GOP Health Care Bill Would Cut About $765 Billion In Taxes Over 10 Years

The passing of the American Health Care Act means there will be a new taxes associated with healthcare. Find out in this article by Scott Horsley and see how this change in legislation will impact you.

The health care bill passed by the House on Thursday is a win for the wealthy, in terms of taxes.

While the Affordable Care Act raised taxes on the rich to subsidize health insurance for the poor, the repeal-and-replace bill passed by House Republicans would redistribute hundreds of billions of dollars in the opposite direction. It would deliver a sizable tax cut to the rich, while reducing government subsidies for Medicaid recipients and those buying coverage on the individual market.

Tax hikes reversed

The Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, is funded in part through higher taxes on the rich, including a 3.8 percent tax on investment income and a 0.9 percent payroll tax. Both of these taxes apply only to people earning more than $200,000 (or couples making more than $250,000). The GOP replacement bill would eliminate these taxes, although the latest version leaves the payroll tax in place through 2023.

The House bill would also repeal the tax penalty for those who fail to buy insurance as well as various taxes on insurance companies, drug companies and medical device makers. The GOP bill also delays the so-called "Cadillac tax" on high-end insurance policies from 2020 to 2025.

All told, the bill would cut taxes by about $765 billion over the next decade.

The lion's share of the tax savings would go to the wealthy and very wealthy. According to the Tax Policy Center, the top 20 percent of earners would receive 64 percent of the savings and the top 1 percent of earners (those making more than $772,000 in 2022) would receive 40 percent of the savings.

Help for the poor reduced

Over time, the GOP bill would limit the federal contribution to Medicaid, while shifting control of the program to states. Depending on what happens to costs, states may be forced to provide skimpier coverage, reduce their Medicaid rolls, or both. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that an earlier version of the bill would leave about 14 million fewer people covered by Medicaid by 2026. (The House voted on the current bill without an updated CBO report.)

CBO also anticipated fewer people would buy insurance through the individual market. With no tax penalty for going without coverage, some people would voluntarily stop buying insurance. Others would find coverage prohibitively expensive, as a result of changing rules governing insurance pricing and subsidies.

The GOP bill would allow insurance companies to charge older customers up to five times more than younger customers — up from a maximum 3-to-1 ratio under the current health law. The maximum subsidy for older customers in the GOP plan, however, is only twice what is offered to the young.

The bill also allows insurance companies to offer more bare-bones policies. As a result, young, healthy people could find more affordable coverage options. But older, sicker people would likely have to pay more.

In addition, because the subsidies offered in the Republican plan don't vary with local insurance prices the way subsidies do in Obamacare, residents of high-cost, rural areas would also suffer. That could include a large number of Trump voters.

See the original article Here.

Source:

Horsley (2017 May 4). GOP health care bill would cut about $765 billion in taxes over 10 years [Web blog post]. Retrieved from address http://www.npr.org/2017/05/04/526923181/gop-health-care-bill-would-cut-about-765-billion-in-taxes-over-10-years


Section 105(h) Nondiscrimination Testing

Under Internal Revenue Code Section 105(h), a self-insured medical reimbursement plan must pass two nondiscrimination tests. Failure to pass either test means that the favorable tax treatment for highly compensated individuals who participate in the plan will be lost. The Section 105(h) rules only affect whether reimbursement (including payments to health care providers) under a self-insured plan is taxable.

When Section 105(h) was enacted, its nondiscrimination testing applied solely to self-insured plans. Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), Section 105(h) also applies to fully-insured, non-grandfathered plans. However, in late 2010, the government delayed enforcement of Section 105(h) against fully-insured, non-grandfathered plans until the first plan year beginning after regulations are issued. To date, no regulations have been issued so there is currently no penalty for noncompliance.

Practically speaking, if a plan treats all employees the same, then it is unlikely that the plan will fail Section 105(h) nondiscrimination testing.

What Is a Self-Insured Medical Reimbursement Plan?

Section 105(h) applies to a “self-insured medical reimbursement plan,” which is an employer plan to reimburse employees for medical care expenses listed under Code Section 213(d) for which reimbursement is not provided under a policy of accident or health insurance.

Common self-insured medical reimbursement plans are self-funded major medical plans, health reimbursement arrangements (HRAs), and medical expense reimbursement plans (MERPs). Many employers who sponsor an insured plan may also have a self-insured plan; that self-insured plan is subject to the Section 105 non-discrimination rules. For example, many employers offer a fully insured major medical plan that is integrated with an HRA to reimburse expenses incurred before a participant meets the plan deductible.

What If the Self-Insured Medical Reimbursement Plan Is Offered Under a Cafeteria Plan?

A self-insured medical reimbursement plan (self-insured plan) can be offered outside of a cafeteria plan or under a cafeteria plan. Section 105(h) nondiscrimination testing applies in both cases.

Regardless of grandfathered status, if the self-insured plan is offered under a cafeteria plan and allows employees to pay premiums on a pre-tax basis, then the plan is still subject to the Section 125

nondiscrimination rules. The cafeteria plan rules affect whether contributions are taxable; if contributions are taxable, then the Section 105(h) rules do not apply.

What Is the Purpose of Nondiscrimination Testing?

Congress permits self-insured medical reimbursement plans to provide tax-free benefits. However, Congress wanted employers to provide these tax-free benefits to their regular employees, not just to their executives. Nondiscrimination testing is designed to encourage employers to provide benefits to their employees in a way that does not discriminate in favor of employees who are highly paid or high ranking.

If a plan fails the nondiscrimination testing, the regular employees will not lose the tax benefits of the self-insured medical reimbursement plan and the plan will not be invalidated. However, highly paid or high ranking employees may be adversely affected if the plan fails testing.

What Are the Two Nondiscrimination Tests?

The two nondiscrimination tests are the Eligibility Test and Benefits Test.

The Eligibility Test answers the basic question of whether there are enough regular employees benefitting from the plan. Section 105(h) provides three ways of passing the Eligibility Test:

  1. The 70% Test – 70 percent or more of all employees benefit under the plan.
  2. The 70% / 80% Test – At least 70% of employees are eligible under the plan and at least 80% or more of those eligible employees participate in the plan.
  3. The Nondiscriminatory Classification Test – Employees qualify for the plan under a classification set up by the employer that is found by the IRS not to be discriminatory in favor of highly compensated individuals.

The Benefits Test answers the basic question of whether all participants are eligible for the same benefits.

Definition of Terms in the Nondiscrimination Tests

A highly compensated individual (HCI) is an individual who is:

  • One of the five highest-paid officers
  • A shareholder who owns more than 10 percent of the value of stock of the employer’s stock
  • Among the highest-paid 25 percent of all employees (other than excludable employees who are not participants)

Under Section 105(h), an employee’s compensation level is determined based on the employee’s compensation for the plan year. Fiscal year plans may determine employee compensation based on the calendar year ending within the plan year. Only current year compensation may be used to determine compensation levels.

For shareholder stock ownership, Section 318 constructive ownership rules apply. Per the attribution rules, a spouse is deemed to own the interest held by the other spouse. Also, an employee is deemed to own the ownership interest of the employee’s parents, children, and grandchildren. Further, a person with an option to buy stock is considered to own the stock subject to that option and a shareholder who owns 50 percent of more of a corporation is deemed to own a proportionate share of stock owned by the corporation.

Section 105(h) also defines excludable employees. The following employees may be excluded from the highest-paid 25 percent of all employees, unless they are eligible to participate in the plan:

  • Employees who have less than three years of service
  • Employees who are not 25 years old
  • Part-time employees (defined as customary weekly employment of less than 35 hours) or seasonal employees (defined as customary annual employment of less than 9 months)
  • Collectively bargained employees
  • Nonresident aliens who receive no earned income from U.S. sources

Exclusions should be applied uniformly. Employees in excludable categories should not be excluded during testing if the employees are eligible under the plan.

How Are the Tests Applied?

The Eligibility Test

All three of the alternative eligibility tests discuss who benefits under the plan. Although the Eligibility Test’s name implies that it looks at eligibility, the more cautious interpretation is that an employee must have elected coverage or have been provided with free coverage by plan design for the employee to benefit under the plan. For purposes of Section 105(h), an employee benefits from the plan when the employee actually participates in the plan.

A self-insured plan must pass one of the following three tests to pass the Eligibility Test:

  1. 70% Test: A self-insured plan passes the Eligibility Test if 70 percent or more of all employees participate in the plan.
  2. 70% / 80% Test: A self-insured plan passes the Eligibility Test if at least 70 percent of employees are eligible under the plan and at least 80 percent or more of those eligible employees participate in the plan.
  3. Nondiscriminatory Classification Test: A self-insured plan passes the Eligibility Test if it demonstrates that the plan benefits employees who qualify under a classification set up by the employer and found by the IRS not to be discriminatory in favor of highly compensated individuals.

To determine whether a self-insured plan passes the Nondiscriminatory Classification Test, the IRS will look at the facts and circumstances of each case, applying the standards of Section 410(b)(1)(B) that apply to tax-preferred retirement plans. If an employer must rely on the Nondiscriminatory Classification Test to pass the Eligibility Test, then the employer should consult with its attorney or tax professional about running the nondiscriminatory classification test because it is complicated to apply.

then the employer should consult with its attorney or tax professional about running the nondiscriminatory classification test because it is complicated to apply.

Although Section 105(h) is not clear on the exact process for conducting the Nondiscriminatory Classification Test, the plan may rely on the Section 410(b) regulations’ current nondiscriminatory classification test. Under the test, a classification is not discriminatory if it satisfies either the Safe Harbor Percentage Test or the Facts and Circumstances Test.

Safe Harbor Percentage Test. To meet the Safe Harbor Percentage Test, a plan’s ratio percentage must be equal to or greater than the applicable safe harbor percentage. If the plan’s ratio percentage is 50 percent of more, then the plan passes the Safe Harbor Percentage Test. If the plan’s ratio percentage is less than 50 percent, the plan might pass if the ratio percentage exceeds the safe harbor percentage found in the IRS’ Nondiscriminatory Classification Table below.

The plan’s ratio percentage is determined by dividing the percentage of non-highly compensated individuals who benefit under the plan by the percentage of highly compensated individuals who benefit under the plan.

The plan’s non-highly compensated individuals concentration percentage is the percentage of all employees who are non-highly compensated individuals.

Nondiscriminatory Classification Table

Non-HCI Concentration Percentage Safe Harbor Percentage Unsafe Harbor Percentage Non-HCI Concentration Percentage Safe Harbor Percentage Unsafe Harbor Percentage
0-60 50.00 40.00 80 35.00 25.00
61 49.25 39.25 81 34.25 24.25
62 48.50 38.50 82 33.50 23.50
63 47.75 37.75 83 32.75 22.75
64 47.00 37.00 84 32.00 22.00
65 46.25 36.25 85 31.25 21.25
66 45.50 35.50 86 30.50 20.50
67 44.75 34.75 87 29.75 20.00
68 44.00 34.00 88 29.00 20.00
69 43.25 33.25 89 28.25 20.00
70 42.50 32.50 90 27.50 20.00
71 41.75 31.75 91 26.75 20.00
72 41.00 31.00 92 26.00 20.00
73 40.25 30.25 93 25.25 20.00
74 39.50 29.50 94 24.50 20.00
75 38.75 28.75 95 23.75 20.00
76 38.00 28.00 96 23.00 20.00
77 37.25 27.25 97 22.25 20.00
78 36.50 26.50 98 21.50 20.00
79 35.75 25.75 99 20.75 20.00

If the plan’s ratio percentage is equal or greater than the safe harbor percentage, then the plan’s employee classification meets the safe harbor and is nondiscriminatory.

Facts and Circumstances Test. If the plan fails the Safe Harbor Percentage Test, then the plan would apply the Facts and Circumstances Test. To pass the Facts and Circumstances Test, the plan’s ratio percentage must be greater than or equal to the corresponding unsafe harbor percentage in the chart above.

Also, the IRS must find the classification to be nondiscriminatory based on all the relevant facts and circumstances. No one single factor will be dispositive; here are some of the facts that the IRS will consider:

  • The underlying business reason for the classification.
  • The percentage of the employer’s employees benefiting under the plan.
  • Whether the number of employees benefitting under the plan in each salary range is representative of the number of employees in each salary range of the employer’s workforce.
  • The difference between the plan’s ratio percentage and the safe harbor percentage.

The Benefits Test

To pass the Benefits Test, all benefits provided to highly compensated individuals who are participating in the plan must be provided to all other participants. Also, all benefits available for highly compensated individuals’ dependents must also be available on the same basis for all non-highly compensated participants’ dependents.

Essentially, the Benefits Test requires a plan to have no facial discrimination and no discrimination in its operation.

To have no discriminatory benefits on its face, the plan must have the following features:

  • Required employee contributions must be identical for each benefit level.
  • The maximum benefit level cannot vary based on a participant’s age, years of service, or compensation.
  • All benefits provided for participants who are highly compensated individuals are provided for all other participants.
  • Disparate waiting periods cannot be imposed for highly compensated individuals and non-highly compensated participants.

To have no discriminatory benefits in operation, the plan must not discriminate in favor of highly compensated individuals in actual operation; this is a facts and circumstances determination that looks to see if “the duration of a particular benefit coincides with the period during which [a highly compensated individual] utilizes the benefit.”

When to Test

Section 105(h) and its regulations do not specify when nondiscrimination testing must be done. However, for highly compensated individuals to retain favorable tax treatment, the self-insured plan must satisfy the tests for a plan year.

As a best practice, the employer should test prior to the beginning of the plan year, several months before the end of the plan year, and after the close of the plan year. Testing before and during the plan year will allow the plan sponsor to potentially make election or plan design changes to correct testing problems. The nondiscrimination tests cannot be satisfied by corrections made after the end of the plan year. The employer should keep a record of its test results.

Consequences of Failing the Nondiscrimination Tests

If the plan fails the nondiscrimination tests, then highly compensated individuals’ excess reimbursements will be taxable. If the plan is discriminatory, then non-highly compensated individuals will not lose their tax benefits and the plan will not lose its status as a valid Section 105 plan.

Amounts that are excess reimbursement are includable in a highly compensated individual’s income; the excess reimbursement calculation varies based on whether the benefits were paid to highly compensated individuals due to either discriminatory coverage for failing to meet the Eligibility Test, or discriminatory benefits for failing to meet the Benefits Test.

If a self-insured plan fails to meet the Eligibility Test and provides discriminatory coverage, the amount of the excess reimbursement is calculated as:

Total amount of reimbursement to the highly compensated individual X Total benefits paid during the plan year for all highly compensated individuals = The dollar amount to be included in the highly compensated individual’s income
Total benefits paid during the plan year for all participants

If a self-insured plan fails to meet the Benefits Test and provides discriminatory benefits, the amount of the excess reimbursement is the amount reimbursed to that highly compensated individual for the discriminatory benefit.

If the benefit was only available to a highly compensated individual and not to other participants, then the total amount reimbursed to that highly compensated individual for that benefit will be included in that individual’s gross income.

If the benefit is available to non-highly compensated individuals but it is a lesser benefit, then the amount available to the highly compensated individual is offset by the amounts available to the non-highly compensated individuals.

A pro rata share of the discriminatory coverage or discriminatory benefit will be taxable when coverage is partially paid with employee after-tax contributions and partially paid with employer contributions.

If a self-insured plan fails to meet both the Eligibility Test and the Benefits Test, the excess reimbursement is calculated by first applying the Benefits Test. Then the amount of excess reimbursement under the Benefits Test is subtracted from the numerator and dominator when the Eligibility Test is calculated.

The regulations provide six excess reimbursement examples, found here in the Appendix to this Advisor.

Reporting Discriminatory Amounts

If a self-insured plan discriminates in favor of highly compensated individuals, the employer should include the excess reimbursement in the highly compensated individual’s gross income and report the income in Box 1 of Form W-2. The amounts should not be reported in Box 3 or Box 5 of Form W-2 because the amounts are not considered wages for FICA or FUTA withholding.

Plan Design Considerations

Plan sponsors should be cautious of plan designs that create separate plans for different employee groups or that do not cover all employees, create different eligibility requirements for different groups of employees, or base employer contributions or benefits on employees’ years of service or compensation level.

Appendix: Excess Reimbursement Examples

Example 1

Corporation M maintains a self-insured medical reimbursement plan which covers all employees. The plan provides the following maximum limits on the amount of benefits subject to reimbursement: $5,000 for officers and $1,000 for all other participants. During a plan year Employee A, one of the 5 highest paid officers, received reimbursements in the amount of $4,000. Because the amount of benefits provided for highly compensated individuals is not provided for all other participants, the plan benefits are discriminatory. Accordingly, Employee A received an excess reimbursement of $3,000 ($4,000−$1,000) which constitutes a benefit available to highly compensated individuals, but not to all other participants.

Example 2

Corporation N maintains a self-insured medical reimbursement plan which covers all employees. The plan provides a broad range of medical benefits subject to reimbursement for all participants. However, only the 5 highest paid officers are entitled to dental benefits. During the plan year Employee B, one of the 5 highest paid officers, received dental payments under the plan in the amount of $300. Because dental benefits are provided for highly compensated individuals, and not for all other participants, the plan discriminates as to benefits. Accordingly, Employee B received an excess reimbursement in the amount of $300.

Example 3

Corporation O maintains a self-insured medical reimbursement plan which discriminates as to eligibility by covering only the highest paid 40% of all employees. Benefits subject to reimbursement under the plan are the same for all participants. During a plan year Employee C, a highly compensated individual, received benefits in the amount of $1,000. The amount of excess reimbursement paid Employee C during the plan year will be calculated by multiplying the $1,000 by a fraction determined under subparagraph (3) [of 26 CFR 1.105-11].

Example 4

Corporation P maintains a self-insured medical reimbursement plan for its employees. Benefits subject to reimbursement under the plan are the same for all plan participants. However, the plan fails the eligibility tests of section 105(h)(3)(A) and thereby discriminates as to eligibility. During the 1980 plan year Employee D, a highly compensated individual, was hospitalized for surgery and incurred medical expenses of $4,500 which were reimbursed to D under the plan. During that plan year the Corporation P medical plan paid $50,000 in benefits under the plan, $30,000 of which constituted benefits paid to highly compensated individuals. The amount of excess reimbursement not excludable by D under section 105(b) is $2,700:

$4,500 x ($30,000 ¸ $50,000)

Example 5

Corporation Q maintains a self-insured medical reimbursement plan for its employees. The plan provides a broad range of medical benefits subject to reimbursement for participants. However, only the five highest paid officers are entitled to dental benefits. In addition, the plan fails the eligibility test of section 105(h)(3)(A) and thereby discriminates as to eligibility. During the calendar 1981 plan year, Employee E, a highly compensated individual, received dental benefits under the plan in the amount of $300, and no other employee received dental benefits. In addition, Employee E was hospitalized for surgery and incurred medical expenses, reimbursement for which was available to all participants, of $4,500 which were reimbursed to E under the plan. Because dental benefits are only provided for highly compensated individuals, Employee E received an excess reimbursement under paragraph (e)(2) above in the amount of $300. For the 1981 plan year, the Corporation Q medical plan paid $50,300 in total benefits under the plan, $30,300 of which constituted benefits paid to highly compensated individuals. In computing the fraction under paragraph (e)(3) [of 26 CFR 1.105-11], discriminatory benefits described in paragraph (e)(2) are not taken into account. Therefore, the amount of excess reimbursement not excludable to Employee E with respect to the $4,500 of medical expenses incurred is $2,700:

$4,500 x ($30,000 ¸ $50,000)

and the total amount of excess reimbursements includable in E's income for 1981 is $3,000.

Example 6

(i) Corporation R maintains a calendar year self-insured medical reimbursement plan which covers all employees. The type of benefits subject to reimbursement under the plan include all medical care expenses as defined in section 213(e). The amount of reimbursement available to any employee for any calendar year is limited to 5 percent of the compensation paid to each employee during the calendar year. The amount of compensation and reimbursement paid to Employees A-F for the calendar year is as follows:

Employee Compensation Reimbursable amount paid
A $100,000 $5,000
B 25,000 1,250
C 15,000 750
D 10,000 500
E 10,000 500
F 8,000 400
Total $8,400

 

(ii) Because the amount of benefits subject to reimbursement under the plan is in proportion to employee compensation the plan discriminates as to benefits. In addition, Employees A and B are highly compensated individuals. The amount of excess reimbursement paid Employees A and B during the plan year will be determined under paragraph (e)(2) [of 26 CFR 1.105-11]. Because benefits in excess of $400 (Employee F's maximum benefit) are provided for highly compensated individuals and not for all other participants, Employees A and B received, respectively, an excess reimbursement of $4,600 and $850.

To download the full compliance alert click Here.


Compliance Recap April 2017

Make sure to stay up-to-date with the most recent rules and regulations from April regarding healthcare legislation thanks to our partners at United Benefit Advisors (UBA).

In April, government agencies ramped up their activities by issuing a final rule, updating guidance, and announcing increased Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) enforcement.

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) updated its webpage that summarizes employer shared responsibilities payments and their calculation. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) released its ACA Market Stabilization Final Rule and its 2018 Medicare Part D Benefit Parameters. The Treasury Inspector General released its report on the IRS' processing of Forms 1094-C and 1095-C.

The IRS released an information letter on HSA ineligibility due to Medicare entitlement. HHS' Office of Civil Rights (OCR) released guidance on electronic protected health information (ePHI) attacks. The Department of Labor (DOL) released its annual report on self-insured group health plans. The Congressional Research Services updated its Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) Resources for FAQs.

UBA Updates

UBA released two new advisors in April:

·         ACA Market Stabilization Final Rule

·         Section 105(h) Nondiscrimination Testing

IRS Updates Its Webpage on Employer Payments and Calculations

On April 6, 2017, the IRS updated its webpage on Types of Employer Payments and How They are Calculated. It provides a summary of the employer shared responsibility provisions, the penalties amounts adjusted for calendar year 2017, examples of employer liability, and description of the IRS' process for assessing and collecting the employer shared responsibility payment.

CMS Releases Its ACA Market Stabilization Final Rule

On April 18, 2017, CMS issued its final rule regarding ACA market stabilization. The regulations are effective on June 17, 2017.

The rule amends standards relating to special enrollment periods, guaranteed availability, and the timing of the annual open enrollment period in the individual market for the 2018 plan year, standards related to network adequacy and essential community providers for qualified health plans, and the rules around actuarial value requirements.

The changes primarily affect the individual market. However, to the extent that employers have fully-insured plans, some of the changes will affect those employers' plans because the changes affect standards that apply to issuers.

Read more about the final rule.

CMS Releases Its 2018 Medicare Part D Benefit Parameters

On April 3, 2017, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) released its Announcement of Calendar Year (CY) 2018 Medicare Advantage Capitation Rates and Medicare Advantage and Part D Payment Policies and Final Call Letter and Request for Information.

Most group health plan sponsors offering prescription drug coverage to Part D eligible individuals must disclose whether the plan is creditable or non-creditable. For coverage to be creditable, the coverage's actuarial value must equal or exceed the actuarial value of the standard Medicare prescription drug coverage. Practically speaking, coverage is creditable if it's at least as good as standard Medicare prescription drug coverage.

Group health plan sponsors will use the parameters below to determine whether their plans' prescription drug coverage is creditable for 2018:

Part D Benefit Parameters -- Standard Benefit 2017 2018
Deductible $400.00 $405.00
Initial Coverage Limit $3,700.00 $3,750.00
Out-of-Pocket Threshold $4,950.00 $5,000.00
Total Covered Part D Spending at Out-of-Pocket Threshold for Non-Applicable Beneficiaries $7,425.00 $7,508.75
Estimated Total Covered Part D Spending for Applicable Beneficiaries $8,071.16 $8,417.60
Minimum Cost-Sharing in Catastrophic Coverage Portion of the Benefit    
    Generic $3.30 $3.35
    Other $8.25 $8.35

Treasury Inspector General Releases Report on IRS' Processing of Forms 1094-C and 1095-C

On April 7, 2017, the U.S. Department of the Treasury Inspector General released its Affordable Care Act: Efforts to Implement the Employer Shared Responsibility Provision that describes the results of its audit of the IRS' preparations for ensuring compliance with the Employer Shared Responsibility Provisions and its related information reporting requirements.

The Inspector General determined that some of the IRS' processes and procedures do not function as intended. As a result, the IRS has been unable to accurately and completely identify noncompliant employers who are potentially subject to the employer shared responsibility payment, unable to process paper information returns timely and accurately, and unable to identify validation errors correctly. Further, the IRS' implementation of a post-filing compliance validation system is being delayed until May 2017.

IRS Releases Information Letter on HSA Ineligibility Due to Medicare Entitlement

The IRS issued Letter 2017-0003 that explains the consequences of health savings account (HSA) ineligibility due to Medicare entitlement. Under the facts, an employee retired and enrolled in Medicare Parts A and B. Later, the employee resumed working and enrolled in the employer's health plan and was provided with an HSA.

The IRS determined that the employee never had a valid HSA because the employee's Medicare enrollment disqualified him from establishing an HSA. Per the IRS, the employee must withdraw the funds from his account and include them in his income; the withdrawal is not subject to a fine.

HHS OCR Releases Guidance About Man-in-the-Middle Attacks on ePHI

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office for Civil Rights (OCR) issued its Man-in-the Middle Attacks and "HTTPS Inspection Products"guidance. The OCR warns organizations that have implemented end-to-end connection security on their internet connections using Secure Hypertext Transport Protocol (HTTPS) about using HTTPS interception products to detect malware over an HTTPS connection because the HTTPS interception products may leave the organization vulnerable to man-in-the-middle (MITM) attacks. In an MITM attack, a third party intercepts internet communications between two parties; in some instances, the third party may modify the information or alter the communication by injecting malicious code.

OCR provides a partial list of products that may be affected. Also, OCR provides a method that organizations can use to determine if their HTTPS interception product properly validates certificates and prevents connections to sites using weak cryptography.

OCR emphasized that covered entities and business associates must consider the risks presented to the electronic protected health information (ePHI) transmitted over HTTPS. Further, OCR encouraged covered entities and business associates to review OCR's recommendations for valid encryption processes to ensure that ePHI is not unsecured and the U.S. Computer Emergency Readiness Team's recommendations on protecting internet communications and preventing MITM attacks.

DOL Releases Its Annual Report to Congress on Self-Insured Group Health Plans

The Department of Labor (DOL) released its Report to Congress - Annual Report on Self-Insured Group Health Plans. The report provides statistics on self-insured employee health benefit plans and financial status of employers that sponsor such plans. The report uses data from the Form 5500 that many self-insured health plans are required to file annually with the DOL.

Congressional Research Services Updates Its ACA Resources for FAQs

On April 3, 2017, the Congressional Research Service updated its Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA): Resources for Frequently Asked Questions. The report lists contacts for questions about employer-based coverage and sources on taxes, congressional efforts to repeal or amend the ACA, ACA agency audits and investigations, insurance coverage statistics, and legal issues.

Question of the Month

Q. Under what circumstances do HIPAA's breach notification requirements not apply when a breach of protected health information (PHI) occurs?

A. Generally, breach notification must be provided when a breach of unsecuredPHI is discovered. HHS provides only two methods of creating "secured PHI" that would not be subject to the notification requirements if there is a breach:

·         Encryption

·         Destruction

This means that if PHI/ePHI is encrypted or destroyed and a breach occurs, HIPAA's notification requirements are not triggered.

To download the full compliance recap click Here.


The 10 Biggest 401(k) Plan Misconceptions

Do you know everything you need to know about your 401(k)? Check out this great article from Employee Benefit News about the top 10 misconceptions people have about their 401(k)s by Robert C. Lawton.

Unfortunately for plan sponsors, 401(k) plan participants have some big misconceptions about their retirement plan.

Having worked as a 401(k) plan consultant for more than 30 years with some of the most prestigious companies in the world — including Apple, AT&T, IBM, John Deere, Northern Trust, Northwestern Mutual — I’m always surprised by the simple but significant 401(k) plan misconceptions many plan participants have. Following are the most common and noteworthy —all of which employers need to help employees address.

1. I only need to contribute up to the maximum company match

Many participants believe that their company is sending them a message on how much they should contribute. As a result, they only contribute up to the maximum matched contribution percentage. In most plans, that works out to be only 6% in employee contributions. Many studies have indicated that participants need to average at least 15% in contributions each year. To dispel this misperception, and motivate participants to contribute something closer to what they should, plan sponsors should consider stretching their matching contribution.

2. It’s OK to take a participant loan

I have had many participants tell me, “If this were a bad thing why would the company let me do it?” Account leakage via defaulted loans is one of the reasons why some participants never save enough for retirement. In addition, taking a participant loan is a horribleinvestment strategy. Plan participants should first explore taking a home equity loan, where the interest is tax deductible. Plan sponsors should consider curtailing or eliminating their loan provisions.

3. Rolling a 401(k) account into an IRA is a good idea

There are many investment advisers working hard to convince participants this is a good thing to do. However, higher fees, lack of free investment advice, use of higher-cost investment options, lack of availability of stable value and guaranteed fund investment options and many other factors make this a bad idea for most participants.

4. My 401(k) account is a good way to save for college, a first home, etc.

When 401(k) plans were first rolled out to employees decades ago, human resources staff helped persuade skeptical employees to contribute by saying the plans could be used for saving for many different things. They shouldn’t be. It is a bad idea to use a 401(k) plan to save for an initial down payment on a home or to finance a home. Similarly, a 401(k) plan is not the best place to save for a child’s education — 529 plans work much better. Try to eliminate the language in your communication materials that promotes your 401(k) plan as a place to do anything other than save for retirement.

5. I should stop making 401(k) contributions when the stock market crashes

This is a more prevalent feeling among plan participants than you might think. I have had many participants say to me, “Bob, why should I invest my money in the stock market when it is going down. I'm just going to lose money!” These are the same individuals who will be rushing into the stock market at market tops. This logic is important to unravel with participants and something plan sponsors should emphasize in their employee education sessions.

6. Actively trading my 401(k) account will help me maximize my account balance

Trying to time the market, or following newsletters or a trader's advice, is rarely a winning strategy. Consistently adhering to an asset allocation strategy that is appropriate to a participant's age and ability to bear risk is the best approach for most plan participants.

7. Indexing is always superior to active management

Although index investing ensures a low-cost portfolio, it doesn't guarantee superior performance or proper diversification. Access to commodity, real estate and international funds is often sacrificed by many pure indexing strategies. A blend of active and passive investments often proves to be the best investment strategy for plan participants.

8. Target date funds are not good investments

Most experts who say that target date funds are not good investments are not comparing them to a participant's allocations prior to investing in target date funds. Target date funds offer proper age-based diversification. Many participants, before investing in target date funds, may have invested in only one fund or a few funds that were inappropriate risk-wise for their age.

9. Money market funds are good investments

These funds have been guaranteed money losers for a number of years because they have not kept pace with inflation. Unless a participant is five years or less away from retirement or has difficulty taking on even a small amount of risk, these funds are below-average investments. As a result of the new money market fund rules, plan sponsors should offer guaranteed or stable value investment options instead.

10. I can contribute less because I will make my investments will work harder

Many participants have said to me, “Bob, I don’t have to contribute as much as others because I am going to make my investments do more of the work.” Most participants feel that the majority of their final account balance will come from earnings in their 401(k) account. However, studies have shown that the major determinant of how much participants end up with at retirement is the amount of contributions they make, not the amount of earnings. This is another misconception that plan sponsors should work hard to unwind in their employee education sessions.

Make sure you address all of these misconceptions in your next employee education sessions.

See the original article Here.

Source:

Lawton R. (2017 April 4). The 10 biggest 401(k) plan misconceptions[Web blog post]. Retrieved from address https://www.benefitnews.com/opinion/the-10-biggest-401-k-plan-misperceptions?brief=00000152-14a5-d1cc-a5fa-7cff48fe0001


Compliance Recap March 2017

Make sure to stay up-to-date with the most recent changes to the ACA, thanks to our partners at United Benefit Advisors (UBA).

In March, the employee benefits world watched as the House Speaker unveiled a proposal to replace parts of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) with the American Health Care Act (AHCA). The AHCA bill was withdrawn from consideration by the full House on March 24 because it appeared that there would not be enough votes to pass the AHCA.

On March 13, 2017, the U.S. Senate approved Seema Verma as the new administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), which spends more than a $1 trillion annually on health care programs.

The IRS updated its Q&As to address whether family members of an employee who declines employer-sponsored coverage would be eligible for a premium tax credit for Marketplace coverage. The IRS updated its Publication 969 regarding health savings accounts and other tax-favored health plans. The IRS released its Information Letter regarding the treatment of cafeteria plan forfeitures. The Department of Labor (DOL) released an advisory opinion on whether an association's administrative services program was an ERISA employee welfare benefit plan or a multiple employer welfare arrangement (MEWA).

UBA Updates

UBA released one new resource in March: Important News Regarding the Employer-Tax Exclusion for Health Insurance

UBA updated existing guidance:

IRS Updates Guidance on Premium Tax Credit Eligibility When Employer-Sponsored Health Plan Coverage is Offered to an Employee's Spouse and Children

The IRS updated its Questions and Answers on the Premium Tax Credit. Specifically, Q&A 15 addresses a situation in which an employer offers minimum value, affordable coverage to an employee, the employee's spouse, and the employee's children. The plan only allows the spouse and dependent to enroll if the employee enrolls. The employee declines to enroll.

The IRS determined that all three family members are not eligible for a premium tax credit for Marketplace coverage because they could have enrolled in the employer-sponsored coverage through the employee's coverage and the coverage would have been minimum value and affordable.

IRS Updates Its Publication 969

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) updated its Publication 969 Health Savings Accounts and Other Tax-Favored Health Plans for use in preparing 2016 tax returns. The publication describes HSAs, MSAs, FSAs, and HRAs, including eligibility requirements, contribution limits, and distribution information.

IRS Releases Information Letter

IRS released Information Letter Number 2016-0077, in which it explains how an employer may dispose of a flexible benefit plan's unused funds when an employer ceases business operations and terminates a plan and when a participant forfeits funds to an ongoing plan.

The plan documents will determine how an employer may dispose of unused funds when a cafeteria plan terminates. Unused funds will not revert to the U.S. Treasury.

The IRS explained that the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Section 125 rules apply to funds forfeited by a participant in an ongoing plan. Per IRC Section 125, the participants' forfeited funds may be:

  • Retained by the employer maintaining the plan,
  • Used to defray plan expenses, or
  • Returned to current participants and allocated on a reasonable and uniform basis (but not based on claims experience).

Finally, the IRS explained that when an employee terminates employment, IRC Section 125 prohibits the plan from reimbursing health care expenses incurred after the employee terminates employment and no longer participates in the plan.

DOL Issues Advisory Opinion

On January 13, 2017, the Department of Labor (DOL) issued Advisory Opinion 2017-01A. The DOL determined that an association's administrative services program for its members' employee benefits plan is not an ERISA employee welfare benefit plan and not a multiple employer welfare arrangement (MEWA).

As background, the association is comprised of large employers that sponsor self-insured benefit plans through administrative services only (ASO) agreements with insurance companies. The association has a member-owned and member-funded cooperative that analyzes health care spending, utilization, and outcomes; however, the association does not and will not provide insurance services to its members; determine benefit levels, administer plans, benefits, or claims; facilitate payment of ASO fees to insurers; or file or process claims.

The DOL determined that the program is not an ERISA employee welfare benefit plan because it has no employee participants and it does not offer or provide benefits to employees or their dependents.

The DOL determined that the program is not a MEWA because it is not an arrangement established or maintained to provide welfare benefits to employees of two or more employers. Further, the DOL determined that the program does not operate as a MEWA because no component of the program underwrites or guarantees welfare benefits, provides welfare benefits through group insurance contracts covering more than one employer, pools welfare benefit risk among participating employers, or provides similar insurance or risk spreading functions.

Question of the Month

Q. What obligations does an employer have when it receives returned Form 1095-Bs marked as undeliverable by the U.S. postal service?

A. Under IRS guidance, the employer fulfills its responsibility to furnish the statement to an individual if it mails the statement to the recipient's last known permanent address (unless the recipient affirmatively consented to receive the statement in electronic format).

Practically speaking, the employer should keep the mailing which shows that the employer sent the statement to the recipient's last known permanent address and that the statement was returned undeliverable. That way, the employer has proof that it mailed the statement to the recipient's last known permanent address.

To download the full recap click Here.

 


How Affordable Care Act Repeal and Replace Plans Might Shift Health Insurance Tax Credits

Find out how your health insurance tax credits will be impacted with the repeal of the ACA in this great article by Kaiser Family Foundation.

An important part of the repeal and replacement discussions around the Affordable Care Act (ACA) will involve the type and amount of subsidies that people get to help them afford health insurance.  This is particularly important for lower and moderate income individuals who do not have access to coverage at work and must purchase coverage directly.

The ACA provides three types of financial assistance to help people afford health coverage: Medicaid expansion for those with incomes below 138% of poverty (the Supreme Court later ruled this to be at state option); refundable premium tax credits for people with incomes from 100% to 400% of the poverty level who purchase coverage through federal or state marketplaces; cost-sharing subsidies for people with incomes from 100% to 250% of poverty to provide lower deductibles and copays when purchasing silver plans in a marketplace.

This analysis focuses on alternative ways to provide premium assistance for people purchasing individual market coverage, explaining how they work, providing examples of how they’re calculated, and presenting estimates of how assistance overall would change for current ACA marketplace enrollees.  Issues relating to changing Medicaid or methods of subsidizing cost-sharing will be addressed in other analyses.

Premium Tax Credits Under the ACA and Current Replacement Proposals

The ACA and leading replacement proposals rely on refundable tax credits to help individual market enrollees pay for premiums, although the credit amounts are set quite differently.  The House Leadership proposal released on March 6, the American Health Care Act, proposes refundable tax credits which vary with age (with a phase-out for high-income enrollees) and grow annually with inflation.  The tax credits under the ACA vary with family income and the cost of insurance where people live, as well as age, and grow annually if premiums increase.

These various tax credit approaches can have quite different implications for different groups of individual market purchasers.  For example, the tax credits under the ACA are higher for people with lower incomes than for people with higher incomes, and no credit is provided for individuals with incomes over 400% of poverty.  The current replacement proposal, in contrast, is flat for incomes up to $75,000 for an individual and $150,000 for a married couple, and so would provide relatively more assistance to people with upper-middle incomes.  Similarly, the ACA tax credits are relatively higher in areas with higher premiums (like many rural areas), while the replacement proposal credits do not vary by location.  If premiums grow more rapidly than inflation over time (which they generally have), the replacement proposal tax credits will grow more slowly than those provided under the ACA.

What is a Tax Credit, and How is it Different from a Deduction?

A tax credit is an amount by which a taxpayer can reduce the amount they owe in federal income tax; for example, if a person had a federal tax bill of $2,500 and a tax credit of $1,000, their tax liability would be reduced to $1,500.  A refundable tax credit means that if the amount of the tax credit is greater than the amount of taxes owed, the taxpayer receives a refund of the difference; for example, if a person had a federal tax bill of $1000 and a tax credit of $1,500, they would receive a refund of $500.  Making the credit refundable is important if a goal is to assist lower-income families, many of whom may not owe federal income tax. An advanceable tax credit is made available at the time a premium payment is owed (which similarly benefits lower-income families so that they can receive the financial assistance upfront). The ACA and a number of replacement proposals allow for advance payment of credits.

A tax credit is different from a tax deduction.  A deduction reduces the amount of income that is taxed, while a credit reduces the amount of tax itself.  For example, if a person has taxable income of $30,000, a $500 deduction reduces the amount of taxable income to $29,500.  If the person’s marginal tax rate is 15%, the deduction reduces the person’s taxes by 15% of $500, or $75. Because people with lower incomes have lower marginal tax rates than people with higher incomes – and, typically don’t itemize their deductions – tax credits are generally more beneficial to lower income people than deductions.

The next section describes the differing tax credit approaches in more detail and draws out some of the implications for different types of purchasers.

How the Different Tax Credits Are Calculated

The ACA provides tax credits for individuals with family incomes from 100% to 400% of poverty ($11,880 to $47,520 for a single individual in 2017) if they are not eligible for employer-provided or public coverage and if they purchase individual market coverage in the federal or a state marketplace.  The tax credit amounts are calculated based on the family income of eligible individuals and the cost of coverage in the area where the live. More specifically, the ACA tax credit for an eligible individual is the difference between a specified percentage of his or her income (Table 1) and the premium of the second-lowest-cost silver plan (referred to as the benchmark premium) available in the area in which they live.  There is no tax credit available if the benchmark premium is less than the specified percentage of premium (which can occur for younger purchasers with relatively higher incomes) or if family income falls outside of the 100% to 400% of poverty range.  For families, the premiums for family members are added together (including up to 3 children) and compared to specified income percentages. ACA tax credits are made available in advance, based on income information provided to the marketplace, and reconciled based on actual income when a person files income taxes the following.

Take, for example, a person age 40 with income of $30,000, which is 253% of poverty.  At this income, the person’s specified percentage of income is 8.28% in 2017, which means that the person receives a tax credit if he or she has to pay more than 8.28% of income (or $2,485 annually) for the second-lowest-cost silver premium where he or she lives.  If we assume a premium of $4,328 (the national average benchmark premium for a person age 40 in 2017), the person’s tax credit would be the difference between the benchmark premium and the specified percentage of income, or $4,328 – $2,485 = $1,843 (or $154 per month).

The American Health Care Act takes a simpler approach and specifies the actual dollar amounts for a new refundable tax credit that could be used to purchase individual market coverage.  The amounts vary only with age up until an income of $75,000 for a single individual, at which point they begin to phase out. Tax credits range from $2,000 for people under age 30, to $2,500 for people ages 30 to 39, $3,000 for people age 40 to 49, $3,500 for people age 50 to 59, and $4,000 for people age 60 and over starting in 2020. Eligibility for the tax credit phases out starting at income above $75,000 for single individuals (the credit is reduced, but not below zero, by 10 cents for every dollar of income above this threshold, reaching zero at an income of $95,000 for single individuals up to age 29 or $115,000 for individuals age 60 and older). For joint filers, credits begin to phase out at an income of $150,000 (the tax credit is reduced to zero at an income of $190,000 for couples up to age 29; it is reduced to zero at income $230,000 for couples age 60 or older; and it is reduced to zero at income of $290,000 for couples claiming the maximum family credit amount). People who sign up for public programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, public employee health benefit programs, would not be eligible for a tax credit. The proposal further limits eligibility for tax credits to people who do not have an offer available for employer-provided health benefits.

Table 2 shows how projected ACA tax credits in 2020 compare to what would be provided under the American Health Care Act for people at various incomes, ages, and geographic areas. To show the ACA amounts in 2020, we inflated all 2017 premiums based on projections for direct purchase spending per enrollee from the National Health Expenditure Accounts. This method applies the same premium growth across all ages and geographic locations.  Note that the table does not include cost-sharing assistance under the ACA that lowers deductibles and copayments for low-income marketplace enrollees. For example, in 2016, people making between 100 – 150% of poverty enrolled in a silver plan on healthcare.gov received cost-sharing assistance worth $1,440; those with incomes between 150 – 200% of poverty received $1,068 on average; and those with incomes between 200 – 250% of poverty received $144 on average.

Under the ACA in 2020, we project that a typical 40-year-old making $20,000 per year would be eligible for $4,143 in premium tax credits (not including the additional cost-sharing subsidies to lower his or her deductibles and copayments), while under the American Health Care Act, this person would be eligible $3,000. For context, we project that the average ACA premium for a 40-year-old in 2020 would be $5,101 annually (meaning the tax credit in the ACA would cover 81% of the total premium) for a benchmark silver plan with comprehensive benefits and reduced cost-sharing. A $3,000 tax credit for this same individual under the American Health Care Act would represent 59% of the average 40-year-old benchmark silver premium under the ACA.

Generally, the ACA has higher tax credit amounts than the replacement plan for lower-income people – especially for those who are older and live in higher-cost areas – and lower credits for those with higher incomes. Unlike the ACA, the replacement plan provides tax credits to people over 400% percent of the poverty level (phasing out around 900% of poverty for a single person), as well as to people current buying individual market coverage outside of the marketplaces (not included in this analysis).

While replacement plan tax credits vary by age – by a factor of 2 to 1 for older adults relative to younger ones – the variation is substantially less than under the ACA. The big differences in ACA tax credits at different ages is due to the fact that premiums for older adults can be three times the level of premiums for younger adults under the ACA, but all people at a given income level are expected to pay the same percentage of their income towards a benchmark plan. The tax credit fills in the difference, and this amount is much higher for older adults. These differences by age would be even further magnified under the American Health Care Act (which permits premiums to vary by a factor of 5 to 1 due to age). Before the ACA, premiums for older adults were typically four or five times the premiums charged to younger adults.

The tax credits in the ACA vary significantly with premium costs in an area (see Table 2 and Figure 2). At a given income level and age, people receive bigger tax credits in a higher premium area like Mobile, Alabama and smaller tax credits in a lower premium area like Reno, Nevada. Under the ACA in 2017, premiums in Mobile, Alabama and Reno, Nevada approximately represent the 75th and 25th percentile, respectively.

The disparities between the ACA tax credits and those in the American Health Care Act will therefore vary noticeably across the country. For more on geographic differences between the ACA and the replacement plan, see Tax Credits under the Affordable Care Act vs. the American Health Care Act: An Interactive Map.

The same general pattern can be seen for families as individuals, with lower-income families – and particularly lower-income families in higher-cost areas – receiving larger tax credits under the ACA, while middle-income families in lower-cost areas would receive larger tax credits under the American Health Care Act (Figure 3).

Figure 4 below shows how tax credits under the ACA differ from those in the American Health Care Act for a couple in their 60’s with no children. In this scenario, because premiums for older adults are higher and the ACA ties tax credits to the cost of premiums, a 60-year-old couple would receive larger tax credits under the ACA than the American Health Care Act at lower and middle incomes, but would receive a larger tax credit under the American Health Care Act at higher incomes.

Estimates of Tax Credits Under the ACA and the American Health Care Act Over Time

We estimated the average tax credits that current ACA marketplace enrollees are receiving under the ACA and what they would qualify for if the American Health Care Act were in place.

The average estimated tax credit received by ACA marketplace enrollees in 2017 is $3,617 on an annual basis, and that this amount will rise to $4,615 by 2020 based on projected growth rates from the Congressional Budget Office. This includes the 81% who receive premium subsidies as well as the 19% who do not.

We estimate – based on the age distribution of marketplace enrollees – that current enrollees would receive an average tax credit under the American Health Care Act of $2,957 in 2020, or 36% less than under the ACA (see Table 3 and Figure 3). While many people would receive lower tax credits under the Affordable Health Care Act, some would receive more assistance, notably the 19% of current marketplace enrollees who do not qualify for ACA subsidies.

While ACA tax credits grow as premiums increase over time, the tax credits in the American Health Care Act are indexed to inflation plus 1 percentage point. Based on CBO’s projections of ACA tax credit increases and inflation, the disparity between the average credits under the ACA and the two replacement plans would widen over time. The average tax credit current marketplace enrollees would receive under the American Health Care Act would be 41% lower than under the ACA in 2022 and 44% lower in 2027.

Discussion

Like the ACA itself, the American Health Care Act includes refundable tax credits to help make premiums more affordable for people buying their own insurance. This might seem like an area where a replacement plan could preserve a key element of the ACA. However, the tax credits are, in fact, structured quite differently, with important implications for affordability and which groups may be winners or losers if the ACA is repealed and replaced.

For current marketplace enrollees, the American Health Care Act would provide substantially lower tax credits overall than the ACA on average. People who are lower income, older, or live in high premium areas would be particularly disadvantaged under the American Health Care Act. People with incomes over 400% of the poverty level – including those buying individual market insurance outside of the marketplaces – do not get any financial assistance under the ACA but many would receive tax credits under the replacement proposal.

The underlying details of health reform proposals, such as the size and structure of health insurance tax credits, matter crucially in determining who benefits and who is disadvantaged

See the original article Here.

Source:

Cox C., Claxton G., Levitt L. (2017 March 10). How affordable care act repeal and replace plans might shift health insurance tax credits [Web blog post]. Retrieved from address http://www.kff.org/health-reform/issue-brief/how-affordable-care-act-repeal-and-replace-plans-might-shift-health-insurance-tax-credits/


How are your retirement health care savings stacking up?

Are you properly investing in your health saving account? Take a look at the this article from Benefits Pro about the importance of saving money for your healthcare by Reese Feuerman.

For all ages, it's imperative to balance near-term and long-term savings goals, but the makeup of those savings goals has changed dramatically over the past 10 years.

With the continued rise in health care costs, and increased cost sharing between employers and employees, more employees and employers have been migrating to consumer-driven health care (CDH) to provide lower-cost alternatives.

With the increased adoption in these plans for employee cost savings purposes, employers have likewise realized similar cost savings to their bottom line. But what role does CDH play in the long term?

Republicans trying to find a way to repeal the ACA are turning to health savings accounts -- new ones, called...

The Greatest Generation was able to rely on their pensions, Social Security, Medicaid, and the like as a means to support them in retirement for both medical and living expenses. However, as the Baby Boomers continue their journey towards retirement, reliance upon future proof retirement funds are fading into the sunset for coming generations. According to a 2015 study from the Government Accountability Office (GAO), 29% of American’s 55 and older do not have money set aside in a pension plan or alternative retirement plan.

To make matters worse, some experts are forecasting Social Security funding will be depleted by 2034, leaving even more retirees potentially without a plan. As such, Generation X and beyond must look for more creatives measures for savings to make up the difference.

In 1978, 401(k) plans were introduced to provide the workforce with a secondary means for retirement savings while also providing significant tax benefits. However, even when actively funded, with rising health care costs and a depleted Social Security system—the solution this workforce has paid into for their entire career—will not be enough.

According to Healthview Services, the average retiree couple will spend $288,000 for just health care expenses during retirement. This sum could easily consume one-third of total retiree savings. This is a contributing factor to the rise and rapid adoption of tax-advantage health accounts to supplement retirement savings. Introduced to the market in 2003, Health Savings Accounts (HSA) have provided employees with an option to set aside pre-tax funds to either cover current year health care expenses, like the familiar Flexible Spending Account (FSA), or carry over the funds year-over-year to pay for medical expenses later or during retirement. The pretax money employees are able to set aside in these accounts to cover health care expenses, will over time, be on par with retirement savings contributions, such as a 401(k) and 403(b), because of increasing costs and triple-tax savings.

It is important for consumers to understand these retirement options and how they could be leveraged for greater financial wealth. As a result, the Health Care Stack, an analysis authored by ConnectYourCare, acts as a life savings model and illustrates the amount of pretax money consumers can contribute for both their lifestyle and health expenses in retirement.

For illustrative purposes, according to current IRS guidelines, the average American under the age of 50 could set aside up to $24,750 each year pre-tax for retirement to cover their health care and living expenses. In this example, if a worker in his or her 30s starts to set aside the maximum contributions (based on IRS guidelines) for HSA contributions, assuming a rate of return of 3%, they would have $330,000 saved in their HSA to cover health care expenses once they reach the retirement age of 65. This number could be even greater if President Trump’s administration passes any number of proposed bills to increase the HSA contribution limits to match the maximum out-of-pocket expenses included in high deductible health plans. This allocation would not only cover average medical expenses, but also provide a triple-tax advantage for consumers from now through retirement.

In addition to the long-term retirement goals, the yearly pre-tax savings may be even greater if notional accounts are factored in, with approved IRS limits of a $2,600 per year maximum for Flexible Spending Accounts, $5,000 per year maximum for Dependent Care FSA, and $6,120 per year maximum for commuter plans. This equals $38,470 (or $44,820 if HSA contributions increase) of pre-tax contributions that consumers could save by offsetting the tax burden and could invest towards retirement.

For those consumers over the age of 50, the savings potential is even greater as they can contribute to a post retirement catch-up for their 401K plans equaling a total of $24,000, plus they may take advantage of the $6,750 HSA savings, as well as the additional $1,000 catch up. If certain proposed bills are passed, the increase could be $38,100 a year that they could set aside, in pre-tax assets, for retirement.

Not only will an individual’s expenses be covered, but there are other benefits brought forth by proper planning, including the potential to reach ones retirement savings goals early. Let’s say that after meeting with a licensed financial investor it was determined that an individual needed $1.8 million in order to retire, and according to national averages, close to $288,000 to cover health care costs.

Given the proper investment strategy around contributions to both retirement and  HSA plans, an individual could - theoretically -save enough to meet their retirement investment needs by the age of 60 for both lifestyle and health care expense coverage, if they started making careful investments in their 20s (assuming the worker is making $50,000 per year with a 3% annual increase).

In comparison, under current proposals, which include the increased HSA limits, retirement savings could be achieved even earlier with the coverage threshold being at 57 for the average worker. This is a tremendous opportunity to transform retirement investment programs for all American workers who would otherwise be left on their own. Talk about the American dream!

While there is not a one-size fits all strategy, it is important for everyone to understand their options and see how these pretax accounts outlined in the Health Care Stack play an important consideration in ones future retirement planning.

Taking the time now to fully understand tax-favored benefit accounts will provide him or her with the appropriate coverage to enjoy life well into their golden years. Retirement is just around the corner, are you ready?

See the original article Here.

Source:

Feuerman (2017 March 02). How are your retirement health care savings stacking up?[Web blog post]. Retrieved from address http://www.benefitspro.com/2017/03/02/how-are-your-retirement-health-care-savings-stacki?ref=hp-in-depth


Cafeteria Plans: Qualifying Events and Changing Employee Elections

Have any questions about cafeteria plans and how they work? Check out this great article from our partner, United Benefit Advisors (UBA) about which events qualify and what changes can happen to any employee's cafeteria plan by Danielle Capilla

Cafeteria plans, or plans governed by IRS Code Section 125, allow employers to help employees pay for expenses such as health insurance with pre-tax dollars. Employees are given a choice between a taxable benefit (cash) and two or more specified pre-tax qualified benefits, for example, health insurance. Employees are given the opportunity to select the benefits they want, just like an individual standing in the cafeteria line at lunch.

Only certain benefits can be offered through a cafeteria plan:

  • Coverage under an accident or health plan (which can include traditional health insurance, health maintenance organizations (HMOs), self-insured medical reimbursement plans, dental, vision, and more);
  • Dependent care assistance benefits or DCAPs
  • Group term life insurance
  • Paid time off, which allows employees the opportunity to buy or sell paid time off days
  • 401(k) contributions
  • Adoption assistance benefits
  • Health savings accounts or HSAs under IRS Code Section 223

Some employers want to offer other benefits through a cafeteria plan, but this is prohibited. Benefits that you cannot offer through a cafeteria plan include scholarships, group term life insurance for non-employees, transportation and other fringe benefits, long-term care, and health reimbursement arrangements (unless very specific rules are met by providing one in conjunction with a high deductible health plan). Benefits that defer compensation are also prohibited under cafeteria plan rules.

Cafeteria plans as a whole are not subject to ERISA, but all or some of the underlying benefits or components under the plan can be. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) has also affected aspects of cafeteria plan administration.

Employees are allowed to choose the benefits they want by making elections. Only the employee can make elections, but they can make choices that cover other individuals such as spouses or dependents. Employees must be considered eligible by the plan to make elections. Elections, with an exception for new hires, must be prospective. Cafeteria plan selections are considered irrevocable and cannot be changed during the plan year, unless a permitted change in status occurs. There is an exception for mandatory two-year elections relating to dental or vision plans that meet certain requirements.

Plans may allow participants to change elections based on the following changes in status:

  • Change in marital status
  • Change in the number of dependents
  • Change in employment status
  • A dependent satisfying or ceasing to satisfy dependent eligibility requirements
  • Change in residence
  • Commencement or termination of adoption proceedings

Plans may also allow participants to change elections based on the following changes that are not a change in status but nonetheless can trigger an election change:

  • Significant cost changes
  • Significant curtailment (or reduction) of coverage
  • Addition or improvement of benefit package option
  • Change in coverage of spouse or dependent under another employer plan
  • Loss of certain other health coverage (such as government provided coverage, such as Medicaid)
  • Changes in 401(k) contributions (employees are free to change their 401(k) contributions whenever they wish, in accordance with the administrator’s change process)
  • HIPAA special enrollment rights (contains requirements for HIPAA subject plans)
  • COBRA qualifying event
  • Judgment, decrees, or orders
  • Entitlement to Medicare or Medicaid
  • Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) leave
  • Pre-tax health savings account (HSA) contributions (employees are free to change their HSA contributions whenever they wish, in accordance with the their payroll/accounting department process)
  • Reduction of hours (new under the ACA)
  • Exchange/Marketplace enrollment (new under the ACA)

Together, the change in status events and other recognized changes are considered “permitted election change events.”

Common changes that do not constitute a permitted election change event are: a provider leaving a network (unless, based on very narrow circumstances, it resulted in a significant reduction of coverage), a legal separation (unless the separation leads to a loss of eligibility under the plan), commencement of a domestic partner relationship, or a change in financial condition.

There are some events not in the regulations that could allow an individual to make a mid-year election change, such as a mistake by the employer or employee, or needing to change elections in order to pass nondiscrimination tests. To make a change due to a mistake, there must be clear and convincing evidence that the mistake has been made. For instance, an individual might accidentally sign up for family coverage when they are single with no children, or an employer might withhold $100 dollars per pay period for a flexible spending arrangement (FSA) when the individual elected to withhold $50.

Plans are permitted to make automatic payroll election increases or decreases for insignificant amounts in the middle of the plan year, so long as automatic election language is in the plan documents. An “insignificant” amount is considered one percent or less.

Plans should consider which change in status events to allow, how to track change in status requests, and the time limit to impose on employees who wish to make an election.

See the original article Here.

Source:

Capilla D. (2017 February 07). Cafeteria plans: qualifying events and changing employee elections  [Web blog post]. http://blog.ubabenefits.com/cafeteria-plans-qualifying-events-and-changing-employee-elections


Implications of the 21st Century Cures Act

Great article from our partner, United Benefit Advisors (UBA) about the impact of the 21st Century Cures Act by Danielle Capilla,

On December 13, 2016, former President Obama signed the 21st Century Cures Act into law. The Cures Act has numerous components, but employers should be aware of the impact the Act will have on the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act, as well as provisions that will impact how small employers can use health reimbursement arrangements (HRAs). There will also be new guidance for permitted uses and disclosures of protected health information (PHI) under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). We review the implications with HRAs below; for a discussion of all the implications, view UBA’s Compliance Advisor, “21st Century Cares Act”.

The Cures Act provides a method for certain small employers to reimburse individual health coverage premiums up to a dollar limit through HRAs called "Qualified Small Employer Health Reimbursement Arrangements" (QSE HRAs). This provision will go into effect on January 1, 2017.

Previously, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) issued Notice 2015-17 addressing employer payment or reimbursement of individual premiums in light of the requirements of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA). For many years, employers had been permitted to reimburse premiums paid for individual coverage on a tax-favored basis, and many smaller employers adopted this type of an arrangement instead of sponsoring a group health plan. However, these "employer payment plans" are often unable to meet all of the ACA requirements that took effect in 2014, and in a series of Notices and frequently asked questions (FAQs) the IRS made it clear that an employer may not either directly pay premiums for individual policies or reimburse employees for individual premiums on either an after-tax or pre-tax basis. This was the case whether payment or reimbursement is done through an HRA, a Section 125 plan, a Section 105 plan, or another mechanism.

The Cures Act now allows employers with less than 50 full-time employees (under ACA counting methods) who do not offer group health plans to use QSE HRAs that are fully employer funded to reimburse employees for the purchase of individual health care, so long as the reimbursement does not exceed $4,950 annually for single coverage, and $10,000 annually for family coverage. The amount is prorated by month for individuals who are not covered by the arrangement for the entire year. Practically speaking, the monthly limit for single coverage reimbursement is $412, and the monthly limit for family coverage reimbursement is $833. The limits will be updated annually.

Impact on Subsidy Eligibility. For any month an individual is covered by a QSE HRA/individual policy arrangement, their subsidy eligibility would be reduced by the dollar amount provided for the month through the QSE HRA if the QSE HRA provides "unaffordable" coverage under ACA standards. If the QSE HRA provides affordable coverage, individuals would lose subsidy eligibility entirely. Caution should be taken to fully education employees on this impact.

COBRA and ERISA Implications. QSE HRAs are not subject to COBRA or ERISA.

Annual Notice Requirement. The new QSE HRA benefit has an annual notice requirement for employers who wish to implement it. Written notice must be provided to eligible employees no later than 90 days prior to the beginning of the benefit year that contains the following:

  • The dollar figure the individual is eligible to receive through the QSE HRA
  • A statement that the eligible employee should provide information about the QSE HRA to the Marketplace or Exchange if they have applied for an advance premium tax credit
  • A statement that employees who are not covered by minimum essential coverage (MEC) for any month may be subject to penalty

Recordkeeping, IRS Reporting. Because QSE HRAs can only provide reimbursement for documented healthcare expense, employers with QSE HRAs should have a method in place to obtain and retain receipts or confirmation for the premiums that are paid with the account. Employers sponsoring QSE HRAs would be subject to ACA related reporting with Form 1095-B as the sponsor of MEC. Money provided through a QSE HRA must be reported on an employee's W-2 under the aggregate cost of employer-sponsored coverage. It is unclear if the existing safe harbor on reporting the aggregate cost of employer-sponsored coverage for employers with fewer than 250 W-2s would apply, as arguably many of the small employers eligible to offer QSE HRAs would have fewer than 250 W-2s.

Individual Premium Reimbursement, Generally. Outside of the exception for small employers using QSE HRAs for reimbursement of individual premiums, all of the prior prohibitions from IRS Notice 2015-17 remain. There is no method for an employer with 50 or more full time employees to reimburse individual premiums, or for small employers with a group health plan to reimburse individual premiums. There is no mechanism for employers of any size to allow employees to use pre-tax dollars to purchase individual premiums. Reimbursing individual premiums in a non-compliant manner will subject an employer to a penalty of $100 a day per individual they provide reimbursement to, with the potential for other penalties based on the mechanism of the non-compliant reimbursement.

See the original article Here.

Source:

Capilla D. (2017 February 01). Implications of the 21st century cures act [Web blog post]. Retrieved from address http://blog.ubabenefits.com/implications-of-the-21st-century-cures-act


Compliance Recap January 2017

Make sure you stay up to date on January's compliances thanks to our partners United Benefits Advisors (UBA),

January was a significant month in the employee benefits world because the new U.S. administration issued an Executive Order announcing its intent to repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA). However, January was a relatively inactive month for new laws and administrative rulemaking because the new administration placed a freeze on rulemaking until presidential nominations of agency heads are confirmed.

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) released the 2017 poverty guidelines. The Department of Labor (DOL) released its inflation-adjusted civil monetary penalty amounts and an FAQ regarding the contraceptive services objection accommodation. The DOL, HHS, and the Treasury Department released FAQs about family HRA integration with a non-HRA group health plan. The IRS released its 2017 version of the Employer’s Tax Guide to Fringe Benefits and a memo on fixed indemnity health plan benefits tax treatment.

President Trump Signs Executive Order

On January 20, 2017, President Trump signed Executive Order: Minimizing the Economic Burden of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act Pending Repeal.

The Executive Order directs the Department of Health and Human Services’ Secretary and the heads of all other executive departments and agencies with authority or responsibility under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) to exercise all authority and discretion to waive, defer, grant exemptions from, or delay the implementation of any provision or requirement of the ACA that would impose a fiscal burden on any state, or a cost, fee, tax, penalty, or regulatory burden on individuals, families, healthcare providers, health insurers, patients, recipients of healthcare services, purchasers of health insurance, or makers of medical devices, products, or medications.

The Executive Order indicates that the Administrative Procedure Act and its rulemaking process still apply to regulatory revisions. Because confirmation proceedings are not concluded for the heads of the Departments of Health and Human Services, Labor, or the Treasury, the agencies are in a rule promulgation freeze until presidential nominations are confirmed.

HHS Releases 2017 Federal Poverty Guidelines

The 2017 poverty guidelines (also referred to as the FPL) were released by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). For a family/household of 1 in the contiguous United States, the FPL is $12,060. In Alaska, the FPL is $15,060 and in Hawaii the FPL is $13,860. 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 $97.38 a month, which is 9.69 percent of the FPL.

DOL Releases Inflation-Adjusted Federal Civil Penalty Amounts

On January 18, 2017, the Department of Labor issued the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Annual Adjustments for 2017 which is its first annual adjustment of federal civil monetary penalties. Here are some of the adjustments:

  • Form 5500: For failure to file, the maximum penalty increases from $2,063 to $2,097 daily for every day that the Form 5500 is late.
  • Summary of Benefits and Coverage: For failure to provide, the maximum penalty increases from $1,087 to $1,105 per failure.
  • Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act: For violations, the maximum penalty increases from $110 per participant per day to $112.

The adjustments are effective for penalties assessed after January 13, 2017, for violations occurring after November 2, 2015.

DOL Releases FAQ Regarding Contraceptive Services Objection Accommodation

As part of implementing the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), the Departments of Labor (DOL), Health and Human Services (HHS), and the Treasury (collectively, the Departments) issued regulations to require coverage or women’s preventive services, which essentially includes all FDA-approved contraceptives, sterilization procedures, and patient education and counseling for women with reproductive capacity, as prescribed by the health care provider (collectively, contraceptive services).

The regulations exempt group health plans of “religious employers” (specifically defined in the law) from the requirement to provide contraceptive coverage. Later, amended regulations provide an accommodation for eligible organizations – which are not eligible for the religious employer exemption – that object on religious grounds to providing coverage for contraceptive services. Because of litigation, the Departments extended the accommodation to closely held for-profit entities.

Under the accommodation, an eligible organization that objects to providing contraceptive coverage for religious reasons may either:

  1. self-certify its objection to its health insurance issuer (to the extent it has an insured plan) or third party administrator (to the extent it has a self-insured plan) using a form provided by the Department of Labor (EBSA Form 700); or
  2. self-certify its objection and provide certain information to HHS without using any particular form.

Most recently, in 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court considered claims by several employers that, even with the accommodation provided in the regulations, the contraceptive coverage requirement violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). The Court heard oral arguments and ultimately remanded the case (and parallel RFRA cases) to the lower courts to give the parties “an opportunity to arrive at an approach going forward that accommodates [the objecting employers’] religious exercise while at the same time ensuring that women covered by [the employers’] health plans ‘receive full and equal health coverage, including contraceptive coverage.’”

To address the Court’s statement, the Departments published their request for information (RFI) regarding the Court’s statement and received more than 54,000 public comments. Based on the comments submitted, the Departments released FAQs About Affordable Care Act Implementation Part 36 to indicate that they not making changes to the accommodation for the following reasons:

  • No feasible approach has been identified that would resolve the religious objectors’ concerns, while still ensuring that the affected women receive full and equal health coverage, including contraceptive coverage.
  • The process described in the Court’s supplemental briefing order would not be acceptable to those with religious objections to the contraceptive coverage requirements.
  • There are administrative and operational changes to a process like the one described in the Court’s order that are more significant than the Departments had previously understood and that would potentially undermine women’s access to full and equal coverage.

Agencies Release FAQs About Family HRA Integration with Non-HRA Group Health Plan

The Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and the Treasury (collectively, the Departments) released FAQs About Affordable Care Implementation Part 37 to address health reimbursement arrangement (HRA) integration with group health plans.

The Departments indicate that, for purposes of determining whether a family HRA is “integrated” with a non-HRA group health plan, an employer may rely on an employee’s reasonable representation that the employee and other individuals covered by the family HRA are also covered by another qualifying non-HRA group health plan.

Also, a family HRA is permitted to be integrated with a combination of coverage under other qualifying non-HRA group health plans if all individuals who are covered under the family HRA are also covered under other qualifying non-HRA group health plan coverage.

For example, a family HRA covering an employee, spouse, and one dependent child may be integrated with the combination of (1) the employee’s self-only coverage under the non-HRA group health plan of the employee’s employer, and (2) the spouse and dependent child’s coverage under the non-HRA group health plan of the spouse’s employer, if both non-HRA group health plans are qualifying nonHRA group health plans.

IRS Releases 2017 Version of the Employer’s Tax Guide to Fringe Benefits

The IRS released its 2017 Version of Publication 15-B which provides information on the employment tax treatment of various fringe benefits. Fringe benefits are taxable unless an exclusion applies. The publication lists the qualified benefits that a cafeteria plan may include and examples of benefits that a cafeteria plan is not permitted to include. It also provides the 2017 dollar limits for various benefits.

IRS Issues Memo on Fixed-Indemnity Health Plan Benefits Tax Treatment

On January 20, 2017, the IRS released a Memorandum on the tax treatment of benefits paid by fixedindemnity health plans that addresses: (1) whether payments to an employee under an employerprovided fixed-indemnity health plan are excludible from the employee’s income under Internal Revenue Code §105, and (2) whether payments to an employee under an employer-provided fixedindemnity health plan are excludible from the employee’s income under Internal Revenue Code §105 if the payments are made by salary reduction through a §125 cafeteria plan.

Some examples of fixed indemnity health plans are AFLAC or similar coverage, or cancer insurance policies.

Generally, the Internal Revenue Code imposes taxes on wages paid with respect to employment. For federal income tax withholding, the Internal Revenue Code generally requires every employer who pays wages to deduct and withhold taxes on those wages.

The IRS concluded that an employer may not exclude payments under an employer-provided fixedindemnity health plan from an employee’s gross income if the coverage’s value was excluded from the employee’s gross income and wages. Further, an employer may not exclude payments under an employer-provided fixed-indemnity health plan if the plan’s premiums were made by salary reduction through a §125 cafeteria plan.

In the context of an employer-provided fixed-indemnity health plan, when the employer’s payment for coverage by the fixed-indemnity plan is excluded from the employee’s gross income, then the payments by the plan are not excluded from the employee’s gross income

In contrast, when the premiums are paid with after-tax dollars, the payments by the plan are excluded from the employee’s gross income.

To download the full compliance recap click Here.