Government releases Form 5500 changes

 

Originally posted December 17, 2014 by Mike Nesper on Employee Benefit Advisor

The government recently announced changes to the Form 5500 and the Form 5500-SF. The changes, released by the IRS, Employee Benefits Security Administration and the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, are listed on the Department of Labor’s website. They include:

  • DOL Form M-1 compliance information. The MEWA Form M-1 compliance information that was filed as an attachment for 2013 now appears as three new questions on the Form 5500.
  • Signature and date. The Form 5500 and Form 5500-SF instructions for “signature and date” have been updated to caution filers to check the filing status. If the filing status is "processing stopped" or “unprocessable,” the submission may not have had a valid electronic signature, and depending on the error, may be considered not to have been filed.
  • Active participant information. Filers are now required to provide the total number of active participants at the beginning of the plan year and at the end of the plan year on both forms.
  • Terminated participant vesting information. Form 5500-SF filers now must provide the number of participants that terminated employment during the plan year with accrued benefits that were not fully vested.
  • Multiple-employer plan information. In accordance with the Cooperative and Small Employer Charity Pension Flexibility Act, the Form 5500 and Form 5500-SF now require multiple-employer pension plans and multiple-employer welfare plans to include an attachment that generally identifies each participating employer, and includes a good faith estimate of each employer's percentage of the total contributions during the year.
  • Schedule H. The instructions for line 1c(13) have been enhanced to set out what is an investment company registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940.
  • Schedule MB. New Line 4f requires plans in critical status to indicate the plan year in which a plan is projected to emerge from critical status or, if the rehabilitation plan is based on forestalling possible insolvency, the plan year in which insolvency is expected.
  • Schedule SB. Line 3 has been modified so that the funding target is reported separately for each type of participant (active, retired, or terminated vested). Line 11b has been split into two parts: the calculation based on the prior year’s effective interest rate, and the calculation based on the prior year’s actual return. Line 15 instructions have been expanded to address situations in which the AFTAP was not certified for the plan year. Line 27 and related instructions have been modified to reflect funding changes under the CSEC Act for defined benefit pension plans impacted by the act.

 


ACA employer mandate in action: Avoiding the missteps of 2014

 

Originally posted December 12, 2014, by Deborah Hyde on Employee Benefit News.

Soon we will be ushering in the New Year, which marks the first for the roll-out of the employer shared responsibility provisions under the Affordable Care Act. Though numerous guidelines were put forth to inform employers of how to satisfy the requirements under this employer mandate, 2014 also provided an opportunity to understand ways in which employers will fail (or at the very least, struggle) to meet these same obligations.

Cutting corners

Faced with the requirement to provide medical coverage to an expanded population of employees, some employers sought strategies that required the least amount of commitment while still meeting the demands of the law. “Skinny” or “minimum value” plans were just such a strategy, as these plans provided the absolute minimum amount of coverage to employees. The IRS and the Department of Labor, however, swiftly came down on these plans and stated that these plans do not meet the minimum standards contemplated by the ACA and therefore fail to satisfy the employer mandate.

Similarly, employers considered reimbursement arrangements as a way to provide funding for employees’ health expenses while avoiding the obligation to put in place a group plan. On several occasions, however, the government made clear that stand-alone reimbursement arrangements fail to comply with the ACA, regardless of whether done on a pre- or post-tax basis. Simply put, the IRS and DOL made clear in 2014 that cutting corners won’t “make the cut” at all.

Delaying the inevitable

Despite the overwhelming amount of rules that employers are facing, there are more on the horizon. Enforcement of certain provisions under the ACA has been delayed, and while this allows employers more time to prepare, employers should not postpone the creation of a competent strategy. For example, the ACA extends nondiscrimination rules to fully-insured plans. The federal government has stated that these nondiscrimination rules will not be enforced until more information thorough guidelines is provided, but employers would be wise to keep these rules in mind when designing health plans and avoid the need for a total re-design in the future.

