Trending: Virtual Healthcare Gains Broader Acceptance
Original post benefitsnews.com
The Cadillac tax may have been postponed until 2020 but that doesn’t mean employers have put healthcare cost containment measures on the backburner. In fact, new research shows 90% of employers are planning myriad measures to control rising healthcare costs.
The 2016 Medical Plan Trends and Observations Report, released today by DirectPath and CEB, highlights top trends in employers’ 2016 healthcare strategies. Overwhelmingly, employers are continuing to shift a larger share of healthcare costs to employees, often through high-deductible health plans, according to the report.
The use of telemedicine, meanwhile, continues to grow, with almost two-thirds of organizations offering or planning to offer such a service by 2018 – a 50% increase from the previous year.
“Employees often say that they go to the emergency room because it's hard to get a doctor's appointment. With telemedicine, you've got 24/7 access and you don't necessarily need an appointment,” notes Kim Buckey, vice president of compliance communications at DirectPath. “That's certainly a huge driver of avoiding those visits to the emergency room or even the urgent care clinic because telemedicine is typically less expensive than an urgent care visit, as well.”
Buckey says it “makes sense” for employers to investigate telemedicine – the remote diagnosis and treatment of patients via phone calls, email and/or video chat – because employees are increasingly accepting of virtual access to just about everything.
“How many employees now are just grabbing their phones, iPads, or computers when they need information? That's something that people are comfortable with using and they don't have to leave their house to get quality care,” she says.
Spousal and tobacco surcharges are also expected to grow, according to the CEB data. Twelve percent of employers surveyed already have spousal surcharges in place, while 29% expect to introduce them in the next three years. Twenty-one percent of employers already have tobacco surcharges in place, while 26% expect to implement them in the next three years.
“I think we're going to see more and more of those, particularly as employers focus more on wellness initiatives,” says Buckey, adding that a robust communications plan is needed before implementing tobacco or spousal surcharges.
“People don't understand basic concepts like deductibles, co-pays, co-insurance, let alone how to make a decision about what plan to choose, or frankly, what's the best way of receiving care,” she says. “As more and more of these provisions are added to plans, they have the potential of being even more confusing and off-putting to employees, so having a robust communications plan in place that addresses all of these issues [is important]. ... There certainly will be cases where these surcharges aren't going to apply to a large percentage of the population. You just want to make sure that the folks who are affected, understand how they're affected and why.”
Using Compliance Reviews to Prepare Employers for Audit
Original post benefitsnews.com
A retirement plan sponsor has a fiduciary duty to ensure that the plan complies with all federal and state rules and regulations. Plan sponsors must follow the plan’s provisions without deviating from them unless the plan has been amended accordingly. Failure to follow the provisions can lead to plan disqualification. For the 2015 fiscal year, the Employee Benefits Security Administration reported that 67.2% of employee benefit plans investigated resulted in financial penalties or other corrective actions.
An operational compliance review can help. It’s different from a financial audit. An audit reviews the plan as it relates to the presentation of financial data; it is not designed to ensure compliance with all of ERISA’s provisions or other requirements applicable under the Internal Revenue Code. Operational compliance reviews, on the other hand, are concerned with validating the process being reviewed, with no restriction on whether it impacts the financials. An operational compliance reviewer wants to know that the process works, whether it is replicable, and consistent with the plan document.
Where to Begin
First, employers need to define the scope of the plan. To help define the scope, advisers and employers consider the following questions:
- Does the plan sponsor have a prototype, volume submitter, or individually designed plan document?
- Have there been any recent changes to the plan document?
- Have there been any changes to any of the service providers, including payroll and record keepers, over the past few years?
- Has the plan sponsor had to perform any corrections recently, perhaps without fully understanding how the errors occurred?
- Have there been any data changes or file changes as they are provided to the record keeper?
- Is there money in the budget to cover the review?
With the scope defined, a thorough operational compliance review should involve the following key steps:
- Review of the plan document and amendments, along with summary plan descriptions and a summary of material modifications;
- Review of required notices sent to participants, such as quarterly statements, initial and annual 404(a)(5) participant fee disclosures, Qualified Default Investment Alternative notices, safe harbor notices, etc.;
- Review of service provider contracts, such as record keepers and trustees/custodians;
- Discussions with the people who administer the plan, which may include the record keeper, trustee/custodian, payroll and benefits administration personnel;
- Review of plan administrative manuals, record keeper operational manuals, procedural documents and policy statements; and
- Review of sample participant transactions and data for each of the areas being reviewed.
