Leadership and Employee Engagement
By: Peter Freska
I recently climbed Mount Everest! Well, in actuality it was a simulation put together in partnership with Harvard Business School Publishing that I completed with a team. As the outline reads:
“You and four other team members will attempt to summit Mount Everest in this collaborative multi-player simulation. There are five camps or checkpoints along the route to the Summit (top) of Mt. Everest. At each camp, team members analyze information on weather, health conditions, supplies, goals, or hiking speed, and determine how much of that information to communicate to their teammates.”
Now, it is not likely that most of us will ever climb Mount Everest - but that is one of the compelling pieces to this simulation. How many of us will be put into a situation where the decisions of those around us could have life or death consequences? Or more importantly, how many of us might be put in a leadership position with life or death consequences. From squad leader to general, our military leaders understand this position and so does someone that has led a Mount Everest summit. But what about the rest of us? How do we learn to be great leaders? What are the qualities of a great leader?
There are so many questions and so many people with answers. Several years ago I attended a luncheon with keynote speaker, the late-great General Norman Schwarzkopf (Ret.). He explained that with all his military career achievements, he cannot pinpoint the one characteristic that makes a great leader. However, he did say that, “When in charge, take charge.”
In today’s work environment, we have unprecedented opportunity that comes with responsibility. We grew up with our parents and grandparents telling us that we need to carve out our piece of the world. What they didn’t tell us is that we need to know when to change course. Peter Drucker wrote in his article, Managing Oneself (Harvard Business Review, Best of HBR 1999), that, “Success in the knowledge economy comes to those who know themselves – their strengths, their values and how best they perform.” Drucker also outlined the following questions to be answered of oneself:
1. “What are my strengths?”
2. “How do I work?”
3. “What are my values?”
4. “Where do I belong?”
5. “What can I contribute?”
So, what does all of this have to do with employee benefits? PPACA, HIPAA, ERISA and a host of other acronyms flood the over stimulated world we live in. But what are the things that really matter? Credibility of a leader starts with being honest, forward-looking, inspiring, competent, and intelligent (Credibility, Kouzes and Posner, 2011). These are the things that matter. And unless these characteristics are established at the leadership level, employees will not be engaged. My partner, Holly Parsons, wrote in a previous blog that many employees do not feel connected and a recent study found that “only 29% of employees are fully engaged.” How does this affect productivity? To be direct, lack of engagement ruins productivity. This holds true with employee benefits. If they do not see the value, then there is no benefit. If the leadership team views benefits as a necessary evil, or as purely an expense – well, then I would refer them back to the five questions that Peter Drucker asked. I would also direct them to Kouzes and Posner’s book, Credibility. It starts at the top, and in today’s world it also starts with each of us – for leadership is a lifelong process.
As for my Mount Everest experience, it was great! We learned about ourselves, our communication styles and team dynamics. And yes, my Team was the only team that made it to the summit - all together as a “real team.”
Cheat Sheet: What employers need to know about the Affordable Care Act
Source: https://www.insidecounsel.com
By: Alanna Byrne, Mary Swanton
President Obama’s Election Day victory ends, or at least postpones, Republican promises to overhaul or repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), a hallmark piece of legislation from the president’s first term. This means that, starting on Jan. 1, 2014, employers with more than 50 full-time equivalent employees must either provide health care coverage for their workers or pay a penalty.
In the November feature “Pay or Play,” InsideCounsel provides a look at the key factors that companies should consider when deciding whether to comply with the law—or face a stiff fine for failing to do so.
Does the size of a business matter?
The PPACA applies to all companies with more than 50-full time employees. Employers can choose not to provide coverage, but will pay $2,000 for every worker they do not insure, excluding the first 30 employees.
A General Accounting Office review of several studies on the subject found that larger employers are less likely to drop health care coverage when the new reforms take effect, largely to remain competitive in attracting the best employees. Smaller companies with less than 100 workers, on the other hand, could face a disadvantage on the health care market, as they often can’t get the same deals on insurance as their larger counterparts, so paying the penalty may make sense to them.
How are part-time and full-time workers affected?
