CMS issues the final HHS Notice of Benefit and Payment Parameters for 2016

Originally posted on February 20, 2015 on www.cms.gov.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) has issued the Final HHS Notice of Benefit and Payment Parameters for 2016.  This rule seeks to improve consumers’ experience in the Health Insurance Marketplace and to ensure their coverage options are affordable and accessible.  This rule builds on previously issued standards which seek to make high-quality health insurance available to all Americans.  The final notice further strengthens transparency, accountability, and the availability of information for consumers about their health plans.

“We work every day to strengthen programs that deliver quality, affordable care to families across the country,” said CMS Administrator Marilyn Tavenner.  “CMS is working to improve the consumer experience and promote accountability, uniformity, and transparency in private health insurance.”

The rule finalizes the annual open enrollment period for 2016 to begin on November 1, 2015 and run through January 31, 2016, giving consumers three full months to shop.  To further aid consumers in finding a health plan that best suits their needs, the rule clarifies standards for qualified health plan (QHP) issuers to publish up-to-date, accurate, and complete provider directories and formularies.  Issuers also must make this information available in standard, machine-readable formats.

To enhance the transparency of the rate-setting process, the final rule includes provisions to facilitate public access to information about rate increases in the individual and small group markets for both QHPs and non-QHPs using a uniform timeline.  It also includes provisions to further protect consumers against unreasonable rate increases by ensuring more rates are subject to review.

To ensure consumers have access to high-quality, affordable health insurance, premium stabilization programs were put in place to promote price stability for health insurance in the individual and small group markets.  This rule includes additional provisions and modifications related to the implementation of these programs, as well as the key payment parameters for the 2016 benefit year.

Additionally, the rule will help consumers access the medications they need by improving the process by which an enrollee can request access to medications not included on a plan’s formulary.  The rule provides more detailed procedures for the standard exception process, and adds a requirement for an external review of an exception request if the health plan denies the initial request.  It also clarifies that cost-sharing for drugs obtained through the exceptions process must count toward the annual limitation on cost sharing of a plan subject to the essential health benefits requirement.  The rule also ensures that issuers’ formularies are developed based on expert recommendations.

The rule improves meaningful access standards by requiring that all Marketplaces, QHP issuers, and web brokers provide telephonic interpreter services in at least 150 languages in addition to the existing requirements regarding the provision of oral interpretation services, and strengthens other requirements related to language access.

To enhance the consumer experience for the Small Business Health Options Program (SHOP), the rule seeks to streamline the administration of group coverage provided through SHOP and to align SHOP regulations with existing market practices.

The final rule was placed on display at the Federal Register today, and can be found at:

https://www.federalregister.gov/public-inspection

CMS also released its final annual letter to issuer, which provides additional guidance on these and related standards for plans participating in the Federally-facilitated Marketplace.  The letter is available here:https://www.cms.gov/CCIIO/Resources/Fact-Sheets-and-FAQs/Downloads/2016-PN-Fact-Sheet-final.pdf


IRS Clarifies Prior Guidance on Premium Reimbursement Arrangements; Provides Limited Relief

Originally posted February 24, 2015 by Daimon Myers, Proskauer - ERISA Practice Center on www.jdsupra.com.

Continuing its focus on so-called “premium reimbursement” or “employer payment plans”, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) released IRS Notice 2015-17 on February 18, 2015. In this Notice, which was previewed and approved by both the Department of Labor (DOL) and Department of Health and Human Services (collectively with the IRS, the “Agencies”) clarifies the Agencies’ perspective on the limits of certain employer payment plans and offers some limited relief for small employers.

Prior guidance, released as DOL FAQs Part XXII and described in our November 7, 2014 Practice Center Blog entry, established that premium reimbursement arrangements are group health plans subject to the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA’s) market reforms. Because these premium reimbursement arrangements are unlikely to satisfy the market reform requirements, particularly with respect to preventive services and annual dollar limits, employers using these arrangements would be required to self-report their use and then be subject to ACA penalties, including an excise tax of $100 per employee per day.

