The IRS and Social Security Administration released the 2015 cost-of-living (COLA) adjustments that apply to health flexible spending accounts (FSAs) in Revenue Procedure 2014-61. The new annual limit for health FSAs, including general-purpose and limited-purpose health FSAs, is $2,550 for plan years starting on or after January 1, 2015.
The $2,550 limit is prorated for short plan years (plan years that are shorter than 12 months) and any carry over amount from participants’ previous plan years may be added to the limit. For instance, participants may elect $2,550 for the 2015 plan year and carry over a maximum of $500 from the previous plan year, making their total account value $3,050 for the 2015 plan year. In other words, the $500 carryover does not count against or affect the $2,550 salary reduction limit. Please note that an employer must decide to allow to either offer participants a option of a max $500 carryover OR the 2.5 month extension to use funds. An employer can not offer both options under their plan.
The rush for group health plan administrators to navigate the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) website and obtain a Health Plan Identifier (HPID) ahead of the November 5th deadline is over. On October 31, 2014, the CMS Office of e-Health Standards and Services (OESS), the division of the Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) that is responsible for enforcement of the HIPAA standard transaction requirements, announced a “delay, until further notice,” of the HPID requirements. The regulatory obligations of plan administrators delayed by this notice are the: (i) obtaining of a HPID, and (ii) the use of the HPID in HIPAA transactions.
This delay comes on the heels of a recommendation by the National Committee on Vital and Health Statistics (NCVHS), an advisory body to HHS. The NCVHS asked HHS to review the HPID requirement and recommended that HPIDs not be used in HIPAA transactions. NCVHS’s primary opposing argument to implementation of the HPID standard was that the healthcare industry has already adopted a “standardized national payer identifier based on the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) identifier.”
Whether HHS will adopt the recommendations of the NCVHS on a permanent basis remains to be seen, but for the time being, plan administrators may discontinue the HPID application process and should stay tuned for further announcements from HHS.
Health Care Reform requires most self-funded and fully-insured group health plans to obtain a Health Plan Identifier (HPID). The HPID is a 10-digit number that will be used to identify the plan in covered electronic HIPAA transactions (for example,electronic communications between the plan and certain third parties regarding health care claims, health plan premium payments, or health care electronic fund transfers).
Large health plans (plans with annual receipts in excess of $5 million) must obtain an HPID by November 5, 2014. Small health plans have until November 5, 2015 to comply. “Receipts” for this purpose appear to be claims paid.
Who is Responsible? For self-funded plans, the plan sponsor is responsible for obtaining an HPID (third-party administrators cannot obtain an HPID on behalf of a self-funded plan sponsor). Although it appears that most insurers will obtain the HPID on behalf of fully-insured plans, some insurers are requiring the plan sponsor to obtain an HPID.
Application Process. To sign up for an HPID, plan sponsors must first be registered within the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ (CMS) Health Insurance Oversight System (HIOS) .
The individual responsible for applying will need to sign up as an individual and request to be linked to the relevant company. The individual will then complete the requested information (including company name, address, and EIN, authorizing official information, and the plan’s “Payer ID” number or “NAIC” number).
Some self-funded plan sponsors have reported difficulty with the registration process because self-funded plans do not have a Payer ID or NAIC number. Although CMS has not yet released any formal guidance on this issue, it is expected that self-funded plans will enter “not applicable” for the Payer ID and either leave the NAIC number blank or use the plan sponsor’s EIN in lieu of the NAIC number.
Once the required information has been submitted, an authorized individual within the company must request access to the HIOS. CMS will then grant access to the HIOS system by electronically sending an authorization code to the authorized individual.
The CMS website has step-by-step instructions via a “cheat sheet” and a YouTube video explaining the entire process.
Next Steps. The registration process can be time consuming as there are a number of different registration screens to work through, the collection of the required data may be cumbersome, and delays have been reported within the CMS registration portal. Accordingly, plan sponsors of large self-funded group health plans may wish to begin the registration process as soon as possible in order to meet the November 5, 2014 deadline. Plan sponsors for fully-insured plans should contact the plan’s insurer to see if the insurer will apply for the HPID on behalf of the plan.
Employers must provide a creditable or non-creditable coverage notice at least once a year to all Medicare eligible individuals who are covered under, or who apply for, the group’s prescription drug plan. This notice must be provided to both active employees and retirees who are eligible for Medicare Part D.
