On July 2, 2013, the U.S. Treasury Department delayed enforcement of the employer “play or pay” mandate penalties and reporting requirements by one year to 2015. Removing the penalties for noncompliance and the requirement to report compliance or noncompliance essentially allows large employers one more year to prepare for implementation of the play or pay provisions.
There has been some confusion, however, on the healthcare reform changes taking effect in 2014 regarding what was and was not postponed. Still taking effect in 2014 are the State Exchanges (and the October 1, 2013 employer’s notice of Exchange requirement), the individual mandate to obtain minimum essential coverage, federal premium assistance, the 90-day limit on waiting periods, the termination of all pre-existing condition limitations for all participants, the removal of annual limits on essential health benefits and the optional increase in wellness program incentives from 20% to 30% (50% if tobacco related).
Please contact our office for more information on Health Care Reform and how it will impact your business.
If your company offered either a Health Reimbursement Account (HRA) or Medical Expense Reimbursement Plan (MERP) as part of your employee benefits package in 2012, you must report and pay the PCORI fee for your 2012 plan year no later than July 31, 2013. Please note that the penalty for not filing can be as high as $10,000 per month.
You must use the IRS Form 720 to report and pay the PCORI fee.
If you used a third party administrator to handle the administration of your HRA or MERP plan, they should have provided you with the necessary information to complete Form 720 as they are not permitted to file this with the IRS on your behalf.
Please let us know if you have any questions.
The U.S. Administration announced on July 2, 2013, that it will not require employers to provide health insurance for full time workers under the Health Care Reform Employer Mandate (also known as Pay or Play) until 2015. This move will cause a delay in a key provision of Health Care Reform that was scheduled to go into effect in 2014. The delay represents the administration’s response to widespread complaints about the reporting requirements for employers who are subject to the mandate.
The Affordable Care Act requires all employers with more than 50 full time workers to provide affordable health insurance or face a fine as much as $3000 per employee. The policy has raised concerns that companies would downsize their workforce or cut workers’ hours in order to dodge the new mandate.
The Obama Administration has announced that this provision was delayed so officials could simplify reporting requirements and give employers ample time to adjust their health care coverage.
The postponement does not affect other central provisions of the law, including the individual mandate or the establishment of the health insurance marketplaces, known as Exchanges, which are both still set to go into effect in January 2014.
Formal guidance is expected to be released this week. The Obama Administration has said that once the formal guidance is release they will work with employers to encourage them to voluntarily implement this information in 2014 to allow for a smoother transition into 2015.
Beginning in 2014, large employers (those with 50 or more employees) that do not provide “qualifying” coverage and who have employees who receive a subsidy for Exchange coverage may be subject to certain tax penalties, as high a $3000 per year per employee, under Health Care Reform. We can show you a lower-cost alternative to traditional major medical that will help you avoid these penalties. The cost ranges from $105-$125 per month for employee only coverage and the premium is tax deductible to the employer.
For employers who choose to not offer an ACA compliant plan in 2014, the penalty is an excise tax, therefore not deductible.
This could be the perfect solution for large employers who are looking for an alternative to the high cost of traditional major medical coverage while avoiding the potential penalties of ACA.
Please contact our office if you would like more information about this program and your options as an employer in 2014 with Health Care Reform.
On June 26, 2013, the US Supreme Court declared the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) as unconstitutional. DOMA had previously established the federal definition of marriage as a legal union only between one man and one woman. The extinction of DOMA already has HR departments thinking how this will impact the future of the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) as well as other benefits.
How FMLA is Impacted
As we know, the FMLA allows otherwise eligible employees to take leave to care for a family member with a serious health condition. “Family member” includes the employee’s spouse, which, under the FMLA regulations, is defined as:
a husband or wife as defined or recognized under State law for purposes of marriage in the State where the employee resides, including common law marriage in States where it is recognized. 29 C.F.R. 825.102
Initially, this seems to suggest that the DOL would look to state law to define “spouse”…but not so fast. According to a 1998 Department of Labor opinion letter, the DOL acknowledged that the FMLA was bound by DOMA’s definition that “spouse” could only be a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or wife. Thus, the DOL has taken the position that only DOMA’s definitions could be recognized for FMLA leave purposes. As a result, FMLA leave has not been made available to same-sex spouses.
That changes yesterday, at least in part.
What’s Clear about FMLA After the Ruling
In striking down a significant part of DOMA, the Supreme Court cleared the way for each state to decide its own definition of “spouse”. Thus, if an employee is married to a same-sex partner and lives in a state that recognizes same-sex marriage, the employee will be entitled to take FMLA leave to care for his/her spouse who is suffering from a serious health condition, for military caregiver leave, or to take leave for a qualifying exigency when a same-sex spouse is called to active duty in a foreign country while in the military.
What’s Unclear about FMLA After the Ruling
But what about employees who live in a state that does not recognize same-sex marriage? Are they entitled to FMLA leave to care for their spouses?