In addition, Section 6055 and 6056 reporting to the IRS is not required until 2016. This requirement is over a year away, but employers need to be diligent in their preparations to efficiently and effectively meet this obligation. Putting in place a reliable HR reporting system now will avoid an unnecessary scramble later.

Denying the current Reality

The most detrimental strategy for compliance is for employers to deny the need to comply altogether. By now, it is clear that the employer mandate will be in effect in a matter of weeks. Employers should not hold out for significant changes to, or even a complete repeal of, the current law. A now-Republican majority in Congress brings with it much grandstanding and political rhetoric concerning a repeal of the ACA, but such discussion should be taken with a grain of salt. Any overhaul to the existing law won’t be seen for some time – if at all. And though the U.S. Supreme Court will soon be hearing arguments regarding the role of federally-established marketplace exchanges, the Court’s decision is not only many months away, but is unlikely to result in the unraveling of the employer mandate.

2015 will be the first year of enforcement for the employer shared responsibility rule, but in many instances, 2014 served as a prime guide for employers by highlighting not only the steps to take, but also the steps to avoid, in creating a successful compliance strategy.

 


Most Consumers Value Integrated Benefits for Time and Cost Savings

 

Originally posted December 11, 2014 on Insurance Broadcasting

Whether it’s dental insurance or the smartphone, consumers want products that offer simplification and savings. In a new survey, Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield asked Americans what products make their lives easier and the findings revealed that integrated products and services are highly valued – for example, the smartphone (74 percent), printer/copier/scanner (64 percent) and the toaster oven (36 percent). And, when it comes to insurance, consumers overwhelmingly (81 percent) said it would be extremely helpful to trust the same carrier to provide their dental, vision and health coverage.

“We’re meeting the needs of both employer and employee by providing affordable and comprehensive coverage benefits, which helps save time and money every step of the way.”

So, what specifically are consumers looking for when it comes to selecting an insurance plan? Survey respondents said a range of factors are important to consider, but they most frequently point to cost as being an extremely important aspect (67 percent), followed by comprehensiveness of coverage (61 percent), customer service (60 percent) and ease of use (58 percent). Additionally, 86 percent would expect to save time, save money or receive improved care if they had the same carrier integrate dental with their vision and medical benefits.

In the current health care environment, employers are looking for products that offer their employees exceptional valuei. The good news is that simpler processes, vast networks and deep discounts offered by multiline carriers like Anthem can provide employers and employees with the exceptional value they are seeking.

“For example, we offer a vast choice of dental benefits that employees want, along with large, reliable provider networks that make it easy and affordable for consumers to maintain good oral health,” said Erin Hoeflinger, President of Anthem in Ohio. “We’ve built strong relationships with the dentists in our network and we have negotiated rates, which saves members on average 25 to 32 percent on their covered dental services.”

In addition to seeing a cost savings, consumers can expect to save time when they select a multiline carrier. Half of the consumers surveyed (50 percent) say that figuring out costs is the most time consuming aspect of health management. Two-in-five also say it’s time-consuming to find health care providers that accept their insurance (41 percent) and to get their doctors to talk with each other to coordinate care (39 percent).

“With all of the advantages available to consumers and employers who get their benefits from a multiline carrier, there’s no reason to settle for the inefficiencies of having multiple benefit providers," said Hoeflinger. “We’re meeting the needs of both employer and employee by providing affordable and comprehensive coverage benefits, which helps save time and money every step of the way.”

This report presents the findings of a telephone survey conducted among 1,005 adults, 503 men and 502 women 18 years of age and older, living in the continental United States. Interviewing for this ORC International CARAVAN® Survey was completed on July 10-13, 2014. 605 interviews were from the landline sample and 400 interviews from the cell phone sample.

The margin of error for the total sample is ±3.0 percent at the 95% confidence level. This means that if we were to replicate the study, we would expect to get the same results within 3.0 percentage points 95 times out of 100.