The Medicare Modernization Act mandates that all employers offering prescription drug coverage disclose to all Medicare eligible individuals with prescription drug coverage under the plan whether the coverage is “creditable”. This information is essential to the Medicare eligible’s decision whether to enroll in a Medicare Part D prescription drug plan.
Employers are required by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) to provide creditable coverage at least once a year and at the following times:
This notice does not need to be a separate mailing and can be included with other plan information materials either printed or electronic. Employers are required to provide this notice and to provide CMS with your plan’s creditable or non-creditable coverage status annually via online form within 60 days of the beginning of each plan year.
Please contact our office for assistance in determining if your prescription drug plan is considered creditable or non-creditable coverage or if you need a copy of the model notice for employees.
Fisher & Phillips has recently released a Family Medical & Leave Act (FMLA) Calculator App. This free, award-winning app is available for smartphones and tablets. There’s even a version you can use in your web browser. Please visit www.laborlawyers.com/FMLALeaveApp for links to download the Android and iOS versions, or to launch the web browser version on your computer.
The app helps employers calculate leaves of absence under FMLA. Anyone managing people can use the app to calculate leave requests (other than intermittent and reduced schedule) and determine how much FMLA leave an employee has available. The user-friendly interface works very simply. In seconds a manager is able to see how much FMLA leave an employee has available, when an employee should return to work after the current leave request, and how much FMLA leave is remaining, if any.
The app features include:
The app reports the number of days of leave available, when the employee should return to work based on the new leave request, and how much leave, if any, the employee has remaining after the current leave request is completed.
Human Resources or any other manager using the app can email the information directly to the employee who requested the leave. Of course, further documentation to the employee should be provided as required by the FMLA.
Please note: The FMLA Leave App should not be construed as or relied upon for legal advice. The Family and Medical Leave Act is a complicated law and it is difficult to anticipate the various circumstances that may arise in handling requests for leave. The contents are intended for general information purposes only and are only able to calculate leaves in limited circumstances.
If you employed more than 100 people in the preceding calendar year, you are required to complete and submit your EEOC Report 1 (Survey) by September 30th. You should have received a reminder letter via mail from the EEOC in August also with the link to file the report online.
Please contact our office for information about the EEOC Report 1 or for the link to the EEOC’s web based filing system.
With Congress in its summer recess, now is a good time to reflect on the top ACA issues worth monitoring as 2015 quickly approaches. Here are a handful of key issues to watch:
Dueling Court Cases on Federal Subsidies
One issue grabbing national headlines is the dueling decisions coming out of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia (Halbig v. Burwell) and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (King v. Burwell) on missing language in the ACA that would have authorized the federal government to provide premium subsidies to individuals who sign up for health plans through the federal Exchanges. The legal issue in these court cases is whether the ACA premium tax credit (aka subsidy) is available to those individuals who enroll in qualified health plans (QHP) through state operated Exchanges or if it is available only to those to enroll in a QHP through a federally funded Exchange.
A primary concern is that a significant number of people in about two-thirds of the states (who did not set up a state-run Exchange) rely on the subsidy to purchase a plan in the federal Exchange. Specifically, the ACA’s employer mandate penalty of $3000 is based upon an employer having an employee seek coverage through an Exchange and receive the federal premium subsidy. In general, the employer mandate requires that “applicable large employers” offer their full-time employees minimum essential coverage or potentially pay a tax penalty. However, according to the statutory text of the ACA, the penalties under the employer mandate are triggered only if an employee receives a subsidy to purchase coverage through an Exchange established by the states. Both cases are being appealed to higher courts and will likely be consolidated into one case to be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court in the not so distant future.
In an interesting development, a video surfaced last week featuring one of the ACA’s chief architects (John Gruber) saying that health insurance subsidies should only be available in those states who opt to build and implement state-based Exchanges to gain participation. The idea was to create an incentive to have states actively involved in the hosting of an Exchange, rather than relying on the federal government to operate the Exchanges in each state. Whether this video will be used as evidence to uphold the argument that subsidies can only be offered by state-based Exchanges remains to be seen.