Since DOL FAQs Part XXII was released, the Agencies’ stance has been the subject of frequent commentary and requests for clarification. With Notice 2015-17, it appears that the Agencies have elected to expand on the prior guidance on a piecemeal basis, with IRS Notice 2015-17 being the first in what may be a series of guidance. The following are the key aspects of Notice 2015-17:

  • Wage Increases In Lieu of Health Coverage. The IRS confirmed the widely-held understanding that providing increased wages in lieu of employer-sponsored health benefits does not create a group health plan subject to market reforms, provided that receipt of the additional wages is not conditioned on the purchase of health coverage. Quelling concerns that any communication regarding individual insurance options could create a group health plan, the IRS stated that merely providing employees with information regarding the health exchange marketplaces and availability of premium credits is not an endorsement of a particular insurance policy. Although this practice may be attractive for a small employer, an employer with more than 50 full-time employees (i.e., an “applicable large employer” or “ALE”) should be mindful of the ACA’s employer shared responsibility requirements if it adopts this approach.  ALEs are required to offer group health coverage meeting certain requirements to at least 95% (70% in 2015) of its full-time employees or potentially pay penalties under the ACA. Increasing wages in lieu of benefits will not shield ALEs from those penalties.
  • Treatment of Employer Payment Plans as Taxable Compensation. Some employers and commentators have tried to argue that “after-tax” premium reimbursement arrangements should not be treated as group health plans.  In Notice 2015-17, the IRS confirmed its disagreement. In the Notice, the IRS acknowledges that its long-standing guidance excluded from an employee’s gross income premium payment reimbursements for non-employer provided medical coverage, regardless of whether an employer treated the premium reimbursements as taxable wage payments. However, in Notice 2015-17, the IRS provides a reminder that the ACA, in the Agencies’ view, has significantly changed the law, including, among other things, by implementing substantial market reforms that were not in place when prior guidance had been released. The result:  the Agencies have reiterated and clarified their view that premium reimbursement arrangements tied directly to the purchase of individual insurance policies are employer group health plans that are subject to, and fail to meet, the ACA’s market reforms (such as the preventive services and annual limits requirements). This is the case whether or not the reimbursements or payments are treated by an employer as pre-tax or after-tax to employees. (This is in contrast to simply providing employees with additional taxable compensation not tied to the purchase of insurance coverage, as described above.)
  • Integration of Medicare and TRICARE Premium Reimbursement Arrangements. On the other hand, although the Notice confirms that arrangements that reimburse employees for Medicare or TRICARE premiums may be group health plans subject to market place reforms, the Agencies also provide for a bit of a safe harbor relief from that result. As long as those employees enrolled in Medicare Part B or Part D or TRICARE coverage are offered coverage that is minimum value and not solely excepted benefits, they can also be offered a premium reimbursement arrangement to assist them with the payment of the Medicare or TRICARE premiums. (The IRS appropriately cautions employers to consider restrictions on financial incentives for employees to obtain Medicare or TRICARE coverage.)
  • Transition Relief for Small Employers and S Corporations. Although many comments on the prior guidance concerning employer payment plans requested an exclusion for small employers (those with fewer than 50 full-time equivalent employees), the IRS refused to provide blanket relief. The IRS notes that the SHOP Marketplace should address the small employers’ concerns. However, because the SHOP Marketplace has not been fully implemented, no excise tax will be incurred by a small employer offering an employer payment plan for 2014 or for the first half of 2015 (i.e., until June 30, 2015). (This relief does not cover stand-alone health reimbursement arrangements or other arrangements to reimburse employees for expenses other than insurance premiums.) This is welcome relief to small employers who adopted these arrangements notwithstanding the Agencies’ prior guidance that they violated certain ACA marketplace provisions.
  • In addition to granting temporary relief to small employers, the IRS also provided relief through 2015 for S corporations with premium reimbursement arrangements benefiting 2% shareholders. In general, reimbursements paid to 2% shareholders must be included in income, but the underlying premiums are deductible by the 2% shareholder. The IRS indicated that additional guidance for S corporations is likely forthcoming.

