Final Rule on Nondiscrimination in Health Programs and Activities
From the Department of Health and Human Services.
Final rule prohibits discrimination based on race, color, national origin, sex, age or disability; enhances language assistance for individuals with limited English proficiency; and protects individuals with disabilities.
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued a final rule to advance health equity and reduce health care disparities. Under the rule, individuals are protected from discrimination in health care on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability and sex, including discrimination based on pregnancy, gender identity and sex stereotyping. In addition to implementing Section 1557’s prohibition on sex discrimination, the final rule also enhances language assistance for people with limited English proficiency and helps to ensure effective communication for individuals with disabilities. The protections in the final rule and Section 1557 regarding individuals’ rights and the responsibilities of many health insurers, hospitals, and health plans administered by or receiving federal funds from HHS build on existing federal civil rights laws to advance protections for underserved, underinsured, and often excluded populations.
The Nondiscrimination in Health Programs and Activities final rule implements Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act, which is the first federal civil rights law to broadly prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex in federally funded health programs. Previously, civil rights laws enforced by HHS’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) broadly barred discrimination based only on race, color, national origin, disability, or age.
“A central goal of the Affordable Care Act is to help all Americans access quality, affordable health care. Today’s announcement is a key step toward realizing equity within our health care system and reaffirms this Administration's commitment to giving every American access to the health care they deserve," said HHS Secretary Sylvia M. Burwell.
The final rule helps consumers who are seeking to understand their rights and clarifies the responsibilities of health care providers and insurers that receive federal funds. The final rule also addresses the responsibilities of issuers that offer plans in the Health Insurance Marketplaces. Among other things, the final rule prohibits marketing practices or benefit designs that discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, age, or disability. The final rule also prohibits discriminatory practices by health care providers, such as hospitals that accept Medicare or doctors who participate in the Medicaid program.
The final rule prohibits sex discrimination in health care including by:
- Requiring that women must be treated equally with men in the health care they receive. Other provisions of the ACA bar certain types of sex discrimination in insurance, for example by prohibiting women from being charged more than men for coverage. Under Section 1557, women are protected from discrimination not only in the health coverage they obtain but in the health services they seek from providers.
- Prohibiting denial of health care or health coverage based on an individual’s sex, including discrimination based on pregnancy, gender identity, and sex stereotyping.
It also includes important protections for individuals with disabilities and enhances language assistance for people with limited English proficiency including by:
- Requiring covered entities to make electronic information and newly constructed or altered facilities accessible to individuals with disabilities and to provide appropriate auxiliary aids and services for individuals with disabilities.
- Requiring covered entities to take reasonable steps to provide meaningful access to individuals with limited English proficiency. Covered entities are also encouraged to develop language access plans.
While the final rule does not resolve whether discrimination on the basis of an individual’s sexual orientation status alone is a form of sex discrimination under Section 1557, the rule makes clear that OCR will evaluate complaints that allege sex discrimination related to an individual’s sexual orientation to determine if they involve the sorts of stereotyping that can be addressed under 1557. HHS supports prohibiting sexual orientation discrimination as a matter of policy and will continue to monitor legal developments on this issue.
The final rule states that where application of any requirement of the rule would violate applicable Federal statutes protecting religious freedom and conscience, that application will not be required.
For more information about Section 1557, including factsheets on key provisions and frequently asked questions, visit https://www.hhs.gov/civil-rights/for-individuals/section-1557.
To learn more about non-discrimination and health information privacy laws, your civil rights, and privacy rights in health care and human service settings, and to find information on how to file a complaint, visit us at www.hhs.gov/ocr.
5 Crucial Wellness Strategies for Self-Funded Companies
Original post careatc.com
Instead of paying pricey premiums to insurers, self-insured companies pay claims filed by employees and health care providers directly and assume most of the financial risk of providing health benefits to employees. To mitigate significant losses, self-funded companies often sign up for a special “stop loss” insurance, hedging against very large or unexpected claims. The result? A stronger position to stabilize health care costs in the long-term. No wonder self-funded plans are on the rise with nearly 81% of employees at large companies covered.
Despite the rise in self-insured companies, employers are uncertain as to whether they’ll even be able to afford coverage in the long-term given ACA regulations. Now more than ever, employers (self-insured or not) must understand that wellness is a business strategy. High-performing companies are able to manage costs by implementing the most effective tactics for improving workforce health.