Currently, many employers offer benefits only to full-time employees, generally defined as those working 35 or more hours a week. The PPACA, however, has lowered the standard for full-time employment from 35 to 30 hours, leaving companies that rely on part-time employees with a difficult choice to make.
“The problem arises when you have a workforce where your criteria [for receiving health benefits] was 35 hours per week, and now the threshold is 30,” says Patricia Cain, a partner at Neal, Gerber & Eisenberg. “If you have a lot of employees working 30-plus hours but less than 35, your choices are to cut them back to under 30 hours, pay the penalty tax or offer coverage.”
What industries will be most affected by the new reforms?
Unsurprisingly, the hardest-hit industries are likely to be those that have not provided health coverage—or have provided very minimal insurance—to workers in the past, while offering insurance to executives. These include restaurant chains, retail outlets and other businesses in the service sector. A nondiscrimination clause in the PPACA now requires that companies provide the same coverage to all employees at all levels, or face a $3,000 per employee penalty.
Complicating matters for these businesses, the coverage they offer must be affordable, which is defined as coverage that does not cost more than 9.5 percent of an employee’s yearly W-2 wages. “To get out of all penalties, you have to offer [coverage] at 9.5 percent of household income. That’s a pretty low threshold for servers or shift cooks,” says BakerHostetler Partner John McGowan. “The business will incur some meaningful costs it doesn’t have in the budget right now.”
Are there hidden costs?
Ideally, the health care reforms will reduce health care costs by providing affordable preventative care and putting new regulations on health care providers. But the future of health care costs remains murky, and if they continue to rise after 2014, employers may be more likely to drop coverage.
“[The PPACA] mandates certain types of coverage be provided and mandates preventative coverage be provided at no cost, all of which are good for employees. But it doesn’t appear to take an aggressive stand toward lowering costs, and that’s what troubles employers,” says Littler Mendelson Shareholder Steve Friedman.
What role will state-run health care exchanges play?
The PPACA requires everyone to have health insurance, meaning that those employees who don’t receive it from their companies likely will have to seek it on state-run health care exchanges. But officials in some states have signaled their unwillingness to establish and oversee these exchanges, leaving the task to the federal government. And even if states do implement exchanges, some employers, particularly those operating in multiple states, are concerned about the quality and consistency of the programs.
“The big unknown is whether the exchanges will be a viable alternative to employer coverage,” says Michael Tomasek, a partner at Freeborn & Peters. “How good will the quality be? Will they function well? Will they be administered well? We just don’t know that yet. Until we know what the alternative to employer coverage is, it’s impossible for employers to make a rational choice about pay or play.”
Senior Worries
A new report by the Employee Benefit Research Institute (EBRI) finds that a retired couple aged 65 might need $387,000 to cover medical expenses for the remainder of their lives. With Medicare covering only 59 percent of health care costs for seniors, retirees should expect to pay an even larger share in the future because of looming Medicare cutbacks and reductions to employer-sponsored retiree benefits, the EBRI report said.
Training Trends
HR professionals can expect some new training trends to emerge in the new year, according to AMA Enterprise. The group expects executives to demand more transparency from training programs and predicts a higher demand for basic-skills training. Also, companies will turn to training to help boost employee loyalty and morale, the group said.
Five trends in wellness incentives for 2013
Five trends in wellness incentives for 2013
Employers want return of investment for their wellness programs. They want to know what incentive dollars are really being used for. Here are five trends to look for in wellness incentives in 2013.
1. Personalization of incentives
The idea of incentivizing people to participate in wellness programs is one of the few to be embraced with equal enthusiasm across the board.
While the concept held enough innovation and promise to spur health plans and employers to spend over $60 billion last year to motivate consumers to engage in health, incentives have often been primitive in execution. Incentive dollars flow to plan members as reward or encouragement for healthy behaviors, but what consumers do with that money has until now been largely a mystery to employers and health insurers.
A 2009 survey conducted by MasterCard and Harris Interactive found 61% of employees participate in a wellness program if incentives are offered versus only 26% when there is no added incentive. Additionally, 25% of employees reported that being incentivized was actually the driver and the very reason they agreed to enroll in a wellness program at all.
