PPACA Critics Pounce On Employer Mandate Delay
Originally published by Elizabeth D. Festa on https://www.propertycasualty360.com
The Obama administration announcement July 2 that it was going to delay implementation of the employer mandate of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) until 2015 has thrown into a tailspin expectations of the act’s requirements and revised expectations for other provisions of the Act.
Conservative politicians pounced.
House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-MI) stated that “the Administration's sudden turnabout is a clear admission that its signature law is bad for business and bad for jobs. This law will never be ready for prime time and sadly, the administration's acknowledgement that it still needs yet another year clearly disrupts everyone's ability to determine what is best for them and their business."
Regulators seemed a bit worried but were quick to come up with solutions--if they had one.
The California Department of Insurance pointed people toward the state-operated health insurance exchange, expected to go into operation Jan. 1, 2014.
“Employees whose employers do not provide health insurance will be able to purchase health insurance in California’s new health benefit exchange.” stated Commissioner Dave Jones. He noted that many will be eligible for a premium subsidy if they make less than 400 percent of the federal poverty level, which in California is about $94,000 for a family of four.
Jones also urged the Administration to “make sure that this provision can be implemented in 2015.”
Brokers say this delay will have tremendous consequences for the private marketplace.
“No doubt this is a huge capitulation by the Administration, consistent with getting ahead of the potential politics of a messy implementation,” stated Joel Wood of the Council of Insurance Agents & Brokers.
“Our members have mixed emotions about this. They’ve invested an astonishing amount of resources in running the pay-or-play scenarios for their clients and preparing for January. Those who haven’t prepared their clients will revel in the news, and conservatives will sense blood in the water. On the other hand, the mandate drives up the cost of labor; perhaps this is a modest mitigation,” Wood stated.
Health insurance representatives shook their collective heads, and wondered if another shoe would drop in the ACA implementation.
On June 19, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued a report entitled "Status of CMS Efforts to Establish Federally Facilitated Health Insurance Exchanges.
"The detailed 50-page report raises a red flag about whether the health insurance exchanges established by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) will be open for business on October 1, as the Act contemplates," stated a July 2 email alert from the American Health Lawyers Association.
The Report notes that many states, with both future federal partnership and state-operated exchanges, have not demonstrated that they will be able to carry out the necessary functions to run the exchanges or are behind on the timetables required to do so in a timely manner.
“Because the Act effectively requires the federal government to undertake whatever exchange functions states fail to carry out, the precise scope of what the federal government will need to accomplish in order to ensure that the exchanges are up and running is not yet clear and likely will remain something of a moving target until (and perhaps even after) the exchanges go live,” the AHLA stated.
For its part, the Administration is perhaps hearing from employee benefit groups that the paperwork is too complex and employers are not ready.
It said that said the delay is designed to meet two goals.
“First, it will allow us to consider ways to simplify the new reporting requirements consistent with the law,” said Mark J. Mazur, assistant secretary for tax policy at the U.S. Department of the Treasury, who first unveiled the new from he administration on a blog post on the Treasury site.
The Treasury's IRS would levy the tax penalty for companies that did not comply with the mandate, when it goes into effect. IRS officials have suggested that employers and their advisors should avoid using complicated strategies to try to minimize the number of workers who are eligible for group health benefits under PPACA. It did so back in late December in the preamble to draft regulations for implementing the "shared responsibility" parts of PPACA.
PPACA calls for employers with more than 50 full-time equivalent employees to provide a minimum level of health benefits for year-round employees who work more than 30 hours per week. Workers who do not offer the minimum level of coverage, or fail to ensure that the coverage meets affordability requirements, are supposed to pay penalties.
Mazur pointed to the Administration’s work to reduce and simplify its 21-page application for health insurance to three pages as an example of the effort it is giving the employer mandate reporting requirements.
“Second, it will provide time to adapt health coverage and reporting systems while employers are moving toward making health coverage affordable and accessible for their employees,” Mazur wrote.
Within the next week, the Administration is expected to publish formal guidance on its decision.
Workers with windows sleep more soundly
Originally posted by Dan Cook on https://www.benefitspro.com
"What light through yonder window breaks?” Romeo asks in the second act of Shakespeare’s “Romeo and Juliet.”
Perhaps it is the light of the glow of good health and the brightness of eye of the well-rested. At least, that’s what a recent survey suggests the legendary lover was referring to.
The research, presented last week at the annual meeting of the Associated Professional Sleep Societies, was based on a study of 49 day-shift windowed and windowless workers.
Those with windows got 173 percent more white light at work than non-windowed workers.
The well-lit employees slept 46 minutes more a night than those without windows.
Whether it’s the light, the rest, or a combination of both, the windowed workers were more physically active during the day and reported having a higher quality of life than their four-walls-surround-me peers.