Here are five wellness strategies for self-insured companies:
Strategy 1: Focus on Disease Management Programs
Corporate wellness offerings generally consist of two types of programs: lifestyle management and disease management. The first focuses on employees with health risks, like smoking or obesity, and supports them in reducing those risks to ultimately prevent the development of chronic conditions. Disease management programs, on the other hand, are designed to help employees who already have chronic disease, encouraging them to take better care of themselves through increased access to low-cost generic prescriptions or closing communication gaps in care through periodic visits to providers who leverage electronic medical records.
According to a 2012 Rand Corporation study, both program types collectively reduced the employer’s average health care costs by about $30 per member per month (PMPM) with disease management responsible for 87% of those savings. You read that right – 87%! Looking deeper into the study, employees participating in the disease management program generated savings of $136 PMPM, driven in large part by a nearly 30% reduction in hospital admissions. Additionally, only 13% of employees participated in the disease management program, compared with 87% for the lifestyle management program. In other words, higher participation in lifestyle management programs marginally contributes to overall short-term savings; ROI was $3.80 for disease management but only $0.50 for lifestyle management for every dollar invested.
This isn’t to say that lifestyle management isn’t a worthy cause – employers still benefit from its long-term savings, reduced absenteeism, and improved retention rates – but it cannot be ignored that short-term ROI is markedly achieved through a robust disease management program.
Strategy 2: Beef Up Value-Based Benefits
Value-Based Benefit Design (VBD) strategies focus on key facets of the health care continuum, including prevention and chronic disease management. Often paired with wellness programs, VBD strategies aim to maximize opportunities for employees make positive changes. The result? Improved employee health and curbed health care costs for both employee and employer. Types of value-based benefits outlined by theNational Business Coalition on Health include:
Individual health competency where incentives are presented most often through cash equivalent or premium differential:
- Health Risk Assessment
- Biometric testing
- Wellness programs
Condition management where incentives are presented most often through co-pay/coinsurance differential or cash equivalent:
- Adherence to evidence-based guidelines
- Adherence to chronic medications
- Participation in a disease management program
Provider Guidance
- Utilization of a retail clinic versus an emergency room
- Care through a “center of excellence”
- Tier one high quality physician
There is no silver bullet when it comes to VBD strategies. The first step is to assess your company’s health care utilization and compare it with other benchmarks in your industry or region. The ultimate goal is to provide benefits that meet employee needs and coincide with your company culture.
Strategy 3: Adopt Comprehensive Biometric Screenings
Think Health Risk Assessments (HRAs) and Biometric Screenings are one and the same? Think again. While HRAs include self-reported questions about medical history, health status, and lifestyle, biometric screenings measure objective risk factors, such as body weight, cholesterol, blood pressure, stress, and nutrition. This means that by adopting a comprehensive annual biometric screening, employees can review results with their physician, create an action plan, and see their personal progress year after year. For employers, being able to determine potentially catastrophic claims and quantitatively assess employee health on an aggregate level is gold. With such valuable metrics, its no surprise that nearly 51% of large companies offer biometric screenings to their employees.
Strategy 4: Open or Join an Employer-Sponsored Clinic
Despite a moderate health care cost trend of 4.1% after ACA changes in 2013, costs continue to rise above the rate of inflation, amplifying concerns about the long-term ability for employers to provide health care benefits. In spite of this climate, there are still high-performing companies managing costs by implementing the most effective tactics for improving health. One key tactic? Offer at least one onsite health service to your population.
I know what you’re thinking: employer-sponsored clinics are expensive and only make sense for large companies, right? Not anymore. There are a few innovative models out there tailored to small and mid-size businesses that are self-funded, including multi-employer, multi-site sponsored clinics. Typically a large company anchors the clinic and smaller employers can join or a group of small employers can launch their very own clinic. There are a number of advantages to employer-sponsored clinics and it is worthwhile to explore if this strategy is right for your company.
Strategy 5: Leverage Mobile Technology
With thousands health and wellness apps currently available through iOS and Android, consumers are presented with an array of digital tools to achieve personal goals. So how can self-insured companies possibly leverage this range of mobile technology? From health gamification and digital health coaching, to wearables and apps, employers are inundated with a wealth of digital means that delivering a variation of virtually the same thing: measurable data.
These companies curate available consumer health and wellness technology to empower employers by simplifying the process of selecting and managing various app and device partners, and even connecting with tools employees are already be using.
Conclusion:
Self-insured companies have a vested interest in improving employee health and understand that wellness is indeed a business strategy. High-performing companies are able to manage costs by implementing the most effective tactics for improving workforce health including an increased focus on Chronic Disease Management programs; strengthening value-based benefit design; adopting comprehensive biometric screening; exploring the option of opening or joining an employer-sponsored clinic; and leveraging mobile technology.
EEOC Issues Final Rules on Employee Wellness Programs
From the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
WASHINGTON, DC--The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) today issued final rules that describe how Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Title II of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) apply to wellness programs offered by employers that request health information from employees and their spouses. The two rules provide guidance to both employers and employees about how workplace wellness programs can comply with the ADA and GINA consistent with provisions governing wellness programs in the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, as amended by the Affordable Care Act (Affordable Care Act).
The rules permit wellness programs to operate consistent with their stated purpose of improving employee health, while including protections for employees against discrimination. The rules are available in the Federal Register at Regulations Under the Americans with Disabilities Act and Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA). EEOC also published question-and-answer documents on both rules today, available at Q&A ADA Wellness Final Rule and Q&A GINA Final Rule, and two documents for small businesses Facts on ADA and Wellness and Facts on GINA and Wellness.
Many employers offer workplace wellness programs intended to encourage healthier lifestyles or prevent disease. These programs sometimes use medical questionnaires or health risk assessments and biometric screenings to determine an employee's health risk factors, such as body weight and cholesterol, blood glucose, and blood pressure levels. Some of these programs offer financial and other incentives for employees to participate or to achieve certain health outcomes.
The ADA and GINA generally prohibit employers from obtaining and using information about employees’ own health conditions or about the health conditions of their family members, including spouses. Both laws, however, allow employers to ask health-related questions and conduct medical examinations, such as biometric screenings to determine risk factors, if the employer is providing health or genetic services as part of a voluntary wellness program. Last year, EEOC issued proposed rules that addressed whether offering an incentive for employees or their family members to provide health information as part of a wellness program would render the program involuntary.
The final ADA rule provides that wellness programs that are part of a group health plan and that ask questions about employees’ health or include medical examinations may offer incentives of up to 30 percent of the total cost of self-only coverage. The final GINA rule provides that the value of the maximum incentive attributable to a spouse’s participation may not exceed 30 percent of the total cost of self-only coverage, the same incentive allowed for the employee. No incentives are allowed in exchange for the current or past health status information of employees’ children or in exchange for specified genetic information (such as family medical history or the results of genetic tests) of an employee, an employee’s spouse, and an employee’s children.
The final rules, which will go into effect in 2017, apply to all workplace wellness programs, including those in which employees or their family members may participate without also enrolling in a particular health plan.
“The EEOC received comments on both rules from a broad array of stakeholders and considered them carefully in developing this final rule,” said EEOC Chair Jenny R. Yang. “The Commission worked to harmonize HIPAA’s goal of allowing incentives to encourage participation in wellness programs with ADA and GINA provisions that require that participation in certain types of wellness programs is voluntary. These rules make clear that the ADA and GINA provide important safeguards to employees to protect against discrimination.”
Program Design
Both rules also seek to ensure that wellness programs actually promote good health and are not just used to collect or sell sensitive medical information about employees and family members or to impermissibly shift health insurance costs to them. The ADA and GINA rules require wellness programs to be reasonably designed to promote health and prevent disease.
Protecting Confidentiality
The two rules also make clear that the ADA and GINA provide important protections for safeguarding health information. The ADA and GINA rules state that information from wellness programs may be disclosed to employers only in aggregate terms.
The ADA rule requires that employers give participating employees a notice that tells them what information will be collected as part of the wellness program, with whom it will be shared and for what purpose, the limits on disclosure and the way information will be kept confidential. GINA includes statutory notice and consent provisions for health and genetic services provided to employees and their family members.
Both rules prohibit employers from requiring employees or their family members to agree to the sale, exchange, transfer, or other disclosure of their health information to participate in a wellness program or to receive an incentive.
