing the tax “would add directly to the federal budget deficit, an estimated $197 billion over the next decade, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation.”
Still, if McConnell does bring the bill up, there is little doubt it would pass, despite support for the tax from economists and budget watchdogs.
“When employers and employees agree in lockstep that they hate it, there are not enough economists out there to outvote them,” said former Senate GOP aide Rodney Whitlock, now a healthcare consultant.
Harvard professor Blendon agrees. “Voters are saying, ‘We want you to lower our health costs,’” he said. The Cadillac tax, at least for those affected by it, would do the opposite.
SOURCE: Rovner, J. ( 19 August, 2019) "Cadillac tax may finally be running out of gas" (Web Blog Post). Retrieved from https://www.employeebenefitadviser.com/articles/obamacare-excise-tax-may-be-at-an-end
PCORI Fee Is Due by July 31 for Self-Insured Health Plans
The annual fee for the federal Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) is due July 31, 2019. Plans with terms ending after September 30, 2012, and before October 1, 2019, are required to pay an annual PCORI fee. Read this article from SHRM to learn more.
An earlier version of this article was posted on November 6, 2018
The next annual fee that sponsors of self-insured health plans must pay to fund the federal Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) is due July 31, 2019.
The Affordable Care Act mandated payment of an annual PCORI fee by plans with terms ending after Sept. 30, 2012, and before Oct. 1, 2019, to provide initial funding for the Washington, D.C.-based institute, which funds research on the comparative effectiveness of medical treatments. Self-insured plans pay the fee themselves, while insurance companies pay the fee for fully insured plans but may pass the cost along to employers through higher premiums.
The IRS treats the fee like an excise tax.
The PCORI fee is due by the July 31 following the last day of the plan year. The final PCORI payment for sponsors of 2018 calendar-year plans is due by July 31, 2019. The final PCORI fee for plan years ending from Jan. 1, 2019 to Sept. 30, 2019, will be due by July 31, 2020.
In Notice 2018-85, the IRS set the amount used to calculate the PCORI fee at $2.45 per person covered by plan years ending Oct. 1, 2018, through Sept. 30, 2019.
The chart below shows the fees to be paid in 2019, which are slightly higher than the fees owed in 2018. The per-enrollee amount depends on when the plan year ended, as in previous years.
| Fee per Plan Enrollee for Payment Due July 31, 2019 |
|
| Plan years ending from Oct. 1, 2018, through Sept. 30, 2019. | $2.45 |
| Fee per Plan Enrollee for Payment Due July 31, 2018 |
|
| Plan years ending from Oct. 1, 2017, through Dec. 31, 2017, including calendar-year plans. | $2.39 |
| Plan years ending from Jan. 1, 2017, through Sept. 30, 2017 | $2.26 |
| Source: IRS. |
Nearing the End
The PCORI fee will not be assessed for plan years ending after Sept. 30, 2019, "which means that for a calendar-year plan, the last year for assessment is the 2018 calendar year," wrote Richard Stover, a New York City-based principal at HR consultancy Buck Global, and Amy Dunn, a principal in Buck's Knowledge Resource Center.
For noncalendar-year plans that end between Jan. 1, 2019 and Sept. 30, 3019, however, there will be one last PCORI payment due by July 31, 2020.
"There will not be any PCORI fee for plan years that end on October 1, 2019 or later," according to 360 Corporate Benefit Advisors.
The PCORI fee was first assessed for plan years ending after Sept. 30, 2012. The fee for the first plan year was $1 per plan enrollee, which increased to $2 per enrollee in the second year and was then indexed in subsequent years based on the increase in national health expenditures.
FSAs and HRAs
In addition to self-insured medical plans, health flexible spending accounts (health FSAs) and health reimbursement arrangements (HRAs) that fail to qualify as “excepted benefits” would be required to pay the per-enrollee fee, wrote Gary Kushner, president and CEO of Kushner & Co., a benefits advisory firm based in Portage, Mich.
As set forth in the Department of Labor's Technical Release 2013-03:
- A health FSA is an excepted benefit if the employer does not contribute more than $500 a year to any employee accounts and also offers a group health plan with nonexcepted benefits.
- An HRA is an excepted benefit if it only reimburses for limited-scope dental and vision expenses or long-term care coverage and is not integrated with a group health plan.