 


Part-time employment adds leg to traditional retirement stool

Source: Employee Benefit News

You have probably have heard about the three-legged stool approach to retirement planning. Historically, financial planners have advised that retirees could expect to derive their retirement income from three sources: Social Security, corporate retirement plans and personal savings.

It was generally understood that each source of funds was responsible for providing one-third of the total living expenses required in retirement. Over the years the three-legged stool approach has been modified for a number of reasons:

  • The disappearance of defined benefit pension plans (only 18% of workers currently have access to such a plan);
  • An increase in the age required to collect a full Social Security benefit;
  • The soaring costs of health care; and
  • The expectation that many pre-retirees may not reduce their standard of living when they retire. In other words, many workers are expecting 100% income replacement in retirement.

In order to meet the 100% income replacement requirement, experts estimate that 25% of retiree living expenses will need to come from corporate retirement plans, 25% from Social Security and 50% from personal savings. However, it is becoming evident that most baby boomers have not saved, and will not save,  nearly enough to fund the retirement they expect. As a result, it may become necessary to add a fourth leg to the stool: part-time employment in retirement. This new approach assumes that income will flow in 25% increments from each source.

Surprisingly, nearly 75% of pre-retirees over the age of 50 in a recent study say they have a desire to work while retired. This is probably a good thing, since most will have to. Lack of corporate retiree health care, lifestyle expectations and a much lower savings rate than required will force most baby boomers to continue working.

 


UH WalkSafe Update: Removing Snow and Ice/Driving Safely While Off-Site

Source: United Heartland

The official start of winter may still be 12 days away but many parts of the country have already gotten a taste of what the season has in store. We hope your customers are staying warm despite the challenges these wintry blasts have brought.

As we continue with our WalkSafe campaign, we wanted to highlight two important areas for your customers: snow and ice removal and traveling safely in winter weather.

We’ve developed snow and ice removal resources for businesses including a sample program, guidelines, checklists, logs, incident reports and contractor guidelines that will enable your customers to create a program for their organization that will help keep their employees safer. These materials are particularly helpful to have as winter weather conditions change and your customers need to be proactive in keeping parking lots and sidewalks clear of snow and ice.

If your customer has employees that drive regularly as part of their jobs or work off premises, we also provide tips on how to drive defensively, how to prepare vehicles for tough winter conditions, as well as how to best tackle off-premise work. We’ve made several tools available on these topics, as well as posters and table tents your customers can post in their workplaces to make employees aware of the campaign and remind them of the importance of winter safety.

We’ve also added two new materials to our WalkSafe campaign – one examines developing a winter safety watch team and the other examines how reducing steps can help to reduce falls. You can find them respectively under the Prepare and Footwear sections of the WalkSafe site.

Be sure to check out our full arsenal of winter weather-related tools, from safety checklists to tips on smart phone apps and alerts, by visiting our WalkSafe site today. If you have any questions, please contact us at 1-800-258-2667 or visit us at UnitedHeartland.com.


Dental gap: Coverage slips through reform's cracks

 

Originally post December 9, 2014 by Bob Herman on www.businessinsider.com

Dental care is a peculiar niche of the U.S. healthcare system. Even though teeth and gums are just as much part of the human body as kidneys or elbows, they are insured differently — a lot differently.

When the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was written and debated, comprehensive dental insurance never really became a focal point. Lawmakers ultimately created a few provisions that may boost access to oral care, but dental coverage still escapes the grasp of millions of Americans.

Dental plans garnered national attention after it was discovered that HHS overstated 2014 enrollment figures in the ACA's insurance exchanges. The government included almost 400,000 stand-alone dental plans, which are much cheaper and separate from standard health plans. After accounting for those, the number of people who were enrolled in full-service medical plans was 6.7 million. A House committee plans to grill CMS Administrator Marilyn Tavenner on the numbers Tuesday.

Lost in that discussion, however, is the question of how much the law has done to advance dental care. Not enough, advocates argue.