As an initial matter, the regulations look to the employee’s “place of domicile” (aka state of primary residence) to determine whether a person is a spouse for purposes of FMLA. Therefore, even if the employee formerly lived or was married in a state that recognized the same-sex marriage, he/she is unlikely to be considered a spouse in the “new” state for purposes of FMLA if the state does not recognize the marriage. This is no small issue, since 30+ states currently do not recognize same-sex marriage and some don’t go all the way (e.g. Illinois, which recognizes same-sex unions, not marriages).
Surely, some might argue that the U.S. Constitution requires other states to recognize the marriage; however, this issue is far from settled. Clearly employers need some help from the DOL. It is speculated that the DOL may draft regulations on how employers can administer FMLA in situations where the employee’s spouse is not recognized under state law. This would give life to concepts such as a “State of Celebration” rule, in which a spousal status is determined based on the law of the State where the employee was married and not where they reside. However, without more guidance, it is still too early to tell how the DOL will handle this.
Other Key Benefits Affected by the DOMA Decision
FMLA is not the only federal law impacted by the fall of DOMA. If federal regulations follow through, some of the notable federal laws and benefits impacted may include:
A provision of Health Care Reform requires employers to provide a notice to all employees regarding the availability of health coverage options through the state-based exchanges. The Department of Labor delayed the original requirement that the notice be distributed by March 1, 2013, as it was determined that there was not enough information regarding exchange availability.
The DOL recently issued temporary guidance along with a model notice. The DOL has issued the model notice early so employers can begin informing their employees now about the upcoming coverage options through the marketplace.
Two model notices were released by the DOL. One is for employers who currently offer medical coverage and the other is for those who do not offer medical coverage.
Employers are required to issue the exchange coverage notice no later than October 1, 2013. This will coincide with the beginning of the open enrollment period for the marketplace.
The notice must be provided to all employees, regardless of their enrollment on the group health plan. It must be provided to both full time and part time employees as well. Employers are not required to provide a separate notice to dependents. Employers will need to provide the notice to each new employee (regardless of their status) who are hired on or after October 1, 2013 within 14 days of their hire.
An exchange coverage notice must include –
The DOL also modified its model COBRA election notice to include information about the availability of exchange coverage options and eliminate certain obsolete language in the earlier model.
Please contact our office for a copy of the model notice(s).
The topic for this month covers various ares including Social Media policies/Considerations, Negligent Retention, and updates on Health Care Reform.
To Friend or Not to Friend?: What is your company’s current policy with regard to Social Media site and managers being “friends” with subordinates? What are the pitfalls of being “friends” with your employees
Contact us today for more information on this topic.
Myra L. Thompson, RHU, REBC, GBA, President of Administrators Advisory Group, has completed the National Association of Health Underwriters (NAHU) Health Care Reform Certification Course.
Myra is now a certified Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) Professional. This certification helps professionals understand the key technical components of PPACA and ensure they are better prepared to provide education on upcoming health coverage changes, responsibilities and requirements.
Join us in congratulating Myra on a job well done!
Our topic this month covers the new I-9 form that was recently released as well as various considerations for 2014.
Areas discussed include:
Contact us today for more information on this topic.
Proposed guidance on the 90 day waiting period limit that was set in place by the Affordable Care Act (ACA) was issued on March 21, 2013 by the Department of Labor, Health & Human Services, and the Treasury (the “Departments”). This rule will apply to plan years beginning on or after January 1, 2014.
The 90 day limit set under Health Care Reform prevents an eligible employee or dependent from having to wait more than 90 days before coverage under a group health plan becomes effective. All calendar days (including weekends and holidays) are counted when determining what date the employee has satisfied the 90 day probationary period.
The Departments have confirmed that there is no de minimis exception for the difference between 90 days and 3 months. Therefore, plans with a 3 month waiting period in their group benefit contracts (including the Section 125 plan document) will need to make sure these are amended for the 2014 plan year. In addition, plans with a waiting period in which coverage begins on the first day of the month immediately following 90 days will also need to be amended as coverage can not begin any later than the 90th day. Employers who prefer to use a first day of the month starting date for coverage rather than a date sometime mid-month should consider implementing a 60 day waiting period instead. If an employer runs into an instance where an employee is in the middle of their waiting period when the regulations become effective (on the group’s renewal anniversary date on or following January 1, 2014), the waiting period for the employee may need to be shortened if it would exceed the 90 days.
Caution: Employers sponsoring a group health plan should also be mindful of the rules under the employer “pay or play” mandate. The 90 day limit on waiting periods offers slightly more flexibility than the employer mandate. For instance, if an employer’s health plan provides employees will become eligible for coverage 90 days after obtaining a pilot’s license, that requirement would comply with the 90 day limit on waiting periods. However, the same employer could be liable under the employer mandate for failing to provide coverage to a full time employee within 3 months of their date of hire. So, employers sponsoring a group health plan should confirm that any plan eligibility criteria aligns with both the employer mandate and the 90 day limit on waiting periods.
The Departments have also announced that HIPAA Certificates of Creditable Coverage will be phased out by 2015. Plans will not be permitted to impose any pre-existing condition exclusions effective for plan years beginning on or after January 1, 2014. This provision is also in effect for enrollees who are under age 19. Plan sponsors must continue to provide Certificates through December 31, 2014 since individuals enrolling in plans with plan years beginning later than January 1 may still be subject to pre-existing condition exclusions up through 2014.