Page 4 of 4
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.
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.
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:
Following the recent Supreme Court ruling regarding contraceptives in the Hobby Lobby Stores case, a new circuit decision now sets the stage for another possible Supreme Court decision on the ACA. On Tuesday (July 22, 2014), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia (in Halbig v. Burwell) and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (in King v. Burwell) issued conflicting opinions regarding the IRS’ authority to administer subsidies in federally facilitated exchanges.
In general, the employer mandate requires that “applicable large employers” offer their full-time employees minimum essential coverage or potentially pay a tax penalty in 2015. 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 State under section 1311…” of the ACA. If a state elected not to establish an exchange or was unable to establish an operational exchange by January 1, 2014, the Secretary of HHS was required to establish a federal-run exchange under section 1321 of the ACA.
The appellants in each of these cases are residents of states that did not establish state run exchanges. Consequently, the appellants argue that the IRS does not have the authority to administer subsidies in their states because the exchanges were set up by HHS under section 1321 of the ACA and not under section 1311 as is the clear prerequisite for IRS authority to administer the subsidies.
In regulations implementing the subsidies, the IRS recognized this discrepancy and noted that “[c]ommentators disagreed on whether the language [of the ACA] limits the availability of the premium tax credit only to taxpayers who enroll in qualified health plans [QHPs] on State Exchanges."
The IRS, however, rejected these comments and stated that, “[t]he statutory language of section 36B and other provisions of the Affordable Care Act support the interpretation that credits are available to taxpayers who obtain coverage through a State Exchange, regional Exchange, subsidiary Exchange, and the Federally-facilitated Exchange. Moreover, the relevant legislative history does not demonstrate that Congress intended to limit the premium tax credit to State Exchanges. Accordingly, the final regulations maintain the rule in the proposed regulations because it is consistent with the language, purpose, and structure of section 36B and the Affordable Care Act as a whole.”
In Halbig v. Burwell, the D.C. Circuit disagreed with the IRS’ interpretation and, in a 2-1 decision, held that the IRS regulation authorizing tax credits in federal exchanges was invalid. The court focused heavily on the text itself and concluded, “that the ACA unambiguously restricts the …subsidy to insurance purchased on Exchanges established by the state.”
In an opinion issued only hours following the D.C. Circuit decision, the 4th Circuit, in King v. Burwell, agreed with the IRS’ interpretation and upheld the subsidies by permitting the IRS to decide whether the premium tax credits should be available over the federal exchange. The justices argued that the text did not intend to create two unequal exchanges. Additionally, they argue that the ambiguous text of the act intended that the exchanges be operated as appendages of the Bureaucracy, and so under the directives of the IRS.
Currently, 36 states are using federally facilitated exchanges, including Florida. Further, roughly 85% of enrollees who signed up for health insurance receive subsidies allowing them to purchase coverage that would be otherwise unaffordable. If the subsidies allocated over the federal exchange were declared invalid, those individuals’ ability to receive subsidies to purchase coverage could be jeopardized. As a result, the average price of a health plan is projected to rise from $82 per month to $346 per month, making it more difficult to afford for approximately 5.4 M enrollees.
While the Halbig decision is a major setback to the ACA, it is almost certainly not the final word on this issue. Given the fact that two courts have reached different outcomes, the Supreme Court is more likely to weigh in on the decision. However, the Halbig decision is likely to be reviewed by the entire D.C. Circuit prior to any potential review by the Supreme Court.
The IRS has released the 2014 Form 720 that plan sponsors of self-insured group health plans will use to report and pay the Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) fee. The fee is due by July 31, 2014 for plan years ending in 2013.
The Affordable Care Act (ACA) imposes a fee on health insurers and plan sponsors of self-insured group health plans to help fund the Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute. PCORI is responsible for conducting research to evaluate and compare the health outcomes and clinical effectiveness, risks, and benefits of medical treatments, services, procedures, and drugs.
The PCORI fee is assessed for plan years ending after September 30, 2012. The initial fee is $1 times the average number of covered lives for the first plan year ending before October 1, 2013 and $2 per covered life for the plan year ending after October 1, 2013 and before October 1, 2014. Fees for subsequent years are subject to indexing. The PCORI fee will not be assessed for plan years ending after September 30, 2019, which means that for a calendar year plan, the last plan year for assessment is the 2018 calendar year.