The circumstances under which premium reimbursement arrangements are permitted appears to be rapidly dwindling, and the IRS indicated that more guidance will be released in the near future. Employers offering these arrangements should consult with qualified counsel to ensure continuing compliance with applicable laws.


IRS Begins Preparing Cadillac Tax Regulations; Public Input Requested

​Originally posted February 24, 2015 on www.ifebp.org.

In Notice 2015-16, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) outlines potential approaches for future proposed regulations regarding the excise tax on high cost employer-sponsored health coverage under section 4980I, also known as the Cadillac tax.

The notice is intended to initiate and inform the process of developing regulatory guidance regarding the excise tax on high cost employer-sponsored health coverage under section 4980I of the Internal Revenue Code. Section 4980I, which was added by the Affordable Care Act, applies to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2017.

Under this provision, if the aggregate cost of “applicable employer-sponsored coverage” provided to an employee exceeds a statutory dollar limit, which is revised annually, the excess is subject to a 40% excise tax.

The issues addressed in this notice primarily relate to:

  1. the definition of applicable coverage,
  2. the determination of the cost of applicable coverage, and
  3. the application of the annual statutory dollar limit to the cost of applicable coverage. The Department of the Treasury (Treasury) and IRS invite comments on the issues addressed in this notice and on any other issues under section 4980I.

This notice describes potential approaches on a number of issues which could be incorporated in future proposed regulations, and invites comments on these potential approaches.

Treasury and IRS intend to issue another notice before the publication of proposed regulations under section 4980I, describing and inviting comments on potential approaches to a number of issues not addressed in this notice, including procedural issues relating to the calculation and assessment of the excise tax.

After considering the comments on both notices, Treasury and IRS anticipate publishing proposed regulations under section 4980I. The proposed regulations will provide further opportunity for comment, including an opportunity to comment on the issues addressed in the preceding notices.


Tips for Handling Employee Pay Issues Caused By Mother Nature

Originally post February 9, 2015 by Laura Kerekes on www.thinkhr.com.

If you are inclined to believe “Punxsutawney Phil,” we’re in for another six weeks of wintry weather. When the groundhog emerged from his dwelling at Gobbler’s Knob in west-central Pennsylvania on February 2nd, he did not see his shadow. Let’s all hope for an early spring while we stay vigilant for more bad weather. Super storms packed punches in the Midwest and Northeast to start the New Year and continue adding to the area’s already taxed weather relief efforts. While your business may not have been affected by the recent superstorms, it is a great wakeup call to think through how businesses should handle the employee relations and pay issues that arise when they are forced to close due to inclement weather and/or when employees simply cannot get to work due to transportation or personal difficulties.

What should an employer do? Pay employees to stay at home? After all, in most cases, they are not at work through no fault of their own. Many businesses, however, do not have the financial resources to pay employees not to work. What follows are the rules regarding paying employees who miss work due to Mother Nature, along with some practical tips. From an employee relations perspective, the more generous you can afford to be to your employees who are suffering as a result of a weather-related disaster, the better. Employees (and their families) do pay attention to how they are treated, and a little extra time off and compassion for individual circumstances can go a long way towards enhancing employee loyalty.

If the company has no power and sends employees home for the day, should they be paid? And does it matter if the employee is exempt or nonexempt?

In general, there are two sets of rules for paying employees depending upon their classification under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) as it relates to eligibility for overtime. With nonexempt employees (those eligible for overtime pay), there is no obligation under federal or state law to pay for time not worked. However, under certain state laws, employers may have an obligation to compensate nonexempt employees under call-in/reporting pay laws, especially if the employees were not advised that they should not report to work and were denied work upon arrival at the workplace.

These pay obligations vary by state. With respect to salaried exempt employees who must be paid on a “salary basis” under the FLSA, employers may not make salary deductions for absences that result from an employer’s partial-week closing of operations, including closings due to weather-related emergencies or disasters. The bottom line is that exempt employees must be paid their full salary if they perform any work in a workweek and only miss work time due to the employer’s closure of operations. Closures for a full workweek need not be paid if no work is performed.