Lack of Back End Software for Federal Exchange
Of course, one of the big news stories in 2013 and early 2014 was the substandard launch of the federal Exchange, which led to many Americans having to wait to be enrolled in an ACA-compliant health plan. Although some technical snafus have been addressed, there are many that still remain. For example, a top White House official recently told Congress that the automated system that is supposed to send premium payments to insurance companies is still under development, and they did not have a completion date for it yet. The lack of an electronic verification process is only one part of the “backend” software that is still problematic five years after PPACA was passed.
Future of Navigators in Comparison with the Value of Brokers
Several recent studies have touted the benefits of using third parties, such as Brokers, to help consumers find coverage under the ACA. Some of these studies have focused on the usefulness of using Brokers/Agents over the benefits of using Navigators. A recent Urban Institute study found that health insurance Brokers were the most helpful in providing health insurance Exchange information when compared to other types of resources, including Navigators and website content. However, there are other published studies showcasing how Navigators have been useful to consumers. That being said, Brokers have assumed an integral role supporting millions of Americans in securing and maintaining coverage for many decades, and continue to be knowledgeable resources, as they are licensed in the states they operate in, whereas Navigators are not required to meet the same licensing standards as Brokers/Agents. It will be interesting to see what the future holds for Navigators, who are not as experienced and who are, in the end, dependent upon federal grants to provide their services.
Provider Access Issues & Emergency Room Over-Usage
A number of public policymakers have raised concerns recently about the fact that there are shortages of key physicians and other providers and as a result is causing a increase in non-emergent patient visits to expensive ER departments. A recent story in the New York Times highlighted similar concerns, saying the ACA cannot change the fact that visiting an emergency room may be easier than seeing a primary care physician in some instances or locations. Other stories and studies highlight how the ACA and health care reform initiatives can affect access to providers in many different ways, such as changing reimbursement levels, improving the availability of certain types of specialists, or re-educating the patient to move from visiting the ER department to either making an appointment ahead-of-time or visiting a less expensive Urgent Care center for care.
Premium Rate Increases
Another critical issue to monitor are premium increases that might be occurring in spite of the initial promises that the ACA would lower health care costs. Health plans have begun publishing proposed rates for 2015, resulting in a recent flurry of news articles and reports addressing the impact of the ACA on insurance premiums.
The Wall Street Journal published a front page report discussing the ACA’s impact on premium increases earlier this summer, saying, “Hundreds of thousands of consumers nationwide, who bought insurance plans under the Affordable Care Act, will face a choice this fall: swallow higher premiums to stay in their plans or save money by switching.”
The Journal goes on to say that a new picture is emerging in 10 states where 2015 premium insurance rates for individual plans have been filed, “In all but one (state), the largest health insurer is proposing to increase premiums between 8.5% to 22.8% next year.” Ironically, smaller health plans are reducing their 2015 rates in the same market in an attempt to gain market share.
The significance of this trend is underscored in a statement released earlier this summer by Karen Ignagni, president & CEO of America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), in which she expressed concerns about keeping health insurance affordable for patients. “Affordability remains a top priority for consumers when it comes to their health care,” she said.
Bonus: Be Sure To Watch The Political Races
With the ACA’s continued challenges, the ups and downs of the U.S. economy, key world events in the Middle East, and other confounding variables, one has to wonder what will happen during the mid-year elections this fall. As reported by CNN and other news outlets, the ACA became an key issue in Obama’s 2012 re-election victory as well as Democrats picking up seats in the Senate and House in that election.
As November 3, 2015 approaches, many different messages could be sent back to the White House and Congress. If Republicans take over the Senate and retain control of the House, how will this impact the ACA over the next several years? If the congressional houses remain split, we may have less going on by either political party. How will the state-level elections impact the ACA and state-run Exchanges? Only time will tell.
Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), beginning in 2015, certain large employers who do not offer affordable health insurance that provides minimum value to their full-time employees may be subject to significant penalties.
In a nutshell, in 2015, “applicable large employers” will be subject to an annualized employer “shared responsibility” penalty of $2,000 (indexed) per full-time employee (minus the first 80 full-time employees in 2015) if the employer does not offer health insurance to at least 70% of their full-time employees and their dependents. This amount will be increase from 70% to 95% after 2015. This is commonly referred to as the “Pay or Play” penalty.