They didn’t get as sleepy during the day (no, duh) and reported fewer “sleep disturbances” at night.
This window into the workplace was provided by doctoral candidate Ivy Cheung, in the interdepartmental neuroscience program at Northwestern University in Chicago.
Supreme Court rulings raise standards for proving discrimination at work
Originally posted by Judy Greenwald on https://www.businessinsurance.com
Employers scored two victories before the U.S. Supreme Court last week that legal experts say will enable them to more effectively defend themselves in employment lawsuits.
In its 5-4 ruling in Maetta Vance v. Ball State University et al., the high court narrowed the definition of supervisor for purposes of discrimination cases.
And plaintiffs will find it more difficult to prove retaliation after the high court's 5-4 ruling inUniversity of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar.
In Vance, the court held that an employee is a supervisor for purposes of vicarious liability under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 only if he or she has the power to make “tangible” employment actions against the victim, such as hiring or firing. The court said even if there is no tangible employment action, the employer may escape liability by establishing it exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct any harassing behavior.
The court said in cases when co-workers are inflicting psychological injury, employees may still prevail by showing the employer was negligent in permitting the harassment to occur. Its majority ruling criticized the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's broader definition of supervisor as a “study in ambiguity.”
The ruling, which affirmed a decision by the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago, said, “Under the definition of "supervisor” that we adopt today, the question of supervisor status, when contested, can very often be resolved as a matter of law before trial.
“The elimination of this issue from the trial will focus the efforts of the parties, who will be able to present their cases in a way that conforms to the framework that the jury will apply.”
The case involved an African-American food worker's allegations that she was the victim of racially based harassment by a white female whom she identified as a supervisor.
Bernard J. Bobber, a partner with Foley & Lardner L.L.P. in Milwaukee, who was not involved in the case, said the court accepted the 7th Circuit's definition of a supervisor and rejected the EEOC's definition, which employers do not like because the agency's definition “leaves lots of room for argument” about who is a supervisor.
“It's a good decision for employers” and “should provide some bright rules in those jurisdictions that aren't already required to follow that particular test,” said Steve A. Miller, a partner with Fisher & Phillips L.L.P. in Chicago, who was not involved in the case.
In its 5-4 ruling in Nassar, which involved a charge of discrimination and retaliation by a physician of Middle Eastern origin, the court held that a defendant is not liable for an action if he would have taken the same action anyway for other, nondiscriminatory reasons. It rejected the standard that requires a plaintiff to prove only that discrimination was a motivating factor for an adverse employment action.
Lessening the causation rules in cases of wrongful employer conduct prohibited by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 could “contribute to the filing of frivolous claims, which would siphon resources from efforts by employer, administrative agencies and courts to combat workplace harassment,” said the majority opinion, reversing a decision by a panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans.
“This case is a true watershed development in that it presents a dramatic shift in the court's approach to retaliation claims,” said Gregory Keating, a shareholder with Littler Mendelson P.C. in Boston.
The court's ruling has “adopted a very strict test” for establishing causation, unlike several other cases decided by the court in recent years that made retaliation easier to establish, said Mr. Keating, who was not involved in the case.
Russell Cawyer, a partner with Kelly Hart & Hallman L.L.P. in Fort Worth, Texas, said, while the ruling will not reduce the number of retaliation charges filed by plaintiff attorneys, defendants will be more successful in having these cases dismissed.
Official Press Release from DOT on Employer Mandate Delay
Originally posted by Mark J. Mazur on https://www.treasury.gov
Over the past several months, the Administration has been engaging in a dialogue with businesses - many of which already provide health coverage for their workers - about the new employer and insurer reporting requirements under the Affordable Care Act (ACA). We have heard concerns about the complexity of the requirements and the need for more time to implement them effectively. We recognize that the vast majority of businesses that will need to do this reporting already provide health insurance to their workers, and we want to make sure it is easy for others to do so. We have listened to your feedback. And we are taking action.
The Administration is announcing that it will provide an additional year before the ACA mandatory employer and insurer reporting requirements begin. This is designed to meet two goals. First, it will allow us to consider ways to simplify the new reporting requirements consistent with the law. Second, it will provide time to adapt health coverage and reporting systems while employers are moving toward making health coverage affordable and accessible for their employees. Within the next week, we will publish formal guidance describing this transition. Just like the Administration’s effort to turn the initial 21-page application for health insurance into a three-page application, we are working hard to adapt and to be flexible about reporting requirements as we implement the law.
Here is some additional detail. The ACA includes information reporting (under section 6055) by insurers, self-insuring employers, and other parties that provide health coverage. It also requires information reporting (under section 6056) by certain employers with respect to the health coverage offered to their full-time employees. We expect to publish proposed rules implementing these provisions this summer, after a dialogue with stakeholders - including those responsible employers that already provide their full-time work force with coverage far exceeding the minimum employer shared responsibility requirements - in an effort to minimize the reporting, consistent with effective implementation of the law.
