Employers and the ACA – It’s Status Quo for Now

With the passing of the AHCA, the ACA is now the norm for employers' healthcare. Find out what employers need to know about ACA and how it will affect them in the future in this interesting article from Think Hr by Laura Kerekes.

The Trump administration’s effort to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act (ACA) through legislation failed last month when House Republicans were unable to push their proposal forward. The proposed bill, called the American Health Care Act, would have eliminated most of the ACA’s taxes and fees on health plans along with removing penalties on large employers that did not offer coverage to their full-time workers. It is unclear whether Congressional leaders will make another attempt to legislate major changes in the ACA this year. Meanwhile, federal agencies under President Trump’s direction may begin to take steps to revise regulations that do not require changes in law.

The situation certainly has caused some confusion among employers, so it is important to note that, as of now, nothing has changed. The ACA’s existing rules for group health plans, required notices, and employer reporting duties remain in effect. Applicable large employers (ALEs), generally entities that employed an average of 50 or more full-time-equivalent employees in the prior year, are still subject to the ACA’s employer mandate or so-called “play or pay” rules.

As a reminder, here is a brief summary of the key ACA provisions that require action by employers:

Notices:

  • Employer Exchange Notice: Provide to all employees within 14 days of hire.
  • Summary of Benefits and Coverage (SBC): For group medical plan, provide SBC to eligible employees at enrollment and upon request.

Health Plan Fees:

  • Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI): For self-funded group health plans, pay small annual fee by July 31 based on prior year’s average participant count.
  • Transitional Reinsurance Program (TRP): For self-funded plans that provided minimum value in 2016, annual fee was due by January 15, 2017 (or by January 15 and November 15, 2017 if paying in two installments).

Reporting:

  • W-2 Reporting: Report total cost of each employee’s health coverage on Form W-2 (box 12). This is informational only and has no tax consequences. (Employers that filed fewer than 250 Form W-2s for prior year are exempt.)
  • Forms 1094 and 1095: ALEs only: Report coverage offer information on all full-time employees. Self-funded employers only (regardless of size): Report enrollment information on all covered persons.

Employer Mandate (“Play or Pay”): ALEs only. To avoid the risk of penalties, determine whether each employee meets the ACA definition of full-time employee and, if so, offer affordable minimum value coverage on a timely basis.

In summary, employers are advised to continue to comply with all ACA requirements based on the current rules.

On a related note, the ACA imposes several requirements on group health plans, whether provided through insurance or self-funded by the employer. Insured plans also are subject to the insurance laws of the state in which the policy is issued. In many cases, provisions matching the ACA are now embedded in state insurance laws. So future changes in the ACA, if any, may not apply to group medical policies automatically. Depending on the state and the type of change, additional legislation at the state level may be needed to enact the change.

See the original article Here.

Source:

Kerekes L. (2017 April 14). Employers and the ACA - it's status quo for now [Web blog post]. Retrieved from address https://www.thinkhr.com/blog/hr/employers-and-the-aca-its-status-quo-for-now/


From Boomers to Millennials, Here are Workers’ Top 6 Benefit Needs

Do you know which benefits your employees crave the most? Take a look at this great article from HR Morning about the top employee benefits for each age group by Jared Bilski.

Depending on which demographic they fall into (Baby Boomer, Gen-X, Millennial, etc.), employees have vastly different benefit needs. So why do so many employers offer a one-sized-fits-all benefits package?  

At the 2017 Mid-Sized Retirement & Healthcare Plan Management Conference in Phoenix, AZ, President and CEO of Cowden Associates Inc., Elliot N Dinkin, used the flexibility of the benefits offered through a private exchange as a reason for employers to give the exchange option a serious look.

Private exchanges — like public exchanges — are online marketplaces employers can use to provide coverage to their employees on everything from traditional benefits, like health insurance, to increasingly popular voluntary plans, like life, disability or cancer insurance.

Dinkin also used some compelling research to show just how greatly employees’ benefits needs varied from generation to generation.

Citing stats from a recent LIMRA study, which asked employees to rank their benefit needs, Dinkin laid out the top six responses of workers from 34 and under to employees 65-plus.