The Affordable Care Act mandated pediatric dental services as one of the 10 essential health benefits for health plans, but adult dental services were excluded. In addition, all health plans must cover oral health risk assessments for children up to 10 years old with no copayment, coinsurance or deductible. The law also allowed states to expand Medicaid and its related dental benefits to more low-income children and adults.

But large gaps in coverage remain, primarily for adults who don't qualify for Medicaid. “More children have been enrolled (in dental plans) through the Affordable Care Act,” said Maxine Feinberg, president of the American Dental Association. “However, it really only helped adults in a minimal way.”

About 187 million people have some form of dental insurance, according to the National Association of Dental Plans. Coverage is provided through two main outlets: employers or public programs like Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program.

A majority of people who have dental insurance get it through their employer. Almost nine in 10 employers with 200 or more workers and about half of all companies offer dental benefits, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. The most common forms of coverage are like “prepaid gift cards,” Feinberg said. Routine cleanings and other preventive services are completely covered, and all other dental care needs are covered up to a yearly maximum figure.

But that leaves about 130 million Americans who have to pay for their dental care completely out of pocket or rely on supplemental dental policies. That figure includes millions of Medicare beneficiaries. Traditional Medicare does not cover dental care unless it's an emergency procedure during a hospital stay.

Medicare, Medicaid pitfalls

Cost and a lack of dental providers are cited as the key barriers for obtaining care. In some instances, the results have been lethal. The most famous case was Deamonte Driver, a 12-year-old boy in Maryland who died in 2007 after bacteria from an infected tooth spread to his brain. Deamonte's family lost its Medicaid coverage. More recently, in 2011, Kyle Willis, 24, died in Ohio after a wisdom tooth infection forced him to the emergency department. Mr. Willis had no insurance and couldn't afford antibiotics.

Ultimately, the Affordable Care Act is expected to bring some kind of dental coverage to 8.7 million kids and 17.7 million adults by 2018, according to an ADA-commissioned analysis conducted by actuarial consulting firm Milliman. A vast majority of those gains will be through Medicaid expansion, and some asterisks apply.

Medicaid dental benefits for adults vary widely in each state. Some states like Connecticut and New York offer extensive coverage that includes preventive cleanings and restorative services like fillings and crowns. But others offer zero dental coverage, or only cover emergency services that relieve tooth pain and infection. That means many people who live in states expanding Medicaid eligibility may only benefit marginally, and some others in non-expansion states won't benefit at all. The ADA study said of the 26 states expanding Medicaid, nine provide “extensive” adult dental benefits.

The scenario also assumes patients can find dentists accepting Medicaid. Only one-third of practicing dentists take Medicaid patients due to lower reimbursement rates.

Dr. Richard Manski, a dentistry professor at the University of Maryland who has studied dental insurance said the state programs that prioritize dental care actually offer “robust” coverage. But “the problem with the Medicaid plans is there's always a fixed pot of money,” he said.

Dental benefits are often the first to get cut when states need to get their Medicaid budgets in order. Even the federal government has encouraged state Medicaid programs to tinker with their dental care benefits when money gets thin. In 2011, then-HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius wrote letters to governors saying that limiting or eliminating dental care benefits is an effective way to save Medicaid funds.

The impact of the ACA's exchanges on dental care is similarly cloudy. Although dental benefits for children up to age 19 are required for all health plans sold on the individual and small-group markets, each exchange can take a different approach, said Colin Reusch, senior policy analyst at the Children's Dental Health Project. Some exchanges require health insurers to embed pediatric dental coverage. Others allow the benefits to be sold in stand-alone policies, requiring people to pay a separate premium.

The average cost differential between a medical policy with embedded dental coverage and a medical policy without dental coverage on the federally run exchanges ranges from $33.45 per month for a family with one child to $70.05 for a family with three or more children, said Evelyn Ireland, executive director of the National Association of Dental Plans.

