FAQs about Affordable Care Act Implementation Part XI

Source: https://www.dol.gov/ebsa/faqs/faq-aca11.html

Set out below are additional Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) regarding implementation of various provisions of the Affordable Care Act. These FAQs have been prepared by the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services (HHS), and the Treasury (collectively, the Departments). Like previously issued FAQs (available at https://www.dol.gov/ebsa/healthreform/), these FAQs answer questions from stakeholders to help people understand the new law and benefit from it, as intended.

The Departments anticipate issuing further responses to questions and issuing other guidance in the future. We hope these publications will provide additional clarity and assistance.

Notice of Coverage Options Available Through the Exchanges

Section 18B of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), as added by section 1512 of the Affordable Care Act, generally provides that, in accordance with regulations promulgated by the Secretary of Labor, an applicable employer must provide each employee at the time of hiring (or with respect to current employees, not later than March 1, 2013), a written notice:

  1. Informing the employee of the existence of Exchanges including a description of the services provided by the Exchanges, and the manner in which the employee may contact Exchanges to request assistance;
  2. If the employer plan's share of the total allowed costs of benefits provided under the plan is less than 60 percent of such costs, that the employee may be eligible for a premium tax credit under section 36B of the Internal Revenue Code (the Code) if the employee purchases a qualified health plan through an Exchange; and
  3. If the employee purchases a qualified health plan through an Exchange, the employee may lose the employer contribution (if any) to any health benefits plan offered by the employer and that all or a portion of such contribution may be excludable from income for Federal income tax purposes.

 

Q1: When do employers have to comply with the new notice requirements in section 18B of the FLSA?

Section 18B of the FLSA provides that employer compliance with the notice requirements of that section must be carried out "[i]n accordance with regulations promulgated by the Secretary [of Labor]." Accordingly, it is the view of the Department of Labor that, until such regulations are issued and become applicable, employers are not required to comply with FLSA section 18B.

The Department of Labor has concluded that the notice requirement under FLSA section 18B will not take effect on March 1, 2013 for several reasons. First, this notice should be coordinated with HHS's educational efforts and Internal Revenue Service (IRS) guidance on minimum value. Second, we are committed to a smooth implementation process including providing employers with sufficient time to comply and selecting an applicability date that ensures that employees receive the information at a meaningful time. The Department of Labor expects that the timing for distribution of notices will be the late summer or fall of 2013, which will coordinate with the open enrollment period for Exchanges.

The Department of Labor is considering providing model, generic language that could be used to satisfy the notice requirement. As a compliance alternative, the Department of Labor is also considering allowing employers to satisfy the notice requirement by providing employees with information using the employer coverage template as discussed in the preamble to the Proposed Rule on Medicaid, Children's Health Insurance Programs, and Exchanges: Essential Health Benefits in Alternative Benefit Plans, Eligibility Notices, Fair Hearing and Appeal Processes for Medicaid and Exchange Eligibility Appeals and Other Provisions Related to Eligibility and Enrollment for Exchanges, Medicaid and CHIP, and Medicaid Premiums and Cost Sharing (78 FR 4594, at 4641), which will be available for download at the Exchange web site as part of the streamlined application that will be used by the Exchange, Medicaid, and CHIP. Future guidance on complying with the notice requirement under FLSA section 18B is expected to provide flexibility and adequate time to comply.

Compliance of Health Reimbursement Arrangements with Public Health Service Act (PHS Act) section 2711

