What if the PPACA plan tax credit is wrong?

Originally posted June 20, 2014 by Allison Bell on www.lifehealthpro.com.

Issuers of public exchange plans should use enrollment records and formal appeal processes to clear up any consumer concerns about tax credit subsidy amounts. Issuers of "qualified health plans" (QHPs) should not simply assume a consumer knows what the right subsidy amount is.

Officials at the Center for Consumer Information & Insurance Oversight (CCIIO) -- the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) agency in charge of overseeing Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) commercial health insurance programs -- give that answer and others in a new batch of exchange plan casework advice.

CCIIO officials also answer questions about matters such as "plan enrollees" who appear out of nowhere, the definition of "defective enrollment," and the meaning of "ARC referral."

In answers to questions about QHP "advance premium tax credit" problems, officials note that QHP issuers may have access to two sets of enrollment data: 834 transaction files from the exchange, and "pre-audit files." An issuer can use either the 834 file data or the pre-audit file data to solve tax credit questions, officials say. If neither source works, the consumer will have to file a formal appeal through the exchange program appeal system, according to officials.

Similarly, if consumers say they have enrolled in a QHP, and the QHP has no ready information about the consumers, the first step should be for the issuer to look at the 834 files and the pre-audit files. If consumers can show that they have formal confirmation that they enrolled in the QHP, the issuer should talk to the help desk CCIIO runs for the QHP issuers, the CCIIO says.

Officials note that they are using the term "defective enrollment" to refer to a situation in which a consumer has completed a QHP enrollment through an exchange, but the QHP issuer has no record of the enrollment in either an 834 file or a pre-audit file.

In the answer to a question about "ARC referrals," CCIIO officials say they use the term to describe urgent QHP problems that are referred to an "advance resolution center." The call center routes those urgent cases to regional offices.

For insurers, the standard resolution time for ARC referral cases is 72 hours. But "we request that issuers give these infrequent cases their prompt attention," officials say.


Ancillary Plans Get a New Spin

Originally posted June 9, 2014 by Amber Taufen on https://www.benefitspro.com

Employers struggling with new mandates for basic health care programs probably don’t even want to think about offering their employees ancillary benefits like vision and dental insurance.

However, as many experts have noted, these two particular ancillary benefits can save employers money in the long run because regular dental and vision screenings can detect some chronic health conditions early.

Employer-provided flexible spending accounts and health savings accounts can be one alternative option to traditional health and dental insurance, but sometimes employees have difficulty understanding the parameters of these programs, or can’t find affordable out-of-pocket care on their own. So many employers are turning to alternative ways to provide vision and dental coverage to their employees – new, innovative methods of coverage that provide both flexibility and cost-savings. And the biggest trends all revolve around cost transparency and empowering employees to make educated care decisions.

Jason Szczuka, general manager of Brighter PRO, says that his tech company has helped fill a need for more cost-effective employee dental coverage – a need he says will definitely continue to grow.

“Traditional dental insurance does not work for employers and employees as a cost-effective benefit offering,” Szczuka says. “And there’s been zero innovation in this industry for the past 20 years. However, by leveraging newer technologies, our platform aligns the interests of patients, providers, and payers alike to lower claims costs through new efficiencies in benefits payments, network fee schedules, utilization review and group plan designs.”

Although the Brighter PRO set-up looks somewhat similar to a traditional preferred provider organization insurance plan, it’s actually a cost-transparency technology resource that creates new efficiencies to create lower overall dental costs.

Brighter PRO maximizes the savings it generates through a transparent online marketplace so members can easily shop for providers based on price and quality, while participating providers can compete for more patients by improving their prices and quality scores, and payers can lower their claims by optimizing how and where members use their benefits.

“We’ve built the technology that helps transform health care consumers into health care shoppers,” Szczuka says. “They can compare dentists side-by-side on cost, quality and convenience. Schedule their appointment online 24/7. And when the appointment is over, the user’s electronic dental record is updated so they can more easily and affordable maintain their oral health.”

Derek Moore, a senior benefits consultant with Leavitt Group, says his clients have appreciated the addition of Brighter PRO to his portfolio of benefit offerings.

“Some of my clients are saving 70 percent on their premiums for something they can do online – if you have a computer or a phone, you can use this service,” he notes. “Everything in today’s market seems to be quick, so it was only a matter of time before these technological innovations made its way into health care.”

Gene Erdman, director of human resources for the Southern California Pizza Co., likes the program because he’s able to offer a dental benefit for all of his employees – including his part-time workers.

“The adjustability and flexibility offered with a service like this fits our employee base very well,” he notes. “Our workforce skews toward millennials, and the concept of them being able to shop and price and make a decision about a care provider from data they can access from their iPad or phone or computer and really individualize that decision is significant for us.”