Even if an applicable large employer offers insurance coverage to full-time employees, the employer still could be subject to an annualized penalty of $3,000 (indexed) per employee who receives an Exchange subsidy if the offered employer-sponsored health coverage does not meet minimum value standards or is not affordable. This $3000 penalty is capped at the amount that would apply if the $2,000 penalty described above were to apply.
What should an employer do now to prepare for these penalties?
(A) Determine if they are an “applicable large employer” -To do this, employers should count both full-time employees and part-time employee hours as follows:
1) Count the full-time employees for each month in the prior year.
2) Count the full-time equivalents for each month in the prior year.
a) Add total hours for non-full-time employees but count no more than 120 hours per month for any one non-full-time employee.
b) Divide the number obtained in (a) by 120. This is the full-time equivalent number.
3) Add the numbers obtained in (1) and (2) above (i.e., the full-time employee and full-time equivalent numbers) for each month.
4) Add the 12 sums obtained in (3) and divide by 12. This is the average number of full-time employees and full-time equivalents.
5) If this number obtained in (4) is under 50 (or under 100 for the 2015 determination for certain employers), the employer is not an applicable large employer for the year being determined.
Note: The applicable large employer is determined on a controlled group basis. For example, if there are three companies, each of which is wholly owned by the same parent company, the companies are all considered one employer for this calculation. Also note that, special transition rules apply in determining applicable large employer status for 2015 and that a special seasonal employee exception may apply even if the threshold in (5) is exceeded.
(B) If an employer will be an applicable large employer in 2015, it should determine whether it could be subject to penalties in 2015. For example, the employer should review its group health plan to determine if the insurance coverage is “offered” to full-time employees meets minimum value standards and is considered affordable to employees.
© An employer also will need to address how it will determine the full-time status of employees – will it use the “monthly measurement period” or the “look back measurement period.” This is particularly important for employers who have many variable-hour employees or seasonal employees.
(D) If the employer’s group health plan does not meet the threshold tests to avoid the penalties noted above, the employer should evaluate whether it wants to restructure its health care offerings or pay the penalties (which are non-deductible).
(E) Finally, employers should review their data collection procedures to ensure that they will be able to report the healthcare information required to be reported for 2015 (the actual reporting will occur in 2016 for the 2015 calendar year). Insurers, sponsors of self-insured plans, and other entities that provide minimum essential coverage during a calendar year will be required to report certain information to the IRS and to participants. In addition, applicable large employers will be required to report about the coverage they provide to both the IRS and to their employees. Drafts of the IRS forms to be used in reporting this information have recently been published (Form 1095-B, Form 1095-B Transmittal, Form 1095-C, Form 1095-C Transmittal). Employers should review these forms to understand the data that will need to be reported.
It is not too late for employers to take action now to avoid penalties in 2015.
In short, it depends.
Recently, several clients have received their annual premium rebate checks from their group health insurance company and are looking for guidance on the proper use of these funds. Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“PPACA”), it requires health insurance companies now operate on specific medical loss ratios (80% for employers with less than 100 employees and 85% for employers with more than 100 lives). If an insurance company does not meet the stated medical loss ratios (MLRs), it is required to rebate part of the premium received back to groups.
Below is a summarized analysis used to determine if an employer can keep the premium rebate in whole or in part:
Plan Assets: The first step is to determine who owns the rebate. In accordance with the DOL’s guidance (Technical Release 2011-04), the portion of the rebate that is attributable to employee contributions is considered a plan asset. Therefore, if employees contributed to the cost of the group medical insurance plan, they are entitled a percentage of the rebate equal to the cost paid by the employees (i.e.- if employees paid 25% of the premiums, they would be entitled to 25% of the rebate). If the employer paid the entire cost of the premium, then no part of the rebate would be attributable to employee contributions permitting the employer to retain the full rebate.
For further guidance on premium rebates or any of the PPACA or ACA requirements for employers, please contact our office.
The Affordable Care Act (ACA) imposes significant information reporting responsibilities on employers starting with the 2015 calendar year. One reporting requirement applies to all employer-sponsored health plans, regardless of the size of the employer. A second reporting requirement applies only to large employers, even if the employer does not provide health coverage. The IRS is currently developing new systems for reporting the required information and recently released draft forms, however instructions have yet to be released.