Section 2711 of the PHS Act, as added by the Affordable Care Act, generally prohibits plans and issuers from imposing lifetime or annual limits on the dollar value of essential health benefits. The preamble to the interim final regulations implementing PHS Act section 2711 (75 FR 37188) addressed the application of section 2711 to health reimbursement arrangements (HRAs) and certain other account-based arrangements. HRAs are group health plans that typically consist of a promise by an employer(1) to reimburse medical expenses (as defined in Code section 213(d)) for a year up to a certain amount, with unused amounts available to reimburse medical expenses in future years. The preamble distinguished between HRAs that are "integrated" with other coverage as part of a group health plan and HRAs that are not so integrated ("stand-alone" HRAs). The preamble stated that "[w]hen HRAs are integrated with other coverage as part of a group health plan and the other coverage alone would comply with the requirements of PHS Act section 2711, the fact that benefits under the HRA by itself are limited does not violate PHS Act section 2711 because the combined benefit satisfies the requirements." (75 FR 37188, at 37190-37191). The corollary to this statement is that an HRA is not considered integrated with primary health coverage offered by the employer unless, under the terms of the HRA, the HRA is available only to employees who are covered by primary group health plan coverage provided by the employer and meeting the requirements of PHS Act section 2711.

Questions 2 through 4 below address certain issues relating to HRAs. The Departments anticipate issuing future guidance addressing HRAs.(2)

Q2: May an HRA used to purchase coverage on the individual market be considered integrated with that individual market coverage and therefore satisfy the requirements of PHS Act section 2711?

No. The Departments intend to issue guidance providing that for purposes of PHS Act section 2711, an employer-sponsored HRA cannot be integrated with individual market coverage or with an employer plan that provides coverage through individual policies and therefore will violate PHS Act section 2711.

Q3: If an employee is offered coverage that satisfies PHS Act section 2711 but does not enroll in that coverage, may an HRA provided to that employee be considered integrated with the coverage and therefore satisfy the requirements of PHS Act section 2711?

No. The Departments intend to issue guidance under PHS Act section 2711 providing that an employer-sponsored HRA may be treated as integrated with other coverage only if the employee receiving the HRA is actually enrolled in that coverage. Any HRA that credits additional amounts to an individual when the individual is not enrolled in primary coverage meeting the requirements of PHS Act section 2711 provided by the employer will fail to comply with PHS Act section 2711.

Q4: How will amounts that are credited or made available under HRAs under terms that were in effect prior to January 1, 2014, be treated?

The Departments anticipate that future guidance will provide that, whether or not an HRA is integrated with other group health plan coverage, unused amounts credited before January 1, 2014, consisting of amounts credited before January 1, 2013 and amounts that are credited in 2013 under the terms of an HRA as in effect on January 1, 2013 may be used after December 31, 2013 to reimburse medical expenses in accordance with those terms without causing the HRA to fail to comply with PHS Act section 2711. If the HRA terms in effect on January 1, 2013, did not prescribe a set amount or amounts to be credited during 2013 or the timing for crediting such amounts, then the amounts credited may not exceed those credited for 2012 and may not be credited at a faster rate than the rate that applied during 2012.

Disclosure of Information Related to Firearms

Q5: Does PHS Act section 2717(c) restrict communications between health care professionals and their patients concerning firearms or ammunition?

No. While we have yet to issue guidance on this provision, the statute prohibits an organization operating a wellness or health promotion program from requiring the disclosure of information relating to certain information concerning firearms. However, nothing in this section prohibits or otherwise limits communication between health care professionals and their patients, including communications about firearms. Health care providers can play an important role in promoting gun safety.

Self-Insured Employer Prescription Drug Coverage Supplementing Medicare Part D Coverage Provided through Employer Group Waiver Plans

Medicare Part D is an optional prescription drug benefit provided by prescription drug plans. Employers sometimes provide Medicare Part D coverage through Employer Group Waiver Plans (EGWPs) under title XVIII of the Social Security Act and often supplement the coverage with additional non-Medicare drug benefits. For EGWPs that provide coverage only to retirees, the non-Medicare supplemental drug benefits are exempt from the health coverage requirements of title XXVII of the PHS Act, Part 7 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), and Chapter 100 of the Code. (For ease of reference, the relevant provisions of the three statutes are referred to here as "the health coverage requirements.") Moreover, for EGWPs that are insured under a separate policy, certificate, or contract of insurance, the non-Medicare supplemental drug benefits qualify as excepted benefits under PHS Act section 2791(c)(4), ERISA section 733(c)(4), and Code section 9832(c)(4) and are, therefore, similarly exempt from the health coverage requirements.