A clearer vision

And while companies like Brighter PRO look at new ways to provide dental coverage options for employers, other companies like Careington address the vision component of ancillary benefits.

“We’re a discount plan, and we’ve developed a somewhat exclusive network with vision carriers,” explains Greg Rudisill, senior vice president of strategic partnerships at Careington. “Many times, we can go into a big group and bundle all of these carrier networks together so that our members have the broadest access available.”

Rudisill notes that many Careington clients use the service in conjunction with FSAs or HSAs to help their employees manage their vision needs.

“Everything is very transparent, so the member can see what it would cost them for different services before they go in. If they know what it’s going to cost them in advance, they can set aside that specific aside of money in their FSA. And there are no claims to file, so providers love it because they don’t have to do a lot of administrative work like they would with an insurance plan.”

“The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is building our market for us,” Szczuka says, “because, although the need for dental coverage has been around for a while, the adult dental gap is going to continue to grow as the premium-to-benefit value of traditional dental insurance erodes even more quickly than it already has been.”

And if those trends continue in the ancillary world, employers will increasingly seek new, innovative methods to provide health care value to their employees.


Most employers to keep health benefits for workers but some may drop spouses

Originally posted June 9, 2014 by Jerry Geisel on https://www.businessinsurance.com

Most employers will continue to offer health care coverage to their employees, but some will eliminate coverage for employees' spouses, according to a survey released Monday.

Just 6% of employers surveyed by Willis Group Holdings P.L.C survey say they will not comply with a Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act mandate that requires employers with at least 50 employees to offer coverage to their full-time employees or be hit with a stiff financial penalty. Sixty-two percent said they will comply with the mandate, and 32% said they were undecided.

That requirement goes into effect in 2015 for larger employers and in 2016 for smaller firms.

“The results of the survey underscore that organizations recognize the value of offering competitive medical benefits to employees and, despite concerns over health care reform, appear poised to continue to offer employer-sponsored health plans as part of a total rewards package,” said Jay Kirschbaum, St. Louis-based practice leader of the Willis human capital practice's national legal and research group, in a statement.

On the other hand, 12% of employers already have added a special surcharge or eliminated coverage to employees' spouses if the spouse is eligible for coverage from his or her own employers, while 3% plan to take such action between 2015 and 2018, and 20% will likely do so but haven't set a date yet.

The motivation behind such action is financial. Employers can reap significant financial savings when employees' spouses are not covered or are required to pay premium surcharges when they are eligible for coverage through their own employers but don't take it.

For example, the average premium in 2013 for employee-only coverage was $5,884, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation in Washington. Adding a spouse easily will double that premium, experts say.

Other findings

The health care reform law also gives employers a further incentive to pare their health plan enrollment numbers.

In 2014, employers have to pay a $63 reinsurance fee that is imposed for every health care plan participant, while a $44 per participant fee will be assessed in 2016. The amount of the fee in 2017 — the last year such fees will be imposed — has not been set yet by federal regulators. Revenue generated by the transitional reinsurance program fee will be used to partially reimburse insurers for covering high-cost individuals through health exchanges.

The survey also found that just 37% of respondents have calculated the cost of the reform law on their health care plans.

That relatively low percentage “demonstrates that for many organizations, determining an accurate assessment of these figures is still a challenge,” the survey said.,

Among respondents that have calculated the cost impact, 54% said the law would boost costs between 0% and 5%, while 22% put the increase in the 5% to 10% range.

The survey is based on the responses of 1,033 employers, including 36% with between 100 and 499 employees and 26% with less than 100 employees.


Upcoming PCORI Fee Due July 31

Source: https://www.irs.gov

The Affordable Care Act imposes a fee on issuers of specified health insurance policies and plan sponsors of applicable self-insured health plans to help fund the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. The fee, required to be reported only once a year on the second quarter Form 720 and paid by its due date, July 31, is based on the average number of lives covered under the policy or plan.

The fee applies to policy or plan years ending on or after Oct. 1, 2012, and before Oct. 1, 2019. The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute fee is filed using Form 720, Quarterly Federal Excise Tax Return. Although Form 720 is a quarterly return, for PCORI, Form 720 is filed annually only, by July 31.

Specified Health Insurance Policies and Applicable Self-Insured Health Plans

The fee is imposed on an issuer of a specified health insurance policy and a plan sponsor of an applicable self-insured health plan. For more information on whether a type of insurance coverage or arrangement is subject to the fee, see this chart.

Calculating the Fee

Specified Health Insurance Policies

For issuers of specified health insurance policies, the fee for a policy year ending before Oct. 1, 2013, is $1, multiplied by the average number of lives covered under the policy for that policy year. Generally, issuers of specified health insurance policies must use one of the following four alternative methods to determine the average number of lives covered under a policy for the policy year.