Mr. Reusch said he's hopeful the gap between dental and medical care can be bridged, even though the ACA will leave many without dental insurance and nothing has changed with Medicare. Providers in accountable care organizations or patient-centered medical homes are now somewhat responsible for the oral health of patients, especially if dental issues ultimately lead to more complex health problems.

“In the long term, that's really beneficial in terms of shifting the oral healthcare delivery system towards integration, which is where we want to go,” Mr. Reusch said.

 


OFCCP Releases Final Rule on LGBT Non-Discrimination

 

Originally posted December 4, 2014 by Cara Crotty on ThinkHR.com

The Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs announced yesterday that it is issuing a Final Rule implementing President Obama’s Executive Order that prohibits federal contractors from discriminating on the bases of sexual orientation and gender identity.

This Final Rule will be effective 120 days after publication in the Federal Register (which has not yet occurred) and will apply to federal contracts entered into or modified on or after that date.

What does the Final Rule change?

The EO Clause has been changed to include “sexual orientation” and “gender identity.” However, those contractors that incorporate the EO clause by reference will not need to physically alter their subcontracts or purchase orders.

Contractors must notify applicants and employees of their non-discrimination policy by posting the “EEO is the Law” poster. Presumably, the government will be updating this poster to include these two new categories.

Contractors are also obligated to expressly state in job advertisements that all qualified candidates will receive consideration for employment without regard to race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or national origin. The Final Rule provides that employers can satisfy this requirement by including that verbiage or simply indicating that the company is an “equal opportunity employer.”

Although employees hired outside of the United States are not covered by the regulations, if a contractor is not able to obtain a visa of entry for an employee or potential employee to a country in which it is doing business, the regulations require the contractor to notify both the OFCCP and the U.S. Department of State if the contractor believes that the refusal of the visa is because of the individual’s protected characteristic. This requirement now applies to sexual orientation and gender identity status.

The section of the regulations regarding Placement Goals in AAPs has also been updated. Contractors are prohibited from extending preferences on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or national origin due to specific placement goals.

What is not affected by the Final Rule?

The Final Rule does not change contractors’ reporting and information collection requirements, so contractors are not required to survey or report on the number of LGBT applicants or employees. The required components of Affirmative Action Plans are also not affected.

What should contractors do to comply?

The Final Rule simply adds sexual orientation and gender identity to the sections of the regulation where the other protected categories are listed, so the impact on federal contractors is limited. However, contractors should begin the process of determining whether and when they need to do the following:

  • Update the EO Clause in subcontracts and purchase orders;
  • Amend the EEO and AA policy to include sexual orientation and gender identity;
  • Obtain new “EEO is the Law” posters;
  • Modify their EEO tagline on job solicitations; and
  • Train appropriate personnel on the new protections.

In addition, the OFCCP has issued FAQs regarding its interpretation of the Final Rule. These will probably be updated periodically as contractors pose questions to the OFCCP.

Why no proposed rule?

You may be wondering whether you missed the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on this issue. Actually, the OFCCP bypassed the notice and comment period, stating that the “Executive Order was very clear about the steps the Department of Labor was required to take, and left no discretion regarding how to proceed. In such cases, principles of administrative law allow an agency to publish final rules without prior notice and comment when the agency only makes a required change to conform a regulation to the enabling authority, and does not have any discretion in doing so.” (The OFCCP must not have seen all the questions I had after reading the Executive Order.)

 


Federal Employment Law Update – December 2014

Originally posted December 03, 2014 on www.thinkhr.com.

IRS Releases Guidance on Hardship Exemptions from ACA Individual Shared Responsibility Payment and Minimum Essential Coverage

On November 21, 2014, the IRS released final regulations relating to the requirement to maintain minimum essential coverage enacted by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA). Notice 2014-76, released concurrently with the regulations, provides a comprehensive list of all hardship exemptions that may be claimed on a federal income tax return without obtaining a hardship exemption certification.