Q6: Must self-insured prescription drug coverage that supplements the standard Medicare Part D coverage through EGWPs comply with the health coverage requirements?

Pending further guidance, the Departments will not take any enforcement action against a group health plan that is an EGWP because the non-Medicare supplemental drug benefit does not comply with the health coverage requirements of title XXVII of the PHS Act, part 7 of ERISA, and chapter 100 of the Code. This enforcement policy does not affect other requirements administered by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services that apply to providers of such coverage. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services intends to issue related guidance concerning insured coverage that provides non-Medicare supplemental drug benefits shortly.

Fixed Indemnity Insurance

Fixed indemnity coverage under a group health plan meeting the conditions outlined in the Departments' regulations(3) is an excepted benefit under PHS Act section 2791(c)(3)(B), ERISA section 733(c)(3)(B), and Code section 9832(c)(3)(B). As such, it is exempt from the health coverage requirements of title XXVII of the PHS Act, part 7 of ERISA, and chapter 100 of the Code. The Departments have noticed a significant increase in the number of health insurance policies labeled as fixed indemnity coverage.

Q7: What are the circumstances under which fixed indemnity coverage constitutes excepted benefits?

The Departments' regulations provide that a hospital indemnity or other fixed indemnity insurance policy under a group health plan provides excepted benefits only if:

  • The benefits are provided under a separate policy, certificate, or contract of insurance;
  • There is no coordination between the provision of the benefits and an exclusion of benefits under any group health plan maintained by the same plan sponsor; and
  • The benefits are paid with respect to an event without regard to whether benefits are provided with respect to the event under any group health plan maintained by the same plan sponsor.

The regulations further provide that to be hospital indemnity or other fixed indemnity insurance, the insurance must pay a fixed dollar amount per day (or per other period) of hospitalization or illness (for example, $100/day) regardless of the amount of expenses incurred.

Various situations have come to the attention of the Departments where a health insurance policy is advertised as fixed indemnity coverage, but then covers doctors' visits at $50 per visit, hospitalization at $100 per day, various surgical procedures at different dollar rates per procedure, and/or prescription drugs at $15 per prescription. In such circumstances, for doctors' visits, surgery, and prescription drugs, payment is made not on a per-period basis, but instead is based on the type of procedure or item, such as the surgery or doctor visit actually performed or the prescribed drug, and the amount of payment varies widely based on the type of surgery or the cost of the drug. Because office visits and surgery are not paid based on "a fixed dollar amount per day (or per other period)," a policy such as this is not hospital indemnity or other fixed indemnity insurance, and is therefore not excepted benefits. When a policy pays on a per-service basis as opposed to on a per-period basis, it is in practice a form of health coverage instead of an income replacement policy. Accordingly, it does not meet the conditions for excepted benefits.

The Departments plan to work with the States to ensure that health insurance issuers comply with the relevant requirements for different types of insurance policies and provide consumers with the protections of the Affordable Care Act.

Payment of PCORI Fees

Section 4376 of the Code, as added by the Affordable Care Act, imposes a temporary annual fee on the sponsor of an applicable self-insured health plan for plan years ending on or after October 1, 2012, and before October 1, 2019. The fee is equal to the applicable dollar amount in effect for the plan year ($1 for plan years ending on or after October 1, 2012, and before October 1, 2013) multiplied by the average number of lives covered under the applicable self-insured health plan during the plan year. In the case of (i) a plan established or maintained by 2 or more employers or jointly by 1 or more employers and 1 or more employee organizations, (ii) a multiple employer welfare arrangement, or (iii) a voluntary employees' beneficiary association (VEBA) described in Code section 501(c)(9), the plan sponsor is defined in Code section 4376(b)(2)(C) as the association, committee, joint board of trustees, or other similar group of representatives of the parties who establish or maintain the plan.

Q8: Does Title I of ERISA prohibit a multiemployer plan's joint board of trustees from paying the Code section 4376 fee from assets of the plan?