Once these rules have been issued, the Administration will work with employers, insurers, and other reporting entities to strongly encourage them to voluntarily implement this information reporting in 2014, in preparation for the full application of the provisions in 2015. Real-world testing of reporting systems in 2014 will contribute to a smoother transition to full implementation in 2015.
We recognize that this transition relief will make it impractical to determine which employers owe shared responsibility payments (under section 4980H) for 2014. Accordingly, we are extending this transition relief to the employer shared responsibility payments. These payments will not apply for 2014. Any employer shared responsibility payments will not apply until 2015.
During this 2014 transition period, we strongly encourage employers to maintain or expand health coverage. Also, our actions today do not affect employees’ access to the premium tax credits available under the ACA (nor any other provision of the ACA).
Mark J. Mazur is the Assistant Secretary for Tax Policy at the U.S. Department of the Treasury.
White House To Delay Employer Mandate Until 2015
Originally published by Avik Roy on https://www.forbes.com
The Obama administration has decided to delay the implementation of the employer mandate—the requirement that all firms with 50 or more employees offer health coverage, or pay steep fines—until 2015. The mandate was supposed to go into effect on January 1, 2014. This development will have a significant impact on the rollout of the PPACA, the private health insurance market, and the nation’s economy, as I detail below.
The news was first reported by Mike Dorning and Alex Wayne of Bloomberg this afternoon. The ruling, they say, “will come in regulatory guidance to be issued later this week. It addresses vehement complaints from employer groups about the administrative burden of reporting requirements, though it may also affect coverage provided to some workers.”
“First,” wrote Treasury official Mark Mazur in a statement, the delay “will allow us to consider ways to simplify the new reporting requirements consistent with the law. Second, it will provide time to adapt health coverage and reporting systems while employers are moving toward making health coverage affordable and accessible for their employees.” (Mazur’s full statement is appended to the end of this article.)
Will more employers dump coverage if the mandate is delayed?
As a matter of background, Section 1513/4890H of the Affordable Care Act requires that all firms with more than 50 full-time-equivalent employees—defined as 120 hours per month—offer government-certified health coverage to their workers, or pay a steep fine. For more details on how the mandate works, and how it incentivizes firms to offer “unaffordable” coverage to their workers, read mypiece on the topic from May 21.
In the short term, the delay will have several effects. First, the mandate drives up the cost of labor, and therefore increases unemployment; delaying the mandate by one year may modestly mitigate that disincentive.
Most importantly, the delay of the mandate means that more people will want to enroll in subsidized insurance exchanges. Every year, fewer and fewer employers offer health coverage; given one more year to restructure their workforces, this process could accelerate.
There’s been a lot of debate as to whether or not the PPACA incentivizes employers to drop coverage for their employees. A 2011 survey of employers by McKinsey & Co. found that 30 percent of employers “definitely or probably” would stop offering coverage after 2014; among those who felt that they had the most knowledge of the law’s inner workings, that number rose to 50 percent.
However, the Congressional Budget Office, in a 2012 report, argued that employers do not have a large incentive to dump workers’ coverage. And even if employers dropped coverage for an additional 20 million workers relative to the CBO’s projections, the deficit would not increase, says the CBO, because the subsidies paid to low-income workers would be offset by an increase in tax revenue from lower utilization of the tax exclusion for employer-sponsored insurance.
In general, it would appear that with the rollout of PPACA exchanges in 2014, paired with a delay of the employer mandate until 2015, many more people may enroll in the exchanges. This is both good and bad: good, because it’s a good thing for people to buy insurance on their own, rather than having it bought on their behalf by someone else with their money; bad, because the exchanges are proving to be quite costly, though comparable in cost to premiums in the employer-sponsored market today.
Does Obama have the legal authority to delay the mandate?
The Affordable Care Act is quite clear as to the effective date of the employer mandate. “The amendments made by this section shall apply to months beginning after December 31, 2013,” concludes Section 1513.
The executive branch is charged with enforcing the law, and it can of course choose not to enforce the law if it wants. But people can sue the federal government, and a judge could theoretically force the administration to enforce the mandate.
So the question is: Would anyone sue the Obama administration over this? Employers, of course, will be thrilled to be spared the mandate for one more year. Democratic politicians, similarly, will be glad to have this not hanging over their heads for the 2014 mid-term election.
The wild-card is left-wing activists. Most, you’d think, would defer to the administration on questions of implementation. I’m no lawyer, but it seems to me that all it would take is for one judge to issue an injunction, for an activist to require the administration to enforce the mandate.
The employer mandate is bad policy and should be eliminated. But the unilateral way the WH is doing it isn’t good.