Reviewing and comparing a record keeper’s administrative or operational manual with the plan document is an essential step in the review process. There tends to be a higher propensity for errors to occur when a record keeper is administering a plan that has an individually designed document versus its own prototype document. Lack of documented procedures can be cause for concern in ensuring the consistency and integrity of administering the plan, especially when there are any changes to the record keeping infrastructure, such as changes to plan provisions, modifications or upgrades to the record keeping system, or even personnel turnover.
While this process may lead to the discovery of errors you don’t necessarily want to find, you do want to gain perspective and overall confidence on your plan’s operations. Aside from finding errors, here are some things you should capture from an operational compliance review:
Areas of improvement for operational efficiency, including opportunities to maximize record keeper’s outsourcing capabilities;
- Answers to questions on whether the plan’s provisions and administration would be considered “typical”, and how they compare to industry best practices;
- An overall rating or report card of how a record keeper or service provider compares to industry peers; and
- Confidence that if your client’s plan is approached by the DOL or IRS, it’s ready for an investigation that will conclude with a letter saying “no further action is contemplated at this time”.
Embarking on an operational review may seem intimidating but, with a well-thought-out plan, process, and the right resources, a successful review will uncover potential issues that can be resolved the IRS or DOL arrive at your client’s door. The rewards for your efforts may include perspective on industry best practices and how you can operate the plan more efficiently.
Bill Would Allow Medicare-Eligible Retirees to Keep HSA Contributions
Original post businessinsurance.com
Health savings accounts are surging in popularity — and that can lead to some complications for older workers who enroll in Medicare.
Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) are offered to workers enrolled in high-deductible health insurance plans. The accounts are used primarily to meet deductible costs; employers often contribute and workers can make pretax contributions up to $3,350 for individuals, and $5,640 for families; the dollars can be invested and later spent tax-free to meet healthcare expenses.
Twenty-four percent of U.S. workers were enrolled in high-deductible health plans last year, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation - and 15% of them were in plans coupled with an HSA. That compares with 6% using HSA-linked plans as recently as 2010. Assets in HSA accounts rose 25% last year, and the number of accounts rose 22%, according to a report by Devenir, an HSA investment adviser and consulting firm.
But as more employees work past traditional retirement age, some sticky issues arise for HSA account holders tied to enrollment in Medicare. The key issue: HSAs can only be used alongside qualified high-deductible health insurance plans. The minimum deductible allowed for HSA-qualified accounts this year is $1,300 for individual coverage ($2,600 for family coverage). Medicare is not considered a high-deductible plan, although the Part A deductible this year is $1,288 (for Part B, it is $166).
That means that if a worker - or a spouse covered on the employer's plan - signs up for Medicare coverage, the worker must stop contributing to the HSA, although withdrawals can continue.
The normal enrollment age for Medicare is 65, but people who are still working at that point often stay on the health plans of their employers (more on that below). In certain situations, the worker or a retired spouse might enroll for some Medicare benefits. Moreover, if the worker or spouse claims Social Security, that can trigger an automatic enrollment in Medicare Part A and B.
That would require the worker to stop contributing to the HSA - and the contributions actually would need to stop six months before that Social Security claim occurs. That is because Medicare Part A is retroactive for up to six months, assuming the enrollee was eligible for coverage during those months. Failing to do that can lead to a tax penalty.
"The Medicare problem is a basic flaw in the way HSAs are designed," said Jody Dietel, chief compliance officer of WageWorks Inc, a provider of HSA and other consumer-directed benefit plans to employers.
Recognizing the problem, U.S. Senator Orrin Hatch and Representative Erik Paulsen proposed legislation last month that would allow HSA-eligible seniors enrolled in Medicare Part A (only) to continue to contribute to their HSAs.
The HSA complication is bound to arise more often as the huge baby boom generation retires, and as high-deductible insurance linked to HSA accounts continues to gain popularity among employers. High-deductible plans come with lower premiums - the average premium for individual coverage in a high-deductible health plan coupled with a savings option last year was $5,567 (the employee share was $868), KFF reports. By contrast, the comparable average premium for a preferred provider organization was $6,575 (with workers contributing $1,145).
Some experts also pitch HSAs as a tax-advantaged way to save to meet healthcare costs in retirement - although the HSA's main purpose is to help people meet current-year deductible costs, and employers often make an annual contribution for that purpose.
So far, there is not much evidence that large accumulations are building in the accounts. The average account total balance last year was $14,035, according to Devenir. The limits on contributions are one reason for that.
Deciding to delay a Medicare enrollment depends on your individual circumstances.
If you work for an employer with fewer than 20 workers, Medicare usually is the primary insurer at age 65, so failing to sign up would mean losing much of your coverage - hardly worth the tax advantage of continued HSA contributions. If you work for a larger employer, Medicare coverage is secondary, so a delayed Medicare filing is more feasible - so long as you or a spouse are not enrolled in Social Security. (Also make sure that the account in question is an HSA and not a Health Reimbursement Account - the latter is not a savings account and does not bring the Medicare enrollment problem into play.)
"We usually advise people to talk it over with a tax expert - it's more of a tax issue than a health insurance question," said Casey Schwarz, senior counsel for education and federal policy at the Medicare Rights Center, a nonprofit advocacy and consumer rights group.
Percent of Plans Offering HRA/HSA Option Plummet
Original post benefitspro.com
A study of some 10,000 employer sponsored plans by United Benefit Advisors of health plans revealed that about 24 percent of all health plans offered either an HSA or HRA component — a 29 percent decrease in the number of health plans nationally. That drop indicates that plan designers and health plan sponsors are still out of sync on the value of these accounts.
“Faulty plan design, in some instances, has led to smaller pricing gaps between traditional plans and HSA compatible plans,” says Steve Salinas, benefits advisor at Bridgeport Benefits, a California-based UBA Partner Firm. “Many insurers have added stipulations to their contracts disallowing employer-funded accounts in the presence of a high deductible plan.”
UBA’s data supports the overview that “enrollment and contributions to these account-based plans varied wildly based on employer size, industry, and region.”
It offered a large employer/small employer illustration of this near-chaotic situation. “While large employers typically offer the lowest contributions to account-based plans, companies with 200 to 1,000+ employees saw the most dramatic increases in enrollment, ranging from 50 to 90 percent over the last three years.”
In some respects, plan designers and consumers in California may be closer to figuring out how to design plans with HRAs and HSAs that strike a balance between the objectives of all three parties. California offers the best HRA and HSA plans for singles and families.
- California leads the country with the highest HRA contributions for singles, which average $2,288;
- California is the only region in the country that increased contributions over the last three years, making them the most generous in the nation by contributing $981 to singles and $1,789 to families;
- Families in California receive the second highest average family contribution to HRAs at $3,950, a 13 percent decrease from three years ago when they led the nation at $4,537;
- The average employer contribution to an HSA was $491 for a single employee and $882 for a family.
“In California, health insurance costs are so high that employees very often gravitate to the lowest cost options, typically the HSA-compatible high deductible plans,” says Keith McNeil, benefits advisor at Arrow Benefits Group in California, a UBA Partner Firm. “HRAs have been under health plan scrutiny due to the trend of self-insuring the high deductible through an HRA, which the health plan believes raises the cost of their plans. They have threatened penalties for non-compliance. So in the small group market, it has been much easier to simply offer HSA compatible plans and include the HSA as an option to members.”
“Large employers (1,000+ employees) have not typically offered competitive HRA or HSA plans because they are able to offer other types of more generous plans,” says Les McPhearson, CEO of UBA. “But this is the sector to watch: If they see the kind of double-digit cost increases other employer groups already have, they may have no choice but to offer more attractive HRA and HSA plans in an effort to control costs.”
Agencies Propose Revised SBC Template and Uniform Glossary
Original post shrm.org
The federal agencies overseeing the Affordable Care Act announced a 30-day comment period ending on March 28, 2016, regarding proposed revisions to the Summary of Benefits and Coverage (SBC) and related documents that employers must provide to eligible employees for each of their health plans, following the Feb. 26 publication of an official notice in the Federal Register.
The revisions could be effective for employer-provided plan years beginning with the second quarter of 2017.
On Feb. 25, the Departments of Labor (DOL), Treasury, and Health and Human Services (HHS) released the proposed revised SBC template and revised uniform glossary, along with revised instructions for group plans. Under the Affordable Care Act, SBCs and the uniform glossary must be given to new hires and to employees during open enrollment.