In the case of a multiemployer plan defined in ERISA section 3(37), the plan sponsor liable for the fee would generally be the independent joint board of trustees appointed by the participating employers and employee organization, and directed pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement to establish the employee benefit plan. Normally, such a joint board of trustees has no function other than to sponsor and administer the multiemployer plan, and it has no source of funding independent of plan assets to satisfy the Code section 4376 statutory obligation. The fee involved is not an excise tax or similar penalty imposed on the trustees in connection with a violation of federal law or a breach of their fiduciary obligations in connection with the plan. Nor would the joint board be acting in a capacity other than as a fiduciary of the plan in paying the fee.(4) In such circumstances, it would be unreasonable to construe the fiduciary provisions of ERISA as prohibiting the use of plan assets to pay such a fee to the Federal government. Thus, unless the plan document specifies a source other than plan assets for payment of the fee under Code section 4376, such a payment from plan assets would be permissible under ERISA.

There may be rare circumstances where sponsors of employee benefit plans that are not multiemployer plans would also be able to use plan assets to pay the Code section 4376 fee, such as a VEBA that provides retiree-only health benefits where the sponsor is a trustee or board of trustees that exists solely for the purpose of sponsoring and administering the plan and that has no source of funding independent of plan assets.

The same conclusion would not necessarily apply, however, to other plan sponsors required to pay the fee under Code section 4376. For example, a group or association of employers that act as a plan sponsor but that also exist for reasons other than solely to sponsor and administer a plan may not use plan assets to pay the fee even if the plan uses a VEBA trust to pay benefits under the plan. The Department of Labor would expect that such an entity or association, like employers that sponsor single employer plans, would have to identify and use some other source of funding to pay the Code section 4376 fee.

Footnotes

  1. An HRA may be sponsored by an employer, an employee organization, or both. For simplicity, this section of the FAQs refers to employers. However, this guidance is equally applicable to HRAs sponsored by employee organizations, or jointly by employers and employee organizations.
  2. With respect to HRAs that are limited to retirees, the exemption from the requirements of ERISA and the Code relating to the Affordable Care Act for plans with fewer than two current employees means that retiree-only HRAs generally are not subject to the rules of PHS Act section 2711. See the preamble to the interim final rules implementing PHS Act section 2711 (75 FR 37188, at 37191). See also ACA Implementation FAQs Part III, issued on October 12, 2010 (available at https://www.dol.gov/ebsa/faqs/faq-aca3.html).
  3. See 26 CFR 54.9831-1(c)(4), 29 CFR 732(c)(4), 45 CFR 146.145(c)(4).
  4. See generally, ERISA Field Assistance Bulletin 2002-02 (trustees of multiemployer plans, if allowed under the plan documents, may act as fiduciaries in carrying out activities that otherwise would be settlor in nature), available at https://www.dol.gov/ebsa/regs/fab2002-2.html.

Premium Blues

The cost of employer-sponsored health coverage increased faster than wages in every state between 2003 and 2011, a new Commonwealth Fund analysis found. Employees' share of premiums of family coverage hit $3,962 in 2011, a 74 percent jump from 2003. The total average premium cost for family coverage reached $15,022 in 2011, an increase of 62 percent from 2003.


Large gaps seen in health perceptions vs. reality

Source: https://eba.benefitnews.com
By Tristan Lejeune

A new survey from Aon Hewitt, the National Business Group on Health and The Futures Company indicates that many American workers and their families — even those who know what it takes to get and stay healthy — have inaccurate perceptions about their own weight, condition and the cost of their health care. The survey results, released this month by Aon Hewitt, further indicate satisfaction and claims of positive behavior changes associated with participation in consumer-driven health plans.

More than 2,800 employees and their dependents covered by employer-sponsored health plans were surveyed about their thoughts, attitudes and behaviors toward health and wellness. Eighty-seven percent of respondents reported being in good health, yet more than half of those (53%) gave height and weight combinations that categorize them as having a body mass index in the overweight or obese categories. Only 23% of all respondents believe they are actually overweight or obese, when in reality that number is 34%.