Instead, the answer is to better tailor the incentives to fit the person, and to provide incentives that motivate while driving program ROI. A recent study from the Journal of Economic Psychology shows consumers prefer to be incentivized with cash. Yet the utility of cash (even cash rebated to a paycheck) leads many to decisions that fail to drive long-term engagement, satisfaction and ultimately outcomes.
2. Incentives tailored around health related products and services
Health incentives need to focus on an emotional affinity felt by participants toward earned rewards—a paradigm that has the potential to create the initial embrace of health behavior change and perpetuate it. Yet, today’s healthcare dollars are stretched thin, and employers want to make sure every dime spent on health and wellness programs is targeted to accomplish health goals. They have increasingly offered discounts to fitness clubs, healthy foods, supplements and Weight Watchers as incentives.
3. New focus on analytics
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) increases the cap on wellness incentives—now at 20% of an employee’s total health insurance premium cost—to 30% and then 50% by 2014. This provides an opportunity to create an incentive program with influence.
Yet as increasing dollar amounts are being driven towards wellness/incentive programs; understanding exactly how funds are being spent; what they are being spent on; and how the actual spending is impacting outcomes and ROI will be critical to understanding the overall impact and success of wellness incentive programs. To that end, rich new data sets being driven by innovation in payments technology will play a key role over the next 18 to 24 months in determining how funds can better be allocated within programs to achieve results.
4. Deeper integration of wellness incentives into overall care continuum
Through a richer data set of spend analytics tied back into larger Big Data initiatives focused on efficient healthcare dollar allocation, the role of wellness incentives, their impact on behavioral economics, and ultimately their importance within the overall care continuum will be far better understood. Health plans and employers will increasingly have the ability to design and integrate highly targeted incentive dollar programs to reduce costs, and improve outcomes.
5. Continued focus on gamification
The recent gamification of wellness programs, employee challenges and the role that both competition and fun in wellness program engagement will continue, as these wellness tools have proven successful in driving initial and—in many cases—longer term engagement and results. That said, there will be an increased focus in 2013 on the actual currency being offered as rewards.
According to a March 2012 study by Fidelity and the National Business Group on Health, employers on average are spending a $169 per-employee per-year on wellness platforms. Yet they are spending nearly three times that on the actual incentive, or $460 per-employee per-year. The incentive dollars represent the single greatest investment into wellness programs. Until now, these dollars have been limited in their ability to be tangibly measured and evaluated for their effectiveness. This will be a critical area of change in 2013, and one that will fundamentally shift how actual incentive dollars are perceived and utilized across all aspects of healthcare to drive cost reduction.
Exchange Picture
Only 18 states and the District of Columbia announced that they plan to set up their own health care exchange under the health reform law by the Dec. 14 deadline set by the Department of Health and Human Services. The remainder of the states will rely on the federal government to establish and run their exchanges.
Do Employees Understand the Value of Your Benefit Offerings?
David Ortloff, from Dillingham, A UBA Partner Firm
Value is a funny thing. What one person might value, another couldn’t care less about. Either way, you never want to assume value is there -- especially when it comes to how your employees perceive the employee benefit program being offered. After all, your employee benefits costs are likely some of the largest costs on your business ledger, so why spend so much money on something that isn’t valued by the people you receive them?
Many companies out there work hard to find and implement the best employee benefits program that fits the perceived needs of the employees. They utilize the top carriers in the marketplace and acquire quality coverage at the lowest price possible. They do a great job implementing coverage, getting applications and paperwork in to the carriers on time. So far, so good, right? More often than not, companies stop there and give themselves a pat on the back. They don’t take that crucial extra step to ensure their employees actually understand and appreciate the true value in what is being offered.
Are you getting every penny’s worth of value out of your current employee benefits offering?
A number of issues can erode the value of a benefit offering in an employee’s mind. Here are just three all-too-common examples:
1. Poor Communication
a. The positive aspects of a benefits offering aren’t communicated effectively
b. Employees lack an understanding of their coverage options and how the coverage actually works
2. Poor Employee Advocacy
a. Employees don’t feel like anyone is watching out for their best interests with claims issues, etc.
3. Poor Perception of Benefits Offering
a. Organizations don’t have a legitimate comparison of their benefits offering with other employers in a region, employer size or industry.