— Ezra Klein (@ezraklein) July 2, 2013
Delay could help to unravel the employer-sponsored insurance market
Health wonks of every persuasion, myself included, have long argued that the original sin of the U.S. health-care system is the quirk in the tax code that incentivizes people to get health coverage through their employers, instead of shopping for it on their own.
If you like the PPACA, and you want it to work, you don’t need the employer mandate. Democrats put the employer mandate in the Affordable Care Act because the President was worried that, without a mandate, employers would dump coverage, violating his oft-repeated promise that “if you like your plan, you can keep it.” Before Mitt Romney signed Massachusetts’ health-reform bill into law, he vetoed that state’s employer mandate. The heavily Democratic legislature overrode his veto.
Even if the Obama administration’s delay lasts for only one year, that delay will give firms time to restructure their businesses to avoid offering costly coverage, leading to an expansion of the individual insurance market and a shrinkage of the employer-sponsored market. Remember that the administration is not delaying the individual mandate, which requires most Americans to buy health coverage or face a fine.
But delaying the employer mandate could lead, ultimately, to its repeal, which would do much to transition our insurance market from an employer-sponsored one to an individually-purchased one. Indeed, earlier this year, a bill to do just that was introduced by Rep. Charles Boustany (R., La.) and Sen. Orrin Hatch (R., Utah). If the employer mandate were to ultimately be repealed, or never implemented, today’s news may turn out to be one of the most significant developments in health care policy in recent memory.
Have Fun and Stay Safe this Fourth of July with these Tips, Fun Facts and Food
The most important thing to remember this Fourth of July is the safety of you and others around you. Celebrate Independence Day with friends and family while staying safe and responsible. Here is almost everything you need to know to be safe, eat well, and have fun!
11 Tips for a Safe Fourth of July
Source: https://www.medicinenet.com
Be a safe swimmer. Water sports and fireworks are two of the biggest pastimes for Fourth of July celebrations, and these are both linked to numerous deaths and injuries each year. Never swim alone, and make sure that kids' water play is adequately supervised at all times. Manydrownings occur when parents and other adults are nearby, so always have a designated chaperone for water play and don't assume that others are watching the kids. Statistics show that most young children who drown in pools have been out of sight for less than five minutes.
Fireworks Safety. If fireworks are legal in your community and are a part of your celebration, be sure to store and use them safely. Keep the kids away from the fireworks at all times, and keep spectators at a safe distance. Attending fireworks displays organized by professionals is always safer than trying to put on your own show.
Use alcohol responsibly. Alcohol and fireworks can be a hazardous and dangerous combination. Also, have a designated driver to bring party goers home from the festivities. Remember also that alcohol and swimming can be as dangerous as drinking and driving.
Boat Safety. Lakes, waterways, and seas will be crowded with boats. Review safe boating practices, and don't drink and drive your boat. Alcohol consumption while operating boats or other motorized water vessels is illegal, and you can be arrested for a BWI (boating under the influence!). Be sure that you have an adequate number of life preservers on hand for extra guests. Become familiar with the boating laws in your area.
Cover food and beverages outdoors to discourage bees and wasps from attending your party. If someone is allergic to insect stings, you should have an emergency anaphylaxis kit on hand. Wearing shoes, long sleeves, and long pants outdoors and avoiding fragranced body products, bright colors, and sugary drinks can also help prevent bee stings.
Apply sunscreen both before and during an outdoor party. Ultraviolet rays from the sun can cause both premature aging and skin cancer in the long term, and a painful burn the next day. Even those with darker skin should use a sunscreen with a minimum sun protection factor (SPF) of 15, according to recommendations from the American Academy of Dermatology.
Check prescription medications you are taking to assure you will not have a sun-sensitizing drug reaction to the medication.
Camping/Hiking Safety. If you'll be hiking or camping in an area where ticks are abundant, wear long-sleeved, light-colored shirts and long pants tucked into socks or boots to protect yourself from tick-borne diseases. For your skin, you can use a tick repellent with no more than 30% DEET according to the manufacturer's instructions. Products containing DEET should not be used on children less than 2 months of age and should not be applied to the hands or face of young children. Check yourself (and your pets) for ticks at the end of the day.
Heat & Hydration Awareness. Spend adequate time indoors or in the shade and drink plenty of fluids to avoid heat illness in extremely hot climates. The risk of heat illness is increased when participating in strenuous activity or sports, and those with chronic medical conditions and the elderly are also at an increased risk of heat exhaustion and/or heat stroke. Alcohol consumption can also promote dehydration and increase the risk.
Keep children away from campfires and grills. Gas leaks, blocked tubes, and overfilled propane tanks can be a cause of grill fires and explosions.