“Employees want to be healthy, but many have an overly rosy perception of their health and may not see an urgent need to take action,” says Joann Hall Swenson, Aon Hewitt’s health engagement leader. “For others, the activities and stresses of daily life take priority over good health, and many consumers are unwilling to make sacrifices to improve their health.”

She says employers need to offer workers and their families “the necessary tools and resources that give them a realistic picture of their health,” then follow up by encouraging healthy decision making.

Consumers’ incorrect perceptions extend to cost, the survey finds. Total health care costs per employee were $10,522 last year, according to an analysis, of which employers paid $8,318. When asked, however, how much of their bill their employer pays, the average respondent guessed around half that amount.

“These survey results,” says Helen Darling, president and CEO of the National Business Group on Health, “underscore the challenges employers face as they seek to engage employees and their families in health improvement as a means to better managing rising health care costs. It is critical for employers to bridge the knowledge gap evident in this survey.”

It seems one way to do that is by offering a consumer-driven health plan, the survey reveals, as 60% of those in a CDHP say they have made positive behavior changes in regards to their health, including more preventive care (28%), seeking lower-cost options (23%) and more frequent research of health costs (19%). In addition, 63% of respondents say they would complete a health risk questionnaire for a monetary reward, and just under that would engage in a healthy eating or weight management program.

“Consumers are looking for solutions that address their specific health needs and concerns,” says Christine Baskin, senior vice president at the Futures Company. “Tailored, targeted feedback such as that given in the HRQ process, along with understanding individual consumer's attitudes towards health, are essential ingredients to having employees take actions to improve their health and their lifestyle.”


Preservation of social media, what every company needs to know

Source: https://www.insidecounsel.com

BY VINCENT SYRACUSE, PAUL SARKOZI, MATTHEW MARON,GEORGE DU PONT

Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter. At times these social media outlets are purely personal communications. Other times, they are part and parcel of how a company does business. How does a company identify which social media data it must retain as part of its overall policies for preserving electronically stored information (“ESI”)? In large part, the answer may be found by examining the degree to which the social media communication is truly a company-related communication. If the company permits or authorizes social media communications on its behalf, it likely will need to take steps to preserve and review such data even if it is made by an employee on a personal, password-protected account on a home computer.

That is not to say a company must always be its employees’ keeper. When company employees create social media accounts for purely personal communications (e.g., a personal Facebook account), a company typically will not have any obligation to preserve such data, particularly where such accounts are accessible by a username and password known only by the individual employee and not the company. Companies can help insulate themselves from ESI obligations with respect to such accounts by enacting policies that prohibit any use of such private personal social media accounts for work-related communications on behalf of the company.

In some instances, however, companies will want to encourage or permit employees to use personal social media accounts for work-related communications. For example, recruiters at personnel staffing companies routinely use personal LinkedIn accounts to reach potential candidates. In such circumstances, even though the companies may not have the passwords or usernames for these accounts, the company may have a duty to preserve the social media communications they contain.

While a body of case law has not yet developed, there is no reason to believe that principles developed concerning other forms of “personal” ESI will not be applied to Facebook, Twitter and their social media cousins. See e.g. Equal Emp't Opportunity Comm'n v. Simply Storage Mgmt, LLC, (applying traditional discovery principles to compel production of social network site data). For example, courts have required companies to produce relevant ESI that their employees stored in internet-based personal email accounts. See e.g. Helmert v. ButterballLLC. Courts may well treat personal LinkedIn accounts the same way.

To ensure that companies will not face the extra costs of disputes with their employees to obtain access to the ESI they are required to produce, companies that rely on employee use of social media should establish clear policies governing the use of workplace computers and other electronic devices that access company systems (e.g., smartphones, tablets and other portable electronic devices) with a particular focus on regulating social media usage on company systems and the duties that may be triggered to preserve data generated from such usage. Companies should instruct employees to engage in work-related communications on behalf of the company only from accounts to which the company has access.