It’s worth noting that base pay was the top “need” for each and every employee demographic. The rest of the responses, however, were all over the map.

34 and under

The youngest workers in the study ranked their benefits needs in the following order:

  1. base pay
  2. career opportunities
  3. retirement plan
  4. low healthcare costs
  5. bonus/incentive, and
  6. flexible schedule.

35-49

The mid-life workers prioritized their benefit needs like this:

  1. base pay
  2. retirement plan
  3. low healthcare costs
  4. bonus/incentive
  5. paid time off (PTO), and
  6. flexible schedule.

50-64

Workers entering the latter stage of their careers ranked their benefit needs like this:

  1. base pay
  2. retirement plan
  3. low healthcare costs
  4. bonus/incentive
  5. paid time off (PTO), and
  6. type of work.

65-plus

Older workers tend to place a premium on the type of work they’re doing and the reputation of their employers. Their priorities are as follows:

  • base pay
  • retirement plan
  • type of work
  • bonus/incentive
  • low healthcare costs
  • working for a respectable organization.

See the original article Here.

Source:

Jared Bilski (2017 March 31). From boomers to millennials, here are workers' top 6 benefits needs. [Web blog post]. Retrieved from address http://www.hrmorning.com/from-boomers-to-millennials-here-are-workers-top-6-benefit-needs/


Workers Might See Employer Health Coverage Disappear Under New GOP AHCA

Do you receive your healthcare through an employer? Then take a look at this article from Benefits Pro about how the passing of the AHCA will affect employees who get their healthcare through an employer by Marlene Y. Satter.

It’s not just individuals without employer health coverage who could lose big under the newly revised version of the Republicans’ American Health Care Act.

People who get health coverage from their jobs could be left swinging in the wind, too—in fact, as many as half of all such employees could be affected.

That’s according to an Alternet report that says an amendment added to the bill currently being considered by the House of Representatives would allow insurers in states that get waivers from regulations put in place by the Affordable Care Act to deny coverage for 10 types of health services—including maternity care, prescription drugs, mental health treatment and hospitalization.

An MSNBC report points out that “because the Republican-led House is scrambling to pass a bill without scrutiny or serious consideration,” the last-minute amendment’s full effects aren’t even known, since “[t]his is precisely the sort of detail that would’ve come to light much sooner if Republicans were following the American legislative process. In fact, this may not even be the intended goal of the GOP policy.”

While the ACA prohibits employer-based plans from imposing annual limits on coverage and bare lifetime caps on 10 essential benefits, the Obama administration did loosen those restrictions back in 2011, saying that employers could instead choose to follow another state’s required benefits.

What the new Republican take on the AHCA does is push that further—a lot further—by allowing large employers to pick the benefit requirements for any state. That would let them limit coverage on such costly types of care as mental health and substance abuse services.

In a Wall Street Journal report, Andy Slavitt, former acting administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services under President Barack Obama, is quoted saying, “It’s huge. They’re creating a backdoor way to gut employer plans, too.”

The changes to employer-based plans would hit anyone not insured by Medicare or by small-business plans, because the bill includes cuts to Medicaid and changes to the individual market as well.

A report from the Brookings Institution points out that “One of the core functions of health insurance is to protect people against financial ruin and ensure that they get the care they need if they get seriously ill.” The ACA pushed insurance plans to meet that standard, it says, by requiring them to “limit enrollees’ annual out-of-pocket spending and [bar] plans from placing annual or lifetime limits on the total amount of care they would cover.”

However, while those protections against catastrophic costs “apply to almost all private insurance plans, including the plans held by the roughly 156 million people who get their coverage through an employer,” the Brookings report says, the amendment to the Republican bill “could jeopardize those protections—not just for people with individual market plans, but also for those with employer coverage.”

How? By modifying “the ‘essential health benefit’ standards that govern what types of services must be covered by individual and small group market insurance plans. The intent of the amendment is reportedly to eliminate the federal benefit standards that currently exist and instead allow each state to define its own list of essential health benefits.”