Don't leave the picnic spread out all day. Allowing food to sit in outdoor temperatures can invite foodborne illness. The U.S. FDA suggests never leaving food out for more than one hour when the temperature is above 90 F and not more than two hours at other times. Foods that need to be kept cold should be placed in a cooler with plenty of ice or freezing packs and held at a maximum temperature of 40 F. While mayonnaise and other egg dishes are often associated with food poisoning, any food can potentially become contaminated. Adequate hand washing and food preparation can also help prevent food poisoning.
The Fourth of July 2013
On this day in 1776, the Declaration of Independence was approved by the Continental Congress, setting the 13 colonies on the road to freedom as a sovereign nation. As always, this most American of holidays will be marked by parades, fireworks and backyard barbecues across the country.
2.5 million
In July 1776, the estimated number of people living in the newly independent nation.
Source: Historical Statistics of the United States: Colonial Times to 1970
<https://www2.census.gov/prod2/statcomp/documents/HistoricalStatisticsoftheUnitedStates1789-1945.pdf>
316.2 million
The nation's estimated population on this July Fourth.
Source: U.S. and World Population Clock <https://www.census.gov/popclock/>
Fireworks
$218.2 million
The value of fireworks imported from China in 2012, representing the bulk of all U.S. fireworks imported ($227.3 million). U.S. exports of fireworks, by comparison, came to just $11.7 million in 2012, with Israel purchasing more than any other country ($2.5 million).
$231.8 million
The value of U.S. manufacturers' shipments of fireworks and pyrotechnics (including flares, igniters, etc.) in 2007.
Source: 2007 Economic Census, Series EC0731SP1, Products and Services Code 325998J108 <https://www.census.gov/econ/census07/>
Flags
$3.8 million
In 2012, the dollar value of U.S. imports of American flags. The vast majority of this amount ($3.6 million) was for U.S. flags made in China.
Source: Foreign Trade Statistics <https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/www/>
<https://www.usatradeonline.gov>
$614,115
Dollar value of U.S. flags exported in 2012. Mexico was the leading customer, purchasing $188,824 worth.
Source: Foreign Trade Statistics <https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/www/>
<https://www.usatradeonline.gov>
$302.7 million
Dollar value of shipments of fabricated flags, banners and similar emblems by the nation's manufacturers in 2007, according to the latest published economic census statistics.
Source: 2007 Economic Census, Series EC0731SP1, Products and Services Code 3149998231
<https://www.census.gov/econ/census07/>
Fourth of July Cookouts
65.9 million
Number of all hogs and pigs on March 1, 2013. Chances are that the pork hot dogs and sausages consumed on the Fourth of July originated in Iowa. The Hawkeye State was home to 20.3 million hogs and pigs. North Carolina (8.9 million) and Minnesota (7.8 million) were also homes to large numbers of pigs.
Source: USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service,
<https://usda01.library.cornell.edu/usda/current/HogsPigs/HogsPigs-03-28-2013.pdf>
6.3 billion pounds
Total estimated production of cattle and calves in Texas in 2012. Chances are good that the beef hot dogs, steaks and burgers on your backyard grill came from the Lone Star State, which accounted for nearly one-sixth of the nation's total production. And if the beef did not come from Texas, it very well may have come from Nebraska (estimated at5.1 billion pounds) or Kansas (estimated at 3.8 billion pounds).
Source: USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service
<https://usda01.library.cornell.edu/usda/current/MeatAnimPr/MeatAnimPr-04-25-2013.pdf>
6
Number of states in which the value of broiler chicken production was estimated at $1 billion or greater between December 2011 and November 2012. There is a good chance that one of these states — Georgia, Arkansas, North Carolina, Alabama, Mississippi or Texas — is the source of your barbecued chicken.
Source: USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service
<https://usda01.library.cornell.edu/usda/current/PoulProdVa/PoulProdVa-04-29-2013.pdf>
345 million
Acreage planted of potatoes in Idaho in 2012, the most in the nation. Washington followed with 165 million acres. The total 2012 potato crop is forecast to exceed 467 million hundredweight (cwt), the highest level since 2000 when 523 million cwt was produced. Potato salad is a popular food item at Fourth of July barbecues.
Source: USDA, National Agriculture Statistics Service, Economic Research Service
<https://usda01.library.cornell.edu/usda/current/CropProdSu/CropProdSu-01-11-2013.pdf>
<https://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/vgs-vegetables-and-pulses-outlook/vgs353.aspx>
Source: https://www.census.gov
Fourth of July American Recipes
Recipes from Famous Americans
- White House Beer – White House Honey Ale and White House Honey Porter feature honey from the South Lawn bee-hive.
- Senate Bean Soup – This ham and bean soup has been on the menu in the U.S. Senate's restaurant every day for over 100 years.
- Mamie Eisenhower's Million Dollar Fudge (PDF) – This chocolate fudge was one of Ike Eisenhower's favorite desserts.