Are these rules different if the company can tell the employee not to come to work the next day?

For nonexempt employees, if they are told in advance not to come to work and the employees stay home, then the employer is under no obligation to pay them for the time off. The employer and the employee can choose to use accrued paid time off to compensate the employee for the missed workdays.

For exempt employees, the “salary basis” rule still applies. In some cases the employee may be working from home during the bad weather days. If state laws permit employers to do so, employers may deduct from the exempt employees’ accrued paid time off balances to resolve the issues related to “salary basis” compliance. The employer should ensure, however, that these employees have not done any work from home during the office closure prior to deducting time from the accrued paid time off bank balances.

If an employee is on Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) leave, do those “bad weather days” count against the employee’s 12-week allotment of time off?

The FMLA regulations are silent about bad weather office closures. However, the regulations do allow for situations when the employer’s business stops operating for a period of time and employees are not expected to come to work (plants closing for a few weeks to retool, mandatory company-wide summer vacation, etc). In that case, the week the business is closed and no employees are reporting to work would not count against the employee’s FMLA leave entitlement. If the business is closed for a shorter period of time, the general thinking is that the FMLA regulations relating to holidays would likely apply. Under those rules, if the business is closed for a day or two during a week in which the employee is on FMLA leave, then the entire week would count against the employee’s FMLA leave entitlement. If, however, the employee is on intermittent FMLA leave, then only the days that the business is closed and the employee is expected to be at work would count against the leave entitlement.

How do we handle attendance issues where the office is open but public transportation is not available due to the weather and employees cannot come to work?

If the business remains open but employees cannot get to work because of the weather, employers will need to consider their own attendance policies and practices in determining what flexibility to give employees as it relates to attendance. Employers may encourage employees to car pool or assist them in establishing alternative methods of transportation to get to work.

Under the FLSA rules as it relates to pay, however, employers do not need to pay nonexempt employees if they perform no work. For exempt employees, if the business remains open but an employee cannot get to work because of the weather, an employer can deduct an exempt employee’s salary for a full day’s absence taken for personal reasons without jeopardizing the employee’s exempt status. Employers cannot, however, deduct an exempt employee’s salary for less than a full-day absence without jeopardizing the employee’s exempt status.

Does a company have to allow employees to work from home (exempt or nonexempt) if the office is closed due to bad weather?

No, the employer does not need to allow employee to work from home, regardless of their FLSA status (exempt or nonexempt). The employer can make those decisions based upon the work that can be done remotely and based on the needs of the business. The employer should have clearly communicated policies and expectations regarding working from home during office closures.

The bottom line is that every employer should think about the needs of the business, its financial resources, and employees’ needs and have plans in place to manage business issues due to inclement weather. Thinking through what the wage and hour laws require and developing your policies and then applying them consistently and fairly with all employees can reap huge dividends in employee loyalty and retention.


Employer FAQs: Responding to the Anthem Breach

Originally posted February 9, 2015 by The National Law Review - National Law Forum LLC.

The first massive data breach of 2015 hit one of the country’s largest insurance issuers, Anthem, Inc., including Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield and other related entities (Anthem). The incident reportedly affected over 80 million persons who are or were covered under a policy or program insured or serviced by Anthem. The personal note from Anthem's CEO, Joseph R. Swedish, and the Anthem Facts (or FAQs) seek to provide helpful information to the millions of individuals affected. These communications address what is known about the incident, describe the kinds of information compromised, warn affected persons about potential email attacks, and advise that there is more information coming.

But there is not much information at this point for employers that are plan sponsors of group health plans and other welfare plans serviced by Anthem either as an insurance issuer or a third party claims administrator (TPA). Below are some FAQs about the Anthem breach for affected employers.

Isn't this really Anthem's problem?

From a legal compliance standpoint, the answer largely depends on whether the plan is insured or self-funded. For example, as discussed below, in the case of a self-funded group health plan, the HIPAA breach notification rules place the obligation to notify affected persons on the covered entity (i.e., the plan, and practically the plan sponsor) and not on the business associate (i.e., the TPA). However, contract obligations in the business associate agreement (or administrative services only agreement) have to be considered. Finally, as a practical matter, because employees and other persons covered under the plan(s) will be concerned and have questions, employers will need to have a strategy for addressing those concerns.