In studies, employees have been found to have a higher regard for "below average" benefits offerings that have been communicated well, compared with "above average" offerings that aren’t communicated well. With that in mind, imagine how much value could be built in your employees’ minds if the benefits offering is properly communicated? Perception is reality.
Often, creating more value with your employees doesn’t mean spending more. On many occasions, less expensive types of coverage, or even voluntary (employee-paid) coverage can be valued more by employees than the current benefits offering. Many employers simply never stop to ask their employees what types of coverage they value.
Don’t be an employer that provides a quality benefits offering that is perceived as "ho-hum" by your employees. There’s not much value there.
Notice of Exchange Option is Delayed
In an FAQ issued January 24, 2013 by the Department of Labor, the employer mandate to provide employees with a notice of coverages available through the Exchanges is being delayed. The original required distribution date of March 1, 2013 has been delayed until the late summer or fall of 2013.
The Department of Labor FAQ states…..
“The Department of Labor has concluded that the notice requirement under FLSA section 18B will not take effect on March 1, 2013 for several reasons. First, this notice should be coordinated with HHS’s educational efforts and Internal Revenue Service (IRS) guidance on minimum value. Second, we are committed to a smooth implementation process including providing employers with sufficient time to comply and selecting an applicability dates that ensures that employees receive the information at a meaningful time. The Department of Labor expects that the timing for distribution of notices will be the late summer or fall of 2013, which will coordinate with the open enrollment period for Exchanges.”
FAQs about Affordable Care Act Implementation Part XI
Source: https://www.dol.gov/ebsa/faqs/faq-aca11.html
Set out below are additional Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) regarding implementation of various provisions of the Affordable Care Act. These FAQs have been prepared by the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services (HHS), and the Treasury (collectively, the Departments). Like previously issued FAQs (available at https://www.dol.gov/ebsa/healthreform/), these FAQs answer questions from stakeholders to help people understand the new law and benefit from it, as intended.
The Departments anticipate issuing further responses to questions and issuing other guidance in the future. We hope these publications will provide additional clarity and assistance.
Notice of Coverage Options Available Through the Exchanges
Section 18B of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), as added by section 1512 of the Affordable Care Act, generally provides that, in accordance with regulations promulgated by the Secretary of Labor, an applicable employer must provide each employee at the time of hiring (or with respect to current employees, not later than March 1, 2013), a written notice:
- Informing the employee of the existence of Exchanges including a description of the services provided by the Exchanges, and the manner in which the employee may contact Exchanges to request assistance;
- If the employer plan's share of the total allowed costs of benefits provided under the plan is less than 60 percent of such costs, that the employee may be eligible for a premium tax credit under section 36B of the Internal Revenue Code (the Code) if the employee purchases a qualified health plan through an Exchange; and
- If the employee purchases a qualified health plan through an Exchange, the employee may lose the employer contribution (if any) to any health benefits plan offered by the employer and that all or a portion of such contribution may be excludable from income for Federal income tax purposes.
Q1: When do employers have to comply with the new notice requirements in section 18B of the FLSA?
Section 18B of the FLSA provides that employer compliance with the notice requirements of that section must be carried out "[i]n accordance with regulations promulgated by the Secretary [of Labor]." Accordingly, it is the view of the Department of Labor that, until such regulations are issued and become applicable, employers are not required to comply with FLSA section 18B.
The Department of Labor has concluded that the notice requirement under FLSA section 18B will not take effect on March 1, 2013 for several reasons. First, this notice should be coordinated with HHS's educational efforts and Internal Revenue Service (IRS) guidance on minimum value. Second, we are committed to a smooth implementation process including providing employers with sufficient time to comply and selecting an applicability date that ensures that employees receive the information at a meaningful time. The Department of Labor expects that the timing for distribution of notices will be the late summer or fall of 2013, which will coordinate with the open enrollment period for Exchanges.