  1. Actual Count Method: For policy years that end on or after Oct. 1, 2012, issuers using the actual count method may begin counting lives covered under a policy as May 14, 2012, rather than the first day of the policy year, and divide by the appropriate number of days remaining in the policy year.
  2. Snapshot Method: For policy years that end on or after Oct. 1, 2013, but began before May 14, 2012, issuers using the snapshot method may use counts from the quarters beginning on or after May 14, 2012, to determine the average number of lives covered under the policy.
  3. Member Months Method and 4. State Form Method: The member months data and the data reported on state forms are based on the calendar year. To adjust for 2012, issuers will use a pro rata approach for calculating the average number of lives covered using the member months method or the state form method for 2012. For example, the issuers using the member months number for 2012 will divide the member months number by 12 and multiply the resulting number by one quarter to arrive at the average number of lives covered for October through December 2012.

For more information on these methods to determine the average number of lives covered under a policy for the policy year, please see the final regulations (PDF).

Applicable Self-Insured Health Plans

For plan sponsors of applicable self-insured health plans, the fee for a plan year ending before Oct. 1, 2013, is $1, multiplied by the average number of lives covered under the plan for that plan year. Generally, plan sponsors of applicable self-insured health plans must use one of the following three alternative methods to determine the average number of lives covered under a plan for the plan year.

  1. Actual Count Method: A plan sponsor may determine the average number of lives covered under a plan for a plan year by adding the totals of lives covered for each day of the play year and dividing that total by the total number of days in the plan year.
  2. Snapshot Method: A plan sponsor may determine the average number of lives covered under an applicable self-insured health plan for a plan year based on the total number of lives covered on one date (or more dates if an equal number of dates is used in each quarter) during the first, second or third month of each quarter, and dividing that total by the number of dates on which a count was made.
  3. Form 5500 Method: An eligible plan sponsor may determine the average number of lives covered under a plan for a plan year based on the number of participants reported on the Form 5500, Annual Return/Report of Employee Benefit Plan, or the Form 5500-SF, Short Form Annual Return/Report of Small Employee Benefit Plan.

However, for plan years beginning before July 11, 2012, and ending on or after Oct. 1, 2012, plan sponsors may determine the average number of lives covered under the plan for the plan year using any reasonable method.

For more information on these methods to determine the average number of lives covered under applicable self-insured health plans for the plan year, please see the final regulations (PDF).

Reporting and Paying the Fee

File the second quarter Form 720 annually to report and pay the fee no later than July 31 of the calendar year immediately following the last day of the policy year or plan year to which the fee applies. Issuers and plan sponsors who are required to pay the fee but are not required to report any other liabilities on a Form 720 will be required to file a Form 720 only once a year. They will not be required to file a Form 720 for the first, third or fourth quarters of the year. Deposits are not required for this fee, so issuers and plans sponsors are not required to pay the fee using EFTPS.

Please see the instructions for Form 720 on how to fill out the form and calculate the fee. If for any reason you need to make corrections after filing your annual Form 720 for PCORI, write “Amended PCORI” at the top of the second filing.

The payment, if paid through the Electronic Federal Tax Payment System, should be applied to the second quarter (in EFTPS, select Q2 for the Quarter under Tax Period on the "Business Tax Payment" page).

 


Most newly insured Americans covered by employers, study finds

Originally posted April 8, 2014 on www.modernhealthcare.com by Virgil Dickson.

More than 9 million Americans obtained health insurance between September and mid-March, but most did so through employer-sponsored plans rather than through HealthCare.gov or the state exchanges, a survey by the RAND American Life Panel found.

Only 1.4 million of the 3.9 million individuals who enrolled in Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act-related exchange plans through mid-March were previously uninsured, researchers found. The survey concluded before the final enrollment surge that pushed overall marketplace enrollment past 7 million, RAND noted.

Of the 40.7 million estimated uninsured Americans in 2013, 14.5 million gained coverage, but 5.2 million of the insured lost coverage, for a net coverage gain of approximately 9.3 million. That means the share of the population that was uninsured fell from 20.5% to 15.8%, according to RAND.

Less than 1 million citizens who previously had individual market coverage became uninsured, researchers found. RAND was unable to deduce if those people lost their insurance due to cancellation, or because coverage costs were too high. People in this category represented less than 1% of those between the ages of 18 and 64.

Overall, the ACA did not change health coverage choices for most insured Americans, as 80% of those surveyed still had the same type of coverage in March 2014 as in September 2013, according to RAND.

The RAND figures comprised not only signups under the new ACA-established marketplaces, but also new enrollments in employer coverage and Medicaid. Results were extrapolated from a survey of 2,425 adults between the ages of 18 and 64, who responded to the RAND survey in both March 2014 and September 2013.


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:

  1. They offer "minimum essential coverage" (see below) to full-time employees and dependents who would otherwise be eligible for subsidized coverage from an exchange.
  2. The employer's plan provides "minimum value."
  3. 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.