Is the information involved subject to HIPAA; the Anthem FAQs say Anthem does not believe diagnosis or treatment information was compromised?

According to the Anthem FAQs:

the member data accessed included names, dates of birth, member ID/ social security numbers, addresses, phone numbers, email addresses and employment information...[but its] investigation to date indicates there was no diagnosis or treatment data exposed.

Many maintain the mistaken belief that, in the case of a group health plan, a covered person’s name and social security number, alone, is not “protected health information” (PHI) under the privacy regulations issued under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). The absence of diagnosis or treatment data does not make information any less PHI. This is because the regulatory definition includes not only information about a person’s physical or mental health condition, but also how care is paid for and provided. Thus, data elements that relate to the payment or provision of health care, such as address and email address, could constitute PHI even if not as sensitive as a covered person’s diagnosis information.

What about the state breach notification laws, do they apply?

The Anthem breach involves personal information of individuals, such as names, member ID/social security numbers and other data, the kind of information protected by state breach notification laws, which currently exist in 47 states. Given the massive scale of the breach, it is likely that there are affected individuals residing in all 50 states and beyond.

Some of those state laws have exceptions when HIPAA or other federal regulations apply. Some do not. According to the Anthem FAQs, all product lines have been affected, not just health insurance (medical, dental and vision). This includes life, disability, workers compensation and other policies and products which typically are not subject to HIPAA. Thus, regardless of the Anthem policy or product at issue, the applicable state laws will need to be considered to determine their application in this case.

Our plan is/was insured by Anthem, what should we be doing?

Under HIPAA, both the employer’s group health plan under ERISA and the health insurance issuer that provides the insurance for that ERISA plan are covered entities under HIPAA. Covered entities have the primary breach notification obligations. Under state breach notification laws, the primary notification obligation generally falls on the entity that owns or licenses the data, not necessarily the entity that held the data at the time of the incident. However, in the case of a breach experienced by an insurer, and not the employer sponsoring the plan, the insurer generally is considered to be responsible for responding to the breach. Even if not entirely clear in the applicable statutes or regulations, this makes practical sense because the carrier is in control of the investigation and the facts, and usually is in the best position to work with law enforcement. Carriers can typically disseminate notifications more efficiently across the affected policies, as well as to federal and state agencies, and the media.

To date, Anthem appears to be taking the lead on the investigation and notifying affected persons. For example, its FAQs inform members that they can expect to “receive notice via mail which will advise them of the protections being offered to them as well as any next steps”. Because this incident affects both HIPAA-covered and non-HIPAA plans, it is likely the notices will address the applicable HIPAA and state law requirements.

Still, there are some action items for affected employers to consider:

  • Stay informed. Closely follow the developments reported by Anthem, including coordinating with your benefits broker who might have additional information.

  • Consult with counsel. Experienced counsel can help employers properly identify their obligations and coordinate with Anthem as needed.

  • Communicate with employees. Be prepared to respond to employee questions – consider providing a short summary of the incident to employees along with links to the Anthem materials and FAQs.

  • Evaluate vendors. Use this incident as a reason to examine more closely the data privacy and security practices of all third party vendors that handle the personal information of your employees and customers, including insurance companies. Of course, a data breach is generally not a reason, by itself, to switch vendors. With breaches of all sizes affecting many companies, there is no telling whether the grass will be greener. But making inquiries and pressing vendors to do more, including by contract, is a prudent course of action, and even required in some states.

  • Revisit your own data security compliance measures. Employers should take this as an opportunity to assess or reassess their own data security compliance measures. As many have noted, it is not just large companies that are vulnerable to these kinds of attacks.

Our plan is/was self-insured and Anthem was our TPA, what should we be doing?