The Department of Labor is considering providing model, generic language that could be used to satisfy the notice requirement. As a compliance alternative, the Department of Labor is also considering allowing employers to satisfy the notice requirement by providing employees with information using the employer coverage template as discussed in the preamble to the Proposed Rule on Medicaid, Children's Health Insurance Programs, and Exchanges: Essential Health Benefits in Alternative Benefit Plans, Eligibility Notices, Fair Hearing and Appeal Processes for Medicaid and Exchange Eligibility Appeals and Other Provisions Related to Eligibility and Enrollment for Exchanges, Medicaid and CHIP, and Medicaid Premiums and Cost Sharing (78 FR 4594, at 4641), which will be available for download at the Exchange web site as part of the streamlined application that will be used by the Exchange, Medicaid, and CHIP. Future guidance on complying with the notice requirement under FLSA section 18B is expected to provide flexibility and adequate time to comply.
Compliance of Health Reimbursement Arrangements with Public Health Service Act (PHS Act) section 2711
Section 2711 of the PHS Act, as added by the Affordable Care Act, generally prohibits plans and issuers from imposing lifetime or annual limits on the dollar value of essential health benefits. The preamble to the interim final regulations implementing PHS Act section 2711 (75 FR 37188) addressed the application of section 2711 to health reimbursement arrangements (HRAs) and certain other account-based arrangements. HRAs are group health plans that typically consist of a promise by an employer(1) to reimburse medical expenses (as defined in Code section 213(d)) for a year up to a certain amount, with unused amounts available to reimburse medical expenses in future years. The preamble distinguished between HRAs that are "integrated" with other coverage as part of a group health plan and HRAs that are not so integrated ("stand-alone" HRAs). The preamble stated that "[w]hen HRAs are integrated with other coverage as part of a group health plan and the other coverage alone would comply with the requirements of PHS Act section 2711, the fact that benefits under the HRA by itself are limited does not violate PHS Act section 2711 because the combined benefit satisfies the requirements." (75 FR 37188, at 37190-37191). The corollary to this statement is that an HRA is not considered integrated with primary health coverage offered by the employer unless, under the terms of the HRA, the HRA is available only to employees who are covered by primary group health plan coverage provided by the employer and meeting the requirements of PHS Act section 2711.
Questions 2 through 4 below address certain issues relating to HRAs. The Departments anticipate issuing future guidance addressing HRAs.(2)
Q2: May an HRA used to purchase coverage on the individual market be considered integrated with that individual market coverage and therefore satisfy the requirements of PHS Act section 2711?
No. The Departments intend to issue guidance providing that for purposes of PHS Act section 2711, an employer-sponsored HRA cannot be integrated with individual market coverage or with an employer plan that provides coverage through individual policies and therefore will violate PHS Act section 2711.
Q3: If an employee is offered coverage that satisfies PHS Act section 2711 but does not enroll in that coverage, may an HRA provided to that employee be considered integrated with the coverage and therefore satisfy the requirements of PHS Act section 2711?
No. The Departments intend to issue guidance under PHS Act section 2711 providing that an employer-sponsored HRA may be treated as integrated with other coverage only if the employee receiving the HRA is actually enrolled in that coverage. Any HRA that credits additional amounts to an individual when the individual is not enrolled in primary coverage meeting the requirements of PHS Act section 2711 provided by the employer will fail to comply with PHS Act section 2711.
Q4: How will amounts that are credited or made available under HRAs under terms that were in effect prior to January 1, 2014, be treated?
The Departments anticipate that future guidance will provide that, whether or not an HRA is integrated with other group health plan coverage, unused amounts credited before January 1, 2014, consisting of amounts credited before January 1, 2013 and amounts that are credited in 2013 under the terms of an HRA as in effect on January 1, 2013 may be used after December 31, 2013 to reimburse medical expenses in accordance with those terms without causing the HRA to fail to comply with PHS Act section 2711. If the HRA terms in effect on January 1, 2013, did not prescribe a set amount or amounts to be credited during 2013 or the timing for crediting such amounts, then the amounts credited may not exceed those credited for 2012 and may not be credited at a faster rate than the rate that applied during 2012.
Disclosure of Information Related to Firearms
Q5: Does PHS Act section 2717(c) restrict communications between health care professionals and their patients concerning firearms or ammunition?
