Employers Eye Moving Sickest Workers To Insurance Exchanges
Originally posted May 7, 2014 by Jan Hancock on www.kaiserhealthnews.org.
Can corporations shift workers with high medical costs from the company health plan into online insurance exchanges created by the Affordable Care Act? Some employers are considering it, say benefits consultants.
"It's all over the marketplace," said Todd Yates, a managing partner at Hill, Chesson & Woody, a North Carolina benefits consulting firm. "Employers are inquiring about it and brokers and consultants are advocating for it."
Health spending is driven largely by patients with chronic illness such as diabetes or who undergo expensive procedures such as organ transplants. Since most big corporations are self-insured, shifting even one high-cost member out of the company plan could save the employer hundreds of thousands of dollars a year -- while increasing the cost of claims absorbed by the marketplace policy by a similar amount.
And the health law might not prohibit it, opening a door to potential erosion of employer-based coverage.
"Such an employer-dumping strategy can promote the interests of both employers and employees by shifting health care expenses on to the public at large," wrote two University of Minnesota law professors in a 2010 paper that basically predicted the present interest. The authors were Amy Monahan and Daniel Schwarcz.
It's unclear how many companies, if any, have moved sicker workers to exchange coverage, which became available only in January. But even a few high-risk patients could add millions of dollars in costs to those plans. The costs could be passed on to customers in the form of higher premiums and to taxpayers in the form of higher subsidy expense.
Here's how it might work. The employer shrinks the hospital and doctor network to make the company plan unattractive to those with chronic illness. Or, the employer raises co-payments for drugs needed by the chronically ill, also rendering the plan unattractive and perhaps nudging high-cost workers to examine other options.
At the same time, the employer offers to buy the targeted worker a high-benefit "platinum" plan in the marketplaces. The plan could cost $6,000 or more a year for an individual. But that's still far less than the $300,000 a year that, say, a hemophilia patient might cost the company.
The employer might also give the worker a raise to buy the policy directly.
The employer saves money. The employee gets better coverage. And the health law's marketplace plan --required to accept all applicants at a fixed price during open enrollment periods -- takes on the cost.
"The concept sounds to[o] easy to be true, but the ACA has set up the ability for employers and employees on a voluntary basis to choose a better plan in [the] Individual Marketplace and save a significant amount of money for both!" says promotional material from a company called Managed Exchange Solutions (MES).
"MES works with [the] reinsurer, insurance carrier and other health management organizations to determine [the] most likely candidates for the program."
Charlotte-based consultant Benefit Controls produced the Managed Exchange Solutions pitch last year but ultimately decided not to offer the strategy to its clients, said Matthew McQuide, a vice president with Benefit Controls.
"Though we believe it's legal" as long as employees agree to the change, "it's still gray," he said. "We just decided it wasn't something we wanted to promote."
Shifting high-risk workers out of employer plans is prohibited for other kinds of taxpayer-supported insurance.
For example, it's illegal to induce somebody who is working and over 65 to drop company coverage and rely entirely on the government Medicare program for seniors, said Amy Gordon, a benefits lawyer with McDermott Will & Emery. Similarly, employers who dumped high-cost patients into temporary high-risk pools established by the health law are required to repay those workers' claims to the pools.
"You would think there would be a similar type of provision under the Affordable Care Act" for plans sold through the marketplace portals, Gordon said. "But there currently is not."
Moving high-cost workers to a marketplace plan would not trigger penalties under the health law as long as an employer offered an affordable companywide plan with minimum coverage, experts said. (Workers cannot use tax credits to help pay exchange-plan premiums in such a case, either.)
Half a dozen benefits experts said they were unaware of specific instances of employers shifting high-cost workers to exchange plans. Spokespeople for AIDS United and the Hemophilia Federation of America, both advocating for patients with expensive, chronic conditions, said they didn't know of any, either.
But employers seem increasingly interested.
"I have gotten probably about half a dozen questions about it in the last month or so from our offices around the country," says Edward Fensholt, director of compliance for the Lockton Companies, a large insurance broker and benefits consultant. "They're passing on questions they're getting from their customers."
Such practices could raise concerns about discrimination, said Sabrina Corlette, project director at the Georgetown University Center on Health Insurance Reforms.
They could also cause resentment among employees who didn't get a similar deal, Fensholt said.
"We just don't think that's a good idea,” he said. "That needs to be kind of an under-the-radar deal, and under-the-radar deals never work," he said. Plus, he added, "it's bad public policy to push all these risks into the public exchange."
Hill, Chesson & Woody is not recommending it either.
"Anytime you want to have a conversation with an employee in a secretive, one-off manner, that's never a good idea," Yates said. "Something smells bad about that."
Measuring leaves of absence in concert with the ACA
Originally posted May 7, 2014 by Ed Bray, J.D. on https://ebn.benefitnews.com
I can unequivocally say that administering employee leaves of absence has been the most challenging responsibility of my HR career. Why? For every employee leave you must ensure that an orchestra of different people, laws, and systems play in perfect concert with each other. Not an easy task when you consider the following: trying to determine who and when employees are on leave; often abiding by multiple, complex leave laws; and dealing with HRIS tracking shortcomings (if you even have a tracking system).
OK, so what’s my point? Thanks to the Affordable Care Act, many organizations’ leave of absence orchestras are going to need to start sounding like the London Symphony Orchestra in the next few months.
Organizations that are required to follow the shared responsibility (play or pay) rules that use the look-back measurement period to determine whether variable hour, seasonal, or part-time employees are eligible for employer health insurance benefits must ensure each employee’s average hours of service are calculated accurately for the initial and standard measurement periods. A key component of the average hours of service calculation is the impact of any employee special unpaid leave (FMLA, leave under USERRA, and jury duty) during the respective measurement period.
The final regulations for the employer shared responsibility rules state that “special unpaid leave” may be defined as unpaid leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994, or jury duty. When calculating hours of service for a look-back measurement period, the employer must treat special unpaid leave in one of two ways:
▪ Determine the employee's average hours of service by excluding any periods of special unpaid leave during the measurement period and applying that average for the entire measurement period, or
▪ Impute hours of service during the periods of special unpaid leave at a rate equal to the average weekly hours of service for weeks that are not part of a period of special unpaid leave.
That said, it is critical that each employee’s average hours of service calculation accurately reflects any “special unpaid leave” as any employees that average under 30 hours of service per week or 130 hours of service per calendar month for the respective measurement period do not need to be offered employer-sponsored benefits. Many employees not offered benefits will be significantly affected as they will be required to enroll in some form of minimum essential coverage or else face a penalty under the ACA individual mandate. In addition, they may feel their hours of service calculation is incorrect and call the Department of Labor to express their concerns.