In addition, because social media can be accessed anywhere there is an Internet connection, companies should alert employees that even when they are outside of the office, certain work-related ESI generated on their personal social media accounts can be subject to the company’s preservation obligations, and that in the event litigation is reasonably anticipated or when faced with a subpoena, the company may instruct its employees to preserve social media content from their own personal accounts, which may contain relevant information.

Taking these steps may help ensure that companies will be able to access social media used by its employees on behalf of the company. However, companies that rely on their employees’ social media use also need to make sure that they can preserve such data to avoid spoliation claims. The Sedona Conference’s Primer on Social Media (available at thesedonaconference.org) notes that tools for preserving social media are constantly evolving, and some of the suggested methods currently used for preserving relevant social media data include capturing and preserving static images of relevant social media data or by using site monitoring software.

In making these recommendations, we offer an important caveat: Prior to requesting access to an employee's personal social media account, a company should check with employment counsel to ensure the company does not run afoul of laws that prohibit asking employees for personal social media account passwords.

 


HHS Issues Proposed Rule on Exchange Liability; IRS Provides Coordination Options for Noncalendar-Year Plans

On Jan. 14, 2013, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued another lengthy proposed rule under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA).  Among other things, the proposed rule provides some information on how employers will be notified if an employee applies for a premium subsidy / tax credit and how an employer may appeal a determination of premium subsidy eligibility that it believes is incorrect.  The proposed rule is HERE

Employee Requests for Premium Subsidies

An employee will be eligible for a premium subsidy only if:

  • His household income is less than 400 percent of federal poverty level,
  • He purchases coverage through the public exchange,
  • He does not have access to affordable, minimum value coverage through his employer, and
  • He is not covered by a plan through his employer that provides minimum essential coverage (even if that coverage is not affordable or it does not provide minimum value)

The employee will be required to provide information to the exchange about his income and access to employer-provided affordable, minimum value coverage.  The exchange (or HHS if the state asks HHS to do this) will attempt to verify this information from available data bases, but in all likelihood it will need to contact the employer for verification of information regarding coverage.

HHS is considering the use of a one-page template that the employer would complete with respect to the employee’s eligibility for coverage, plan affordability and plan value.

Employee Eligibility for a Premium Subsidy

Under the proposed rule, HHS or the exchange would notify the employer if an employee is determined to be eligible for a premium subsidy (“certified under Section 1411”).  The employer would have 90 days to appeal the determination if it believed the employee should not be eligible for the subsidy.  (All employers, regardless of size, would receive the notice that an employee has been found to be eligible for a premium subsidy. Employers large enough to be responsible for paying a penalty on employees who receive a premium subsidy would receive a separate notice from the IRS actually assessing the penalty. The IRS notice most likely would be sent during the second quarter after the calendar year for which the premium subsidy was provided.)

Coordinating Exchange and Plan Open Enrollments

On Jan. 2, 2013, the IRS issued a detailed rule that, among other things, provides that noncalendar-year plans may amend their Section 125 plans to allow employees to make midyear changes because of PPACA.  Open enrollment for the exchanges will begin in October 2013 for a Jan. 1, 2014, effective date, and the individual coverage mandate also begins Jan. 1, 2014.  The proposed rules provide that employers with noncalendar-year plans may amend their Section 125 plans to allow participants to drop coverage as of Jan. 1, 2014, to enroll in an exchange plan.  Employers also may amend their plans to allow employees who had declined coverage to enroll and pay premiums on a pre-tax basis as of Jan.1, 2014, so that the employee can meet the coverage requirement.  (Employers considering allowing a special enrollment for those who had declined coverage should obtain the consent of their carrier or reinsurer before implementing this option.)   The proposed rule is here:
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-01-02/pdf/2012-31269.pdf

 

Important: The HHS rules are still in the “proposed” stage, which means that there may be changes when the final rule is issued.  Employers should view the HHS proposed rule as an indication of how plans will be regulated beginning in 2014, but need to understand that changes are entirely possible.