- Mrs. Truman's Mac and Cheese – Bess Truman often prepared meals for her family. This mac and cheese recipe was one of President Truman's favorites.
- Senator Mikulski's Favorite Crab Cakes – A classic crab cake recipe from the Maryland shore.
- Ginger Crinkle Cookies (PDF) – The White House pastry kitchen shares a holiday cookie recipe.
Healthy Recipes
- Diabetes Recipes (PDF) – Tasty Recipes for People with Diabetes and Their Families is a book filled with healthy Latin American recipes.
- Farmer's Market Recipes – Ideas to prepare seasonal food found at the farmers' market.
- Healthy Recipes – Healthy meals for you and your family.
- Heart Healthy Recipes – Heart healthy recipes from appetizers to dessert.
Kids' Recipes
- Chocolate Chip Cookies – Baking chocolate chip cookies is the fun way to learn the metric system.
- Crispy Crunchers – Easy, no bake peanut butter cookies.
- Rock Candy – Learn how crystals grow while making your own candy.
Cooking for a Crowd
- Cooking for Groups: A Volunteer's Guide to Food Safety (PDF)
- School Recipes – Recipes to help school food service personnel find new ways to prepare USDA commodities
- Soy Recipes for Food Service – Inspiring solutions for adapting soy foods to meals for 25 people or more.
Regional Recipes
- Jersey Fresh Recipes – Recipe ideas for fresh, seasonal produce.
- International Recipes – Americans trace their family origins to countries around the world. These ethnic traditions are reflected in the diversity of our recipes.
Wild Game Recipes
- Wild Game – Recipes to help you prepare venison, rabbit, game birds, and fish.
- Cooking and Preserving Wild Game – Recipes to help you prepare big game, small game, game birds, and fish.
- Preserving Game Meats and Fish – Recipes to help you preserve wild game.
Source: https://www.usa.gov
White House delays employer mandate requirement until 2015
Originally posted by Sarah Kliff on https://www.washingtonpost.com
The Obama administration will not penalize businesses that do not provide health insurance in 2014, the Treasury Department announced Tuesday.
Instead, it will delay enforcement of a major Affordable Care Act requirement that all employers with more than 50 employees provide coverage to their workers until 2015.
The administration said it would postpone the provision after hearing significant concerns from employers about the challenges of implementing it.
“We have heard concerns about the complexity of the requirements and the need for more time to implement them effectively,” Mark Mazur, Assistant Secretary for Tax Policy, wrote in a late Tuesday blog post. “We recognize that the vast majority of businesses that will need to do this reporting already provide health insurance to their workers, and we want to make sure it is easy for others to do so.”
The Affordable Care Act requires all employers with more than 50 full-time workers provide health insurance or pay steep fines. That policy had raised concerns about companies downsizing their workforce or cutting workers’ hours in order to dodge the new mandate.
In delaying the enforcement of that rule, the White House sidesteps those challenges for one year. It is also the second significant interruption for the Affordable Care Act, following a one-year delay on key functions of the small business insurance marketplaces.
Together, the moves could draw criticism that the administration will not be able to put into effect its signature legislative accomplishment on schedule.
DOMA ruling complicates benefits administration
Originally posted by Andrea Davis on https://ebn.benefitnews.com
The Supreme Court’s decision striking down the federal Defense of Marriage Act is being hailed as a huge victory for same-sex couples, but the ruling makes benefits administration for employers even more complicated than before.
“It’s not even crystal clear that anybody knows what the right legal answer is with respect to those people living in the 38 states that don’t recognize same-sex marriage,” says Todd Solomon, a partner in the employee benefits practice of McDermott, Will & Emery, and author of Domestic Partner Benefits: An Employer’s Guide. “It’s really easy in the other 12 states [that do recognize same-sex marriage] — that’s what we know — but we’ve got a huge, open $64,000 question with respect to the rest of the people. And that’s a big problem for employers. I think they’re going to be very puzzled and they’re going to want guidance from the IRS.”
The court decision notes there are over 1,000 federal laws containing provisions specifically applicable to spouses that will be affected by its ruling. At this point, the ruling makes it harder for multistate employers to administer benefits, believes Leslye Laderman, a principal in the Knowledge Resource Center with Buck Consultants.
“We don’t know, exactly, the full implications of the ruling,” she says. “In the Windsor case, the plaintiff, Edith Windsor, lived in New York. New York is a state that recognizes same-sex marriage and the court very much was looking at that, and that DOMA was stepping on the rights of states to regulate that. But it really isn’t clear from the ruling exactly what the implications are for someone who’s living in a state that does not recognize same-sex marriage. More guidance is needed.”
For employees who were married in states that recognize same-sex marriage and still reside there, however, the DOMA ruling “is a significant gain in rights both on the pension side and on the health benefits side,” says Solomon.