Kushner explained that:
- If the employer sponsors a fully insured group health plan for which the insurance carrier is filing and paying the PCORI fee and the same employer sponsors an employer-funded health care FSA or an HRA not exempted from the fee, employers should only count the employees participating in the FSA or HRA, and not spouses or dependents, when paying the fee.
- If the employer sponsors a self-funded group health plan, then the employer needs to file the form and pay the PCORI fee only on the number of individuals enrolled in the group health plan, and not in the employer-funded health care FSA or HRA.
An employer that sponsors a self-insured HRA along with a fully insured medical plan "must pay PCORI fees based on the number of employees (dependents are not included in this count) participating in the HRA, while the insurer pays the PCORI fee on the individuals (including dependents) covered under the insured plan," wrote Mark Holloway, senior vice president and director of compliance services at Lockton Companies, a benefits broker and services firm based in Kansas City, Mo. Where an employer maintains an HRA along with a self-funded medical plan and both have the same plan year, "the employer pays a single PCORI fee based on the number of covered lives in the self-funded medical plan (the HRA is disregarded)."
Paying PCORI Fees
Self-insured employers are responsible for submitting the fee and accompanying paperwork to the IRS, as "third-party reporting and payment of the fee is not permitted for self-funded plans," Holloway noted.
For the coming year, self-insured health plan sponsors should use Form 720 for the second calendar quarter to report and pay the PCORI fee by July 31, 2019.
"On p. 2 of Form 720, under Part II, the employer needs to designate the average number of covered lives under its applicable self-insured plan," Holloway explained. The number of covered lives will be multiplied by $2.45 for plan years ending on or after Oct. 1, 2018, to determine the total fee owed to the IRS next July.
To calculate "the average number of lives covered" or plan enrollees, employers should use one of three methods listed on pages 8 and 9 of the Instructions for Form 720. A white paper by Keller Benefit Services describes these methods in greater detail.
Although the fee is paid annually, employers should indicate on the Payment Voucher (720-V), located at the end of Form 720, that the tax period for the fee is the second quarter of the year. "Failure to properly designate 'second quarter' on the voucher will result in the IRS's software generating a tardy filing notice, with all the incumbent aggravation on the employer to correct the matter with the IRS," Holloway warned.
A few other points to keep in mind: "The U.S. Department of Labor believes the fee cannot be paid from plan assets," he said. In other words, for self-insured health plans, "the PCORI fee must be paid by the plan sponsor. It is not a permissible expense of a self-funded plan and cannot be paid in whole or part by participant contributions."
In addition, PCORI fees "should not be included in the plan's cost when computing the plan's COBRA premium," Holloway noted. But "the IRS has indicated the fee is, however, a tax-deductible business expense for employers with self-funded plans," he added, citing a May 2013 IRS memorandum.
SOURCE: Miller, S. (2 July 2019) "PCORI Fee Is Due by July 31 for Self-Insured Health Plans" (Web Blog Post). Retrieved from https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/hr-topics/benefits/pages/2019-pcori-fees.aspx
Developing guidance could free employers from ACA mandate
A future path for employers to avoid ACA employer mandate penalties was outlined in a recent IRS notice. Read this blog post from Employee Benefits News to learn more.
A recent IRS notice provides a future path for employers to avoid ACA employer mandate penalties by reimbursing employees for a portion of the cost of individual insurance coverage through an employer-sponsored health reimbursement arrangement.
While the notice is not binding and at this stage is essentially a discussion of relevant issues, it does represent a significant departure from the IRS’s current position that an employer can only avoid ACA employer mandate penalties by offering a major medical plan.
Here is everything employers need to know.
Background: As described in more detail in a previous update, the ACA currently prohibits (except in limited circumstances) an employer from maintaining an HRA that reimburses the cost of premiums for individual health insurance policies purchased by employees in the individual market.
Proposed regulations issued by the IRS and other governmental agencies would eliminate this prohibition, allowing an HRA to reimburse the cost of premiums for individual health insurance policies (individual coverage HRA) provided that the employer satisfies certain conditions.
The preamble of the proposed regulations noted that the IRS would issue future guidance describing special rules that would permit employers who sponsor individual coverage HRAs to be in full compliance with the ACA’s employer mandate. As follow up, the IRS recently issued Notice 2018-88, which is intended to begin the process of developing guidance on this issue.