And then, with employers allowed to pick and choose which state’s regulations they’d like to follow, a loophole the size of the Capitol building would not only allow “states will set essential health benefit standards that are considerably laxer than those that are in place under the ACA,” says the report, but “large employers may have the option to pick which state’s essential health benefits requirements they wish to abide by for the purposes of these provisions.”

The result? “[T]his would likely have the effect of virtually eliminating the catastrophic protections with respect to large employers since employers could choose to pick whichever state set the laxest standards. The same outcome would be likely to occur for all private insurance policies,” the report continues, “if insurers were permitted to sell plans across state lines, as the Administration has suggested enacting through separate legislation.”

While the actual effect of the amendment is unclear, the Brookings report concludes, “there is strong reason to believe that, in practice, the definition of essential health benefits that applied to the catastrophic protections would be far weaker under the House proposal than under current law, seriously undermining these protections. These potential adverse effects on people with employer coverage, in addition to the potentially damaging effects of such changes on the individual health insurance market, are thus an important reason that policymakers should be wary of the House proposal with respect to essential health benefits.”

See the original article Here.

Source:

Satter M. (2017 May 4). Workers might see employer health coverage disappear under new GOP AHCA [Web blog post]. Retrieved from address http://www.benefitspro.com/2017/05/04/workers-might-see-employer-health-coverage-disappe?page_all=1


Advisers Seek Innovative Ways To Increase Retirement Savings

Are you struggling to save for your retirement? Check out this great article from Employee Benefits Adviser on what employee benefits advisers are doing to help their clients prepare for their retirement by Cort Olsen.

In a recent forum co-hosted by Retirement Clearinghouse, EBRI, Wiser and the Financial Services Roundtable, experts shared how automated retirement portability programs could be the key to increased participation in private-sector retirement plans.

Today, at least 64% of Americans say they do not have sufficient funds for retirement and less than half of private-sector workers participate in workplace retirement programs. Former U.S. Sen. Kent Conrad, a Democrat from North Dakota, says these statistics could improve through better access to workplace retirement savings plans.

“So many small businesses tell [Congress], ‘Look we’d like to offer a plan, but we just can’t afford it,’” Conrad says. “We take the liability off of their shoulders, we take the administrative difficulty off their shoulders and allow a third party to administer the plans, run the plans and have the financial responsibility for the plans, which makes a big difference for employers.”

With these improved access points to savings plans, Conrad says the opportunity arises to create new retirement security plans for smaller businesses with fewer than 500 employees, enabling multiple employers — even from different industries — to band together to offer their workers low cost, well-designed options.

“Once the [savings plan] has been put in place for a period of time, we then introduce a nationwide minimum coverage standard for businesses with more than 50 employees,” Conrad says. “Any mandate is controversial, but legally if you dramatically simplify (don’t require employer match) really all they have to do is payroll deduction, and then it becomes not unreasonable for employers with 50 or more workers to offer some kind of plan.”

How to achieve auto-portability
Once plans have been made available for employers of all sizes, Jack VanDerhei, research director for the Employee Benefit Research Institute, recommends three different scenarios for auto-portability of retirement plans between employers.

1) Full auto-portability. VanDerhei considers this to be the most efficient scenario, where every participant consolidates their savings in their new employer plan every time they change jobs. The goal would be that all participants arrive at age 65 with only one account accumulated over the span of their working life.
2) Partial auto-portability. In this scenario, every participant with less than $5,000 — indexed for inflation — consolidates their savings in their new employer plan every time they change jobs. “If you have $5,000 or less in your account balance at the time you change jobs, leakage would only come from hardship withdrawals,” VanDerhei says. This means that money would only leave the account if the participant determined it necessary to take money out to pay for a necessity.
3) Baseline: status quo. In addition to hardship withdrawals, there is a participant-specific probability of cashing out and loan default leakage at the time of job transition. These participant specific leakages can be age, income, account balance and how long the participant has been with the employer.

VanDerhei says the younger the participants are to begin using full auto-portability of retirement plans, the more likely they are to get the most out of their retirement savings once they reach the age of 65.

“If you look at people who are currently between the ages of 25 and 34, under a partial portability there is a chance for accumulation to reach $659 billion and under a full portability there is a chance to reach $847 billion in accumulation,” VanDerhei says. “As you would expect, accumulation will decrease as the age increases if they choose to enter into auto-portability later in life.”

Spencer Williams, president and CEO of Retirement Clearinghouse, LLC, says although retirement portability has been codified into ERISA there are not enough mechanisms involved to encourage participants to continue to save for retirement rather than cashing out.

“We have a little more than a third of the population cashing out when they change jobs,” Williams says. “The research shows that if you fix that problem, the difficulty moving peoples’ money, we will begin the process of reducing leakage.”

Once a retirement account reaches a certain amount, Williams adds that participants will begin to take the account more seriously and have more desire to continue investing in the plan.

“We need to create an efficient and effective means by which people can have their money moved for them, and in doing that we begin to change peoples’ behavior,” Williams says. “Finally, if we increase access and coverage, along with auto-portability, all of those benefits accrue from all those new participants in the system.”

See the original article Here.

Source:

Olsen C. (2017 April 6). Advisers seek innovative ways to increase retirement savings [Web blog post]. Retrieved from address https://www.employeebenefitadviser.com/news/advisers-seek-innovative-ways-to-increase-retirement-savings


3 Aspects of the GOP Healthcare Plan that Demand Employers’ Attention

The House of Representatives last week passed the American Health Care Act (AHCA) bill to begin the process of repealing the ACA. Find out what this new legislation means for employers in the great article from Employee Benefits Adviser by Daniel N. Kuperstein.

The extremely emotional journey to repeal (more appropriately, to “change”) the Affordable Care Act reached a significant milestone this week: The Republican-led House of Representatives passed an updated version of the American Health Care Act. While more than 75% of the provisions of the ACA remain intact, the AHCA gutted or delayed several of the ACA’s taxes on employers, insurers and individuals.

So what does this mean for employers?

First off, it’s important to remember that this new bill is not law just yet. The House version of the bill now heads to the Senate, where there’s no guarantee that it will pass in its current form; the margin for victory is much slimmer there. Only three “no” votes by Senate Republicans could defeat the bill, and both moderate and conservative Republican lawmakers in the Senate have expressed concerns about the bill. In other words, employers don’t have to do anything just yet, but it’s still beneficial to understand the major changes that could be coming down the pike.

As employers know from working over the last seven years to implement provisions of the ACA, there will be a million tiny details to work through if the AHCA becomes law.

But for now, we see three major aspects that demand employers’ attention.

There will be more emphasis on health savings accounts
Under the AHCA, health savings accounts will likely become far more popular — and more useful. The HSA contribution limits for employers and individuals are essentially doubled. Additionally, HSAs will be able to reimburse over-the-counter medications and allow spouses to make catch-up contributions to the same HSA. Of course, with this added flexibility comes increased responsibility — there will be a greater need for employees to understand their insurance.

There will be more flexibility in choosing a benchmark plan
For larger employers not in the small group market, the AHCA creates an opportunity to choose a benchmark plan that offers a significantly lower level of benefits to employees.

Currently, the ACA provides that employer-sponsored self-insured health plans, fully-insured large group health plans, and grandfathered health plans are not required to offer EHBs. However, these plans are prohibited from imposing annual and lifetime dollar limits on any EHBs they do offer. For purposes of determining which benefits are EHBs subject to the annual and lifetime dollar limits, the ACA currently permits employers sponsoring these types of plans to define their EHBs using any state benchmark plan. In other words, employers are not bound by the essential health benefits mandated by their state and can pick from another state’s list of required benefits.

Under the AHCA, we may see a big change to how the rules on annual and lifetime limits work. Notably, nothing in the AHCA would prohibit employers from choosing a state benchmark plan from a state that had obtained an AHCA waiver, which would allow the state to put annual and lifetime limits on its EHBs. This means that, if one state decides to waive these EHB requirements, many employers could decide to use that lower-standard plan as their benchmark plan. Of course, while choosing such a benchmark plan may benefit an organization by lowering its costs, such a move may have a negative impact on its ability to recruit and retain the best talent.

There will be a greater need to help employees make smart benefits decisions
The most important aspect of this for employers is to understand the trend in health insurance, which is undeniably moving in the direction of consumerism.

The driving philosophy behind this new Republican plan is to place more responsibility on individuals. However, this doesn’t mean employers can throw a party and simply wish their workers “good luck” — employers need to think at a macro level about what’s good for business. In a tightening labor market in which so many talented people consider themselves free agents, smart employers will focus on helping employees to make smart decisions about their health insurance.

See the original article Here.

Source:

Kuperstein D. (2017 May 5). 3 aspects of the GOP healthcare plan that demand employers attention [Web blog post]. Retrieved from address https://www.employeebenefitadviser.com/opinion/3-aspects-of-the-gop-healthcare-plan-that-demand-employers-attention


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.


Understanding the Evolution of Health Insurance in a Post-ACA World

With the fall of the AHCA, are you wondering where you are left standing with healthcare? Check out this great article from Benefits Pro on what the fall of the AHCA means for employers and how to proceed with healthcare from here by Eric Helman.

While much has been written about specific aspects of the ACA and how repeal, replace and repair will affect certain populations, the impact on employer-sponsored benefits is more convoluted.

In the world of employee benefits, to properly understand the post ACA world, we must reflect on the confluence of how five separate constituents react to the new health insurance landscape.

The issues and priorities of these five groups: government, carriers, employers, employees, and brokers/consultants, and how they relate to each other will dictate the evolution of health insurance in the post-ACA world.

These insights will illuminate what to expect in a post-ACA climate as the health insurance landscape continues to evolve under President Trump.

Government compliance issues ease

While we all may be a bit weary from the focus on Washington, the fact remains the federal government continues to be the single biggest catalyst for changes in the health insurance and benefits landscape.

For benefits professionals, it is important to recognize that for all the politicization around ACA, there is very little focus on the employer-provided benefits space, especially outside of the realm of small employers. The priority for government involvement in repeal-replace-repair is the individual market and Medicaid expansion.

Having said this, if the Republicans choose to use reconciliation to repeal the ACA with a simple majority, many aspects of the employer-provided system will be affected. Unfortunately, this will perpetuate the preoccupation with compliance in the employer space, continuing the trend of non-value add expenditure of resources that has plagued the industry for the last five years.

Carrier mandates relax

Perhaps surprisingly, the second area of significant change in the post-ACA era will be in the domain of the carriers. Against the backdrop of the Department of Justice opinions on the two proposed mega-mergers, we expect the greatest impact of repeal-replace-repair will manifest itself in the proliferation of new products which were “non-compliant” under the ACA.

Whether correct or not, one of the indictments of the ACA is increased mandates do more to destroy markets in terms of access and affordability than they do to advance these objectives.

Look for the relaxation of these mandates and the commensurate acceleration of new product development which will inevitably follow. Combined with the return of premium reimbursement plans in the small market, we expect the further commoditization of major medical insurance as low risk consumers choose less coverage for less premium.

Employers reallocate benefits compensation

Second only to the carriers, the employers have been the biggest victims of the ACA era. While many have applauded the decline in the rate of health care inflation, the reality is that benefits costs continue to grow more than inflation, placing an ever-increasing burden on total compensation planning.

Add to this the increased cost of compliance in an environment where employers are trying to reduce administrative costs in the face of a slow growth economy and you can understand the “ACA fatigue” many employers report.

Repeal-replace-repair, while it will bring uncertainty in the near term, is likely to lower the burden on employers and allow more strategic thinking about how they allocate compensation to benefits.

The increasing age diversity of their employees will force them to consider altering this allocation in favor of financial wellness (retirement and student debt) perhaps at the expense of traditional health benefits. The war for new talent precipitated by near full employment in skilled professions will only exacerbate this tension.

Employees wise up on benefit choices

For employees, the impact of the politicization of health care will continue to cloud their perception of their role in choosing and consuming the benefit programs offered by their employers.

While much has been written about the promise of “consumerism” to change the hyper-inflationary nature of fee-for-service health care, it is apparent that the deadly combination of employee illiteracy and entitlement about employer-provided health insurance is a greater impediment to real reform in the way health care is consumed in this country.

