Compliance Recap July 2018

July was a quiet month in the employee benefits world. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) released draft Forms 1094-B, 1095-B, 1094-C, and 1095-C. The IRS also released an information letter on the employer shared responsibility provisions.

UBA Updates

UBA released two new advisors:

UBA updated existing guidance:

IRS Releases Draft Forms 1094-B, 1095-B, 1094-C, and 1095-C

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) released draft Forms 1094-B, 1095-B, 1094-C, and 1095-C. Employers will use the final version of these forms to report on offers of health coverage to full-time employees and their family members, and enrollment in health coverage by employees and their family members (for employers that sponsor self-insured health plans).

There are no substantive changes to draft Forms 1094-B, 1095-B, or 1094-C for 2018. There is a minor formatting change to draft Form 1095-C for 2018. There are dividers for the entry of an individual’s first name, middle name, and last name.

Employers will have more information about any additional changes to these forms when the IRS releases its draft instructions for these forms.

IRS Releases Information Letter on Employer Shared Responsibility

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) released its Information Letter 2018-0013 to reiterate how the employer shared responsibility provisions would apply to an applicable large employer. Specifically, the IRS explained how the Service Contract Act (SCA) interacts with the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA).

As background, the SCA requires workers who are employed on certain federal contracts to be paid prevailing wages and fringe benefits. An employer generally can satisfy its fringe benefit obligation by providing the cash equivalent of benefits or a combination of cash and benefits. Alternatively, an employer may permit employees to choose among various benefits, or various benefits and cash. An employer may choose to provide fringe benefits under the SCA by offering an employee the option to enroll in health coverage provided by the employer (including an option to decline that coverage). If the employee declines the coverage, that employer would then generally be required by the SCA to provide the employee with cash or other benefits of an equivalent value.

This Information Letter refers to IRS Notice 2015-87 which describes how the ACA and the SCA may be coordinated for plan years beginning before January 1, 2017, and until further guidance is issued and applicable. Notice 2015-87 clarifies that, for employees under the SCA, the choice of a cash-out payment will generally not require an employer to pay a greater share of the cost of the health coverage for the coverage to be considered affordable.

Question of the Month

  1. What if a plan sponsor fails to file or pay the PCORI fee?
  2. Although the PCORI statute and its regulations do not include a specific penalty for failure to report or pay the PCORI fee, the plan sponsor may be subject to penaltiesfor failure to file a tax return because the PCORI fee is an excise tax.

The plan sponsor should consult with its attorney on how to proceed with a late filing or late payment of the PCORI fee. The PCORI regulations note that the penalties related to late filing of Form 720 or late payment of the fee may be waived or abated if the plan sponsor has reasonable cause and the failure was not due to willful neglect.

If a plan sponsor already filed Form 720 (for example, for a different excise tax), then the plan sponsor can make a correction to a previously filed Form 720 by using Form 720X.


Compliance Recap June 2018

June was a relatively quiet month in the employee benefits world.

The U.S. Department of Labor issued final regulations regarding association health plans. The U.S. Department of Justice filed a response in ongoing litigation regarding the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services released a form that certain plan sponsors will use for reporting limited wraparound coverage.

UBA Updates

UBA released two new advisors:

UBA updated existing guidance:

DOL Issues Final Regulations Regarding Association Health Plans

On June 19, 2018, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) published Frequently Asked Questions About Association Health Plans (AHPs) and issued a final rule that broadens the definition of “employer” and the provisions under which an employer group or association may be treated as an “employer” sponsor of a single multiple-employer employee welfare benefit plan and group health plan under Title I of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).

The final rule is intended to facilitate adoption and administration of AHPs and expand health coverage access to employees of small employers and certain self-employed individuals.

The final rule will be effective on August 20, 2018. The final rule will apply to fully-insured AHPs on September 1, 2018, to existing self-insured AHPs on January 1, 2019, and to new self-insured AHPs formed under this final rule on April 1, 2019.

Read more about the final rule.

Status of Court Case Challenging ACA Constitutionality

In June 2018, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a response in ongoing litigation regarding the individual mandate and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA).

As background, earlier this year, twenty states filed a lawsuit asking the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas to strike down the ACA entirely. The lawsuit came after the U.S. Congress passed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act in December 2017 that reduced the individual mandate penalty to $0, starting in 2019.

The DOJ argues that the individual mandate is unconstitutional without the penalty. The DOJ also argues that because the guaranteed issue and community rating provisions are inseverable from the individual mandate, the guaranteed issue and community rating provisions are also unconstitutional.

Further, the DOJ argues that because the individual mandate penalty of $0 starts in 2019, the district court should not immediately strike the individual mandate, guaranteed issue, and community rating portions of the ACA. Instead, the DOJ asks the district court to declare that the individual mandate, guaranteed issue, and community rating provisions will be unconstitutional as of January 1, 2019.

It’s too early to determine whether the plaintiffs, the DOJ, or the other defendants will prevail in their arguments. Even if the district court makes a decision in the next few weeks, its decision will likely be appealed.

Read more about this case.

CMS Releases Form for Reporting Wraparound Excepted Benefits

Under a 2015 final rule by the Internal Revenue Service, U.S. Department of Labor, and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, certain employers may offer limited wraparound coverage under one of two narrow pilot programs.

These wraparound benefits are considered an excepted benefit and are generally exempt from certain requirements of federal laws, including ERISA, the Internal Revenue Code, and parts of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

Under the final rule, plan sponsors who offer limited wraparound coverage have reporting requirements. In December 2017, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) issued a notice for comments on a proposed reporting form.

On June 25, 2018, the CMS published its Reporting Form for Plan Sponsors Offering Limited Wraparound Coverage. A plan sponsor of limited wraparound coverage must file the form once, within 60 days of the form’s publication (by August 24, 2018), or 60 days after the first day of the first plan year that limited wraparound coverage is first offered.

Read more about limited wraparound coverage.