 

 


Let’s Go Wellness

Most business leaders (87 percent) see value in worksite wellness programs, according to a recent online survey of HR leaders. Seventy-four percent of polled executives said they would be open to sharing ideas with other business leaders in their community to come up with unique and effective wellness initiatives, the report said.


Bad Flu

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is predicting a particularly nasty flu season this winter. Health officials detected a jump in influenza cases in five Southern states in early December. Luckily, people seem to be better prepared this season, with more than a third of Americans already being vaccinated, CDC officials said


PPACA: Play or Pay? 7 Reasons Why ‘Pay’ is Not the Easy Answer

By Thom Mangan, CEO, United Benefit Advisors
Source: https://www.insurancebroadcasting.com

With every day that goes by, the nation’s employers move a step closer to having to make a decision: Do I play or pay?

Employers now have just a little more than one year to prepare themselves and their workforces for the arrival of the core of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), which requires employers with 50 or more full-time employees to offer medical coverage or pay a penalty. Although a year might seem like ample time, the decision isn’t an easy one, and it’s fraught with financial, legal and competitive implications.

Some employers assert that the play-or-pay mandate will raise their costs and force them to make workforce cutbacks. As a result, a number are considering eliminating their health care coverage altogether and instead paying the penalty on their full-time employees. While the “pay” option might be worth considering, there are strong reasons why employers should look carefully at all of their options and do their best to calculate the actual outcomes of each.

Here are some of the issues employers should factor into their decision-making process:

1.    Lost Tax Advantages—Employers that eliminate health care coverage or opt not to offer it to full-time employees will be missing out on tax breaks (as will their employees).  Employer contributions for health care coverage are not considered taxable income to the employee (and are deductible by the employer).  Employee premiums that are paid through a Section 125 plan reduce the employee’s taxable income, which reduces both the employer’s and the employee’s FICA tax.

2.    Reporting Burdens Remain—Employers that don’t offer health care coverage will still face federal reporting requirements, in part so the penalty amount can be determined.  In addition, employees who are not offered coverage are likely to go to the exchanges for coverage. These exchanges will require a variety of employee data from employers, particularly for employees who may be eligible for the premium tax credit, which means employers may have to deal with a significant number of inquiries from exchanges (staff time, effort, costs).

3.    Recruitment and Retention Challenges—Employers who opt not to offer health care coverage could be doing long-term damage to their employment brands, making it difficult to attract top talent in the future. Even worse, they could lose current employees to organizations that do provide coverage. And the damage to the brand could be even greater for employers that once offered coverage but elect to eliminate it in favor of paying penalties. Not offering coverage could tarnish the employment brand and disrupt business in another way: Employees who are forced to use exchanges—especially untested or insufficiently staffed exchanges—could feel undervalued or abandoned by their employers.

4.    Counting Employees Can Be Complex—What constitutes a full-time employee?  Answering this question can be tricky; in late August the IRS issued 18 pages of rules that only partly answer the question. Employers that believe they won't face penalties for dropping or not offering coverage because they have fewer than 50 employees may have calculated incorrectly. If that happens, the results could be costly. Be certain you know how to count full-time and full-time equivalent employees and what your obligations are.

5.    The Cost of Coverage Can Be Adjusted—While employers may have to cover more people, they do have options for reducing the costs of this coverage. For example, employers could reduce their lowest-cost coverage to stay just above the 60 percent minimum value threshold; they could reduce workers’ hours below the “full-time employee” level; and they could consider paying targeted penalties (e.g., not providing “affordable coverage” to certain segments of their workforce).

6.   Other Financial Implications—Employees may demand additional compensation from employers that elect to drop coverage to cover the cost of health care they must now purchase with their own, after-tax dollars. Employers who haven't properly budgeted for nondeductible penalties may compound their financial burdens, especially if they don't make long-term plans for penalty increases.

7.    Carriers Will Address Plan Designs—Insurance carriers will become experts on coverage requirements out of sheer necessity, so the myriad of plan design criteria won't likely be a burden on many employers. In addition, carriers will implement a variety of tools to communicate with employees, helping to keep business disruptions to a minimum.

These play-or-pay decisions actually represent just one aspect of PPACA, and there are obligations and implications attached to both sides of the argument. Again, employers would do well to consider all of their options and calculate the outcomes as accurately as possible.

 


How Ergonomics Can Save You Money

Source: https://safetydailyadvisor.blr.com
By Chris Kilbourne

More companies are beginning to view ergonomics as an overall business tool. And they’re saving money.

According to veteran ergonomics consultant Dan MacLeod, the value of ergonomics is often underrated—especially when budget time rolls around. Macleod, however, has catalogued many ways ergonomics can save money.

  • Dramatic reduction in workers' compensation costs. Good ergonomics programs cut comp costs an average of 60 percent and up to 90 percent in some cases.
  • Improved productivity. According to MacLeod, ergonomic improvements commonly raise productivity by 10 to 15 percent.
  • Fewer mistakes and less scrap. People working in awkward and uncomfortable postures commonly make mistakes. At one business, a $400 mechanical device eliminated a $6,000 annual loss in scrap caused by employees who had been unable to consistently perform a demanding physical task. The return on investment was 1500 percent!
  • Improved efficiency. Ergonomics improves efficiency due to improved working posture, less exertion, fewer motions, and better heights and reaches.
  • Less fatigue. Fatigue has long been known to result in lost productivity. Ergonomics specialists seek the causes of excessive fatigue and ways to reduce or eliminate them.
  • Reduced maintenance downtime. For example, providing clearance, reducing exertion, and reducing motions can speed up the time in which operations can be brought back online.
  • Protecting human resources. Loss of key personnel due to ergonomics injuries can be a costly problem, especially in smaller organizations.
  • Identifying waste. By evaluating elements such as motion and exertion, it is possible to identify and eliminate wasted activity.
  • Offsetting the limitations of an aging workforce. Making ergonomic adaptations can help older workers be as productive as younger ones, if not more so.
  • Reduced turnover. Employees working in uncomfortable environments that cause them pain are more likely to seek other employment and leave.
  • Reduced absenteeism. Absenteeism can be an indicator of the early stages of a musculoskeletal disorder. "Work that hurts doesn’t exactly encourage people to come in every day," says MacLeod.
  • Improved morale. Frustration, aches, and pains caused by ergonomic problems are likely to affect morale—and not in a good way!
  • More engaged employees. Ergonomic improvements directly benefit employees, and this serves as a positive reinforcement for participation.
  • Improved labor relations. Ergonomic issues can be a source of positive labor/management problem solving. This collaboration can extend to other aspects of the work environment.
  • Resurgence of "methods engineering." Methods engineering is an old business efficiency technique that seeks to reduce costs and optimize reliability by analyzing task performance. Ergonomics brings these ideas back in a valuable "new and improved" format, says MacLeod.
  • Linking to LEAN. Ergonomics, with its emphasis on waste reduction, can help businesses advance their LEAN programs.
  • Keep regulators at bay. OSHA has issued some historically high fines for ergonomics violations.

MacLeod adds that humans have been "doing ergonomics" for thousands of years. It's a proven practice. He points to examples such as the stone ax and the wheel.

In addition, ergonomics can provide valuable insights that can lead to other improvements. Any new perspective in the workplace helps leaders identify ways to improve and motivates them to make improvements that result in higher profits.

 


Fiscal Cliff Averted

Legislators pulled the nation away from the so-called "fiscal cliff" and inked a budget deal on the first day of the New Year. As part of the agreement, Congress opted to remove the 2 percent payroll tax cut. The removal of the cut means that 77 percent of U.S. households will see higher taxes this year, according to the Tax Policy Center. In addition, the deal expands unemployment benefits. Lawmakers also voted to continue the tax-favored status of educational assistance and mass-transit expenses.