In this case, whether the plan is a health plan covered by HIPAA or another employee welfare benefit, as TPA, Anthem maintains the personal information of covered persons on behalf of the employer. In that case, Anthem’s legal obligations under HIPAA and state law, as applicable, generally require only that it notify the employer concerning the circumstances of the breach – how it happened, the kind of information breach, who was affected, etc. Then it is up to the employer/covered entity to carry out an appropriate investigation, provide notice to affected persons and otherwise comply with the applicable federal and state laws. However, administrative service agreements and in the case of health plans, business associate agreements, may delegate some of these responsibilities to the TPA, as well as indemnification obligations. So, in addition to some of the steps listed above, employers have a number of things to consider and steps to take:

  • Determine if plans have been affected. Employers might soon be receiving communications from Anthem concerning whether their plans have been affected. They also may want to reach out to Anthem and inquire.
  • Act quickly. HIPAA and state breach notification laws generally require that notices be provided without unreasonable delay, as well as place outside limits on when such notices can be provided – e.g., 60 days following discovery under HIPAA, and 30 days in Florida.
  • Examine the administrative services agreement and/or business associate agreement. For plans have been affected, employers need to review the related agreements as they could place certain obligations either on the employer or Anthem. The agreements also could be silent, in which case the plan/employer likely has the obligations to notify participants, agencies and media.
  • If Anthem is responsible for responding, employers should consider taking certain steps to ensure Anthem’s reaction is compliant – e.g., has it protected data from further attacks, completed the investigation, identified all affected persons, crafted content-compliant notifications (HIPAA and some state laws have specific content requirements), and notified the applicable federal and state agencies.
  • If the employer retained the responsibility to respond, it should be taking steps immediately to determine what happened and coordinate with Anthem concerning the response. This includes some of the steps listed above. For instance, in the case of group health plans under HIPAA, employers will need to confirm with Anthem whether Anthem or the employer/group health plan will be notifying the Department of Health and Human Services. Also, employers that have developed a data breach response plan (a good idea for all employers) should review that plan and follow it.

However, as a practical matter and regardless of what is in the services agreement, Anthem may decide to take the lead on the response, and not give employers much choice in shaping the communications made to persons covered under the plans.

  • Communicate with covered persons. If it turns out that the employer will be notifying plan participants, in addition to the notification letters referred to above, employers also need to be prepared to address participant questions about the incident. Designating certain individuals or outside vendors to handle these questions and creating a script of anticipated questions and answers would facilitate a consistent and controlled response.

  • Evaluate insurance protections. Some employers may have purchased “cyber” or “breach response” insurance which could cover some of the costs related to responding to the breach or defending litigation that may follow. Employers should review their policy(ies) with their brokers to understand the potential coverage and what steps, if any, they need to take to confirm coverage.

  • Document steps taken. Employers should document the steps they take to investigate and respond to the incident, particularly if it affects one of their group health plans covered by HIPAA.

    Some employees have complained about our data security practices, how should we respond?

    Take them seriously! Data security has been recognized at the federal, state and local levels as an important public policy concern, most recently by President Obama at the recent State of Union Address. Disciplining or taking adverse action against an employee who has raised these concerns could expose the employer to retaliation claims or violations of employee whistleblower protections.


House passes bill offering smaller employers relief from ACA coverage mandate

Originally posted January 7, 2015 by Jerry Geisel on Business Insurance

More small employers would be shielded from a health care reform law provision that requires employers to offer coverage or be liable for a stiff financial penalty under veterans-related legislation approved by the House of Representatives.

Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, employers with at least 100 full-time employees must offer coverage or be liable for a $2,000 per employee penalty, starting this year. In 2016, the 100-employee threshold for the so-called employer mandate drops to 50 employees and remains at that level in succeeding years.

Under the legislation, H.R. 22, introduced by Rep. Rodney Davis, R-Ill., and passed on a 412-0 vote Tuesday, employees who due to their military service receive health care coverage from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs or the federal Tricare program would not be counted in calculating whether their employers hit the employment count threshold that triggers the ACA employer coverage mandate.

Passage of the legislation will give smaller employers an additional incentive to hire veterans, Rep. Davis said in a statement.

A companion bill was introduced in the Senate on Wednesday by Sen. Roy Blunt, R-Mo.

The House last year passed an identical bill, but it was not taken up by the Senate.

capital-hill.jpg


OSHA’s New Reporting and Recordkeeping Rule Goes into Effect on January 1, 2015

Source: ThinkHR.com

On September 11, 2014, the U.S. Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) announced a final rule which updates the reporting and recordkeeping requirements for injuries and illnesses, found at 29 C.F.R. 1904. The rule goes into effect on January 1, 2015.

Changes to recordkeeping requirements

Under OSHA’s recordkeeping regulation, certain covered employers are required to prepare and maintain records of serious occupational injuries and illnesses using the OSHA 300 Log. However, there are two classes of employers that are partially exempt from routinely keeping injury and illness records:

  • Employers with 10 or fewer employees at all times during the previous calendar year; and
  • Establishments in certain low-hazard industries.

The new rule maintains the exemption for employers with fewer than 10 employees. However, the new rule has an updated list of industries that will be partially exempt from keeping OSHA records. The previous list of partially exempt industries was based on the old Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) system and injury and illness data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) from 1996, 1997, and 1998. The new list of partially exempt industries in the updated rule is based on the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) and injury and illness data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) from 2007, 2008, and 2009. As a result, many employers who were once exempted from OSHA’s recordkeeping requirements are now required to keep records. A list of newly covered industries can be found at www.osha.gov/recordkeeping2014/reporting_industries.html.

Changes to the reporting requirements

In addition to revising the recordkeeping requirements, the new rule expands the list of severe injuries and illnesses that employers must report to OSHA. Under the previous rule, employers were required to report the following events to OSHA:

  • All work-related fatalities.
  • All work-related hospitalizations of three or more employees.

Under the new rule, employers must report the following events to OSHA:

  • All work-related fatalities.
  • All work-related in-patient hospitalizations of one or more employees.
  • All work-related amputations.
  • All work-related losses of an eye.

For any fatality that occurs within 30 days of a work-related incident, employers must report the event within eight hours of finding out about it.

For any in-patient hospitalization, amputation, or eye loss that occurs within 24 hours of a work-related incident, employers must report the event within 24 hours of learning about it.

Employers do not have to report an event if the event:

  • Resulted from a motor vehicle accident on a public street or highway, except in a construction work zone; employers must report the event if it happened in a construction work zone.
  • Occurred on a commercial or public transportation system (airplane, subway, bus, ferry, street car, light rail, train).
  • Occurred more than 30 days after the work-related incident in the case of a fatality or more than 24 hours after the work-related incident in the case of an in-patient hospitalization, amputation, or loss of an eye.

Employers do not have to report an in-patient hospitalization if it was for diagnostic testing or observation only. An in-patient hospitalizationis a formal admission to the in-patient service of a hospital or clinic for care or treatment.

Employers do have to report an in-patient hospitalization due to a heart attack, if the heart attack resulted from a work-related incident.

What to report

Employers reporting a fatality, inpatient hospitalization, amputation, or loss of an eye to OSHA must report all of the following information:

  • The name of the establishment.
  • The location of the work-related incident.
  • The time of the work-related incident.
  • The type of reportable event (i.e., fatality, inpatient hospitalization, amputation, or loss of an eye).
  • The number of employees who suffered the event.
  • The names of the employees who suffered the event.
  • The contact person and his or her phone number.
  • A brief description of the work-related incident.

How to report

Employers can use the following three options to report an event:

  • Call the nearest OSHA Area Office during normal business hours.
  • Call the 24-hour OSHA hotline (800-321-OSHA or 800-321-6742).
  • Report an incident electronically (OSHA is developing a new means of reporting events electronically, which will be released soon and will be accessible on OSHA’s website).

Conclusion

It is recommended that employers familiarize themselves with the final rule and train personnel accordingly. All employers under OSHA jurisdiction, even those who are exempt from maintaining injury and illness records, are required to comply with the new severe injury and illness reporting requirements.

generic-compliance-wheel-450x450.jpg


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.