For others, the decision “leaves many questions to be resolved by subsequent regulation and undoubtedly litigation,” said George W. Schein, lawyer with Thompson Hine’s employee benefits and executive compensation practice, in a statement. “Conspicuously unresolved is the interplay between the states that recognize same-sex marriage and those that do not.”
Retirement plans
With respect to defined benefit plans, same-sex spouses will now be entitled to survivor annuity rights. “Say a participant turns 65 and retires under a pension plan, including a frozen plan, and their benefit was $1,000 a month. If they die and have a surviving spouse, the surviving spouse would get a benefit of $500 a month – at least half of the participant’s annuity – for the rest of their life,” explains Solomon. “That’s a significant survivor benefit.”
With the DOMA ruling, this survivor benefit also now applies to qualified pre-retirement survivor annuities. “If somebody dies pre-retirement – before they start drawing their pension – that means their surviving spouse gets at least 50% of their benefit for the [duration of the] surviving spouse’s life,” says Solomon.
Combined, these survivor annuity rights represent “a big gain for same-sex couples, a pretty significant benefit that they were previously typically excluded from,” says Solomon.
Under 401(k) plans, spouses are automatically deemed beneficiaries so the DOMA decision means same-sex spouses will now have beneficiary rights they weren’t previously entitled to.
Health plans
For self-funded employers, there’s never been an obligation to cover same-sex spouses, although many plans do, says Solomon. But because DOMA defined marriage as between one man and one woman, “a lot of employers relied on the DOMA definition and said ‘we’re only covering opposite-sex spouses under our plan,’” he says. With DOMA ruled unconstitutional, it now “gets very difficult for an employer [in any state] to deny coverage to a same-sex spouse in a self-funded plan.”
Self-insured plans will “really need to think about extending coverage to same-sex spouses or be at risk of discrimination claims,” says Solomon.
Insured plans, meanwhile, “are already accustomed to covering same-sex spouses in states that recognize same-sex marriage,” says Solomon. “But with respect to other states, to the extent they’re not extending coverage, they’ll have to extend coverage as well, presumably.”
Tax implications
Since DOMA’s been struck down, health coverage for same-sex partners will no longer be a taxable benefit under federal tax law. One of the important questions is whether the decision will have retroactive implications. “A lot of employers have structured their payroll taxes and benefit plan side of things in accordance with DOMA and will now need to think through what their reactions will be,” says Joanne Youn, an employee benefits attorney at Caplin & Drysdale.
“Many constitutional cases do have retroactive implications,” notes Solomon. “In terms of tax refunds, I think you could potentially see a number of employees filing for tax refunds for taxation of benefits, and you may see employers filing for Social Security tax refunds because employers pay payroll taxes on the income they impose on employees covering same-sex spouses.”
It’s not clear retroactivity applies as the Supreme Court did not specifically address it but “it’s an open question and one that I think will be pursued – how far does this go back and will employers see an uptick in claims for spousal death benefits, for example?” says Solomon.
Next steps
Solomon recommends four steps for employers:
1. Take stock. Look at what you do already for same-sex spouses, compare it to what’s legally required now and see what gaps exist. “Some employers are going to have small gaps and some are going to have fairly large gaps,” he says.
2. Figure out how to implement any new benefits as soon as possible. “Some of this presumably takes effect right now so, for example, putting in procedures so that if somebody with a same-sex spouse were to die tomorrow, how would you treat that? Make sure you understand the rules and have policies in place,” he says.
3. Get everything documented. “From a qualified benefit plan perspective, typically you have until the end of the year to make discretionary amendments and conforming amendments,” says Solomon. “The IRS might issue some guidance and give more time but, I would aim to amend plans by the end of this calendar year, for calendar-year plans, and certainly by the end of the plan year for other plans.”
4. Update tax policies and payroll procedures to start taxing benefits in accordance with the new rules. “Stop taxing the benefits for federal income tax purposes starting as soon as possible,” says Solomon.
“It’s hard because none of this is going to happen overnight but I think employers just have to do their best to get geared up to address seemingly quite a few issues,” says Solomon. “It’s a little more complicated now than it was before, actually.”
‘Don’t be first out the gate’
Before employers communicate anything to employees, it’s important to think through the issues “and not be the first one out of the gate with extensive communications on what this means,” says Solomon.
“The important thing is to not say too much until employers figure out how they’re going to handle some of the open questions,” he says. “What happens if someone is married in New York [which recognizes same-sex marriage] but lives in Florida [which does not recognize same-sex marriage]? Is the employer going to continue to tax them on the benefits, treating them as unmarried because they live in Florida? Or will they not tax the benefit because the state of ceremony should govern and that’s good enough? Employers need to make up their mind on that, and there’s no guidance to know what the legally correct answer is on that.”