The final regulations provide individual taxpayers with guidance under I.R.C. § 5000A on the requirement to maintain minimum essential coverage and rules governing certain types of exemptions from that requirement. The regulations address three general areas:

  • Employee contributions to a cafeteria plan.
  • Health reimbursement arrangements.
  • Wellness program incentives.

The final regulations also remove the references to specific hardship circumstances and, instead, provide that a taxpayer may claim a hardship exemption on a federal income tax return without obtaining an exemption certification for any month that includes a day on which the taxpayer satisfies the requirements of a hardship for which the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the Treasury Department, and the IRS issue published guidance.

Read Notice 2014-76

Read the Final Regulations

OMB Approves VETS-4212 Reporting Form

On November 19, 2014, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approved the new VETS-4212 form for federal contractors and subcontractors to report on their employment of veterans protected under the Vietnam Era Veterans’ Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974 (VEVRAA). Under the revised form, set for implementation in 2015, contractors will report the specified information for protected veterans in the aggregate rather than for each of the categories of veterans protected under the statute.

VEVRAA, located at 38 U.S.C. § 4212(d), requires covered federal contractors to report annually to the Secretary of Labor on their employees and new hires who belong to the specific categories of veterans protected under the statute. Under the most recent amendments to the statute, those categories are:

  • Disabled veterans.
  • Other protected veterans.
  • Armed Forces service medal veterans.
  • Recently separated veterans.

View Form VETS-4212

Immigration – New Department of Labor Fact Sheets

On November 20, 2014, President Obama announced a series of Immigration Accountability executive actions to help fix the nation’s broken immigration system. Using his authority, the President directed agencies across the federal government to implement specific elements of these executive actions.

The Department of Labor has issued the following fact sheets to explain the department’s role in support of the executive actions:

Officials Extend Deadline for Submitting Reinsurance Contribution Form

On November 14, 2014, federal officials responded to requests for an extension of the deadline for contributing entities to submit their 2014 enrollment counts in connection with Transitional Reinsurance Program contributions. The deadline has now been extended until 11:59 p.m. on December 5, 2014. The January 15, 2015 and November 15, 2015 payment deadlines remain unchanged.

Read the Announcement

Agencies Release FAQs about Affordable Care Act Implementation (Part XXII)

On November 6, 2014, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Department of Health and Human Services, and the Treasury released FAQs about Affordable Care Act Implementation (Part XXII) in an ongoing series of informal guidance regarding the Affordable Care Act (health care reform). This easy-to-read FAQ emphasizes prior technical guidance that prohibits employers from paying or reimbursing individual health policy premiums.

Employers are prohibited from making or offering any form of payment for individual policy premiums, whether through pretax reimbursements, premium reimbursement arrangements (HRAs), after-tax reimbursements, or cash compensation. Further, employers are prohibited from offering incentives to high-claims-risk employees to drop or forego coverage under the employer’s group health plan.

Read the FAQs

 

 


HHS Formally Moves To Close Loophole Allowing Plans Without Hospital Benefits

The Obama administration took another step to close what many see as a health-law loophole that allows large employers to offer medical plans without hospital coverage and bars their workers from subsidies to buy their own insurance.

“It has come to our attention that certain group health plan designs that provide no coverage of inpatient hospital services are being promoted,” the Department of Health and Human Services said in proposed rules issued late Friday.

Under the new standard, companies with at least 50 workers “must provide substantial coverage of both inpatient hospital services and physician services” to meet the Affordable Care Act’s threshold for a “minimum value” of coverage,  the agency said .

As  reported previously by Kaiser Health News, insurance analysts were surprised this summer to learn that HHS’ online calculator for determining minimum value approved plans without inpatient benefits.

Responding to aggressive marketing by consultants, numerous lower-wage employers had already agreed  to offer the low-cost plans for 2015 or were considering them.

Because a calculator-approved plan at work makes employees ineligible for tax credits to buy more comprehensive insurance in the law’s online marketplaces, consumer advocates feared the problem would trap workers in substandard coverage.

Large employers aren’t required to offer the “essential health benefits” such as hospitalization, physician care and prescriptions that the law orders for plans sold to individuals and smaller employers.

But few expected the official calculator to approve insurance without inpatient benefits. Meeting the minimum-value standard spares employers from penalties of up to $3,120 per worker next year.

HHS also proposed granting temporary relief to employers that have already committed to calculator-approved plans without hospital coverage for 2015. It also would allow workers at those companies to receive tax credits in the marketplaces if they choose to buy insurance there instead.

For 2016, no large-employer plan will meet the minimum-value test without inpatient benefits, HHS proposes.

“A plan that excludes substantial coverage for inpatient hospital and physician services is not a health plan in any meaningful sense and is contrary to the purpose” of the minimum-value standard, the agency said.

“Minimum value is minimum value,” said Timothy Jost, a consumer advocate and Washington and Lee University law professor who welcomed the change. “Nobody ever imagined that minimum value would not include hospitalization services.”

This KHN story can be republished for free ( details ).

Calculator-tested plans lacking inpatient coverage, designed by Key Benefit Administrators and others, have drawn strong interest from large retailers, restaurant chains, staffing companies and other lower-wage employers seeking to control costs, benefits consultants say. Typically the coverage costs half as much as major-medical insurance including hospital benefits.

The American Worker Plans, an Illinois-based benefits consultant, helped dozens of staffing firms with a total of about 20,000 employees to provide such plans for 2015, said Jon Duczak, the company’s senior vice president. Almost all of them have already signed deals to offer the coverage, he said. 

HHS’ move to disallow the insurance “is something I do applaud,” he said. “We were offering a product like this [only] because our clients were asking for it. We needed not only to satisfy our clients but to retain our business.”

Edward Lenz, senior counsel for the American Staffing Association, said the trade group has no problem with requiring hospitalization to meet the minimum-value standard for 2016. But it will seek more leeway for employers that had moved to implement plans without inpatient benefits for 2015.

“Many employers were well along the road” to committing to such plans but delayed signing contracts after Kaiser Health News reported that the administration might move against them, he said. Rather than punishing such companies for their caution, HHS should allow them to temporarily offer such coverage next year, he said.

gavel-300x196.jpg


IRS tackles paperless employer transportation assistance plans

 

Originally posted November 25, 2014 by Dan Cook on BenefitsPro.com

Human resources managers will want to study several new IRS rulings on non-cash benefits to commuting employees. The IRS has delved deeply into various systems for assisting workers withcommuting costs with the intention of determining whether these forms of assistance should be included in the employees' gross income.

In essence, the IRS is examining a transition from paper transit vouchers to virtual vouchers. The conundrum here has to do with the media itself. The paper transit vouchers of old were handed out (or paid for) by employers, and employees could only use them for mass transit purposes. While some were perhaps using them for personal travel as well, the system itself was a simple one.

With the advent of smartcards and debit cards as transit pass replacements for the paper tickets, the system became more complex. In a new notice, the IRS lays out which transactions it will include in employee gross income, and which will be excluded. Key factors include how strict the rules are for limiting the smart/debit card purchases to transit only.

As the IRS points out, some employers have developed arrangements that permit employees to use their company cards for purchases other than bus and train tickets. These the IRS frowns upon. Better are the arrangements where the employer:

  • Issues a card connected to a provider that only sells transit tickers;
  • Requires employees to make some sort of verification or certification that they are using the card for work-related transportation only;
  • Reimburses employees for card use rather than pays them ahead of use;
  • Restricts reimbursement to the IRS's monthly ceiling levels.

In its missive, the IRS offered eight examples of different employer-employee transit assistance arrangements. In two of the eight cases, the IRS ruled the “income” will not be excluded from employees' gross income for tax purposes. The full content of the advisory and ruling is worth reading for those HR managers trusted with implementing a reimbursement plan for commuting employees.