No. While we have yet to issue guidance on this provision, the statute prohibits an organization operating a wellness or health promotion program from requiring the disclosure of information relating to certain information concerning firearms. However, nothing in this section prohibits or otherwise limits communication between health care professionals and their patients, including communications about firearms. Health care providers can play an important role in promoting gun safety.
Self-Insured Employer Prescription Drug Coverage Supplementing Medicare Part D Coverage Provided through Employer Group Waiver Plans
Medicare Part D is an optional prescription drug benefit provided by prescription drug plans. Employers sometimes provide Medicare Part D coverage through Employer Group Waiver Plans (EGWPs) under title XVIII of the Social Security Act and often supplement the coverage with additional non-Medicare drug benefits. For EGWPs that provide coverage only to retirees, the non-Medicare supplemental drug benefits are exempt from the health coverage requirements of title XXVII of the PHS Act, Part 7 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), and Chapter 100 of the Code. (For ease of reference, the relevant provisions of the three statutes are referred to here as "the health coverage requirements.") Moreover, for EGWPs that are insured under a separate policy, certificate, or contract of insurance, the non-Medicare supplemental drug benefits qualify as excepted benefits under PHS Act section 2791(c)(4), ERISA section 733(c)(4), and Code section 9832(c)(4) and are, therefore, similarly exempt from the health coverage requirements.
Q6: Must self-insured prescription drug coverage that supplements the standard Medicare Part D coverage through EGWPs comply with the health coverage requirements?
Pending further guidance, the Departments will not take any enforcement action against a group health plan that is an EGWP because the non-Medicare supplemental drug benefit does not comply with the health coverage requirements of title XXVII of the PHS Act, part 7 of ERISA, and chapter 100 of the Code. This enforcement policy does not affect other requirements administered by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services that apply to providers of such coverage. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services intends to issue related guidance concerning insured coverage that provides non-Medicare supplemental drug benefits shortly.
Fixed Indemnity Insurance
Fixed indemnity coverage under a group health plan meeting the conditions outlined in the Departments' regulations(3) is an excepted benefit under PHS Act section 2791(c)(3)(B), ERISA section 733(c)(3)(B), and Code section 9832(c)(3)(B). As such, it is exempt from the health coverage requirements of title XXVII of the PHS Act, part 7 of ERISA, and chapter 100 of the Code. The Departments have noticed a significant increase in the number of health insurance policies labeled as fixed indemnity coverage.
Q7: What are the circumstances under which fixed indemnity coverage constitutes excepted benefits?
The Departments' regulations provide that a hospital indemnity or other fixed indemnity insurance policy under a group health plan provides excepted benefits only if:
- The benefits are provided under a separate policy, certificate, or contract of insurance;
- There is no coordination between the provision of the benefits and an exclusion of benefits under any group health plan maintained by the same plan sponsor; and
- The benefits are paid with respect to an event without regard to whether benefits are provided with respect to the event under any group health plan maintained by the same plan sponsor.
The regulations further provide that to be hospital indemnity or other fixed indemnity insurance, the insurance must pay a fixed dollar amount per day (or per other period) of hospitalization or illness (for example, $100/day) regardless of the amount of expenses incurred.
Various situations have come to the attention of the Departments where a health insurance policy is advertised as fixed indemnity coverage, but then covers doctors' visits at $50 per visit, hospitalization at $100 per day, various surgical procedures at different dollar rates per procedure, and/or prescription drugs at $15 per prescription. In such circumstances, for doctors' visits, surgery, and prescription drugs, payment is made not on a per-period basis, but instead is based on the type of procedure or item, such as the surgery or doctor visit actually performed or the prescribed drug, and the amount of payment varies widely based on the type of surgery or the cost of the drug. Because office visits and surgery are not paid based on "a fixed dollar amount per day (or per other period)," a policy such as this is not hospital indemnity or other fixed indemnity insurance, and is therefore not excepted benefits. When a policy pays on a per-service basis as opposed to on a per-period basis, it is in practice a form of health coverage instead of an income replacement policy. Accordingly, it does not meet the conditions for excepted benefits.
The Departments plan to work with the States to ensure that health insurance issuers comply with the relevant requirements for different types of insurance policies and provide consumers with the protections of the Affordable Care Act.