I recommend organizations focus on making three key business decisions as they prepare for the shared responsibility rules, effective in 2015 for employers with 100 or more full-time employees, including full-time equivalents (FTEs), and in 2016 for some employers with 50-99 full-time employees, including FTEs (certain conditions apply):
▪ How to accurately track employee leaves of absence.
▪ How to handle unpaid state and company leaves of absence for purposes of the measurement period calculations.
▪ Determine which ACA “special unpaid leave” process to use.
Ensure accurate leave of absence tracking
First meet with executive management to make them aware of the shared responsibility rules and noncompliance penalties plus gain support for doing what is necessary to ensure accurate leave of absence tracking. This includes the following (at a minimum):
▪ Making managers and employees aware of the importance of communicating employee leaves of absence to the HR department as soon as they learn about or need them;
▪ Meeting with the IT department to see if they can: 1) accurately track leaves of absence; 2) track different types of leaves; and 3) provide reporting of such leaves during the initial and standard administrative periods. If not, develop a leave of absence tracking mechanism within the HR department.
Handling unpaid state and company leaves of absence for purposes of the measurement period calculations
The federal government has stated its position with regards to three special unpaid leaves, but what about state or company unpaid leaves of absence? How should they be treated under the look-back measurement period calculations?
Given the fact that there is legal uncertainty regarding the answer to this question and handling such a situation incorrectly could have significant ramifications for your organization, I recommend consulting legal counsel to determine the answer for your organization.
Determine which ACA special unpaid leave process to use
I recommend selecting the ACA special unpaid leave process that is going to be the least administratively challenging given all of the new responsibilities associated with the leave of absence tracking process. To date, I have seen more employers select the exclusion method.
So, start tuning up your leave-of-absence orchestra because the effective dates for the shared responsibility rules are right around the corner.
Protecting the next generation of workers with voluntary benefits
Originally posted May 1, 2014 by Andrea Davis on https://ebn.benefitnews.com
As the Affordable Care Act continues to make its presence felt, and as employers look for new ways to control their health care costs and shift more of the responsibility for benefit decision-making on to employees, the role of voluntary benefits is changing. Once viewed as a nice-to-have benefit, some say voluntary benefits should now be advertised and heavily promoted to employees as an important component in their overall portfolio of benefits.
“It’s part of a trend sweeping the industry,” says Chris Hill, CEO of Spotlite, an online enrollment technology company. “This level of [benefits] engagement has never really been required before.”
Rewind a few years to benefit plans with low deductibles and rich benefits and “these supplemental products [were] less relevant,” he says. “Now you’re asking employees to meet a $2,500 or $5,000 deductible and they have to understand how the [health savings account] or [flexible spending account] works with that and why an accident plan, for example, may be complementary to the high deductible plan.”
Millennials in particular can benefit from education about voluntary benefits. While they may view themselves as invincible, they actually have a lot to protect. “They’re not really thinking about all those what-ifs, but probably more than any other generation, they have something to protect,” says Alison Daily, second vice president of clinical and vocational services at The Standard. “They’re very highly educated. A third of them have four-year college degrees, but that comes with a big price tag for them. The average millennial has $29,000 in student loan debt alone.”
And yet millennials are either unaware of voluntary benefits or reluctant to purchase them. Sixty-nine percent of employees age 25-29 don’t own any voluntary benefits, while 71% of those under age 25 don’t own any voluntary products, according to statistics from Eastbridge Consulting Group. Among older age groups, 60% of 45-49-year-olds own some type of voluntary product.
Still, there’s evidence that millenials value voluntary benefits and that the availability of these products may increase employees’ loyalty to the company. According to MetLife’s 12th Annual U.S. Employee Benefit Trends Study, 86% of Generation Y value having benefits personalized to meet their individual circumstances and age.
The challenges of engaging this tech-savvy group are well-known. Millennials have high expectations when it comes to technology and the overall online purchasing process. This is a group that “sends thousands of text messages on a monthly basis,” says Hill. “You’ve got to compete for their limited attention span so those communications need to be highly relevant.”
But for all the talk about how different Millennials are from other generations, Daily believes good communication resonates with everyone, regardless of age. “I think that maybe one of the mistakes people make, or confusion they have, is that the millennials are very different from their non-millennial peers,” she says. “They’re probably not as different as we think.”
Awareness vs. purchase
Still, there are tactics employers can use to better engage millennials in their voluntary benefits, starting with separating the process in their own minds between initial education and purchase.
“You have the initial communication about benefits – what the benefits are, here’s why you should care,” says Hill. Employers should strive for “concise messaging that drives an action and the action you want to drive upfront is getting the employee to learn about what’s offered to them,” he says.
He encourages employers to actively look at email open rates to get a better understanding of subject lines that resonate with millennials. “Relevant information, relevant subject lines, relevant email layouts, relevant electronic communications are going to drive that action,” he says.
Once employers are past that initial awareness phase and on to open enrollment, “you’re adhering to those same principles – how are we going to capture the attention of the user?” says Hill. “Here we actually want to drive decision making about the products.”
It’s that second sale – the actual purchase of voluntary benefits – that gets tricky with millennials, believes Hill, because they tend to say: “I don’t want to call somebody about this product. I want all the information online so I can make a decision. I don’t want to meet with someone or fill out a piece of paper.”
But when it comes to benefits, millennials’ reliance on technology and self-service might be overstated. Face-to-face meetings are still important, even for this generation, says The Standard’s Daily. “I think sometimes [employers] may be thinking it’s got to be glitzy, that they’ve got to text [millennials] or something like that, but really just sitting down with a millennial and going over what these benefits mean … I think it’s the cornerstone to helping them make the right decision.”
The Eastbridge data appear to back up Daily’s assertion. When asked which of several ways they prefer to learn about voluntary benefits, just over half (55%) of employees representing a spectrum of ages chose “speaking with someone in person.” Twenty-one percent, meanwhile, chose “on my own.”
Daily also emphasizes employers shouldn’t feel they have to do all this communication on their own. In fact, she recommends they turn to their benefit brokers and carriers first, before starting any kind of communication program about voluntary. Another tactic, she says, is using peer-to-peer discussions.
“The millennial generation really values recommendations. If you think about looking for a new restaurant you think about Yelp, and the same thing applies to deciding to select disability coverage,” she says. “They’re going to look to their peers to help them make that decision, so having real stories about why colleagues chose to enroll in a benefit may be just what that millennial needs to make that decision to enroll.”