With the potential deregulation on mandated benefits and the increasing availability of retail health care alternatives, it will be incumbent on all the constituents to accelerate the employees’ education and appreciation for employee benefit choices customized to their informed perception of need and risk mitigation.

Brokers/consultants rise to the challenges

And now, the elephant in the room, the impact on brokers and consultants. One of my early mentors said, “There is profit in confusion.” For the skilled practitioners, I think they would agree that the net effect of the ACA was increased opportunity. It is important to note however, that this opportunity required focus on new disciplines.

No longer were the skills of customer relationship management, procurement management and vendor management sufficient to satisfy the needs of their clients. The best players were forced to develop expertise in compliance, regulatory impact, benefits technology and internal human resources processes that their predecessors could ignore. This, the low cost of money and the aging workforce of benefit producers has contributed to the continued wave of firm consolidation which changes the nature of competition.

Additionally, the widely publicized fall of market disruptors will have a chilling effect on innovation for the near term. In the post-ACA era, benefits professionals will be challenged to balance revenue, client retention and cost-of-service pressures in an environment where the future is uncertain.

The post-ACA era promises to be as exciting as the last five years. To paraphrase Richard Epstein on a separate topic, the real dilemma is that the people working on the problem lack the technical expertise and the political agnostic orientation necessary for real change.

In the meantime, successful participants in this marketplace will be forced to be both diplomats and opportunists, acutely aware of the issues and priorities facing all of the important constituents and balancing these to the most optimum outcome. I, personally, am comforted that we have some of the most creative people I know working on this challenge.

See the original article Here.

Source:

Helman E. (2017 April 7). Understanding the evolution of health insurance in a post-ACA world [Web blog post]. Retrieved from address http://www.benefitspro.com/2017/04/07/understanding-the-evolution-of-health-insurance-in?t=core-group&page_all=1


5 Benefits Communication Mistakes That Kill Employee Satisfaction

Are you using the proper communication channels to inform your employees about their benefits? Take a look at this great article from HR Morning about how to manage to communicate with your employees to keep them satisfied at work by Jared Bilski.

Good benefits communication is more important than the actual benefits you offer – at least when it comes to employee satisfaction.
Proof: When a company with a rich benefits program (i.e., better than industry standard) communicated poorly, just 22% of workers were satisfied with their benefits.

On the other hand, when an employer with a less rich benefits program communicated effectively, 76% of employees were satisfied with the benefits.

These findings come from a Towers Watson WorkUSA study.

At the at the 2017 Mid-Sized Retirement & Healthcare Plan Management Conference in Phoenix, AZ., Julie Adamik, the former head of Employee Benefits Training and Solutions at PETCO, highlighted the five most common benefits communication mistakes that put firms in the former category.

Satisfaction killers

1. The information is boring. Many employees assume that if the info is about benefits, it’s probably boring. As a result, they tend to tune out and miss critical material.

2. The learning styles and preferences of different generations aren’t taken into account. With multiple generations working side-by-side, a one-size-fits-all approach is doomed to fail.

3. The budget is too low. If your company has a $15 million benefits package, you shouldn’t accept upper management’s argument that a $2,500 communication budget should cover it. HR and benefits pros need to take a stand in this area.

4. The language is “too professional.” Assuming that official-sounding language is better than “plain speak” is a common but costly communication mistake.

5. There’s too much information being covered. Cramming everything into a single open enrollment meeting is guaranteed to overwhelm employees.

Cost, wellness, personal issues and care

Employers also need to be wary of relying too heavily on tech when it comes to benefits communication. Even though there are plenty of technological innovations in the world of benefits services and communications, but HR pros should never forget the importance of old-fashioned human interaction.

That’s one of the main takeaways from a recent Health Advocate study that was part of the whitepaper titled “Striking a Healthy Balance: What Employees Really Want Out of Workplace Benefits Communication.”

The study broke down employees’ preferred methods of benefits communications in a number of areas. (Note: Employees could select more than one answer.)

When asked how they preferred to receive health cost & administrative info, the report found:

  • 73% of employees said directly with a person by phone
  • 69% said via a website/online portal, and
  • 56% preferred an in-person conversation.