Payment of PCORI Fees
Section 4376 of the Code, as added by the Affordable Care Act, imposes a temporary annual fee on the sponsor of an applicable self-insured health plan for plan years ending on or after October 1, 2012, and before October 1, 2019. The fee is equal to the applicable dollar amount in effect for the plan year ($1 for plan years ending on or after October 1, 2012, and before October 1, 2013) multiplied by the average number of lives covered under the applicable self-insured health plan during the plan year. In the case of (i) a plan established or maintained by 2 or more employers or jointly by 1 or more employers and 1 or more employee organizations, (ii) a multiple employer welfare arrangement, or (iii) a voluntary employees' beneficiary association (VEBA) described in Code section 501(c)(9), the plan sponsor is defined in Code section 4376(b)(2)(C) as the association, committee, joint board of trustees, or other similar group of representatives of the parties who establish or maintain the plan.
Q8: Does Title I of ERISA prohibit a multiemployer plan's joint board of trustees from paying the Code section 4376 fee from assets of the plan?
In the case of a multiemployer plan defined in ERISA section 3(37), the plan sponsor liable for the fee would generally be the independent joint board of trustees appointed by the participating employers and employee organization, and directed pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement to establish the employee benefit plan. Normally, such a joint board of trustees has no function other than to sponsor and administer the multiemployer plan, and it has no source of funding independent of plan assets to satisfy the Code section 4376 statutory obligation. The fee involved is not an excise tax or similar penalty imposed on the trustees in connection with a violation of federal law or a breach of their fiduciary obligations in connection with the plan. Nor would the joint board be acting in a capacity other than as a fiduciary of the plan in paying the fee.(4) In such circumstances, it would be unreasonable to construe the fiduciary provisions of ERISA as prohibiting the use of plan assets to pay such a fee to the Federal government. Thus, unless the plan document specifies a source other than plan assets for payment of the fee under Code section 4376, such a payment from plan assets would be permissible under ERISA.
There may be rare circumstances where sponsors of employee benefit plans that are not multiemployer plans would also be able to use plan assets to pay the Code section 4376 fee, such as a VEBA that provides retiree-only health benefits where the sponsor is a trustee or board of trustees that exists solely for the purpose of sponsoring and administering the plan and that has no source of funding independent of plan assets.
The same conclusion would not necessarily apply, however, to other plan sponsors required to pay the fee under Code section 4376. For example, a group or association of employers that act as a plan sponsor but that also exist for reasons other than solely to sponsor and administer a plan may not use plan assets to pay the fee even if the plan uses a VEBA trust to pay benefits under the plan. The Department of Labor would expect that such an entity or association, like employers that sponsor single employer plans, would have to identify and use some other source of funding to pay the Code section 4376 fee.
Footnotes
- An HRA may be sponsored by an employer, an employee organization, or both. For simplicity, this section of the FAQs refers to employers. However, this guidance is equally applicable to HRAs sponsored by employee organizations, or jointly by employers and employee organizations.
- With respect to HRAs that are limited to retirees, the exemption from the requirements of ERISA and the Code relating to the Affordable Care Act for plans with fewer than two current employees means that retiree-only HRAs generally are not subject to the rules of PHS Act section 2711. See the preamble to the interim final rules implementing PHS Act section 2711 (75 FR 37188, at 37191). See also ACA Implementation FAQs Part III, issued on October 12, 2010 (available at https://www.dol.gov/ebsa/faqs/faq-aca3.html).
- See 26 CFR 54.9831-1(c)(4), 29 CFR 732(c)(4), 45 CFR 146.145(c)(4).
- See generally, ERISA Field Assistance Bulletin 2002-02 (trustees of multiemployer plans, if allowed under the plan documents, may act as fiduciaries in carrying out activities that otherwise would be settlor in nature), available at https://www.dol.gov/ebsa/regs/fab2002-2.html.
Premium Blues
The cost of employer-sponsored health coverage increased faster than wages in every state between 2003 and 2011, a new Commonwealth Fund analysis found. Employees' share of premiums of family coverage hit $3,962 in 2011, a 74 percent jump from 2003. The total average premium cost for family coverage reached $15,022 in 2011, an increase of 62 percent from 2003.