Employers should expect questions, says Roberta Chevlowe, a senior counsel in Proskauer’s employee benefits, executive compensation and ERISA litigation practice center and a member of the firm’s DOMA taskforce. However, she cautions “employers will need to consider carefully the scope of the decision and various issues relating to the implementation and effective date of the decision with regard to these issues.”
COBRA, FMLA
The ruling could also have implications for spousal rights under other legislation, such as COBRA and the Family and Medical Leave Act.
“If someone’s living in a state that recognizes same-sex marriage and has a same-spouse, now the spouse will have full COBRA rights,” says Laderman. “What we don’t know is what happens in a state where they don’t recognize same-sex marriage? An employer can extend COBRA-like coverage to same-sex spouses even if the state doesn’t recognize the marriage but it does raise issues.”
Similarly, FMLA is a federal law and rights are extended to spouses. “Are employers required to [recognize same-sex spouses] in other states [that don’t recognize same-sex marriage]? We don’t know that, but an employer could certainly extend that type of coverage if it wanted to,” says Laderman.
Final birth control rule issued for faith groups
Posted by Kathryn Mayer on https://www.benefitspro.com
The Obama administration isn't backing off its position that employers must include free contraceptive coverage in workers’ insurance plans as part of the nation's health care reforms, though it did give churches some wiggle room Friday.
Under pressure from religious groups, the administration issued final rules on the birth control mandate in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act that included a compromise allowing faith-based nonprofits and corporations to offer contraceptives through special third-party policies, without having to manage or pay for the services directly.
The mandate requires most other employers to cover a range of birth-control methods in their health plans without charging a co-pay or a deductible.
Under the final rules, religious nonprofits may notify their carrier that they object to birth control coverage. The carrier then notifies affected employees separately that it will provide coverage at no cost.
Religious groups have strongly opposed the rule, and dozens of lawsuits against the federal government have been filed. But the administration — supported by women's rights advocates — has largely stuck to its original position in favor of a contraception mandate, saying it gives women control over their health care.
Though the final rule aims to appease religious groups by setting up a system for insurers to provide the coverage separately, it's doubtful that lawsuits over the issue will stop. On Thursday, a federal appeals court ruled that Hobby Lobby could challenge PPACA on faith grounds, giving more hope to opponents of the law's mandate.
The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which has represented plaintiffs in some of court challenges, said the rule would not satisfy the opposition.
But Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius insisted Friday the final rules “strike the appropriate balance” between respecting those religious considerations and increasing access to important preventive services for women.
“The health care law guarantees millions of women access to recommended preventive services at no cost,” Sebelius said in a statement.
“Today’s announcement reinforces our commitment to respect the concerns of houses of worship and other nonprofit religious organizations that object to contraceptive coverage, while helping to ensure that women get the care they need, regardless of where they work.”
The final rule offers a simpler definition of “religious employer” for purposes of the exemption from the contraceptive coverage requirement in response to concerns raised by some religious organizations.
These employers, primarily churches, may exclude contraceptive coverage from their health plans for their employees and their dependents.
Women at nonprofit, religious-based organizations — such as at certain hospitals and universities — will have the ability to receive contraception through the separate health policies at no cost.
Announced early last year, the original mandate required most employers, including religious-affiliated organizations, to cover a range of birth control methods.
That triggered intense pushback from Catholics and other religious groups that oppose birth control, and who called the mandate an attack on their religious freedom.
On the other hand, proponents of the mandate argue that the requirement is a "win" for women, and will help reduce unplanned pregancies and abortions.
“The magic combination of responsible public and private policies and responsible behavior on the part of men and women can make all the difference in helping reduce unplanned pregnancy and improving the education and employment prospects of women and their families," Sarah Brown, CEO of The National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy, said last year.
The Catholic Church has yet to respond to the final rules.
House bill would change PPACA definition of full-time employee
Originally posted by Jerry Geisel on https://www.businessinsurance.com
Legislation introduced in the House of Representatives last Friday would ease the health care reform law's definition of a full-time employee, shielding more employers from a stiff financial penalty imposed by the law.
Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, employers are required effective in 2014 to offer qualified coverage to full-time employees — defined as those working an average of 30 hours per week — or be liable for a $2,000 penalty per employee.
The legislation, H.R. 2575, introduced by Rep. Todd Young, R-Ind., would change the definition of full-time employees to those working an average of 40 hours per week.
Repealing the 30-hour definition of a full-time employee “and restoring it to the historical norm ensures this bill not only protects working poor and middle class employees, it also ensures that laws governing employment are consistent,” Rep. Young said in a statement.
The introduction of the measure comes one year to the day of the 2012 U.S. Supreme Court ruling upholding the constitutionality of the health care reform law provision requiring most Americans to enroll in a health care plan or pay a tax, effective Jan. 1, 2014.