On a high level, the ACA’s employer mandate imposes two requirements in order to avoid potential tax penalties: offer health coverage to at least 95% of full-time employees (and dependents); and offer “affordable” health coverage that provides “minimum value” to each full-time employee (the terms are defined by the ACA and are discussed further in these previous updates).
Offering health coverage to at least 95% of full-time employees: Both the proposed regulations and notice provide that an individual coverage HRA plan constitutes an employer-sponsored health plan for employer mandate purposes. As a result, the proposed regulations and notice provide that an employer can satisfy the 95% offer-of-coverage test by making its full-time employees (and dependents) eligible for the individual coverage HRA plan.
Affordability: The notice indicates that an employer can satisfy the affordability requirement if the employer contributes a sufficient amount of funds into each full-time employee’s individual coverage HRA account. Generally, the employer would have to contribute an amount into each individual coverage HRA account such that any remaining premium costs (for self-only coverage) that would have to be paid by the employee (after exhausting HRA funds) would not exceed 9.86% (for 2019, as adjusted) of the employee’s household income.
Because employers are not likely to know the household income of their employees, the notice describes that employers would be able to apply the already-available affordability safe harbors to determine affordability as it relates to individual coverage HRAs. The notice also describes new safe harbors for employers that are specific to individual coverage HRAs, intending to further reduce administrative burdens.
Minimum value requirement: The notice explains that an individual coverage HRA that is affordable will be treated as providing minimum value for employer mandate purposes.
Next steps: Nothing is finalized yet. Employers are not permitted to rely on the proposed regulations or the notice at this time. The proposed regulations are aimed to take effect on Jan. 1, 2020, if finalized in a timely matter. The final regulations will likely incorporate the special rules contemplated by the notice (perhaps with even more detail). Stay tuned.
This article originally appeared on the Foley & Lardner website. The information in this legal alert is for educational purposes only and should not be taken as specific legal advice.
SOURCE: Simons, J.; Welle, N. (17 January 2019) "Developing guidance could free employers from ACA mandate" (Web Blog Post). Retrieved from https://www.benefitnews.com/opinion/developing-guidance-could-free-employers-from-aca-mandate?brief=00000152-14a5-d1cc-a5fa-7cff48fe0001
Compliance: Yearly Deadlines for Health Plans
Do you offer group health plans coverage to your employees? Employers that provide coverage are subject to multiple compliance requirements throughout the year. Certain requirements have been around for many years, while others have been recently added by the Affordable Care Act (ACA).
Continue reading for a summary of the many compliance requirements and their associated deadlines that health plan providers should be aware of throughout the year. Certain deadlines for non-calendar year plans may vary from what is outlined in this summary. This summary only covers recurring calendar year compliance deadlines. Other requirements that are not based on the calendar year are not included below.
January
| Deadline | Requirement | Description |
|
January 31 |
Form W-2 | Deadline for providing Forms W-2 to employees. The ACA requires employers to report the aggregate cost of employer-sponsored group health plan coverage on their employees’ Forms W-2. The purpose is to provide employees with information on how much their health coverage costs. Certain types of coverage are not required to be reported on Form W-2.
This Form W-2 reporting requirement is currently optional for small employers (those who file fewer than 250 Forms W-2). Employers that file 250 or more Forms W-2 are required to comply with the ACA’s reporting requirement. |
| January 31 | Form 1095-C or Form 1095-B—Annual Statement to Individuals | Applicable large employers (ALEs) subject to the ACA’s employer shared responsibility rules must furnish Form 1095-C (Section 6056 statements) annually to their full-time employees. Employers with self-insured health plans that are not ALEs must furnish Form 1095-B (Section 6055 statements) annually to covered employees.
The Forms 1095-B and 1095-C are due on or before Jan. 31 of the year immediately following the calendar year to which the statements relate. Extensions may be available in certain limited circumstances. However, an alternate deadline generally is not available for ALEs that sponsor non-calendar year plans.
Update: The IRS extended the deadline for furnishing the 2018 employee statements, from Jan. 31, 2019, to March 4, 2019. |
February
| Deadline | Requirement | Description |
|
February 28 (March 31, if filing electronically) |
Section 6055 and 6056 Reporting | Under Section 6056, ALEs subject to the ACA’s employer shared responsibility rules are required to report information to the IRS about the health coverage they offer (or do not offer) to their full-time employees. ALEs must file Form 1094-C and Form 1095-C with the IRS annually.
Under Section 6055, self-insured plan sponsors are required to report information about the health coverage they provided during the year. Self-insured plan sponsors must generally file Form 1094-B and Form 1095-B with the IRS annually. ALEs that sponsor self-insured plans are required to report information to the IRS under Section 6055 about health coverage provided, as well as information under Section 6056 about offers of health coverage. ALEs that sponsor self-insured plans will generally use a combined reporting method on Form 1094-C and Form 1095-C to report information under both Sections 6055 and 6056. All forms must be filed with the IRS annually, no later than Feb. 28 (March 31, if filed electronically) of the year following the calendar year to which the return relates. Reporting entities that are filing 250 or more returns must file electronically. There is no alternate filing date for employers with non-calendar year plans. |
March
| Deadline | Requirement | Description |
|
March 1 (calendar year plans) |
Medicare Part D Disclosure to CMS | Group health plan sponsors that provide prescription drug coverage to Medicare Part D eligible individuals must disclose to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) whether prescription drug coverage is creditable or not. In general, a plan’s prescription drug coverage is considered creditable if its actuarial value equals or exceeds the actuarial value of the Medicare Part D prescription drug coverage. Disclosure is due:
Plan sponsors must use the online disclosure form on the CMS Creditable Coverage webpage. |
July
| Deadline | Requirement | Description |
|
July 31 |
PCORI Fee | Deadline for filing IRS Form 720 and paying Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) fees for the previous year. For insured health plans, the issuer of the health insurance policy is responsible for the PCORI fee payment. For self-insured plans, the PCORI fee is paid by the plan sponsor.
The PCORI fees are temporary—the fees do not apply to plan years ending on or after Oct. 1, 2019. This means that, for calendar year plans, the PCORI fees do not apply for the 2019 plan year. |
|
July 31 |
Form 5500 | Plan administrators of ERISA employee benefit plans must file Form 5500 by the last day of the seventh month following the end of the plan year, unless an extension has been granted. Form 5500 reports information on a plan’s financial condition, investments and operations. Form 5558 is used to apply for an extension of two and one-half months to file Form 5500.
Small health plans (fewer than 100 participants) that are fully insured, unfunded or a combination of insured/unfunded, are generally exempt from the Form 5500 filing requirement. The Department of Labor’s (DOL) website and the latest Form 5500 instructions provide information on who is required to file and detailed information on filing. |
September
| Deadline | Requirement | Description |
|
September 30 |
Medical Loss Ratio (MLR) Rebates | The deadline for issuers to pay medical loss ratio (MLR) rebates for the 2014 reporting year and beyond is Sept. 30. The ACA requires health insurance issuers to spend at least 80 to 85 percent of their premiums on health care claims and health care quality improvement activities. Issuers that do not meet the applicable MLR percentage must pay rebates to consumers.
Also, if the rebate is a “plan asset” under ERISA, the rebate should, as a general rule, be used within three months of when it is received by the plan sponsor. Thus, employers who decide to distribute the rebate to participants should make the distributions within this three-month time limit. |
|
September 30 |
Summary Annual Report | Plan administrators must automatically provide participants with the summary annual report (SAR) within nine months after the end of the plan year, or two months after the due date for filing Form 5500 (with approved extension).
Plans that are exempt from the annual 5500 filing requirement are not required to provide an SAR. Large, completely unfunded health plans are also generally exempt from the SAR requirement. |
October
| Deadline | Requirement | Description |
|
October 15 |
Medicare Part D – Creditable Coverage Notices | Group health plan sponsors that provide prescription drug coverage to Medicare Part D eligible individuals must disclose whether the prescription drug coverage is creditable or not. Medicare Part D creditable coverage disclosure notices must be provided to participants before the start of the annual coordinated election period, which runs from Oct. 15-Dec. 7 of each year. Coverage is creditable if the actuarial value of the coverage equals or exceeds the actuarial value of coverage under Medicare Part D. This disclosure notice helps participants make informed and timely enrollment decisions.
Disclosure notices must be provided to all Part D eligible individuals who are covered under, or apply for, the plan’s prescription drug coverage, regardless of whether the prescription drug coverage is primary or secondary to Medicare Part D. Model disclosure notices are available on CMS’ website. |
Annual Notices
| Type of Notice | Description |
| WHCRA Notice | The Women’s Health and Cancer Rights Act (WHCRA) requires group health plans that provide medical and surgical benefits for mastectomies to also provide benefits for reconstructive surgery. Group health plans must provide a notice about the WHCRA’s coverage requirements at the time of enrollment and on an annual basis after enrollment. The initial enrollment notice requirement can be satisfied by including the information on WHCRA’s coverage requirements in the plan’s summary plan description (SPD). The annual WHCRA notice can be provided at any time during the year. Employers with open enrollment periods often include the annual notice with their open enrollment materials. Employers that redistribute their SPDs each year can satisfy the annual notice requirement by including the WHCRA notice in their SPDs.
Model language is available in the DOL’s compliance assistance guide. |
| CHIP Notice | If an employer’s group health plan covers residents in a state that provides a premium subsidy under a Medicaid plan or CHIP, the employer must send an annual notice about the available assistance to all employees residing in that state. the annual CHIP notice can be provided at any time during the year. Employers with annual enrollment periods often provide CHIP notice with their open enrollment materials.
The DOL has a model notice that employers may use. |
| Group health plans and health insurance issuers are required to provide an SBC to applicants and enrollees each year at open enrollment or renewal time. The purpose of the SBC is to allow individuals to easily compare their options when they are shopping for or enrolling in health plan coverage. Federal agencies have provided a template for the SBC, which health plans and issuers are required to use.
The issuer for fully insured plans usually prepares the SBC. If the issuer prepares the SBC, an employer is not also required to prepare an SBC for the health plan, although the employer may need to distribute the SBC prepared by the issuer. The SBC must be included in open enrollment materials. If renewal is automatic, the SBC must be provided no later than 30 days prior to the first day of the new plan year. However, for insured plans, if the new policy has not yet been issued 30 days prior to the beginning of the plan year, the SBC must be provided as soon as practicable, but no later than seven business days after the issuance of the policy. |
|
| Grandfathered Plan Notice | To maintain a plan’s grandfathered status, the plan sponsor or must include a statement of the plan’s grandfathered status in plan materials provided to participants describing the plan’s benefits (such as the summary plan description, insurance certificate and open enrollment materials). The DOL has provided a model notice for grandfathered plans. This notice only applies to plans that have grandfathered status under the ACA. |
| Notice of Patient Protections | If a non-grandfathered plan requires participants to designate a participating primary care provider, the plan or issuer must provide a notice of patient protections whenever the SPD or similar description of benefits is provided to a participant. This notice is often included in the SPD or insurance certificate provided by the issuer (or otherwise provided with enrollment materials).
The DOL provided a model notice of patient protections for plans and issuers to use. |
| HIPAA Privacy Notice | The HIPAA Privacy Rule requires self-insured health plans to maintain and provide their own privacy notices. Special rules, however, apply for fully insured plans. Under these rules, the health insurance issuer, and not the health plan itself, is primarily responsible for the privacy notice.
Self-insured health plans are required to send the privacy notice at certain times, including to new enrollees at the time of enrollment. Thus, the privacy notice should be provided with the plan’s open enrollment materials. Also, at least once every three years, health plans must either redistribute the privacy notice or notify participants that the privacy notice is available and explain how to obtain a copy. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has model Privacy Notices for health plans to choose from. |
| HIPAA Special Enrollment Notice | At or prior to the time of enrollment, a group health plan must provide each eligible employee with a notice of his or her special enrollment rights under HIPAA. This notice should be included with the plan’s enrollment materials. It is often included in the health plan’s SPD or insurance booklet. Model language is available in the DOL’s compliance assistance guide. |
| Wellness Notice HIPAA | Employers with health-contingent wellness programs must provide a notice that informs employees that there is an alternative way to qualify for the program’s reward. This notice must be included in all plan materials that describe the terms of the wellness program. If wellness program materials are being distributed at open enrollment (or renewal time), this notice should be included with those materials. Sample language is available in the DOL’s compliance assistance guide. |
| Wellness Notice ADA | To comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), wellness plans that collect health information or involve medical exams must provide a notice to employees that explains how the information will be used, collected and kept confidential. Employees must receive this notice before providing any health information and with enough time to decide whether to participate in the program. Employers that are implementing a wellness program for the upcoming plan year should include this notice in their open enrollment materials. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has provided a sample notice for employers to use. |
Resources: https://www.ada.gov/; https://www.dol.gov/; https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-professionals/privacy/guidance/model-notices-privacy-practices/index.html; https://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Prescription-Drug-Coverage/CreditableCoverage/Model-Notice-Letters.html; https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/retirement-plan-participant-notices-when-the-end-of-the-plan-year-has-passed; https://www.cms.gov/cciio/programs-and-initiatives/health-insurance-market-reforms/medical-loss-ratio.html; https://www.dol.gov/sites/default/files/ebsa/about-ebsa/our-activities/resource-center/publications/compliance-assistance-guide.pdf; https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ebsa/laws-and-regulations/laws/affordable-care-act/for-employers-and-advisers/preexisting-condition-exclusions; https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ebsa/laws-and-regulations/laws/affordable-care-act/for-employers-and-advisers/summary-of-benefits; https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ebsa/laws-and-regulations/laws/chipra/working-group; https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ebsa/laws-and-regulations/laws/whcra; https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ebsa/employers-and-advisers/plan-administration-and-compliance/reporting-and-filing/forms; https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/patient-centered-outcomes-research-institute-fee; https://www.irs.gov/affordable-care-act/individuals-and-families/form-1095-b-what-you-need-to-do-with-this-form; https://www.irs.gov/affordable-care-act/individuals-and-families/form-1095-c-what-you-need-to-do-with-this-form; https://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Prescription-Drug-Coverage/CreditableCoverage/index.html?redirect=/CreditableCoverage/; https://www.irs.gov/affordable-care-act/questions-and-answers-on-information-reporting-by-health-coverage-providers-section-6055; https://www.irs.gov/affordable-care-act/employers/questions-and-answers-on-reporting-of-offers-of-health-insurance-coverage-by-employers-section-6056; https://www.irs.gov/forms-pubs/about-form-w-2;
2019: A Look Forward
A number of significant changes to group health plans have been made since the Affordable Care Act (ACA) was enacted in 2010. Many of these changes became effective in 2014 and 2015 but certain changes to a few ACA requirements take effect in 2019.
Changes for 2019
- Cost-sharing Limits – Non-grandfathered plans are subject to limitations on cost sharing for essential health benefits (EHB). The annual limits on cost sharing for EHB are $7,900 for self-only coverage and $15,800 for family coverage, effective January 1, 2019.
- Health plans with more than one service provider can divide maximums between EBH as long as the combined amount does not exceed the out-of-pocket maximum limit for the year.
- Beginning in 2016, each individual – regardless of the coverage the individual is enrolled – is subject to the self-only annual limit on cost sharing.
- The ACA’s annual cost-sharing limits are higher than high deductible health plans (HDHPs) out-of-pocket maximums. For plans to qualify as an HDHP, the plan must comply with HDHP’s lower out-of-pocket maximums. The HDHP out-of-pocket maximum for 2019 is $6,750 for self-only coverage and $13,500 for family coverage.
- Coverage Affordability Percentages – If an employee’s required contribution does not exceed 9.5 percent of their household income for the taxable year (adjusted each year), then the coverage is considered affordable. The adjusted percentage for 2019 is 9.86 percent.
- Reporting of Coverage – Returns for health plan coverage offered or provided in 2018 are due in early 2019. For 2018, returns must be filed by February 28, 2019, or April 1, 2019 (if electronically filed). Individual statements must be provided by January 31, 2019.
- ALEs are required to report information to the IRS and their eligible employees regarding their employer-sponsored health coverage. This requirement is found in Section 6056. Reporting entities will generally file Forms 1094-B and 1095-B under this section.
- Every health insurance issuer, self-insured health plan sponsor, government agency that provides government-sponsored health insurance, and any other entity that provides MEC is required to finalize an annual return with the IRS, reporting information for each individual who is enrolled. This requirement is found in Section 6055. Reporting entities will generally file Forms 1094-C and 1095-C under this section.
- ALEs that provide self-funded plans must comply with both reporting requirements. Reporting entities will file using a combined reporting method on Forms 1094-C and 1095-C.
- Forms Used for Reporting – Reporting entities must file the following with the IRS:
- A separate statement for each individual enrolled
- A transmittal form for all returns filed for a given calendar year.
- Electronic Reporting – Any reporting entity that is required to file 250 or more returns in either section must file electronically on the ACA Information Returns (AIR) Program. Reporting entities that file less than 250 returns can file in paper form or electronically on the ACA Information Returns (AIR) Program.
- Penalties – Entities that fail to comply with the reporting requirements are subject to general reporting penalties for failure to file correct information returns and failure to furnish correct payee statements. Penalty amounts for failure to comply with the reporting requirements in 2019 are listed below:
| Penalty Type | Per Violation | Annual Maximum | Annual Maximum for Employers with up to $5 million in Gross Receipts |
| General | $270 | $3,275,500 | $1,091,500 |
| Corrected within 30 days | $50 | $545,500 | $191,000 |
| Corrected after 30 days but before August 1 | $100 | $1,637,500 | $545,500 |
| Intentional Disregard | $540* | None | N/A |
**Intentional disregard penalties are equal to the greater of either the listed penalty amount or 10 percent of the aggregate amount of the items required to be reported correctly.
Expected Changes
- Health FSA Contributions – Effective January 1, 2018, health FSA salary contributions were limited to $2,650. The IRS usually announces limit adjustments at the end of each year. This limit does not apply to employer contributions or limit contributions under other employer-provided coverage.
- Employer Shared Responsibility Regulations – The dollar amount for calculating Employer Shared Responsibility 2 penalties is adjusted for each calendar year. Applicable large employers (ALEs) must offer affordable, minimum value (MV) healthcare coverage to full-time employees and dependent children or pay a penalty. If one or more full-time employees of an ALE receive a subsidy for purchasing healthcare coverage through an Exchange, the ALE is subject to penalties.
- Applicable Large Employer Status – ALEs are employers who employ 50 or more full-time employees on business days during the prior calendar year.
- Offering Coverage to Full-time Employees – ALEs must determine which employees are full-time. A full-time employee is defined as an employee who worked, on average, at least 30 hours per week or 130 hours in a calendar month. There are two methods for determining full-time employee status:
- Monthly Measurement Method – Full-time employees are identified based on a month-to-month analysis of the hours they worked.
- Look-Back Measurement Method – This method is based on whether employees are ongoing or new, and whether they work full time or variable, seasonal or part-time. This method involves three different periods:
- Measurement period – for county hours of service
- Administration period – for enrollment and disenrollment of eligible and ineligible employees
- Stability period – when coverage is provided based on an employee’s average hours worked.
- Applicable Penalties – ALEs are liable for penalties if one or more full-time employees receive subsidies for purchasing healthcare coverage through an Exchange. One of two penalties may apply depending on the circumstances:
- 4980H(a) penalty – Penalty for not offering coverage to all full-time employees and their dependents. This penalty does not apply if the ALE intends to cover all eligible employees. ALEs must offer at least 95 percent of their eligible employees’ health care coverage. Monthly penalties are determined by this equation:
- ALE’s number of full-time employees (minus 30) X 1/12 of $2,000 (as adjusted), for any applicable month
- The $2,000amount is adjusted for the calendar year after 2014:
- $2,080 – 2015; $2,160 – 2016; $2,260 – 2017; $2,320 – 2018
- 4980H(b) penalty – penalty for offering coverage – ALEs are subject to penalties even if they offer coverage to eligible employees if one or more full-time employees obtain subsidies through an Exchange because:
- The ALE didn’t offer all eligible employees coverage
- The coverage offered is unaffordable or does not provide minimum value.
- Monthly penalties are determined by this equation: 1/12 of $3,000 (as adjusted) for any applicable month
- $3,120 – 2015; $3,240 – 2016; $3,390 – 2017; $3,480 – 2018
- 4980H(a) penalty – Penalty for not offering coverage to all full-time employees and their dependents. This penalty does not apply if the ALE intends to cover all eligible employees. ALEs must offer at least 95 percent of their eligible employees’ health care coverage. Monthly penalties are determined by this equation:
Contact one of our advisors for assistance or if you have any questions about compliance in the New Year.
SOURCES: www.dol.gov, www. HHS.gov, https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/04/17/2018-07355/patient-protectionand-affordable-care-act-hhs-notice-of-benefit-and-payment-parameters-for-2019, https://www.irs.gov/e-fileproviders/air/affordable-care-act-information-return-air-program