In addition, employers can leverage other successful communication campaigns. “Employers should really think about anything they’ve already done where they successfully communicated to employees and leverage that strategy,” says Daily. “I would look to the leaders of that event and say: ‘What did you do and why did it work?’ Employers may already have some of the skills and they just aren’t thinking about it in that way.”
And while it might seem like a no-brainer, an online enrollment system that facilitates a seamless shopping experience is important for millennials and all employees, for that matter. Not only that, but a mobile site that’s easy to navigate whether employees are using their laptop, iPhone, iPad or Android device.
“If I get an email from Amazon promoting a product I really want and I click on that email and then go on a wild goose chase to find that product, you’re going to lose users and buyers,” says Hill, who also cautions that all the benefit communication in the world is for naught if the buying experience isn’t simple. “If I do a great job communicating these benefits to millennials and then they have to go on to a system that looks like it was built in 1995, and the initial communications are very different than the actual purchase experience, we think that’s really bad. You’re going to lose millennials, who are used to things being easy.”
Among Spotlite’s clients, about 15% of employees use a mobile device to shop for benefits. As mobile devices and smartphones get more sophisticated and make inroads among older generations, Hill only expects this to grow. “Mobile is necessary. It’s something you have to have,” he says. “Enrollment needs to be easy for the end user. So you make it easy by offering it on a computer or a mobile device. It’s a necessary access point for individuals.”
2015 is just around the corner. Are you ready?
Originally posted April 30, 2014 by Dorothy Summers on https://ebn.benefitnews.com
Most of the political discussion surrounding the Affordable Care Act involves whether the law will be further delayed and/or repealed. While the government continues its in-fighting, the Obama Administration has pushed forward. In fact, in the first quarter of 2014, the government issued two significant pieces of final guidance related to implementing the major requirements of the law.
Employer mandate final regulations
The first piece of guidance was the employer mandate final regulations. These “play or pay” rules provide some clarity as well as a deadline for compliance. For large employers—businesses with 100 or more full-time and full-time equivalent employees—the deadline is January 1, 2015, or the month in which your health plans renews in 2015. While 2015 seems far off, the reality is that it is only eight short months from now.
Employers with between 50 and 99 full-time and FTE employees have a bit more breathing room—they have until 2016 to comply. Businesses with fewer than 50 full-time and FTE employees do not need to meet the play or pay requirements.
Information reporting
The second set of final regulations from the government addressed information reporting. These regulations include two separate types of reporting: to employees and to the government. The first reports must be completed using information collected in 2015 and then distributed to employees and the government in 2016. The government will issue a Form 1095 for this reporting.
While 2016 seems well into the future, the collection of required data must begin in January 2015. The reporting will be done on a calendar year basis regardless of whether your health plan operates on the calendar year.
So, are you ready to act on the government’s final guidance? Are you certain? To determine the answer, review your current plan against this checklist:
First, count your employees to determine if you are a large employer and subject to the employer mandate in 2015. If you qualify as a large employer in 2015, take the following steps:
▪ Determine whether health coverage is offered to at least 70% of your full-time employees and their dependents.
▪ Review whether the plan being offered to at least 70% of your full-time employees and their dependents provides minimum value by using one of the three available methods: the minimum value calculator; safe harbor checklists; or actuarial certification.
▪ Confirm the information provided from the fully insured carrier on the Summary of Benefits and Coverage.
▪ Assess the affordability of your lowest-cost single health coverage under one of the IRS’ affordability safe harbors using the W-2, rate of pay, or the federal poverty line.
▪ Provide required information regarding plan coverage and participation in accordance with information return requirements, and file the report in 2016 using 2015 data.
When the government announced last summer that it was delaying the employer mandate, many employers let out a sigh of relief. They relaxed. However, now it’s time to pick up the pace again. Before you know it, 2015 and 2016 will be here and the ACA will be an everyday reality for employers.
The fast-fading days of retiree health coverage
Employers are trying out all kinds of approaches to better manage retiree health costs, though the day will eventually come when just a handful will offer such benefits to the over-65 set.
That’s the conclusion the Kaiser Family Foundation reached in what is essentially a status report titled “Retiree Health Benefits at the Crossroads.”
Companies once offered retiree benefits as a way of retaining workers but have been chipping away at them for years. One of the more recent companies to make the move was Northrop Grumman, which earlier this month told employees it would use a broker to help them choose from a variety of Medicare supplemental options. That's just one of a number of avenues employers are taking.
As Kaiser noted, “several major trends stand out in particular, namely, growing interest in shifting to a defined contribution approach and in facilitating access to non-group coverage for Medicare-eligible retirees, and consideration by employers of using new federal/state marketplaces as a possible pathway to non-group coverage for their pre-65 retiree population.”
The report noted that the number of companies offering coverage of any type to retirees has dwindled, from 66 percent in 1988 to 28 percent last year.
It said even employers that plan to continue providing coverage of retirees are exploring ways to reduce the corporate dollars dedicated to the task.
Though fewer in number, retiree health benefit plans remain an important source of supplemental coverage for roughly 15 million Medicare beneficiaries and a primary source of coverage for more than two million pre-65 retirees in the public and private sectors, Kaiser noted.
The landmark changes brought to health care by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, and the constant revisions of the law, have left employers off balance when it comes to cost-containment measures, Kaiser said. But there are other factors at play that further complicate planning.
For instance, Kaiser says, a consistent push to boost the Medicare eligibility age to 67 could result in companies having to cover their older workers for another two years. That can add up for those with large and experienced workforces.
“In an earlier study, Kaiser Family Foundation and Actuarial Research Corporation modeled the effects of raising the Medicare eligibility in a single year (2014), finding that employer retiree plan costs were estimated to increase by $4.5 billion in 2014 if the Medicare eligibility age is raised to 67. In addition, public and private employers offering retiree health benefits would be required to account for the higher costs in their financial statements as soon as the change is enacted,” Kaiser said in its report.
Options identified by Kaiser for reducing the cost of pre-65 retiree health coverage include “strategies to avoid or minimize the impact of the excise tax (a.k.a. the Cadillac tax) on high-cost plans included in the ACA. Although the tax applies to plans for active employees, as well as pre-65 and Medicare-eligible retirees, there is a focus on pre-65 coverage because of its relatively higher cost. And even though the tax takes effect under the PPACA in 2018, employers must begin to account for any material impact the tax may have on their retiree health programs in today’s financial statements.”
Kaiser also said shifting pre-65 retirees to private and public exchanges, moving to a defined contribution plan, and changing plan design to shift costs to employees are all receiving more attention.
Also, employers are increasingly choosing to trim the cost of drug programs away from plans that provide coverage to Medicare-eligible retirees.
Kaiser concludes that company-sponsored health coverage for retirees will inevitably recede from the benefits landscape.
“Over the next few decades, these trends suggest that employer-sponsored supplemental coverage is likely to be structured differently and play a smaller macro role in retirement security than it has in the past and than it does today. Relatively fewer workers will have such coverage available in the future, to be sure.”
Originally posted April 14, 2014 by Dan Cook on www.benefitspro.com.
Bill bumping ACA to 40-hour work week passes House
Originally posted April 4, 2014 by Melissa A. Winn on https://eba.benefitnews.com
The U.S. House of Representatives on Thursday passed legislation that would modify the Affordable Care Act’s definition of a full-time employee from one who works 30-hours a week to one who works 40-hours a week.
The 248 to 179 vote was largely along party lines, with 18 Democrats joining a unanimous block of 230 Republicans to support the bill, H.R. 2575, also known as the Save American Workers Act of 2013.
The Big “I” applauded the bill’s passage, calling it a “common-sense fix.”
“Independent agencies serve many clients who have struggled with the prospect of complying with the employer mandate, and in particular the 30 hour per week definition of a full-time employee,” says Robert Rusbuldt, president and CEO of the Big “I.”
The law’s opponents argue the ACA’s current definition encourages employers to limit employees’ work hours to less than 30 a week to avoid the employer mandate requiring employers with 50 or more full-time workers to provide affordable health care coverage to their employees.
“Implementation of the employer mandate has caused many businesses to undergo the prospect of great financial strain or to contemplate dropping their health care plan altogether,” says Charles Symington, Big “I” senior vice president for external and governmental affairs.
The Big “I” believes this new legislation “would provide much-needed relief for job creators,” he says.
The White House on Tuesday threatened to veto the bill, citing a Congressional Budget Office analysis released in Feb. that found the legislation would increase the deficit by $74 billion and reduce the number of people receiving employment-based health coverage by about one million people. The vote is largely symbolic as it is not expected to make headway in the Democratic-controlled Senate.
11 Health Insurance Tax Facts You Need to Know
Originally posted on April 4, 2014 by Robert Bloink and William H. Byrnes on https://www.lifehealthpro.com
Among the many changes the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) has triggered, amendments to the tax code rank high. Employers and those who advise them may have questions about what expenses qualify for deductions, which tax credits they can take advantage of, and what the new rules mean for grandfathered plans. Individuals may be wondering how HSA distributions are taxed, or whether benefits received under a personal health insurance policy are taxable. If these or other questions are coming your way, fear not, we have the well-researched answers you're looking for.
1. Are premiums paid for personal health insurance deductible as medical expenses?
Premiums paid for medical care insurance, that is, hospital, surgical, and medical expense reimbursement coverage, is deductible as a medical expense to the extent that, when added to all other unreimbursed medical expenses, the total exceeds 10 percent of a taxpayer’s adjusted gross income (7.5 percent for tax years beginning before 2013). The threshold is also 10 percent for alternative minimum tax purposes.
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act increased the threshold to 10 percent of a taxpayer’s adjusted gross income for taxpayers who are under the age of sixty-five effective in tax years beginning January 1, 2013. Taxpayers over the age of sixty-five will be temporarily excluded from this provision and the threshold for deductibility for these taxpayers will remain at the 7.5 percent level from years 2013 to 2016.
No deduction may be taken for medical care premiums or any other medical expenses unless a taxpayer itemizes his or her deductions. The limit on itemized deductions for certain high-income individuals is not applicable to medical expenses deductible under IRC Section 213.
Premiums for only medical care insurance are deductible as a medical expense. Premiums for non-medical benefits, including disability income, accidental death and dismemberment, and waiver of premium under a life insurance policy, are not deductible.
Amounts paid for any qualified long-term care insurance contract or for qualified long-term care services generally are included in the definition of medical care and, thus, are eligible for income tax deduction, subject to certain limitations.
Compulsory contributions to a state disability benefits fund are not deductible as medical expenses but are deductible as taxes. Employee contributions to an alternative employer plan providing disability benefits required by state law are nondeductible personal expenses.
If a policy provides both medical and non-medical benefits, a deduction will be allowed for the medical portion of the premium only if the medical charge is reasonable in relation to the total premium and is stated separately in either the policy or in a statement furnished by the insurance company.
Similarly, because the deduction is limited to expenses of the taxpayer, his or her spouse and dependents, where a premium provides medical care for others as well (as in automobile insurance) without separately stating the portion applicable to the taxpayer, spouse and dependents, no deduction is allowed.
If a policy provides only indemnity for hospital and surgical expenses, premiums qualify as medical care premiums even though the benefits are stated amounts that will be paid without regard to the actual amount of expense incurred. Premiums paid for a hospital insurance policy that provides a stated payment for each week an insured is hospitalized, not to exceed a specified number of weeks, regardless of whether the insured receives other payments for reimbursement, do not qualify as medical care premiums and hence are not deductible.
Premiums paid for a stand-alone critical illness policy are considered capital outlays and are not deductible.
A deduction will also be denied for employees’ contributions to a plan that provides that employees absent from work because of sickness are to be paid a percentage of wages earned on that day by co-employees.
Premiums paid for a policy that provides reimbursement for the cost of prescription drugs are deductible as medical care insurance premiums.
Medicare premiums, paid by persons age sixty-five or older, under the supplementary medical insurance or prescription drug programs are deductible as medical care insurance premiums. Taxes paid by employees and self-employed persons for basic hospital insurance under Medicare are not deductible.
Premiums prepaid by a taxpayer before the taxpayer is sixty-five for insurance covering medical care for the taxpayer, his or her spouse, and his or her dependents after the taxpayer is sixty-five are deductible when paid provided they are payable on a level-premium basis for ten years or more or until age sixty-five, but in no case for fewer than five years.
Payments made to an institution for the provision of lifetime care are deductible under IRC Section 213(a) in the year paid to the extent that the payments are properly allocable to medical care, even if the care is to be provided in the future or possibly not provided at all. The IRS has stated that its rulings should not be interpreted to permit a current deduction of payments for future medical care including medical insurance provided beyond the current tax year in situations where future lifetime care is not of the type associated with these rulings.
2. May an employer deduct as a business expense the cost of premiums paid for accident and health insurance for employees?
An employer generally can deduct as a business expense all premiums paid for health insurance for one or more employees. This includes premiums for medical expense insurance, dismemberment and sight loss coverage for the employee, his or her spouse and dependents, disability income for the employee, and accidental death coverage.
Premiums are deductible by an employer whether coverage is provided under a group policy or under individual policies. The deduction for health insurance is allowable only if benefits are payable to employees or their beneficiaries; it is not allowable if benefits are payable to the employer. Where a spouse of an employer is a bona fide employee and the employer is covered as a family member, the premium is deductible. A corporation can deduct premiums it pays on group hospitalization coverage for commission salespersons, regardless of whether they are employees. Premiums must qualify as additional reasonable compensation to the insured employees.
If a payment is considered made to a fund that is part of an employer plan to provide the benefit, the deduction for amounts paid or accrued may be limited.
An accrual basis employer that provides medical benefits to employees directly instead of through insurance or an intermediary fund may not deduct amounts estimated to be necessary to pay for medical care provided in the year but for which claims have not been filed with the employer by the end of the year if filing a claim is necessary to establish the employer’s liability for payment.
3. What credit is available for small employers for employee health insurance expenses?
A credit is available for employee health insurance expenses of an eligible small employer for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2009, provided the employer offers health insurance to its employees.
An eligible small employer is an employer that has no more than twenty-five full time employees, the average annual wages of whom do not exceed $50,000 (in 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013; the amount is indexed thereafter).
An employer must have a contribution arrangement for each employee who enrolls in the health plan offered by the employer through an exchange that requires that the employer make a non-elective contribution in an amount equal to a uniform percentage, not less than 50 percent, of the premium cost.
Subject to phase-out based on the number of employees and average wages, the amount of the credit is equal to 50 percent, and 35 percent in the case of tax exempts, of the lesser of (1) the aggregate amount of non-elective contributions made by the employer on behalf of its employees for health insurance premiums for health plans offered by the employer to employees through an exchange, or (2) the aggregate amount of non-elective contributions the employer would have made if each employee had been enrolled in a health plan that had a premium equal to the average premium for the small group market in the ratings area.
For years 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013, the following modifications apply in determining the amount of the credit:
(1) the credit percentage is reduced to 35 percent (25 percent in the case of tax exempts);
(2) the amount under (1) is determined by reference to non-elective contributions for premiums paid for health insurance, and there is no exchange requirement; and
(3) the amount under (2) is determined by the average premium for the state small group market.
The credit also is allowed against the alternative minimum tax.
In 2014 small employers will have exclusive access to an expanded Small Business Healthcare Tax Credit under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). This tax credit covers as much as 50 percent of the employer contribution toward premium costs for eligible employers who have low- to moderate-wage workers.
4. Are benefits received under a personal health insurance policy taxable income?
No.
All kinds of benefits from personal health insurance generally are entirely exempt from income tax. This includes disability income; dismemberment and sight loss benefits; critical illness benefits; and hospital, surgical, or other medical expense reimbursement. There is no limit on the amount of benefits, including the amount of disability income, that can be received tax-free under personally paid health insurance or under an arrangement having the effect of accident or health insurance. At least one court has held, however, that the IRC Section 104(a)(3) exclusion is not available where a taxpayer’s claims for insurance benefits were not made in good faith and were not based on a true illness or injury.
The accidental death benefit under a health insurance policy may be tax-exempt to a beneficiary as death proceeds of life insurance. Disability benefits received for loss of income or earning capacity under no fault insurance are excludable from gross income. The exclusion also has been applied to an insured to whom policies were transferred by a professional service corporation in which the insured was the sole stockholder.
Health insurance benefits are tax-exempt if received by the insured and if received by a person having an insurable interest in an insured.
Medical expense reimbursement benefits must be taken into account in computing a taxpayer’s medical expense deduction. Because only unreimbursed expenses are deductible, the total amount of medical expenses paid during a taxable year must be reduced by the total amount of reimbursements received in that taxable year.
Likewise, if medical expenses are deducted in the year they are paid and then reimbursed in a later year, the taxpayer or the taxpayer’s estate, where the deduction is taken on the decedent’s final return but later reimbursed to the taxpayer’s estate, must include the reimbursement, to the extent of the prior year’s deduction, in gross income for the later year.
Where the value of a decedent’s right to reimbursement proceeds, which is income in respect of a decedent, is included in the decedent’s estate, an income tax deduction is available for the portion of estate tax attributable to such value.
Disability income is not treated as reimbursement for medical expenses and, therefore, does not offset such expenses.
Example. Mr. Jones, whose adjusted gross income for 2012 was $25,000, paid $3,000 in medical expenses during that year. On his 2012 return, he took a medical expense deduction of $1,125 [$3,000 - $1,875 (7.5 percent of his adjusted gross income)]. In 2013, Mr. Jones receives the following benefits from his health insurance: disability income, $1,200; reimbursement for 2012 doctor and hospital bills, $400. He must report $400 as taxable income on his 2013 return. Had Mr. Jones received the reimbursement in 2012, his medical expense deduction for that year would have been limited to $725 ($3,000 - $400 [reimbursement] - $1,875 [7.5 percent of adjusted gross income]). Otherwise, he would have received the entire amount of insurance benefits, including the medical expense reimbursement, tax-free.
5. How is employer-provided disability income coverage taxed?
Deduction
An employer generally can deduct all premiums paid for disability income coverage, as with all premiums paid for health insurance, for one or more employees as a business expense.
Premiums are deductible by an employer whether coverage is provided under a group policy or under individual policies. The deduction is allowable only if benefits are payable to employees or their beneficiaries; it is not allowable if benefits are payable to an employer.
The deduction of premiums paid for a disability income policy insuring an employee-shareholder was prohibited where the corporation was the premium payer, owner, and beneficiary of the policy. The Tax Court held that IRC Section 265(a) prevented the deduction because the premiums were funds expended to produce tax-exempt income. The Tax Court stated that disability income policy benefits, had any been paid, would have been tax-exempt under IRC Section 104(a)(3).
Taxation of benefits
Sick pay, wage continuation payments, and disability income payments, both preretirement and postretirement, generally are fully includable in gross income and taxable to an employee. Specifically, long-term disability income payments received under a policy paid for by an employer are fully includable in income to a taxpayer.
A disabled former employee could not exclude from income a lump sum payment received from the insurance company that provided the employee’s employer-paid long-term disability coverage. The lump sum nature of the settlement did not change the nature of the payment into something other than a payment received under accident or health insurance.
If benefits are received under a plan to which an employee has contributed, the portion of the disability income attributable to the employee’s contributions is tax-free. Under an individual policy, an employee’s contributions for the current policy year are taken into consideration. With a group policy, an employee’s contributions for the last three years, if known, are considered.
In Revenue Ruling 2004-55, the IRS held that the three-year look back rule did not apply because the plan was amended so that, with respect to each employee, the amended plan was financed either solely by the employer or solely by the employee. The three-year look back rule does not apply if a plan is not considered a contributory plan.
An employer may allow employees to elect, on an annual basis, whether to have premiums for a group disability income policy included in employees’ income for that year. An employee who elects to have premiums included in his or her income will not be taxed on benefits received during a period of disability beginning in that tax year. An employee’s election will be effective for each tax year without regard to employer and employee contributions for prior years.
Where an employee-owner reimbursed his corporation for payment of premiums on a disability income policy, the benefit payments that he received while disabled were excludable from income under IRC Section 104(a)(3).
Where an employer initially paid disability income insurance premiums but, prior to a second period of benefit payments, an employee took responsibility for paying premiums personally, the benefits paid from the disability income policy during the second benefit-paying period were not includable in the employee’s income.
Premiums paid by a former employee under an earlier long-term disability plan were not considered paid toward a later plan from which the employee received benefit payments. Thus, disability benefits were includable in income. If an employer merely withholds employee contributions and makes none itself, the payments are excludable. A tax credit for disability retirement income is available to taxpayers receiving those payments after the minimum age at which they would have received a pension or annuity if not disabled. This credit is called the Disability and Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC).
6. How is personal disability income coverage taxed?
Deduction
Premiums for non-medical care, such as personal disability income coverage, are not deductible. Only premiums for medical care insurance are deductible as a medical expense.
A deduction is allowed for medical care that is not otherwise compensated for by insurance. The deduction is allowed to the extent that the medical care expenses exceed 7.5 percent of the taxpayer’s adjusted gross income. For taxable years beginning in 2017, the deduction is allowed to the extent that the medical care expenses exceed 10 percent of the taxpayer’s adjusted gross income. The threshold is 10 percent for the alternative minimum tax and there is a transition rule for people over 65. The 10 percent threshold for regular tax does not apply until 2017.
Taxation of benefits
Benefits from personal disability income coverage typically are entirely exempt from income tax. There is no limit on the amount of benefits, including the amount of disability income that can be received tax-free under personally paid disability income coverage.
If benefits are received under a plan to which both an employer and employee have contributed, the portion of the disability income attributable to the employee’s contributions is tax-free.
7. How are amounts distributed from a Health Savings Account (HSA) taxed?
A distribution from an HSA used exclusively to pay qualified medical expenses of an account holder is not includable in gross income. Any distribution from an HSA that is not used exclusively to pay qualified medical expenses of an account holder must be included in the account holder’s gross income.
Any distribution that is includable in income because it was not used to pay qualified medical expenses is also subject to a penalty tax. The penalty tax is 10 percent of includable income for a distribution from an HSA. For distributions made after December 31, 2010, the additional tax on nonqualified distributions from HSAs is increased to 20 percent of includable income.
Includable distributions received after an HSA holder becomes disabled within the meaning of IRC Section 72(m)(7), dies, or reaches the age of Medicare eligibility are not subject to the penalty tax.
Qualified medical expenses are amounts paid by the account holder for medical care for the individual, his or her spouse, and any dependent to the extent that expenses are not compensated by insurance or otherwise. For tax years beginning after December 31, 2010, medicines constituting qualified medical expenses will be limited to doctor-prescribed drugs and insulin. Consequently, over-the counter medicines will no longer be qualified expenses unless prescribed by a doctor after 2010.
With several exceptions, the payment of insurance premiums is not a qualified medical expense. The exceptions include any expense for coverage under a health plan during a period of COBRA continuation coverage, a qualified long-term care insurance contract, or a health plan paid for during a period in which the individual is receiving unemployment compensation.
An account holder may pay qualified long-term care insurance premiums with distributions from an HSA even if contributions to the HSA were made by salary reduction through an IRC Section 125 cafeteria plan. Amounts of qualified long-term care insurance premiums that constitute qualified medical expenses are limited to the age-based limits found in IRC Section 213(d)(10) as adjusted annually.
An HSA account holder may make tax-free distributions to reimburse qualified medical expenses from prior tax years as long as the expenses were incurred after the HSA was established. There is no time limit on when a distribution must occur.
HSA trustees, custodians, and employers need not determine whether a distribution is used for qualified medical expenses. This responsibility falls on individual account holders.
8. When may an account owner transfer or rollover funds into an HSA?
Funds may be transferred or rolled over from one HSA to another HSA or from an Archer MSA to an HSA provided that an account holder affects the transfer within sixty days of receiving the distribution.
An HSA rollover may take place only once a year. The year is not a calendar year, but a rolling twelve-month period beginning on the day when an account holder receives a distribution to be rolled over. Transfers of HSA amounts directly from one HSA trustee to another HSA trustee, known as a trustee-to-trustee transfer, are not subject to the limits under IRC Section 223(f)(5). There is no limit on the number of trustee-to-trustee transfers allowed during a year.
A participant in a health reimbursement arrangement (“HRA”) or a health flexible spending arrangement (“Health FSA”) may make a qualified HSA distribution on a one time per arrangement basis. A qualified HSA distribution is a transfer directly from an employer to an HSA of an employee to the extent the distribution does not exceed the lesser of the balance in the arrangement on September 21, 2006, or the date of distribution. A qualified HSA distribution shall be treated as a rollover contribution under IRC Section 223(f)(5), that is, it does not count toward the annual HSA contribution limit.
If an employee fails to be an eligible individual at any time during a taxable year following a qualified HSA distribution, the employee must include in his or her gross income the aggregate amount of all qualified HSA distributions. The amount includable in gross income is also subject to a 10 percent penalty tax.
General-purpose health FSA coverage during a grace period, after the end of a plan year, will be disregarded in determining an individual’s eligibility to contribute to an HSA if the individual makes a qualified HSA distribution of the entire balance. Health FSA coverage during a plan year is not disregarded, even if a health FSA balance is reduced to zero. An individual who begins HDHP coverage after the first day of the month is not an eligible individual until the first day of the following month.
The timing of qualified HSA distributions therefore is critical for employees covered by general-purpose, that is, non-high-deductible, health FSAs or HRAs:
(1) An employee only should make a qualified HSA distribution if he or she has been covered by an HDHP since the first day of the month;
(2) An employee must rollover general purpose health FSA balances during the grace period after the end of the plan year, not during the plan year, and, of course, he or she must not be covered by a general purpose health FSA during the new year; and
(3) An employee must rollover the entire balance in an HRA or a health FSA to an HSA. If a balance remains in an HRA at the end of a plan year or in a health FSA at the end of the grace period, the employee will not be an HSA-eligible individual.
Beginning in 2007, a taxpayer may, once in his or her lifetime, make a qualified HSA funding distribution. A qualified HSA funding distribution is a trustee-to-trustee transfer from an IRA to an HSA in an amount that does not exceed the annual HSA contribution limitation for the taxpayer. If a taxpayer has self-only coverage under an HDHP at the time of the transfer, but at a later date during the same taxable year obtains family coverage under an HDHP, the taxpayer may make an additional qualified HSA funding distribution in an amount not exceeding the additional annual contribution for which the taxpayer has become eligible.
If a taxpayer fails to be an eligible individual at any time during a taxable year following a qualified HSA funding distribution, the taxpayer must include in his or her gross income the aggregate amount of all qualified HSA funding distributions. The amount includable in gross income also is subject to a 10 percent penalty tax.
9. What employers are eligible for the new tax credit for health insurance, and how does it work?
The new health insurance tax credit is designed to help approximately four million small for-profit businesses and tax-exempt organizations that primarily employ low and moderate-income workers. The credit is available to employers that have twenty-four or fewer eligible full time equivalent (“FTE”) employees paying wages averaging under $50,000 per employee per year.
IRC Section 45R provides a tax credit beginning in 2010 for a business with twenty-four or fewer eligible FTEs. Eligible employees do not include seasonal workers who work for an employer 120 days a year or fewer, owners, and owners’ family members, where average compensation for the eligible employees is less than $50,000 and where the business pays 50 percent or more of employee-only (single person) health insurance costs. Thus, owners and family members’ compensation is not counted in determining average compensation, and the health insurance cost for these people is not eligible for the health insurance tax credit.
The credit is largest if there are ten or fewer employees and average wages do not exceed $25,000. The amount of the credit phases out for business with more than ten eligible employees or average compensation of more than $25,000 and under $50,000. The amount of an employer’s premium payments that counts for purposes of the credit is capped by the average premium for the small group market in the employer’s geographic location, as determined by the Department of Health and Human Services.
Example: In 2013, a qualified employer has nine FTEs (excluding owners, owners’ family members, and seasonal employees) with average annual wages of $24,000 per FTE. The employer pays $75,000 in health care premiums for these employees, which does not exceed the average premium for the small group market in the employer’s state, and otherwise meets the requirements for the credit. The credit for 2013 equals $26,250 (35 percent x $75,000).
Additional examples can be found here.
10. How do the rules for obtaining the tax credit change over the years?
To obtain the credit, an employer must pay at least 50 percent of the cost of health care coverage for each counted worker with insurance.
In 2010, an employer may qualify if it pays at least 50 percent of the cost of employee-only coverage, regardless of actual coverage elected by an employee. For example, if employee-only coverage costs $500 per month, family coverage costs $1,500 per month, and the employer pays at least $250 per month (50 percent of employee-only coverage) per covered employee, then even if an employee selected family coverage the employer would meet this contribution requirement to qualify for the tax credit in 2010.
Beginning in 2011, however, the percentage paid by an employer for each enrolled employee must be a uniform percentage for that coverage level. If an employee receives coverage that is more expensive than single coverage, such as family or self-plus-one coverage, an employer must pay at least 50 percent of the premium for each employee’s coverage in 2011 and thereafter.
Thus, grandfathered health insurance plans that provide, for instance, for 100 percent of family coverage for executives and employee-only coverage for staff will qualify for the tax credit in 2010 but not in 2011 or beyond.
(1) Prohibition of lifetime benefit limits;
(2) No rescission except for fraud or intentional misrepresentation;
(3) Children, who are not eligible for employer-sponsored coverage, covered up to age twenty-six on a family policy, if the dependent does not have coverage available from his or her employer;
(4) Pre-existing condition exclusions for covered individuals younger than nineteen are prohibited; and
(5) Restricted annual limits for essential benefits.
Grandfathered health plans are exempt from the following additional requirements that apply to new and non-grandfathered health plans:
(1) No cost sharing for preventive services;
(2) Nondiscrimination based on compensation;
(3) Children covered up to age twenty-six on family policy regardless of whether a policy is available at work. Grandfathered status for the adult dependent coverage ends on January 1, 2014;
(4) Internal appeal and external review processes;
(5) Emergency services at in-network cost-sharing level with no prior authorization; and
(6) Parents must be allowed to select a pediatrician as a primary care physician for their children and women must be allowed to select an OB-GYN for their primary care physician.
Private Exchanges May Offer Shelter from Cadillac Tax
Originally posted April 03, 2014 by Allen Greenberg on https://www.benefitspro.com
COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. – Avoiding, or at least putting off, the so-called Cadillac tax in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is on a lot of employers’ minds.
Speaking Wednesday at the 2014 Benefits Selling Expo, William Stuart, a lead consultant at Wellesley, Mass.-based Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, suggested that one of the best ways to do so is by moving employees to one of the burgeoning number of private insurance exchanges.
That alone won’t do the trick, he said, but shifting to an exchange can help “reset the premium base” and “bend the cost curve” – the two things necessary if employers hope to postpone the pain of the excise tax.
The tax – meant to raise money to offset the government’s subsidies to lower-income individuals and families buying insurance under the PPACA – goes into effect in 2018. It is a 40-percent penalty on premium dollars above $10,200 for individuals and $27,500 for families.
“This tax is probably not going to go away,” Stuart said. “It might. But we can’t base our strategy on what may or may not happen.”
The premium levels at which the tax is calculated, he said, will include medical premiums, health flexible spending arrangement elections, health reimbursement arrangements and employer contribution to HSAs. “In other words,” he said, “the law has taken some tools (for reducing or putting off the tax) off the table.”
But options do exist, he said, and the sooner employers act, the better, meaning the later the tax will impact them.
Stuart said brokers should consider encouraging their clients to establish wellness programs. The return on investment is often difficult to gauge on wellness, he noted, but a healthier workforce tends to mean fewer health problems, which helps bend the cost curve.
A narrower provider network can also help, he said, especially one that might exclude teaching hospitals where costs tend to be higher.
Stuart acknowledged people prefer all kinds of choices in which doctors they see or which hospital they might use. But that fades once they realize they can save up to 25 percent of their costs.
Health savings accounts, meanwhile, are another option for employers looking to reduce costs, because they encourage employees to be more careful with their health care dollars.
In the end, however, private exchanges may yield the most dramatic results, Stuart said.
Among their advantages: an array of health plans offering in some cases as much as a 40-percent spread in premium costs.
Once in an exchange, the employee mindset shifts to saving money, rather than simply buying without shopping. People, Stuart said, tend to buy down in an exchange once they realize they might have been over-insured. This, too, helps reset the base.
Aon Hewitt, the large employee benefits consultancy, which last year launched its Aon Hewitt Corporate Health Exchange, recently said the average cost increase for three fully insured large companies in its exchange was 5.1 percent.
By comparison, average cost increases for large U.S. employers are projected to be between 6 and 7 percent in 2014, according to Aon Hewitt’s annual cost trend data report.
Seven Steps to the Pay or Play Rule
Originally posted April 02, 2014 by Darla Dernovsek on https://www.the-alliance.org
Avoiding any missteps in Affordable Care Act (ACA) "Employer Responsibility" compliance relies on checking your health benefit practices against a list of seven crucial steps. Fortunately, employers who have started preparing for this provision of the ACA can already cross some of these steps off their "to-do" list.
Step One: Understand General Rules. The first step is learning the general rules for employers. Beginning Jan. 1, 2015, employers with 100 or more employees who fail to offer coverage to employees and their dependents will trigger a penalty. Employers with 50 to 99 employees have until Jan. 1, 2016; employers with less than 50 employees are exempt.
Step Two: Is the Employer a Large Employer? Knowing when and how to count employee "hours of service" is essential for full-time workers, seasonal workers, part-time workers and other employees. An employee who works 30 hours or more per week - the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) definition of full-time - must be offered benefits to avoid ACA fines. Barlament described the rules as "very pro-employee" in determining what qualifies as an hour of service, including how to count hours for employees who are on-call or do not work on an hourly basis.
Step Three: Will Employees Receive Subsidized Exchange Coverage? Employers can design health plans that avoid ACA "Pay or Play" penalties by meeting three requirements:
- They offer "minimum essential coverage" (see below) to full-time employees and dependents who would otherwise be eligible for subsidized coverage from an exchange.
- The employer's plan provides "minimum value."
- The employee's share of premiums is "affordable" for self-only coverage for the employer's lowest-cost, minimum value plan.
"If you don't remember anything else, remember this," Barlament said about step three.
Step Four: Did the Employer Offer Minimum Essential Coverage? Barlament called this an "easy test" because employers who offer major medical benefits should meet the standard. There are still additional rules that require attention, such as the IRS requirement that employees have the opportunity to enroll once a year.
Step Five: Does the Plan Provide Minimum Value? The IRS has predicted that 98 percent of all employer-sponsored plans would satisfy this test, which requires plans to cover 60 percent of the cost of all benefits. An online calculator is available. Employers should be prepared to prove they met the requirement year after year by laminating or notarizing a copy of their plan and then storing it safely.
Step Six: Is Plan Coverage Affordable? The employee's share of cost for "self-only" coverage for the lowest-cost, minimum value plan cannot be more than 9.5 percent of the employee's household income. Barlament noted that employers are typically unaware of employees' household income, so many employers will instead rely on three "safe harbors" built into the ACA. One option is to set up your plan based on the federal poverty line guidelines that were in effect six months prior to the start of the plan year. Under current guidelines, that would limit the employee share for self-only health benefits to $92 a month.
Step Seven: Determine "Full-Time" Status. "It's the worst step," Barlament said. Three options are available. For example, employers can measure status on a monthly basis, with employees who work 130 hours or more gaining full-time status. However, this method may only be viable for employees that are clearly well above or well below the 30-hour mark with no chance for movement. There's also an option to utilize a measurement period over a block of time and then lock in or lock out the employee's status for a comparable block of time. Finally, the two methods can be combined. The recommended approach varies depending on whether the employee is ongoing; new; new and full-time; new and works variable hours; new and works seasonal hours; or part-time. Barlament said the first step for employers is to put every employee into one of those categories.
IRS Simplifies Employer Reporting Requirements in Final Rules
Originally posted on https://www.the-alliance.org
The IRS has issued final regulations to implement Sections 6056 and 6055 of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) that require employers to report information to the IRS about whether they provide coverage to employees and to whom they offer minimum essential coverage. These reporting requirements that were scheduled to take effect in 2014 have been delayed until 2015 under IRS Notice 2013-45.
Self-funded employers with more than 50 employees must begin reporting under both sections in 2015, although the IRS will now provide a single, consolidated form that employers can use to report both to the IRS and to employees regarding the coverage that is available. The top half of the new form will satisfy Section 6056 reporting, which includes information required to be given to the IRS and to employees about the health care coverage employers have or have not offered to workers. The data elements requested are intended to help the IRS enforce employer "pay or play" penalties and help the IRS verify information provided by consumers as to whether they are eligible for premium tax credits under the ACA.
The bottom half of the form would satisfy 6055 reporting that requires certain information on individuals that are provided minimum essential coverage in order to help the IRS enforce individual mandate penalties and determine an individual's eligibility for premium tax credits. Data elements employers will be required to report include:
- Name, address and TIN of the employer
- The name and telephone number of a contact person at the company
- Certification as to whether the employer offered a group health plan to employees and dependents, by calendar month
- The number of full-time employees, by month
- For each full-time employee, the months that the employee was offered coverage
- For each full-time employee, the employee's share of the lowest cost monthly premium for self-only coverage providing minimum value, by month
- For each full-time employee, the name, address and TIN of each full-time employee during the calendar year, and the months in which each employee was covered under an employer sponsored plan.
Related statements to employees must be provided to workers on or before Jan. 31 of each year (although the first required statement in 2016 will be due Feb. 1 due to Jan. 31 falling on a Sunday). These statements are intended to help employees determine for which months during the preceding year, if any, they can claim a premium tax credit on their tax returns for coverage purchased through the exchange.
In the final rule, the IRS outlines some simplified alternatives for reporting data in certain circumstances, as follows
- Employers can file a shorter form in relation to employees that are offered coverage that meets the 60 percent "minimum value" test where the employee contribution for self-only coverage does not exceed 9.5 percent of the federal poverty line (about $1,100 per year in 2015). The form would require the names, addresses and TINs for employees who receive qualifying offers for all 12 months of the year. For employees that receive a qualifying offer of fewer than all 12 months of the year, employers will be able to enter a code indicating months that the qualifying offer was made.
- In 2015 only, an employer that can certify that it has made a qualifying offer to at least 95 percent of its full-time employees and their spouses and dependents can provide a simplified notice to employees describing the coverage provided;
- An employer that can certify that it has made an offer of minimum value and affordable coverage to at least 98 percent of its employees and dependents does not have to determine whether each employee is a full-time employee or report the number of full-time employees.
Additional Resources:
- Final Rules governing Section 6056 can be found here.
- Final rules governing Section 6055 can be found here.
The Alliance does not provide legal advice. If you have questions about your plan's compliance with these requirements or how to implement them, please contact your attorney.