Question of the Month

  1. Who must pay the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) fee and when is the fee due?
  2. The fee must be determined and paid by:
  • The insurer for fully insured plans (although the fee likely will be passed on to the plan)
  • The plan sponsor of self-funded plans, including HRAs
    • The plan’s TPA may assist with the calculation, but the plan sponsor must file IRS Form 720 and pay the applicable fee
    • If multiple employers participate in the plan, each must file separately unless the plan document designates one as the plan sponsor

The fee is due by July 31 of the year following the calendar year in which the plan/policy year ends. For example:

Plan/Policy Year Year Fee Is Due ($2.26, indexed/ person) Plan/Policy Year  Year Fee Is Due ($2.39, indexed/
person)
Nov. 1, 2015 - Oct. 31, 2016 July 31, 2017 Nov. 1, 2016 - Oct. 31, 2017 July 31, 2018
Dec. 1, 2015 - Nov. 30, 2016 July 31, 2017 Dec. 1, 2016 - Nov. 30, 2017 July 31, 2018
Jan. 1, 2016 - Dec. 31, 2016 July 31, 2017 Jan. 1, 2017 - Dec. 31, 2017 July 31, 2018
Feb. 1, 2016 - Jan. 31, 2017 July 31, 2018 Feb. 1, 2017 - Jan. 31, 2018 July 31, 2019
March 1, 2016 - Feb. 28, 2017 July 31, 2018 March 1, 2017 - Feb. 28, 2018 July 31, 2019
April 1, 2016 - March 31, 2017 July 31, 2018 April 1, 2017 - March 31, 2018 July 31, 2019
May 1, 2016 - April 30, 2017 July 31, 2018 May 1, 2017 - April 30, 2018 July 31, 2019
June 1, 2016 - May 31, 2017 July 31, 2018 June 1, 2017 - May 31, 2018 July 31, 2019
July 1, 2016 - June 30, 2017 July 31, 2018 July 1, 2017 - June 30, 2018 July 31, 2019
Aug. 1, 2016 - July 31, 2017 July 31, 2018 Aug. 1, 2017 - July 31, 2018 July 31, 2019
Sept. 1, 2016 - Aug. 31, 2017 July 31, 2018 Sept. 1, 2017 - Aug. 31, 2018 July 31, 2019
Oct. 1, 2016 - Sept. 30, 2017 July 31, 2018 Oct. 1, 2017 - Sept. 30, 2018 July 31, 2019

7/3/2018

Download the PDF here.


Compliance Recap May 2018

May was a relatively busy month in the employee benefits world.

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) released the indexed threshold that employers will use in 2019 to determine coverage affordability. The IRS also issued inflation adjusted amounts that will apply to health savings accounts for 2019.

The IRS released guidance on its play-or-pay penalty response acknowledgement letters. The IRS published a proposed rule that would expand mandatory electronic filing of information returns. The IRS also released a tax reform tip, frequently asked questions about the family and medical leave credit, and a fact sheet on determining whether an employer is a large employer.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed a status report in a wellness program court case. The U.S. Department of the Treasury released its updated priority guidance plan. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services released a blueprint for lowering drug prices and reducing out-of-pocket costs. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission issued a bulletin on health savings accounts.

UBA Updates

UBA released four new advisors:

  • Proposed FAQs About Mental Health and Substance Use Disorder Parity
  • IRS Changes HSA Limit for 2018
  • Understanding Your IRS Play-or-Pay Assessment Letter
  • IRS Issues Proposed Rule to Expand Mandatory Electronic Filing

UBA updated existing guidance:

  • 2018 Annual Benefit Plan Amounts card
  • Federal Tax Credit for Employer-Provided Paid Family and Medical Leave
  • Understanding Wellness Programs and their Legal Requirements
  • Court Modifies Order Regarding EEOC Wellness Rules
  • The Play-or-Pay Penalty and Counting Employees under the ACA
  • Nondiscrimination Rules for Cafeteria Plans
  • HRAs, HSAs, and Health FSAs – What’s the Difference?

IRS Releases ACA Indexed Affordability Threshold for 2019

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) released its Revenue Procedure 2018-34 that makes an indexing adjustment to the required contribution percentage that is used to determine whether employer- sponsored health coverage is affordable. For 2019, the percentage will be 9.86 percent.

This means that if an employer is using the federal poverty level (FPL) affordability safe harbor, then the maximum monthly self-only contribution will be $99.75. [9.86% of $12,140 (the 2018 contiguous U.S. FPL for one person), divided by 12, equals $99.75.]

IRS Releases 2019 Limits on Health Savings Accounts

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) released its Revenue Procedure 2018-30 that provides the 2019 inflation adjusted amounts for health savings accounts (HSAs).

For 2019, the annual limitation on deductions for an individual with self-only coverage under a high deductible health plan is $3,500. For 2019, the annual limitation on deductions for an individual with family coverage under a high deductible health plan is $7,000.

For 2019, a “high deductible health plan” is defined as a health plan with an annual deductible that is notless than $1,350 for self-only coverage or $2,700 for family coverage, and the annual out-of-pocket expenses (deductibles, co-payments, and other amounts, but not premiums) do not exceed $6,750 for self-only coverage or $13,500 for family coverage.

IRS Releases Guidance on its Play-or-Pay Penalty Response Acknowledgment Letters

In late 2017, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) started mailing Letter 226J to inform large employers of their potential liability for an employer shared responsibility payment (ESRP) for the 2015 calendar year.The IRS’ determination of an employer’s liability and potential payment is based on information reportedto the IRS on Forms 1094-C and 1095-C and information about the employer’s full-time employees that were allowed the premium tax credit.

The letter contains Form 14764 (ESRP Response) which is the form that the employer must use to file its response by the deadline listed in the letter. The employer uses Form 14764 to indicate that it agrees ordisagrees with the IRS’ letter. If an employer disagrees with the proposed liability, then it must provide a full explanation of its disagreement using Form 14765.

The IRS will acknowledge the employer’s response with a Letter 227 that describes the further actions that an employer can take. The IRS’ recently released Understanding Your Letter 227 describes the versions of Letter 227 that an employer may receive:

  • Letter 227-J acknowledges receipt of the signed agreement Form 14764, ESRP Response, and that the penalty will be assessed. After the IRS issues this letter, the case will be closed. No response is required.
  • Letter 227-K acknowledges receipt of the information provided and shows the penalty has been reduced to zero. After the IRS issues this letter, the case will be closed. No response is required.
  • Letter 227-L acknowledges receipt of the information provided and shows the penalty has been revised. The letter includes an updated Form 14765 and revised calculation table. The employer can agree or request a meeting with the manager and/or appeals.
  • Letter 227-M acknowledges receipt of information provided and shows that the penalty did not change. The letter provides an updated Form 14765 and revised calculation table. The employer can agree or request a meeting with the manager and/or appeals.
  • Letter 227-N acknowledges the decision reached in appeals and shows the penalty based on the appeals review. After the IRS issues this letter, the case will be closed. No response is required.

If, after receiving Letter 227, the employer agrees with the proposed penalty, then the employer would follow the instructions to sign the response form and return it with full payment in the envelope provided.

If, after receiving Letter 227, the employer disagrees with the proposed or revised shared employer responsibility payment, the employer must provide an explanation of why it disagrees or indicate changes needed, or both, on Form 14765. Then the employer must return all documents as instructed in the letter by the response date. The employer may also request a pre-assessment conference with the IRS Office of Appeals within the response date listed within Letter 227, which will be generally 30 days from the date of the letter.

If the employer does not respond to either Letter 226J or Letter 227, the IRS will assess the amount of the proposed employer shared responsibility payment and issue a notice and demand for payment.

IRS Issues Proposed Rule to Expand Mandatory Electronic Filing

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) published a proposed rule that would affect most employers who are required to file information returns, such as Forms W-2, Forms 1095-B, Forms 1095-C, and forms in the 1099 series.

Currently, employers are not required to electronically file their returns with the IRS unless they are required to file at least 250 returns during the calendar year. The IRS uses a non-aggregation rule in applying this 250-return threshold. Essentially, it uses a separate total for each type of information return filed and each type of corrected information return filed. This means that if an employer files 150 Forms W-2 and 100 Forms 1095-C this year, then the employer is not required to file electronically.

Under the proposed rule, the IRS would determine whether an employer meets the 250-return threshold by aggregating its information returns. Using the example above, under the proposed rule, the employer would meet the 250-return threshold and would be required to electronically file its information returns.

Corrected returns would not be included in the calculation of whether an employer meets the 250-return threshold. However, the proposed rule would require an employer to electronically file its corrected returns if the original returns were electronically filed.

If finalized, these regulations will apply to employers’ information returns filed after December 31, 2018.

IRS Releases Tax Reform Tax Tip and FAQs Regarding Family and Medical Leave Credit

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) released its Tax Reform Tax Tip 2018-69: How the Employer Credit for Family and Medical Leave Benefits Employers and its updated Section 45S Employer Credit for Paid Family and Medical Leave FAQs that primarily reiterates the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act’s provisions thatprovide a new federal credit for employers that provide paid family and medical leave to their employees.

In its Tax Tip, the IRS explains that an employer must reduce its deduction for wages or salaries paid or incurred by the amount determined as a credit. Also, any wages taken into account in determining any other general business credit may not be used in determining this credit.

In its FAQs, the IRS indicates that, in the future, it will address when the written policy must be in place, how paid family and medical leave relates to an employer’s other paid leave, how to determine whetheran employee has been employed for one year or more, the impact of state and local leave requirements, and whether members of a controlled group of corporations and businesses under common control are treated as a single taxpayer in determining the credit.

IRS Releases Fact Sheet on Determining Whether an Employer is a Large Employer

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) released Publication 5208 – Affordable Care Act: Determining if you are an applicable large employer that provides a three-step process for employers to determine whether they are an applicable large employer for purposes of the employer shared responsibility provisions.

Although this one-page fact sheet doesn’t provide new information about counting employees, it may be ahelpful guide for those employers who have fewer than 50 full-time or full-time equivalent employees and who are growing their staff numbers.

Wellness Program Court Case Update

In August 2017, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia held that the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) failed to provide a reasoned explanation for its decision to adopt 30 percent incentive levels for employer-sponsored wellness programs under both the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) rules and Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) rules.

In December 2017, the court vacated the EEOC rules under the ADA and GINA effective January 1, 2019, and ordered the EEOC to promulgate any new proposed rules by August 31, 2018.

In January 2018, the EEOC asked the court to reconsider the portion of the court’s order that required the EEOC to promulgate new proposed rules by August 31, 2018. The court vacated that portion of its order. The EEOC recently reported that it had not decided whether to promulgate new regulations. The court’s order to vacate the portions of the EEOC’s wellness rules under the ADA and GINA as of January 1,2019, remains.

For 2019 and until the EEOC issues final rules regarding incentive limits, risk-averse employers should consider discontinuing wellness programs that require a medical exam, biometric screening, or health risk assessment for participants to receive an incentive. When the ADA and GINA incentive limits are vacated, the less restrictive ACA-amended HIPAA regulations will continue to apply. However, using these less restrictive incentive limits may be risky because these regulations predated the EEOC’s wellness regulations.

Treasury Releases its Updated Priority Guidance Plan and Opens Public Comment for Next Priority Guidance Plan

The U.S. Department of the Treasury (Treasury) released its third quarter update to its 2017-2018 Priority Guidance Plan (Plan). The Plan identifies projects that the Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) intend to complete during the 12-month period ending on June 30, 2018.

The Plan’s “Executive Compensation, Health Care and Other Benefits, and Employment Taxes” sectionlists the following items among its projects:

  • Guidance on issues under §4980H (the employer shared responsibility provisions)
  • Regulations under §4980I regarding the excise tax on high cost employer-provided coverage (“Cadillac tax”)
  • Guidance on qualified small employer health reimbursement arrangements (QSEHRAs)

The Treasury and IRS also issued Notice 2018-43 that invites public comment on recommendations for items that should be included on the agencies’ 2018-2019 Priority Guidance Plan. Although public comments may be submitted throughout the year, comments submitted by June 15, 2018, will be considered for inclusion on the original 2018-2019 Priority Guidance Plan.

HHS’ Blueprint to Lower Drug Prices and Reduce Out-of-Pocket Costs

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) published its policy statement and released its American Patients First blueprint to lower drug prices and reduce out-of-pocket costs (collectively, the Blueprint).

Although most of the Blueprint focuses on reducing government health programs’ costs, some of theBlueprint’s goals may affect employers’ group health plans in the future. The Blueprint strives to:

  • Create incentives for pharmaceutical companies to lower list prices and reduce consumer out-of- pocket spending at the pharmacy and other case settings
  • Increase price transparency
  • Apply a substantial portion of rebates at the point of sale
  • Have a site-neutral payment policy for drug administration procedures
  • Have pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) act solely in the interest of the employer (or consumer)for whom they are managing pharmaceutical benefits
  • Restrict the use of rebates
  • Prohibit contracted pharmacy gag clauses

SEC Issues Bulletin on Health Savings Accounts

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) issued Investor Bulletin: Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) that provides investors with information about HSAs. Although the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) primarily regulates HSAs, the SEC’s bulletin addresses the savings, investment, and distribution options that may be available to an HSA accountholder.

Question of the Month
Q. For a high deductible health plan (HDHP) to qualify for health savings account (HSA) eligibility, what is the minimum amount that an embedded individual deductible can be?

A. For 2018, the embedded individual deductible must be at least $2,700. For an HDHP to qualify for HSA eligibility, an individual with family coverage would need to satisfy the required minimum
annual deductible for family HDHP coverage (which is at least $2,700 for 2018) before any amounts are paid from the HDHP.

5/31/2018

Download the full recap here.


Compliance Recap April 2018

April was a busy month in the employee benefits world.

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) modified the 2018 health savings account (HSA) family contribution limit back to $6,900. The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL), U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and the Treasury released proposed frequently asked questions regarding mental health parity. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) released the 2019 parameters for the Medicare Part D prescription drug benefit, a 2019 Benefit and Payment Parameters final rule, a transitional policy extension for non-grandfathered coverage in the small group and individual health insurance markets, and an assignment schedule for new Medicare beneficiary identifiers. The IRS released frequently asked questions on the employer credit for paid family medical leave. The Congressional Research Service (CRS) published a summary of federal requirements that apply to the private health insurance market.

 

UBA Updates
UBA released one new advisor: 2019 Benefit and Payment Parameters Final Rule
UBA updated existing guidance: Sample Open Enrollment Notices Packet

 

IRS Changes 2018 HSA Family Contribution Limit
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) recently released Revenue Procedure 2018-27 to modify the 2018 health savings account (HSA) family contribution limit back to $6,900. This is the second, and likely final, change in limit during 2018. As background, in May 2017, the IRS released Revenue Procedure 2017-37 that set the 2018 HSA family contribution limit at $6,900.

However, in March 2018, the IRS released Revenue Procedure 2018-10 that adjusted the annual inflation factor for some tax-related formulas from the Consumer Price Index (CPI) to a new factor called a “chained CPI.” As a result, the 2018 HSA family contribution limit was lowered to $6,850 from $6,900, retroactively effective to January 1, 2018. Stakeholders informed the IRS that the lower HSA contribution limit would impose many unanticipated administrative and financial burdens. In response and in the best interest of sound and efficient tax administration, the IRS will allow taxpayers to treat the originally published $6,900 limit as the 2018 HSA family contribution limit.

Excess Contribution Tax Treatment if Employee Received Distribution Based on Earlier Limit

DOL, HHS, and Treasury Release Proposed FAQs on Mental Health Parity
The U.S. Departments of Labor (DOL), Health and Human Services (HHS), and the Treasury (collectively,
the “Departments”) released proposed FAQs About Mental Health and Substance Use Disorder Parity

Implementation and the 21st Century Cures Act Part XX.
The Departments respond to FAQs as part of implementing the Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici
Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 (MHPAEA).

Generally, the MHPAEA requires that the financial requirements (for example, coinsurance and copays)
and treatment limitations (for example, visit limits) imposed on mental health or substance abuse disorder
(MH/SUD) benefits cannot be more restrictive than the predominant financial requirements and treatment
limitations that apply to substantially all medical/surgical benefits in a class.

Similarly, a group health plan or issuer cannot impose a nonquantitative treatment limitation (NQTL) on
MH/SUD benefits that is more stringent than a comparable limitation that is applied to medical/surgical
benefits.

The MHPAEA regulations include express disclosure requirements. For example, if a participant requests
the criteria for medical necessity determinations regarding MH/SUD benefits, then the plan administrator
must make the information available to the participant.

To assist plan sponsors with disclosure requests, DOL released a revised draft Mental Health and
Substance Use Disorder Parity Disclosure Request that plan sponsors may provide to individuals who
request information from an employer-sponsored health plan regarding treatment limitations.

To assist plan sponsors in determining whether a group health plan complies with MHPAEA, the DOL
released its Self-Compliance Tool for the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act.

 

CMS Releases 2019 Parameters for Medicare Part D Prescription Drug Benefit
The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) released the following parameters for the defined
standard Medicare Part D prescription drug benefit for 2019:


Generally, group health plan sponsors must disclose to Part D eligibility individuals whether the
prescription drug coverage offered by the employer is creditable. Coverage is creditable if it, on average,
pays out at least as much as coverage available through the defined standard Medicare Part D
prescription drug plan.

 

CMS Issues 2019 Benefit and Payment Parameters Final Rule
The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) published its 2019 Benefit and Payment
Parameters final rule. The rule primarily affects the individual health insurance market inside and outside
of the Exchange, the small group health insurance market, issuers, and the states.

Within the rule, three items most directly affect employers and their group health plans:
• Maximum annual out-of-pocket limit on cost sharing for 2019
• New methods for changing state EHB-benchmark plans
• New requirements for employers and issuers participating in the Small Business Health Options
Program (SHOP) Marketplace

 

CMS Issues Transitional Policy Extension
The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) issued a bulletin extending its transitional policy.

As background, in November 2013, CMS announced a transitional policy for non-grandfathered coverage
in the small group and individual health insurance markets. Under its policy, health insurance issuers may
choose to continue certain coverage that would otherwise be cancelled because of noncompliance with
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) and Public Health Service Act (PHS Act). Further,
affected small businesses and individuals may choose to re-enroll in such coverage.

Under its policy, non-grandfathered health insurance coverage in the small group and individual health
insurance markets will not be considered to be out of compliance with the following ACA and PHS Act
market reforms if certain criteria are met:
• Fair health insurance premiums
• Guaranteed availability of coverage
• Guaranteed renewability of coverage
• Prohibition of pre-existing condition exclusions or other discrimination based on health status,
with respect to adults, except with respect to group coverage
• Prohibition of discrimination against individual participants and beneficiaries based on health
status), except with respect to group coverage
• Non-discrimination in health care
• Coverage for individuals participating in approved clinical trials
• Single risk pool requirement

Under CMS’ transitional policy, states may permit issuers that have renewed policies under the
transitional policy continually since 2014 to renew such coverage for a policy year starting on or before
October 1, 2019. However, any policies renewed under this transitional policy must not extend past
December 31, 2019.

 

CMS Starts Assigning New Medicare Beneficiary Identifiers
The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) started issuing new Medicare cards with a
Medicare Beneficiary Identifier (MBI) or Medicare number. The MBI will replace the Social Security
number-based Health Insurance Claim Number (HICN) for Medicare transactions such as billing, eligibility
status, and claim status.

New enrollees will be among the first to get these new cards. Current Medicare beneficiaries will get their
new cards on a rolling basis over the next few months.

Employers who are currently capturing the HICN for their active employee or retirees should update their
systems to accept the new MBIs.

 

IRS Releases FAQ on Employer Credit for Paid Family Medical Leave
The IRS released an FAQ that primarily reiterates the Tax Cuts an Jobs Act’s provisions that provide a
new federal credit for employers that provide paid family and medical leave to their employees.

The IRS explains that an employer must reduce its deduction for wages or salaries paid or incurred by the
amount determined as a credit. Also, any wages taken into account in determining any other general
business credit may not be used in determining this credit.

The IRS adds this definition of “paid family and medical leave” that, for purposes of the credit, includes
time off for:
• Birth of an employee’s child and to care for the child.
• Placement of a child with the employee for adoption or foster care
• To care for the employee’s spouse, child, or parent who has a serious health condition
• A serious health condition that makes the employee unable to perform the functions of his or
her position
• Any qualifying exigency due to an employee’s spouse, child, or parent being on covered active
duty (or having been notified of an impending call or order to covered active duty) in the Armed
Forces.
• To care for a service member who is the employee’s spouse, child, parent, or next of kin

The FAQ also explains that, in the future, the IRS intends to address:
• When the written policy must be in place
• How paid “family and medical leave” relates to an employer’s other paid leave
• How to determine whether an employee has been employed for “one year or more”
• The impact of state and local leave requirements
• Whether members of a controlled group of corporations and businesses under common control
are treated as a single taxpayer in determining the credit

 

CRS Publishes Federal Requirements on Private Health Insurance Plans
The Congressional Research Service (CRS) published Federal Requirements on Private Health
Insurance Plans, which summarizes federal requirements that apply to the private health insurance
market, including a table that indicates whether a particular federal requirement applies to a fully-insured
large group plan, fully-insured small group plan, self-funded plan, or individual coverage.

Question of the Month
Q. What are the penalties for failing to comply with Section 125 requirements, such as failing to follow a
cafeteria plan document’s terms?

A. An operational failure occurs when a plan fails to follow its cafeteria plan document’s terms. There are
several potential penalties for operational failures, including:
• Cafeteria plan disqualification
• Requiring the cafeteria plan to comply with Section 125 and its regulations, including reversing
transactions that caused noncompliance
• Imposing employment tax withholding liability and penalties on the employer regarding pre-tax
salary reductions and elective employer contributions
• Imposing employment and income tax liability and penalties on employees regarding pre-tax
salary reductions and elective employer contributions

5/15/2018

Download the full recap here.


Change to 2018 HSA Family Contribution Limit

Yesterday, the IRS released a bulletin that includes a change impacting contributions to Health Savings Accounts (HSAs).

 

  • The family maximum HSA contribution limit has decreased from $6,900 to $6,850.
  • This change is effective January 1, 2018 and for the entire 2018 calendar year.
  • The self-only maximum HSA contribution limit has not changed. 
  • This means that current 2018 HSA contribution limits are $3,450 (self-only) and $6,850 (family).

 

Why is the change happening so abruptly?

 

The IRS continues to make adjustments to accommodate the new tax law that passed at the end of 2017. Tax reform updates require the IRS to implement a modified method of calculating inflation-adjusted or cost-of-living-adjusted limits for 2018. The IRS is now using a different index (Chained Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers) to calculate benefit-related inflationary adjustments.

 

Typically, the IRS adjusts the HSA limits for inflation on an annual basis about six months before the start of the impacted year. For example, the IRS established the 2018 limits in May 2017. Today’s bulletin supersedes those limits.

Resource:

• IRS Bulletin IRB 2018-10March 5, 2018


HRL - White - House

Compliance Recap - January 2018

January was a busy month in the employee benefits world. On January 24, 2018, the U.S. Senate confirmed Alex Azar as the new Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) proposed regulations regarding association health plans. HHS released the 2018 federal poverty guidelines. The DOL issued updated civil monetary penalties for 2018 and announced the applicability date for final regulations regarding disability claims procedures. A U.S. District Court modified its order regarding the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's wellness regulations.

Congress and the President delayed the Cadillac tax's effective date, delayed the health insurance tax (HIT), and reauthorized the Children's Health Insurance Program. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) released its Employer's Tax Guide. HHS issued a proposed rule to protect conscience rights in health care and created a new Conscience and Religious Freedom Division within HHS' Office of Civil Rights.

UBA Updates

UBA released seven new advisors in January:

UBA updated existing guidance: 2018 Annual Benefit Plan Amounts

DOL Issues Proposed Regulations Regarding Association Health Plans

The U.S. Department of Labor's (DOL) Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA) issued a proposed rule which would broaden the definition of "employer" and the provisions under which an employer group or association may be treated as an "employer" sponsor of a single multiple-employer employee welfare benefit plan and group health plan under Title I of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).

The DOL posted 79 letters that were submitted as public comments as of January 31, 2018. The deadline for submitting public comments is March 6, 2018.

Read more about the proposed rule.

HHS Releases 2018 Federal Poverty Guidelines

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) released the 2018federal poverty guidelines (FPL). For a family / household of one in the contiguous United States, the FPL is $12,140. In Alaska the FPL is $15,180, and in Hawaii the FPL is $13,960.

For 2018, applicable large employers that wish to use the FPL affordability safe harbor under the employer shared responsibility / play-or-pay rules should ensure that their lowest employee-only premium is equal to or less than $96.72 a month, which is 9.56% of the 2018 FPL.

Civil Monetary Penalties Inflation Adjustment for 2018

The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) published its civil monetary penalties for 2018. Under federal law, the DOL is required to annually adjust its regulations' civil monetary penalties for inflation no later than January 15 of each year. The adjusted penalty amounts are effective for violations occurring after November 2, 2015, that have penalties assessed after January 2, 2018.

Below are some examples of the increases.

Description 2017 Penalty Amount 2018 Penalty Amount
Failure to file Form 5500 $2,097 per day $2,140 per day
Failure to provide the Summary of Benefits and Coverage (SBC) $1,105 $1,128
Failure to provide documents requested by the DOL $149 per day, not to exceed $1,496 per request $152 per day, not to exceed $1,527 per request
Failure to inform employees of children's health insurance program (CHIP) coverage opportunities; each employee is a separate violation $112 per day $114 per day

 

DOL Issues Final Disability Claims Procedures Regulations' Applicability Date

The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) announced that April 1, 2018, will be the applicability date for its rule that amends the claims procedure requirements of ERISA-covered employee benefit plans that provide disability benefits. The DOL'sFact Sheet contains a summary of the regulation's requirements.

U.S. District Court Modifies Order Regarding EEOC Wellness Rules

In August 2017, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia heldthat the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) failed to provide a reasoned explanation for its decision to adopt 30 percent incentive levels for employer-sponsored wellness programs under both the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) rules and Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) rules.

In December 2017, the court vacated the EEOC rules under the ADA and GINA effective January 1, 2019, and ordered the EEOC to promulgate any new proposed rules by August 31, 2018.

In January 2018, the EEOC asked the court to reconsider the portion of the court's order that required the EEOC to promulgate new proposed rules by August 31, 2018. The court vacated that portion of its order. The court's order to vacate the portions of the EEOC's wellness rules under the ADA and GINA as of January 1, 2019, remains.

Read more about the court's order.

Congress Delays Cadillac Tax Effective Date, Delays HIT Tax, and Reauthorizes CHIP

Congress and the President passed H.R. 195, a short-term spending bill. The bill delays the effective date of the excise tax on high cost employer-sponsored health coverage ("Cadillac tax") to 2022. The bill delays the health insurance tax (HIT) that applies to insurers. The HIT was in effect in 2014, 2015, and 2016, and will be in effect for 2018. Now the HIT will be delayed from 2019 to 2020; essentially, the bill implemented a one-year moratorium for the HIT for 2019. The bill also reauthorizes the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) for six years.

IRS Issues 2018 Employer's Tax Guide

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) issued its Publication 15 (Circular E) Employer's Tax Guide that discusses employers' tax responsibilities. The guide generally discusses health insurance plans, health savings accounts, and medical care reimbursement.

HHS Issues Proposed Rule to Protect Conscience Rights in Health Care

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) published a proposed rule titled "Protecting Statutory Conscience Rights in Health Care; Delegations of Authority."

HHS proposes this rule pursuant to President Trump's May 4, 2017, Executive Order 13798 "Promoting Free Speech and Religious Liberty" and the U.S. Attorney General's October 6, 2017, "Federal Law Protections for Religious Liberty"memorandum.

HHS proposes this rule to enhance awareness and enforcement of federal health care conscience laws and associated anti-discrimination laws, to further conscience and religious freedom, and to protect the right to abstain from certain activities related to health care services without discrimination or retaliation.

The rule cites several federal health care conscience laws and the activities that they protect, including:

·    The Church Amendments: conscience protections related to abortion and sterilization

·    The Coats-Snowe Amendment: conscience protections related to abortion, training, and accreditation

·    The Weldon Amendment: protections against discrimination for health care entities and individuals who do not further abortion or other services

·    HHS' 2011 final rule that enforces the Church, Coats-Snowe, and Weldon Amendments

·    The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2017: protections from discrimination for health care entities and individuals who object to furthering or participating in abortion under programs funded by HHS' annual appropriations

·    The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act: conscience protections related to assisted suicide, abortion, and the individual mandate to maintain minimum essential coverage

·    The Assisted Suicide Funding Restriction Act of 1997: protections for Medicare or Medicaid program providers and their employees from informing individuals about a right or service related to assisted suicide and from applying any advance directive term related to assisted suicide

·    Medicare and Medicaid: protection from being compelled to provide, reimburse for, or cover any counseling or referral service over a moral or religious objection

·    Global health program conscience and anti-discrimination protections

·    Exemptions from compulsory health care or services generally and under specific programs for hearing screening, occupational illness testing, suicide assessment or treatment services, vaccination, and mental health treatment

·    Conscience clauses related to religious nonmedical health care in Medicare, Medicaid, and the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP).

The proposed rule aims to revise the current regulatory framework of federal health care conscience protection statutes to a more robust regulatory framework similar to those that implement and enforce other civil rights laws.

To do so, the proposed rule would require written assurances and certifications of compliance with federal health care conscience and associated anti-discrimination laws as part of accepting federal financial assistance from HHS. The proposed rule would also require HHS and certain recipients to post a notice to the public, patients, and employees of their protections under the federal health care conscience and associated anti-discrimination statutes, including how to file a complaint with HHS' Office of Civil Rights (OCR). The proposed rule's Appendix A provides the notice's text. Further, the proposed rule would require recipients to report information about OCR investigation notices and compliance review letters to their applicable HHS funding source and to disclose complaints filed with OCR when applying for new or renewed federal financial assistance from HHS.

The proposed rule details OCR's authority to conduct outreach, provide technical assistance, initiate compliance reviews, receive and process complaints, and conduct investigations. The proposed rule grants OCR discretion to choose its means of enforcement, which will range from informal resolution to funding termination. The OCR may also refer cases to the U.S. Department of Justice for enforcement.

Public comments are due by March 27, 2018.

HHS Creates New Conscience and Religious Freedom Division

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced the new Conscience and Religious Freedom Division (CRFD) within HHS's Office of Civil Rights (OCR). According to HHS' press release, the CRFD will restore federal enforcement of laws that protect the rights of conscience and religious freedom. CFRD's website includes instructions on how to file a conscience or religious freedom complaint with OCR.

Question of the Month

Q. Can an employer exclude children from coverage based on a child's access to other coverage, employment status, or marital status?

A. No, if a group health plan provides dependent coverage, then the plan must generally make coverage available for children until age 26. These group health plans must not define dependent, for purposes of dependent coverage, in terms other than the relationship between the child and the plan participant.

This means that a plan cannot use items such as a child's access to other coverage, employment status, marital status, tax dependent status, residency, or student status to define dependent.

Also, if the employer is an applicable large employer, then it must offer coverage to its full-time employees' dependent children to avoid penalties under the employer shared responsibility provisions.


HRL - Employers - Happy

Court Modifies Order Regarding EEOC Wellness Rules

In August 2017, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia held that the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) failed to provide a reasoned explanation for its decision to adopt 30 percent incentive levels for employer-sponsored wellness programs under both the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) rules and Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) rules.

In January 2018, the EEOC asked the court to reconsider the portion of the court's order that required the EEOC to promulgate new proposed rules by August 31, 2018.

UBA has published a short Compliance Advisor on the impact of the rulings on employer wellness plans. The co-branded email and the Microsoft Word version can be downloaded from AdEase. Log in to AdEase from the Wisdom Network, then select Compliance > All Compliance - By Date to download.

Questions? Contact Danielle Capilla at dcapilla@ubabenefits.com or Karen Hsu at khsu@ubabenefits.com. If you need help with AdEase, contact Meg Cipar at mcipar@ubabenefits.com.


CHIP Renewed For Six Years As Congress Votes To Reopen Federal Government

President Donald Trump signed a bill Monday evening that would extend federal funding until Feb. 8, as well as fund the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) for the next six years. (Joyce N. Boghosian/White House)

A brief, partial shutdown of the federal government ended Monday, as the Senate and House approved legislation that would keep federal dollars flowing until Feb. 8, as well as fund the Children’s Health Insurance Program for the next six years.

President Donald Trump signed the bill Monday evening.

The CHIP program, which provides coverage to children in families who earn too much to qualify for Medicaid but not enough to afford private insurance, has been bipartisan since its inception in 1997. But its renewal became a partisan bargaining chip over the past several months.

Funding for CHIP technically expired Oct. 1, although a temporary spending bill in December gave the program $2.85 billion. That was supposed to carry states through March to maintain coverage for an estimated 9 million children, but some states began to run short almost as soon as that bill passed.

The Georgetown University Center for Children and Families estimated that 24 states could face CHIP funding shortfalls by the end of January, putting an estimated 1.7 million children’s coverage at risk in 21 of those states.

Meanwhile, both houses of Congress had been at loggerheads over how to put the program on firmer financial footing.

In October, just days after the program’s funding expired, the Senate Finance Committee approved a bipartisan five-year extension of funding by voice vote. But that bill did not include a way to pay the cost, then estimated at $8.2 billion.

In November, the House passed its own five-year funding bill for the program, but it was largely opposed by Democrats because it would have offset the CHIP funding by making cuts to Medicare and the Affordable Care Act (ACA).

The reason, explained CBO, is that the landmark tax bill passed in December eliminated the ACA’s individual mandate, which would likely drive up premiums in the individual market. Those higher premiums, in turn, would increase the federal premium subsidies for those with qualifying incomes. As a result, if kids were to lose their CHIP coverage and go onto the individual exchanges instead, the federal premium subsidies would cost more than their CHIP coverage.

Driving that point home, on Jan. 11, CBO Director Keith Hall wrote to Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) that renewing CHIP funding for 10 years rather than five would save the federal government money. “The agencies estimate that enacting such legislation would decrease the deficit by $6.0 billion over the 2018-2027 period,” the letter said.

That made it easier for Republicans to include the CHIP funding in the latest spending bill. But it infuriated Democrats, who had vowed not to vote for another short-term spending bill until Congress dealt with the issue of immigrant children brought to the country illegally by their parents.

Republicans, said Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) on Sunday, “were using the 10 million kids on CHIP, holding them as hostage for the 800,000 kids who were Dreamers. Kids against kids. Innocent kids against innocent kids. That’s no way to operate in this country.”

Republicans, however, said it was the opposite — that Democrats were holding CHIP hostage by not voting for the spending bill. “There is no reason for my colleagues to pit their righteous crusade on immigration against their righteous crusade for CHIP,” said Hatch. “This is simply a matter of priorities.”

The CHIP renewal was not the only health-related change in the temporary spending bill. The measure also delays the collection of several unpopular taxes that raise revenues to pay for the ACA’s benefits. The taxes being delayed include ones on medical device makers, health insurers and high-benefit “Cadillac” health plans.

The bill does not, however, extend funding for Community Health Centers, another bipartisan program whose funding is running out. That will have to wait for another bill.

Read the original article.

Source:
Rovner J. (22 January 2018). "CHIP Renewed For Six Years As Congress Votes To Reopen Federal Government" [Web blog post]. Retrieved from address https://khn.org/news/chip-renewed-for-six-years-as-congress-votes-to-reopen-federal-government/

SaveSaveSaveSaveSaveSave


IRS Reporting Tip 2: 2017 Plan Year Form 1094-C, Line 22

Just in: From UBA Benefits, get the IRS Reporting Tips for Form 1094-C, Line 22.


Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), individuals are required to have health insurance while applicable large employers (ALEs) are required to offer health benefits to their full-time employees.

In order for the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to verify that (1) individuals have the required minimum essential coverage, (2) individuals who request premium tax credits are entitled to them, and (3) ALEs are meeting their shared responsibility (play or pay) obligations, employers with 50 or more full-time or full-time equivalent employees and insurers are required to report on the health coverage they offer. Similarly, insurers and employers with less than 50 full time employees but that have a self-funded plan also have reporting obligations. All of this reporting is done on IRS Forms 1094-B, 1095-B, 1094-C and 1095-C.

Form 1094-C

Form 1094-C is used in combination with Form 1095-C to determine employer shared responsibility penalties. It is often referred to as the "transmittal form" or "cover sheet." IRS Form 1095-C will primarily be used to meet the Section 6056 reporting requirement, which relates to the employer shared responsibility/play or pay requirement. Information from Form 1095-C will also be used in determining whether an individual is eligible for a premium tax credit.

Form 1094-C contains information about the ALE, and is how an employer identifies as being part of a controlled group. It also has a section labeled "Certifications of Eligibility" and instructs employers to "select all that apply" with four boxes that can be checked. The section is often referred to as the "Line 22" question or boxes. Many employers find this section confusing and are unsure what, if any, boxes they should select. The boxes are labeled:

A. Qualifying Offer Method
B. Reserved
C. Reserved
D. 98% Offer Method

Qualifying Offer Method

The instructions provide the following definition to explain the qualifying offer method.

Check this box if the ALE Member is eligible to use and is using the Qualifying Offer Method to report the information on Form 1095-C for one or more full-time employees. Under the Qualifying Offer Method there is an alternative method of completing Form 1095-C and an alternative method for furnishing Form 1095-C to certain employees. If the ALE Member is using either of these alternative rules, check this box. To be eligible to use the Qualifying Offer Method, the ALE Member must certify that it made a Qualifying Offer to one or more of its full-time employees for all months during the year in which the employee was a full-time employee for whom an employer shared responsibility payment could apply. Additional requirements described below must be met to be eligible to use the alternative method for furnishing Form 1095-C to employees under the Qualifying Offer Method.

This means that, if an employer used code 1A for any employee on Line 14 of its 1095-C form, the employer should check Box A. Code 1A is only used by employers who offered minimum value, minimum essential coverage to a full-time employee, and the coverage meets the federal poverty level safe harbor.

It cannot be used for minimum value, minimum essential coverage that meets either the W-2 or rate of pay safe harbor.

98% Offer Method

An employer meets the requirements of the 98% Offer Method if it offers affordable, minimum value coverage to at least 98 percent of its total employees for whom it is filing a Form 1095-C (regardless of whether they are full-time or part-time). This means that the employer does not need to report whether an employee is full time and it does not need to provide a count of its full-time employees. If the employer meets the requirements of the 98% Offer Method, it should check Box D.

However, the employer will still need to provide Form 1095-C to each of its employees, which includes all of the other information required, and if an employee requests a premium tax credit, it will need to respond to an IRS inquiry about the employee's work and coverage status. Employers that anticipate difficulties reporting full-time employees (excluding those in waiting periods) may find this option helpful.

If an employer selects Box D, it does not need to complete Part III Column (b) of the 1094-C.

The IRS provides the following example for the 98% offer method:

Employer has 325 employees. Of those 325 employees, Employer identifies 25 employees as not possibly being full-time employees because they are scheduled to work 10 hours per week and are not eligible for additional hours. Of the remaining 300 employees, 295 are offered affordable minimum value coverage for all periods during which they are employed other than any applicable waiting period (which qualifies as a Limited Non-Assessment Period). Employer files a Form 1095-C for each of the 300 employees (excluding the 25 employees that it identified as not possibly being full-time employees). Employer may use the 98% Offer Method because it makes an affordable offer of coverage that provides minimum value to at least 98% of the employees for whom Employer files a Form 1095-C. Using this method, Employer does not identify whether each of the 300 employees is a full-time employee. However, Employer must still file a Form 1095-C for all of its full-time employees. Employer chooses to file a Form 1095-C on behalf of all 300 employees, including the five employees to whom it did not offer coverage, because if one or more of those employees was, in fact, a full-time employee for one or more months of the calendar year, Employer would be required to have filed a Form 1095-C on behalf of those employees.

Reserved Code B (formerly, Qualifying Offer Method Transition Relief)

This box is not applicable in 2017. In 2015, the instructions provided the following definition to explain the qualifying offer method transition relief.

Check this box if the employer is eligible for and is using the Qualifying Offer Method Transition Relief for the 2015 calendar year to report information on Form 1095-C for one or more full-time employees. To be eligible to use the Qualifying Offer Method Transition Relief, the employer must certify that it made a Qualifying Offer for one or more months of calendar year 2015 to at least 95% of its full-time employees. For this purpose, an employee in a Limited Non-Assessment Period is not included in the 95% calculation.

This transition relief has expired, and is no longer available to employers regardless of size or their plan years. No employer should select Box B, which is now reserved for future use.

Reserved Code C (formerly Section 4980H Transition Relief)

This box is not applicable in 2017. In 2015 and 2016, Box C was used to inform the government that an employer is entitled to one of two forms of transition relieffor its 2015 plan year:

1.     Midsize Employer Transition Relief (only available to employers with 50 to 99 employees who meet the maintenance requirements of transition relief)

2.     Relief when Calculating Assessable Penalties (only available to employers with 100 or more employees)

Conclusion

Different real-world situations will lead an employer to select any combination of boxes on Line 22, including leaving all four boxes blank. Practically speaking, only employers who met the requirements of using code 1A on Form 1095-C or who offered coverage to virtually all employees will check any of the boxes on Line 22. Notably, employers who do not use the federal poverty level safe harbor for affordability will never select Box A, and corresponding with that, will never use codes 1A or 1I on Line 14 of a Form 1095-C.