The agencies had issued a final rule regarding SBCs and related documents in June 2015. However, revisions to the SBC template and the uniform glossary were delayed to allow the agencies to complete consumer testing and receive additional input from the public and stakeholders.
Providing Plan Details
In an analysis posted at the Health Affairs Blog, Timothy Jost, a professor at the Washington and Lee University School of Law in Lexington, VA., noted that among the proposed changes the revised documents would:
• Better identify services covered before the deductible applies.
• Disclose whether the plan has “embedded” deductibles and out-of-pocket limits (under which enrollees in family coverage can meet individual deductibles or out-of-pocket limits before the family limits are met).
• Disclose more information on tiered networks in relation to coverage of common medical events.
Though it may not provide the clarity employers and employees are looking for, "on the whole, the proposed revised SBC is a distinct improvement over the current SBC,” commented Jost.
Enrollment in vision plans remains high
Original post benefitsnews.com
Employers hoping to attract and retain employees need not look further than their vision benefit offerings. New research shows vision benefits have high engagement with employees, but some experts say employers need to work closer with advisers to build the benefit plan workers are seeking.
According to the 2016 annual Employee Perceptions of Vision Benefits survey conducted by Wakefield Research on behalf of Transitions Optical, eight in 10 people chose to enroll in employer-sponsored vision plans. It’s the only benefit to experience a year-over-year increase, the survey found, adding that some benefits such as life, dental and 401(k) plans saw a slight decrease in enrollment compared with 2015.
As more millennials enter the workforce, ancillary benefits such as vision may be considered a more immediate need than retirement plans or some medical benefits, Jonathan Ormsby, strategic account manager with Transitions Optical suggests.
“A competitive benefits package is a significant consideration and draw for workers,” he he says. “Nearly a third of survey respondents said they have, or know somebody, who has accepted a job in the last year because it offered a competitive benefits package – and one in five note that vision is the most appealing element of the package.”
The survey also found employees are increasingly making demands of their employers in terms of what options the vision plans cover. Forty-one percent say it is very important and 46% say it is somewhat important to have premium materials covered, including impact resistant polycarbonate lenses, photochromic lenses, anti-reflective treatment and others.
A desire for broader choice is also affecting the vision market, according to Srikanth Lakshminarayanan, senior director for the Center of Excellence at HGS Healthcare, which provides business process management and end-to-end services for healthcare payers and provider organizations.
“What we now hear from the customer is that they want a choice of options to be much broader,” he says. “They don’t want to be tied up to a particular vision care company” in order to obtain group discounts.
Education
“I think education is the top priority and one strategy we recommend for that is better collaboration between advisers and employers,” notes Ormsby.
For example, he says, “Advisers need to better educate employers on the materials especially the frames and lenses side of the benefits.”
Eighty-seven percent of employees say having premium material coverage is important when selecting their vision plan but more than a quarter are uninformed about the lenses covered by their vision plan, Ormsby says.
“So plenty of room for education,” he says.
Education should be a year-round initiative, he adds, something advisers should think about when working with employers. The survey found 29% of respondents felt a vision plan’s website was the most valuable resource in helping understand benefits, while 26% felt the benefits provider was valuable.
Top healthcare benefit trends to watch
Original post benefitsnews.com
The number of employers offering a healthy living/incentive program grew in 2015, and is one of several trends to watch as the year 2016 unfolds, analysts say.
Plan design changes and programs such as incentive and wellness were of increasing interest to employers last year and most “continue to turn to their brokers and consultants to learn more about new health plan benefit designs and distribution models,” says Tiffany Wirth, executive director of the Healthcare Trends Institute.
“Helping employees better understand the value of provided benefits and making cost-conscious benefit decisions continues to remain important to employers,” she says.
The number of employers offering a healthy living/incentive program grew from 29.8% in 2014 to 34.6% in 2015, according to the HTI’s 2015 Healthcare Benefit Trends Benchmark Study.
During a webinar unveiling the results, Wirth said 21.8% of employers are considering such a program and 16.7% are still learning about them. About 1 in 4 employers (24.7%) indicated they weren’t interested in offering such a program.
“We’re starting to see these types of programs take hold as [healthcare] reform is being adopted and companies are pushing employees to understand their decisions, their purchases, and all of the different things that go along with healthcare benefits,” she says.
As part of incentive program tracking, HTI has also been examining what sort of wellness programs companies are implementing, Wirth says.
Almost half (44.6%) offer at least one type of wellness program, the survey found. Thirty-one percent offer biometric screenings and about 30% offer an opportunity for health risk management.
Key differences from the 2014 benchmark study, Wirth says, included the ranking of top benefits offered by employers. The three highest company-offered employee benefits in 2014 (PPO, family plan and prescription drug) continued to rank high in 2015, but dental came in at No. 1 this year, with about 74% of employers offering it.
More than half (52.1%) of respondents said they had some familiarity with defined contribution plans and private exchanges, with the majority of those who indicated they were interested in offering a DCP identifying 2017 as the year they would likely do so.
Wirth says continued interest is growing among employers to learn and understand more about DCPS.
Regulatory clarity makes ID protection a more attractive employee benefit
Original post benefitsnews.com
Identity theft is the fastest growing crime and consumer complaint in America, and benefit industry experts say concerned employees are seeking protection as an employer perk more than ever. New regulatory certainty about how identity theft protection benefits are taxed could increase the popularity of the benefit as an employer offering.
More than 13 million Americans fall victim to identity theft every year, which means every three seconds someone's identity is stolen. Increased concern about the crime has individuals clamoring for identity theft protection benefits. How that benefit would be taxed, however, had been a topic of some debate in the benefit industry, with some employers eager to offer the benefit but concerned about the impact on employee income taxes.
In its Dec. 30 announcement, the IRS said it will allow preferential tax treatment for employer-provided identity theft benefits, despite the absence of a data breach. Generally, all benefits provided to an employee by an employer must be treated as income, unless the Code provides an exclusion. Previous guidance from the IRS created an exclusion for identity protection services, but only after a breach and only for individuals whose personal information might have been compromised.
The IRS’s latest announcement notes that several commenters requested guidance regarding the tax treatment of identity protection services provided before a data breach. According to the commenters, these services are being provided with increasing frequency in order to allow early detection of data breaches and minimize the impact of breaches when they occur. In response, the IRS has concluded that its previous guidance should be extended.
“The IRS will not assert that an individual must include in gross income the value of identity protection services provided by the individual’s employer or by another organization to which the individual provided personal information (for example, name, social security number, or banking or credit account numbers). Additionally, the IRS will not assert that an employer providing identity protection services to its employees must include the value of the identity protection services in the employees’ gross income and wages. The IRS also will not assert that these amounts must be reported on an information return (such as Form W-2 or Form 1099-MISC) filed with respect to such individuals,” the guidance states.
Any further guidance on the taxability of these benefits will be applied prospectively, it adds.
“This guidance is welcome news for employers that want to offer identity protection services to employees as part of their data security strategy. They may now offer these services without increasing their (or their employees’) federal tax liability. However, employers should be mindful of state and/or local tax laws as they may differ from federal tax law,” according to Tzvia Feiertag, a senior associate in the Labor & Employment Law Department of the global law firm Proskauer.
The preferential tax treatment does not apply to cash received in lieu of identity protection services or to proceeds received under an existing identity theft insurance policy, the guidance says.
3 ways gamification can improve your team’s well-being
Original post benefitsnews.com
What does a big, fancy word like “gamification” mean anyway? Simply put, it’s the idea that game-like rules and rewards make the hard stuff fun. And smart leaders now use it to engage and motivate their employees.
Well-known game designer Jane McGonigal says “living gamefully” helps people bring curiosity, passion and balance into their lives. It gives them a higher purpose so they keep moving forward in their mission even when obstacles block their vision.
Gamification is the reason fitness apps work. When the buzzer signals that you hit 10,000 steps, you win. Even performance reviews contain elements of game design – when your employees exceed all their goals and move to the next career level, you both win.
Let’s go for that big win. Help your employees achieve their goals and improve their health by introducing these gamification strategies.
3 gamification strategies to implement:
1. Wellness quests. As noted above, wearable technology makes tracking exercise so much easier. But gamification for health doesn’t require that level of sophistication — you can make a game out of almost anything when you keep score by pencil. Challenge your team members to sneak extra exercise into their day. Have them jot down a checkmark every time they take a stretch break. Heat up competition by posting results on a whiteboard for all to see. Add rules or creative complexities as time goes on and the activities become easier. The more quests employees complete, the healthier they’ll be.
2. Social communities. We all need a little help from our allies. We crave support from one another, and we’re willing to dig in deeper when we know others are rooting for us. So it’s no surprise that social interactions and competitions help employees stay motivated and happy. Hook your employees into healthy activities with team vs. team challenges, photos, comments, nudges and cheers. Recognize accomplishments in ways that best fit your company’s culture – whether that’s sending around leader-board rankings each week or letting peers nominate each other for special badges.
3. Power-ups. The journey to well-being is never over — but it’s nearly impossible to keep going if you don’t hit milestones. This is when you need to activate “power-ups” — the quick tasks that feel like small wins. Remember how satisfying those power-ups were in your video games of childhood? Encourage your employees to take baby steps toward their goals. For instance, they may not have time for a lunchtime workout, but can they sneak in a few jumping jacks before every meeting? How about simply standing up for two minutes? Or taking a mid-meeting plank break? Achievements like these provide a burst of feel-good energy and intrinsic motivation to help us stick with lofty commitments.
ACA Makes Tax Season Tougher For Small Companies
Original post insurancenewsnet.com
As more requirements of the health care law take effect, income tax filing season becomes more complex for small businesses.
Companies required to offer health insurance have new forms to complete providing details of their coverage. Owners whose payrolls have hovered around the threshold where insurance is mandatory need to be sure their coverage — if they offered it last year — was sufficient to avoid penalties.
Here are some of the issues related to the health care law that small businesses need to be aware of:
HOW MANY EMPLOYEES DO YOU HAVE?
Companies with 100 or more workers were required to offer affordable health insurance to employees and their dependents, but not their spouses, starting in 2015. Businesses with 50 to 99 workers must offer coverage starting this year; those with under 50 are exempt.
Owners who were on the hook for affordable insurance last year but didn't provide it may face thousands of dollars in penalties — $2,000 per employee per year, not counting the first 80 employees for the 2015 tax year, and the first 30 for 2016. So it's critical for them to know what their head count was — and many may not realize the calculations are based on a company's 2014 payroll, not 2015.
Here's where it gets complicated: Part-time workers and those fired during the course of the year can all be counted toward the threshold where coverage is required. So can some seasonal workers.
Part-timers work fewer than 30 hours a week under the health care law. They must be counted toward what are called full-time equivalent workers. If, for example, a company has two people who each work an average 15 hours a week, they count as one full-time equivalent employee working 30 hours. A company with 30 full-timers and 40 part-timers who average 15 hours a week each has 50 full-time equivalent workers and is required to offer insurance.
Another wrinkle: Owners with multiple companies that combined have 50 or more workers may be required to offer insurance, even if each of the individual companies has fewer than 50.
NEW TAX FORMS
Starting this year, businesses required to comply with the health care law must complete forms that detail the cost of their coverage and the names and Social Security numbers of employees and their dependents. The government will use the information to determine whether a company provided coverage that was affordable under the law, or whether it must pay a penalty.
Accountants have described the forms as labor-intensive, because they require information from a number of sources including payroll and health insurance records. Many companies have had to hire workers or payroll services to complete the forms.
The IRS, recognizing the forms' complexity, has extended the deadlines for the forms to be filed. Forms 1095-B and 1095-C, which must be given to workers, are now due March 31. Forms 1094-B and 1094-C, required to be filed with the IRS, are due by May 31 if they're not being submitted on paper, and June 30 if filed online.
WELL-INTENTIONED BUT ILLEGAL
Some employers with fewer than 50 workers and who don't offer insurance have tried to help staffers with the costs of coverage by giving them money toward their premiums, with the intention that the money will be tax-free. That could get owners into expensive trouble with the IRS — they can be fined $100 per day per employee receiving the money, a total of $36,500 per year for each worker.
The problem is that some employers treat this money as a health benefit, but it's not coverage that complies with the law. So they can be penalized.
Companies can help employees with their premium costs by giving them a raise or a more traditional bonus, says Mark Luscombe, a tax analyst with the business information company Wolters Kluwer. That means withholding income and what's known as payroll taxes — Social Security and Medicare — from employees' paychecks, and for companies to pay their payroll tax share.