The interpretive guidance published along with the final ADA rule and the preamble to the GINA final rule identify some best practices for ensuring confidentiality, such as adopting and communicating clear policies, training employees who handle confidential information, encrypting health information, and providing prompt notification of employees and their family members if breaches occur.
EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the EEOC is available on its web site at EEOC.gov.
Employers' Greatest Fears: PPACA & Compliance
Original post benefitspro.com
The last few years have put employers in the position of becoming compliance officers. The Department of Labor, Health and Human Services, and the Internal Revenue Service have actively been pursuing small- and mid-size businesses about various issues, from PPACA reporting to wage and hour miscalculations.
It is becoming a full-time job for manager HR representatives to keep up with the requirements of a compliant business.
The average employer cannot tell you what the affordability test is compared to the value test, but they know that it is now a requirement. Most important is the employer's concern for their employees to have the best health insurance available for the least expensive price. The employees are now looking for jobs that will provide them with health insurance in order to not be penalized at tax filing time. Employers are trying to understand what exactly they should be providing under health care reform in order to not pay additional fines for doing it incorrectly.
IRS fines are increasing in 2016 for employees to either $695 or 2.5 percent of adjusted family income per uninsured adult, whichever is greater. Employers will have to pay $2,160 per employee (after the first 30) if not providing health insurance or for an incorrect plan, and $3,240 for each employee getting a subsidy through the marketplace. Penalties for not filing certain documents in time, such as form 5500 or form 1094C, can add up to $1,100 per late day.
Insurance agents are becoming consultants in a very different world than we first began. Employers are asking accounting and legal questions which are requiring research and partnerships with other professionals.
Employers want to know the difference now in using a professional employer organization (PEO) versus outsourcing their HR and payroll departments. If the employer decides to do it themselves, questions they ask are:
- How long do I keep the necessary paperwork?
- Should I use the qualifying offer method or the 98 percent offer method?
- Which Safe Harbor would be best for my situation?
Insurance consultants will be the ones answering these questions with their employers as well as reviewing the documents and procedures.
Education and wisdom are the most important values for an insurance consultant’s job security. Just about the time you learn it, it will change.
How Agents Can Help Comply with PPACA
Original post benefitspro.com
“You can help your employer clients comply with the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act [PPACA] by becoming their trusted advisors,” Julie L. Hulsey, CLU, LUTCF, president and CEO, Zynia Business Solutions, Amarillo, Texas, told her audience in her presentation, “Employers’ Greatest Fears: PPACA and Compliance.”
As of Jan. 1, 2016, Hulsey reminded the audience, employers of 50 or more full-time equivalent (FTE) employees are required to provide health insurance to at least 95% of their employees or face a penalty. One key issue for employers is that many federal government entities are auditing small businesses with little to no coordination, for example:
1. Department of Labor, including the Wage and Hour Division, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration
2. Internal Revenue Service
3. Office for Civil Rights
4. Immigration Customs Enforcement
5. Department of Transportation
“Smaller employers, those with less than 50 employees, or 50 to 100 employees, don’t have an HR department or even an HR professional on staff,” Hulsey observed. One way agents and brokers can demonstrate their value is by providing clients with charts showing affordable coverage employee wage calculations for a 40-hour work week and for a 30-hour work week, she explained, showing the charts she had created for her clients.
Penalties 101 for agents and brokers
Hulsey reminded the audience that for 2016 the employer shared responsibility penalty of $2,000 is now $2,160, and the $3,000 penalty is now $3,240. If an employer is considering paying the penalty instead of offering insurance, you can point out that the penalty is not a tax deductible business expense but health insurance premiums are, which may affect the employer’s decision.
“Penalties will be calculated on a monthly basis so if you are out of compliance for just one month, you will only be penalized for that month,” Hulsey pointed out. “Therefore, become compliant as soon as possible to avoid accumulating more monthly penalties.”
If an employer offers a “minimum essential coverage” plan that meets the “affordable” and “minimum value” tests to an employee who declines it, no employer penalty will be owed for that employee. “Tell the employer to keep a copy of the signed waiver of coverage form, and get a signed waiver every year!” Hulsey said.
It’s important to let our clients know what the Department of Labor and the Department of Justice are targeting, Hulsey said. Quoting from a recent presentation by the DOL and DOJ that she attended, Hulsey said that the DOL’s FY 2013 Strategic Plan has a goal to generate $1,172,108,000 in enforcement results through 4,330 reporting compliance reviews. They indicated their enforcement program will use a series of approaches (including national/regional priorities, civil/criminal litigation, and sample Investigation Programs) to achieve this goal. The current strategic plan is under review and that enforcement goal is likely to increase.
Hulsey acknowledged that agents and brokers are losing commissions but you can take some action to limit those losses “Connect with professionals like TPAs and payroll vendors to offer some of those third party services,” she suggested. “Also, be sure you understand your clients’ needs so you can answer their questions.” Employers need answers about PPACA and compliance, and they’ll be calling you or their attorneys. “It’s better if they call you,” she said.
Compliance Alert: New Affordable Care Act FAQs Released
Original post jdsupra.com
The U.S. Department of Labor, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the Department of the Treasury (collectively, the “Departments”) have jointly issued a new set of answers to frequently asked questions about the Affordable Care Act (the “ACA”). Below are some highlights from the FAQs.
Rescissions of Coverage
The FAQs provides some specific guidance regarding rescissions of coverage that is of interest for K-12 schools and higher education institutions. Under the ACA, a plan generally cannot retroactively cancel coverage (referred to as a “rescission” of coverage) unless the participant commits fraud or makes an intentional misrepresentation of material fact prohibited by the terms of the plan. The FAQs answer a very specific question about rescissions, which may have broader application. The question raised by the FAQs is whether a school can retroactively cancel coverage for a teacher who was employed on a 10-month contract from August 1 to May 31 and gave notice of resignation on July 31. The plan attempted to terminate coverage retroactively to May 31. According to the FAQs, such a rescission violates the ACA’s restrictions.
Preventive Care Mandate
Under the ACA, non-grandfathered group health plans must cover certain preventive services without imposing any cost-sharing requirements. In the new FAQs, the Departments issued the following guidance regarding preventive services:
- Any required preparation for a preventive screening colonoscopy is an integral part of the procedure and must be covered without cost-sharing.
- Plans and issuers that use reasonable medical management techniques for specific methods of contraception can develop a standard exception form and instructions for providers to use in prescribing a particular service or FDA-approved item based on medical necessity. The Medicare Part D Coverage Determination Request Form can be used as a model in developing a standard exception form.
Additionally, the FAQs clarify that if a non-grandfathered plan pays a fixed amount (a “reference price”) for a particular procedure, the plan must either (1) ensure that participants have adequate access to quality providers that accept the reference price as payment in full or (2) count an individual’s out-of-pocket expenses for providers who do not accept the reference price toward the individual’s maximum out-of-pocket limit.
Out-of-Network Emergency Services Coverage
The ACA also prohibitsnon-grandfathered group health plans from imposing cost-sharing on out-of-network emergency services in an amount that is greater than that imposed for in-network emergency services. The statute does not specify whether “balance billing” is included in the definition of cost-sharing. “Balance billing” is the practice of providers billing a patient for the difference between the provider’s billed charges and the amount collected from the plan plus the amount collected from the patient in the form of a copay or coinsurance. To avoid circumvention of the ACA requirements, the Departments previously issued regulations requiring a plan or issuer to pay a reasonable amount before the patient becomes responsible for balance billing. Under this regulation, the plan or issuer must provide benefits at least equal to the greatest of: (1) the median amount negotiated with in-network providers for the emergency service; (2) the amount for the emergency service calculated using the same method the plan generally uses to determine payments for out-of-network services; or (3) the amount that would be paid under Medicare for the emergency service (collectively, the “Minimum Payment Standards”). The FAQs now make clear that plans that are subject to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act must disclose the documentation and data they use to calculate the Minimum Payment Standards (1) upon request by a participant (or authorized representative) or (2) if relevant to an appeal of an adverse benefit determination.
Mental Health Parity
Lastly, the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act (“MHPAEA”) and underlying regulations generally prohibit group health plans from imposing more restrictions on financial requirements and treatment limitations provided for mental health/substance abuse disorder services than the “predominant” financial requirements and treatment limitations that apply to “substantially all” medical/surgical services. “Substantially all” for this purpose is a requirement or limitations that apply to at least 2/3 of all medical/surgical benefits in a classification. If a limitation meets the substantially all requirement, then the “predominant” level that may apply to the mental health/substance abuse disorder benefits is the one that applies to more than half of the medical/surgical benefits within the classification. In the FAQs, the Departments clarify that when calculating the “substantially all” and “predominant” tests, a plan or issuer may not base its analysis on an issuer’s entire book of business for the year. Group health plan-specific data must be used where available. If not available, data from plans with similar structures and demographics can be used.
The FAQs also clarify that under MHPAEA, criteria for medical necessity determinations must be made available to any current or potential enrollee in a group health plan, not just active participants.
This is the 31st set of FAQs issued by the Departments on the ACA, which reflects the complexity of implementing the ACA’s many requirements.
New Concerns for Employer Plan Sponsors Under the Fair Labor Standards Act and ERISA § 510
Original post jdsupra.com
The Affordable Care Act (ACA) anti-retaliation provisions have been in effect for several years, but have so far largely gone unnoticed. Now that employees can get financial assistance through the Health Insurance Marketplace, employers should revisit these provisions and carefully structure their actions to limit potential exposure. In addition, a recent lawsuit brought by employees under ERISA suggests employers should use care when taking employment action that might impact health benefits. As a result, employers and insurers should consider implementing and/or updating and revising their employment policies and procedures now.
CMS Issues 2017 Benefit and Payment Parameters Rule, Letter to Issuers and FAQ
Original post healthaffairs.org
On February 29, 2016, the Department of Health and Human Services released its final 2017 Benefit and Payment Parameters Rule (with fact sheet) and final 2017 Letter to Issuers in the Federally Facilitated Marketplaces (FFMs). It also released a bulletin on rate filings for individual and small group non-grandfathered plans during 2016, a frequently asked questions documenton the 2017 moratorium on the health insurance provider fee recently adopted by Congress, and a bulletin announcing that CMS intends to allow transitional (grandmothered) policies to continue (if states permit it) through December 31, 2017, rather than requiring them to terminate by October 1, 2017, as earlier announced.
The final payment rule and letter include most of the provisions proposed earlier, but differ in important respects.Here are a few headlines, focusing on issues of particular interest to health insurance consumers.
Standardized Plans
To begin, the final rule and letter adopt with a few changes proposals regarding standardized plans. Beginning in 2017, qualified health plan insurers would have the option of offering six standardized plans: a bronze, a gold, and a standard silver, as well as three silver plan options, at the 73 percent, 87 percent, and 94 percent actuarial-value levels, for individuals eligible for cost sharing reduction payments. The plans would have
- standard deductibles (ranging from $6,650 for the bronze plan to $3,500 for the standard silver to $250 for the 94 percent silver cost-sharing variation),
- four-tier drug formularies,
- only one in-network provider tier,
- deductible-free services (for the silver level plan including urgent care, primary care visits, specialist visits, and drugs),
- and a preference for copayments over coinsurance.
Insurers will not be required to offer standardized plans and could offer non-standardized plans (as long as they met meaningful difference standards), but standardized plans will be displayed in the marketplaces a manner that will make them easy for consumers to find.
Network Adequacy Requirements
The final rule and letter adopt some, but not all of the network adequacy requirements that were proposed, and delay some until 2018. The NPRM payment rule would have required states to adopt time and distance network adequacy standards for 2017 and imposed a federal default time and distance standard in states that failed to do so. The final rule backs off this requirement but provides that the FFM will itself generally apply quantitative time and distance standards in determining network adequacy for qualified health plans.
Provider Termination Notice
The final rule requires that health plans give patients 30 days notice when terminating a provider and continue to offer coverage for up to 90 days for a patient in active treatment by a provider who is terminated without cause. The insurer would only have to pay network rates to a provider for continuation coverage and the provider could balance bill. CMS is proceeding with its proposal to label health plans as to their relative network breadth on HealthCare.gov.
Out-Of-Network Bills At In-Network Facilities
CMS is not finalizing until 2018 a requirement the insurers apply to the in-network cost sharing limit the cost of services provided by out-of-network providers at an in-network facility; the agency is also weakening this already weak requirement. As finalized, the requirement only applies to ancillary providers, such as anesthesiologists or radiologists; can be avoided by giving notice (including form notice) 48 hours ahead of time or at the time of prior authorization that treatment might be received from out-of-network providers; and does not apply to balance bills as such where the provider bills for the difference between its charge and the network payment rate.