Regarding their wellness benefits:

  • 71% of employees preferred to receive the info through a website/online portal
  • 62% said directly with a person by phone, and
  • 56% preferred an in-person conversation.

In terms of personal/emotional wellness issues:

  • 71% of employees preferred to receive the info directly with a person by phone
  • 65% preferred an in-person conversation, and
  • 60% would most like to receive the info via a website/online portal.

Finally, when it came to managing chronic conditions:

  • 66% of employees preferred to receive the info directly with a person by phone
  • 63% would most like to receive the info via a website/online portal, and
  • 61% preferred an in-person conversation.

See the original article Here.

Source:

Bilski J. (2017 April 4). 5 benefits communication mistakes that kill employee satisfaction [Web blog post]. Retrieved from address http://www.hrmorning.com/5-benefits-communication-mistakes-that-kill-employee-satisfaction/


Are Healthcare Cost-Shifting Efforts at a Tipping Point?

Are you having trouble controlling your healthcare cost? Take a look at this interesting article from Employee Benefits Advisor on how rising healthcare costs are affecting employers by Bruce Shutan.

With the fate of healthcare reform in limbo, new research suggests employers are moving forward with a host of incremental changes to their health and wellness plans in hopes of curtailing costs on their own.

Kim Buckey, VP of client services at DirectPath, an employee engagement and healthcare compliance technology company, has noticed a slowdown in adoption of high-deductible health plans and cost-shifting strategies that aren’t quite living up to expectations. DirectPath’s 2017 Medical Plan Trends and Observations Report, based on an analysis of about 975 employee benefit health plans, found employers applying creative methods for cost control.

Buckey noted greater use of health savings accounts, wellness incentives, price transparency tools and alternative care options.

Slightly more than half of the employers studied by DirectPath offer a price transparency tool, while another 18% plan to do so in the next three years. Price-comparison services were found to save employees and employers alike an average of $173 and $409, respectively, per procedure.

In an effort to reduce costs and the administrative burden of tracking coverage for dependents, surcharges on spouses who can elect coverage elsewhere soared more than 40% within the past year to $152 per month.

The number of plans that offer wellness incentives rose to 58% from 50% between 2016 and 2017. Rewards included paycheck contributions, plan premium discounts, contributions to HSAs and health reimbursement arrangements and reduced co-pays for office visits. HSAs were far more popular than employee-funded HRAs (67% vs. 15% of employers examined), while employer contributions to HSAs increased nearly 10%.

Barriers to care and cost containment
A separate survey conducted by CEB, a technology company that monitors corporate performance, noted that although as many as one-third of organizations offer telemedicine, more than 55% of employees aren’t even aware of their availability and nearly 60% believe they’re difficult to access.

DirectPath and CEB both found that the average cost of specialty drugs increased by more than 30%. This reflects research conducted by the National Business Group on Health. Nearly one-third of NBGH members said the category was their highest driver of healthcare costs last year.

The pursuit of a panacea for rising group health costs has been meandering. When Buckey’s career began, she recalls how indemnity plans gave way to HMOs and managed care, then HDHPs, consumer-directed plans and private exchanges. “There is no one silver bullet that’s going to solve this problem,” she explains, “and I think employers and their advisers are starting to understand that it’s got to be a combination of things.”

More employers are now realizing that cost-shifting isn’t a viable long-term solution and that “whatever changes are put in place will require a well thought-out, year-round and robust communication plan,” she says.

There’s also a serious need to improve healthcare literacy, with Buckey noting that many employees still struggle to understand basic concepts such as co-pays, deductibles and HSAs. Consequently, she says it’s no wonder why they often “just shut down and do whatever their doctor tells them.

“So I think anything that advisers and brokers can do to support their employers in explaining these plans, or whatever changes they choose to implement,” she continues, will help raise understanding and eventually have a positive influence on behavior change. This, in turn, will help lower employee healthcare costs.”

See the original article Here.

Source:

Shutan B. (2017 April 5). Are healthcare cost-shifting efforts at a tipping point? [Web blog post]. Retrieved from address https://www.employeebenefitadviser.com/news/are-healthcare-cost-shifting-efforts-at-a-tipping-point


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