Plan sponsors must pay the PCORI fee by July 31 of the calendar year immediately following the last day of that plan year. All plan sponsors of self-insured group health plans will pay the fee in 2014, but the amount of the fee varies depending on the plan year.
The IRS has released the 2014 Form 720 with instructions for plan sponsors to use to report and pay the PCORI fee. Although the Form 720 is a quarterly federal excise tax return, if the Form 720 is filled only to report the PCORI fee, no filing is required in other quarters unless other fees or taxes have to be reported.
Please contact our office for information on the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and how it affects your business.
Keeping up with changes under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is a challenge for all employers. Here are the top five issues you should specifically pay attention to as healthcare reform rolls out.
The Employer Mandate
Under the ACA, large employers will be required to provide affordable healthcare insurance that meets minimum value to all full-time employees beginning in 2015. Final regulations issued in February clarify most aspects of how the mandate will be implemented.
The Individual Mandate
Beginning January 1, 2014, all individuals are required to carry qualified health insurance known as “minimum essential coverage” or face penalties when they file taxes in the spring of 2015. In 2014, the penalty for noncompliance will be the greater of $95 per uninsured person or 1% of household income over the filing threshold. This penalty will rise in 2015 and again in 2016.
Wellness Programs
As health insurance costs rise, wellness programs are gaining popularity, however be cautious when designing and maintaining a wellness program because they must conform to new ACA requirements and existing HIPAA nondiscrimination requirements.
Reporting Requirements
Beginning in the spring of 2016, large employers will face a new reporting requirement for the 2015 calendar year. The Form 6056 will ask for information including:
Automatic Enrollment And Nondiscrimination Regulations
Though enforcement of the automatic enrollment and nondiscrimination provisions of the ACA has not started, keep an eye out for regulations that will trigger compliance obligations. Employers with over 100 employees should anticipate that in the next few years, they will be required to automatically enroll all full-time employees for health insurance coverage.
In addition, employers who offer varying levels of coverage or employer-provided subsidies based on classes of employees need to watch for nondiscrimination regulations.
Please contact our office if you have any questions on how Healthcare Reform will affect you or your business.
It was announced on Wednesday, March 5th, by the Obama Administration that it would allow some health plans that do not currently meet all Affordable Care Act (ACA) requirements to continue offering non-compliant insurance for another two years. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) released the announcement, clarifying the new policy.
In November 2013, the Obama administration decided that some non-grandfathered health plans in the small group and individual markets would not be considered out of compliance if they failed to meet certain coverage provisions of the ACA. The transition relief was originally scheduled to last for one year, and was viewed as a response to the numerous health insurance policy cancellations that would result from the new requirements.
This recent announcement extends this relief for two additional years. CMS released the following:
“At the option of the States, health insurance issuers that have issued or will issue a policy under the transitional policy anytime in 2014 may renew such policies at any time through October 1, 2016, and affected individuals and small businesses may choose to re-enroll in such coverage through October 1, 2016.”
Who Will This Impact?
This decision, which will likely prevent another wave of cancellations that were scheduled to begin November 1, 2014 and will impact some insurance offerings, but is unlikely to have a significant impact, since only about half of the states have opted to grant extensions to health plans within their jurisdictions. Further, the number of people currently on these non-compliant plans has been dropping, and is expected to continue to decline. Under the new policy, these plans (which typically offer fewer benefits at lower costs since they do not have to abide by the ACA’s minimum essential coverage) will still be available until plans expire in 2017.
Please note that it will be up to each individual state, as well as each individual insurance carrier, as to if they will decide to adopt this additional two year extension. Under the original one year transitional relief, even though it was allowed in the State of Florida, there are currently some health insurance carriers who have decided to not allow groups to renew their existing non-compliant medical plans.
We will continue to keep you up to date of new developments in ACA implementation as they arise. Please contact our office for additional information regarding your group’s medical policy and the impact of this recent change on it.