Open Enrollment Period And Procedures
Open enrollment for 2017 and 2018 will last from November 1 until January 31, as was true this year, but in future years, open enrollment will run from November 1 to December 15, to align enrollment with the calendar year. CMS is not finalizing until 2018 a proposal to allow applicants to remain on a web broker’s or insurer’s non-FFM website to complete a Marketplace applicant and enroll in coverage. Until then, web brokers and insurers will have to use the current direct enrollment process.
The rule changes the reenrollment hierarchy, requiring marketplaces to prioritize reenrollment in silver plans and allowing marketplaces to enroll consumers into plans offered by other insurers if their insurer does not have a plan available for reenrollment through the marketplace. Other proposals to change the reenrollment process were not adopted.
FFM User Fees In State Marketplaces
The final rule and letter finalize the status of state-based marketplaces using the federal enrollment platform, which this year included Hawaii, Oregon, Nevada, and New Mexico. In future years insurers in these states will pay a FFM user fee of 3 percent, but for 2017 the user fee will be 1.5 percent. The standard user fee for other FFM states will be 3.5 percent again for 2017.
Navigators In The FFMs
The final rule requires navigators in FFMs as of 2018 to provide consumers with post-enrollment assistance, including assistance with filing eligibility appeals (though not representing the consumer in the appeal), filing for shared responsibility exemptions, providing basic information regarding the reconciliation of premium tax credits, and understanding basic concepts related to using health coverage. Navigators will also be required to provide targeted assistance to vulnerable or underserved populations.
“Vertical Choice” In The FF-SHOPs
The final rule allows FF-SHOPs to offer a “vertical choice” option, under which employers could allow their employees to choose any plan at any actuarial level offered by a single carrier. This is in addition to the options currently available where employers can offer a single plan or any plans offered by an insurer at a single level. States could recommend against the FF-SHOP offering vertical choice in their states and states with state-based marketplaces using the FFM could opt out of making vertical choice available.
Fraud Prevention In The Medical Loss Ratio Calculation
CMS decided not to allow insurers to count fraud prevention expenses in the numerator in calculating their medical loss ratios, as it had suggested it might in the NPRM.
Other Topics
The insurer fee FAQ clarifies that insurers will not be charged the insurer fee for the 2017 fee year (which would have based the fee on 2016 data). Insurers are expected to adjust their premiums downward to account for the fact that they will not owe the fee.
CMS is allowing states to extend transitional plans, which antedate 2014 and do not have to comply with the 2014 ACA insurance reforms through the end of 2017. Earlier guidance had allowed insurers to renew transitional plans ending before October 1, 2017. CMS concluded that it would be better to allow people in transitional plans to transition into ACA compliant plans during the 2018 open enrollment period rather than having them start a new ACA compliant plan in October 2017 that would only last for three months, and then have to restart a new deductible on January 1, 2018.
There is much more in the rule and letter. The rule is well over 500 pages long, the letter almost 100. Watch for further installments over the next couple of days.
Health Care Reform Added 20 Million Adults to Coverage Rolls
Original post businessinsurance.com
More than 20 million adult Americans have gained health insurance coverage due to the health care reform law, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services said in a report released Thursday.
“Thanks to the Affordable Care Act, 20 million Americans have gained health care coverage. We have seen progress in the last six years that the country has sought for generations,” HHS Secretary Sylvia Burwell said in a statement.
The HHS report noted that coverage gains varied widely by race and ethnicity. For example, among white non-Hispanic adults, the uninsured rate as of Feb. 22 was 7%, down from 14.3% as of Oct. 1, 2013, while during the same period the uninsured rate among black non-Hispanic adults declined to 10.6% from 22.4%, and among Hispanic adults to 30.5% from 41.8%.
Several health care reform law provisions are credited with the gains in coverage, including those that authorized federal premium subsidies to lower-income individuals obtaining coverage in ACA-authorized exchanges and others that expanded Medicaid eligibility and required group health care plans to extend coverage to employees' adult children until they turn 26.
Prior to that last change, employers typically ended coverage for employees' children at age 18 or 19, or 23 or 24 if a full-time college student.
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.