Information returns
The new information reporting systems will be similar to the current Form W-2 reporting systems in that an information return (Form 1095-B or 1095-C) will be prepared for each applicable employee, and these returns will be filed with the IRS using a single transmittal form (Form 1094-B or 1094-C). Electronic filing is required if the employer files at least 250 returns. Employers must file these returns annually by Feb. 28 (March 31 if filed electronically). Therefore, employers will be filing these forms for the 2015 calendar year by Feb. 28 or March 31, 2016 respectively. A copy of the Form 1095, or a substitute statement, must be given to the employee by Jan. 31 and can be provided electronically with the employee’s consent. Employers will be subject to penalties of up to $200 per return for failing to timely file the returns or furnish statements to employees.
The IRS released drafts of the Form 1095-B and Form 1095-C information returns, as well as the Form 1094-B and Form 1094-C transmittal returns, in July 2014 and is expected to provide instructions for the forms in August 2014. According to the IRS, both the forms and the instructions will be finalized later this year.
Health coverage reporting requirement
The health coverage reporting requirement is designed to identify employees and their family members who are enrolled in minimum essential health coverage. Employees who are offered coverage, but decline the coverage, are not reported. The IRS will use this information to determine whether the employees are exempt from the individual mandate penalty due to having health coverage for themselves and their family members.
Insurance companies will prepare Form 1095-B (Health Coverage) and Form 1094-B (Transmittal of Health Coverage Information Returns) for individuals covered by fully-insured employer-sponsored group health plans. Small employers with self-insured health plans will use Form 1095-B and Form 1094-B to report the name, address, and Social Security number (or date of birth) of employees and their family members who have coverage under the self-insured health plan. However, large employers (as defined below) with self-insured health plans will file Forms 1095-C and 1094-C in lieu of Forms 1095-B and 1094-B.
Large employer reporting requirement
“Applicable large employer members (ALE)” are subject to the reporting requirement if they offer an insured or self-insured health plan, or do not offer any group health plan. ALE members are those employers that are either an applicable large employer on their own or are members of a controlled or affiliated service group with an ALE (regardless of the number of employees of the group member). ALEs are those that had, on average, at least 50 full-time employees (including full-time equivalent “FTE” employees) during the preceding calendar year. Full-time employees are those who work, on average, at least 30 hours per week. Employers with fewer than 50 full-time employees and equivalents are not applicable large employers and, thus, are exempt from this health coverage reporting requirement.
As referenced above, an employer’s status as an ALE is determined on a controlled or affiliated service group basis. For example, if Company A and Company B are members of the same controlled group and Company A has 100 employees and Company B has 20 employees, then A and B are both members of an ALE. Consequently, Company A and Company B must each file the information returns.
Each ALE member must file Form 1095-C (Employer-Provided Health Insurance Offer and Coverage) and Form 1094-C (Transmittal of Employer-Provided Health Insurance Offer and Coverage Information Returns) with the IRS for each calendar year. The IRS will use this information to determine whether (1) the employer is subject to the employer mandate penalty, and (2) an employee is eligible for a premium tax credit on insurance purchased through the new health insurance exchange. ALEs with fewer than 100 full-time employees are generally eligible for transition relief from the employer mandate penalty for their 2015 plan year. Nonetheless, these employers are still required to file Forms 1095-C and 1094-C for the 2015 calendar year.
The employer mandate penalty can be imposed on any ALE member that does not offer affordable, minimum value health coverage to all of its full-time employees starting in 2015. Health coverage is affordable if the amount that the employer charges an employee for self-only coverage does not exceed 9.5 percent of the employee’s Form W-2 wages, rate of pay, or the federal poverty level for the year. A health plan provides minimum value if the plan is designed to pay at least 60 percent of the total cost of medical services for a standard population. In the case of a controlled or affiliated service group, the employer mandate penalties apply to each member of the group individually.
ALE members must prepare a Form 1095-C for each employee. The return will report the following information:
An ALE member will file with the IRS one Form 1094-C transmitting all of its Forms 1095-C. The Form 1094-C will report the following information:
As noted above, each ALE member is required to file Forms 1095-C and 1094-C for its own employees, even if it participates in a health plan with other employers (e.g., when the parent company sponsors a plan in which all subsidies participate). Special rules apply to multiemployer plans for collectively-bargained employees.
Action required
In light of the complexity of the new information reporting requirements, it is recommended that employers should begin taking steps now to prepare for the new reporting requirements: