CMS’ Proposed Rule on ACA Market Stabilization

Stay up-to-date with the most recent ACA regulations thanks to our partners United Benefits Advisors (UBA),

On February 17, 2017, the Department of Health and Human Services’ Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) issued a proposed rule to stabilize the health insurance market and address risks to the individual and small group markets. CMS proposes changes to guaranteed availability of coverage, network adequacy, essential community providers, open enrollment periods, special enrollment periods, continuous coverage, and standards for the Exchanges.

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

Guaranteed Availability of Coverage

The guaranteed availability provisions require health insurance issuers offering non-grandfathered coverage in the individual or group market to offer coverage to and accept every individual and employer that applies for such coverage unless an exception applies. Individuals and employers must usually pay the first month’s premium to activate coverage.

CMS previously interpreted the guaranteed availability provisions so that a consumer would be allowed to purchase coverage under a different product without having to pay past due premiums. Further, if an individual tried to renew coverage in the same product with the same issuer, then the issuer could apply the enrollee’s upcoming premium payments to prior non-payments.

Under the proposed rule, CMS modifies its interpretation of the guaranteed availability provisions so that an issuer may refuse to activate new coverage because of premium payment failure. This means that an issuer can require a policyholder whose coverage was terminated for premium non-payment in the individual or group market to pay all past due premiums owed to the issuer for coverage enrolled in the prior 12 months for that policyholder to resume coverage from that issuer. The issuer is required to apply its premium payment policy uniformly to all employers or individuals regardless of health status and consistent with non-discrimination requirements.

Network Adequacy

Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), health and dental plan issuers must meet minimum network adequacy criteria to be certified as qualified health plans (QHPs). The criteria require a QHP issuer to maintain a network that is sufficient in number and types of providers, including providers that specialize in mental health and substance abuse services, to assure that all services will be accessible without unreasonable delay.

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) proposes to rely on state reviews for network adequacy in states where a federally-facilitated exchange is operating. For states that do not have the authority and means to conduct sufficient network adequacy reviews, HHS would rely on an issuer’s accreditation (commercial or Medicaid) from an HHS-recognized accrediting entity.

Essential Community Providers

Essential community providers (ECPs) include providers that serve predominantly low-income and medically underserved individuals; issuers must meet requirements for ECPs’ inclusion in QHP provider networks.

HHS proposes to lower the minimum percentage of network participating practitioners; an issuer will satisfy the regulatory standard if the issuer contracts with at least 20 percent of available ECPs in each plan’s service area to participate in the plan’s provider network.

Under current guidance, issuers may only identify providers in their network who are included on a list of available ECPs maintained by HHS. HHS proposes to allow issuers to identify ECPs through a write-in process to build up the HHS ECP list.

Annual Open Enrollment Periods

Currently, annual Exchange open enrollment begins on November 1, 2017, and ends on January 31, 2018, for plan year 2018. CMS proposes to shorten the open enrollment period to begin on November 1, 2017, and end on December 15, 2017.

Special Enrollment Periods

Starting in June 2017, CMS proposes to require pre-enrollment eligibility verification for all special enrollment periods of new consumers who seek QHP coverage through the federally-facilitated exchanges and state-based exchanges on the federal platform (Exchanges).

The proposed special enrollment period changes apply to the individual market only, not to special enrollment periods under the Small Business Health Options Program (SHOP).

Continuous Coverage

HHS seeks public comment on individual market policies to promote continuous health coverage enrollment and to discourage individuals from waiting to enroll in coverage until they become ill.

HHS provides examples of potential policies. One example is to require prior coverage evidence and require a longer look-back period for special enrollment period eligibility. Another example is to allow individuals who cannot provide prior coverage evidence during a look-back period, to be covered under a special enrollment period, but to impose either at least a 90-day waiting period before activating enrollment or a late enrollment penalty.

HHS is also interested in public comment on whether the individual market needs policies such as waiting periods or maintaining continuous, creditable coverage to avoid pre-existing condition exclusions that were requirements imposed by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA).

Health Insurance Issuer Standards under the ACA, Including Standards Related to Exchanges

Under the ACA, issuers of non-grandfathered individual and small group health insurance plans, including qualified health plans, must ensure that the plans adhere to certain levels of coverage.

A plan’s coverage level, or actuarial value (AV), is determined based on its coverage of the essential health benefits (EHBs) for a standard population. The ACA requires a bronze plan to have an AV of 60 percent, a silver plan to have an AV of 70 percent, a gold plan to have an AV of 80 percent, and a platinum plan to have an AV of 90 percent. The HHS Secretary issues regulations on the calculation of AV and its application to coverage levels; the ACA authorizes the Secretary to develop guidelines to provide for a de minimis variation in the actuarial valuations used in determining the level of coverage of a plan to account for differences in actuarial estimates.

CMS proposes to amend the definition of de minimis to a variation of -4/+2 percentage points, rather than +/- 2 percentage points for all non-grandfathered individual and small group market plans that are required to comply with AV. To implement the amended AV de minimis range, CMS would update its 2018 AV Calculator accordingly.

Conclusion

Per HHS, the proposed rule aims to ensure market stability and issuer participation in the Exchanges for the 2018 benefit year as issuers develop their proposed plan benefit structures and premiums for 2018.

With a nod to President Trump’s Executive Order to minimize the economic burden of the ACA pending its repeal, the proposed rule states that it aims to reduce the fiscal and regulatory burden on individuals, families, health insurers, patients, recipients of health care services, and purchasers of health insurance. Further, the proposed rule seeks to lower insurance rates and ensure a competitive market by preventing and curbing potential abuses associated with special enrollment periods and gaming by individuals taking advantage of current regulations on grace periods and termination of coverage due to premium nonpayment.

The proposed rule includes HHS’ assessment of the benefits, costs, and transfers associated with its proposed regulatory action. Based on its impact estimates, HHS anticipates that the rule will reduce issuers’ regulatory burden, reduce the impact of consumer adverse selection, stabilize premiums in the individual insurance market, and provide consumers with more affordable health insurance coverage.

To download the original recap click Here.


Solving the Prescription Puzzle

Great article from our partner, United Benefit Advisors (UBA) by Mary Delaney

Determining how an employer develops the most effective formulary, while protecting the financial stability of the plan, is certainly the challenge of this decade. Prescription management used to mean monitoring that the right people are taking medications to control their disease while creating strategies to move them from brand name to generic medications. With the dawn of specialty medications, formulary management has become a game of maximizing the pass-through of rebates, creating the best prior authorization strategies and tiering of benefits to create some barrier to more expensive medications, all without becoming too disruptive. As benefits managers know, that is a difficult challenge. The latest UBA Health Plan Survey revealed that 53.6 percent of plans offer four tiers or more, a 21.5 percent increase from last year and nearly a 55.5 percent increase in just two years. Thus, making “tiering” a top strategy to control drug costs. There are many additional opportunities to improve and help control the pharmacy investment, but focusing on the key components of formulary management and working on solutions that decrease the demands for medications are critical to successful plan management.

When developing a formulary, Brenda Motheral, RPh, MBA, Ph.D., CEO of Archimedes, suggests that chasing rebates is not a strategy to optimize your investment. Some of the highest rebates may be from medications that add no better therapeutic value than an inexpensive medication that does not offer a rebate, but net cost is much lower than the brand or specialty medication being offered. Best formulary management will mean that specific medications that do not offer a significant therapeutic value are removed from the formulary, or are covered at a “referenced price” so the member pays the cost difference. Formulary management will need to focus on where the drug is filled and which medications are available.

When setting up parameters on where a drug is to be filled, the decision needs to be made if a plan will promote mail order. Mail order, if used and monitored appropriately, makes it more convenient for a patient to receive their regularly used medications and may provide savings. In fact, the UBA Health Plan Survey finds that more than one-third (36.3 percent) of prescription drug plans provide a 90-day supply at a cost of two times retail copays. But if mail order programs are not monitored, people can continue to receive medications that are no longer required and never used, adding to medical spend waste. Furthermore, in our analysis, we are finding that not all medications are less expensive through mail order, as shown in Figure 1 below. Therefore, examining the cost differential is critical in a decision to promote, or not promote, mail order.

To see the full original article and charts click Here.

Source:

Delany M. (2017 January 24). Solving the prescription puzzle [Web blog post]. Retrieved from address http://blog.ubabenefits.com/solving-the-prescription-puzzle


Best and Worst States for Group Health Care Costs

Great article from our partner, United Benefit Advisors (UBA) about which states are the best/worst for group health care by Matt Weimer.

Also make sure to register for our upcoming UBA webinar on Tuesday, February 21 at 2:00 p.m. ET. The topic will be a case study on why communication matters in employee benefits. To register for the webinar click Here.

Employer-sponsored health insurance is greatly affected by geographic region, industry, and employer size. While some cost trends have been fairly consistent since the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) was put in place, UBA finds several surprises in its latest Health Plan Survey. Based on responses from more than 11,000 employers, UBA recently announced the top five best and worst states for group health care monthly premiums.

The top five best (least expensive) states are:

1) Hawaii

2) Idaho

3) Utah

4) Arkansas

5) Mississippi

Hawaii, a perennial low-cost leader, actually experienced a nearly seven percent decrease in its single coverage in 2016. New Mexico, a state that was a low-cost winner in 2015, saw a 22 percent increase in monthly premiums for singles and nearly a 30 percent increase in monthly family premiums, dropping it from the “best” list.

The top five worst (most expensive) states are:

1) Alaska

2) Wyoming

3) New York

4) Vermont

5) New Jersey

The UBA Health Plan Survey also enables state ranking based on the average annual cost per employee. The average annual cost per employee looks at all tiers of a plan and places an average cost on that plan based on a weighted average metric. While the resulting rankings are slightly different, they also show some interesting findings.

The 2016 average annual health plan cost per employee for all plan types is $9,727, which is a slight decrease form the average cost of $9,736 in 2015. When you start to look at the average annual cost by region and by state, there is not much change among the top from last year. The Northeast region continues to have the highest average annual cost even with the continued shift to consumer-driven health plans (CDHP). In 2016, enrollment in CDHPs in the Northeast was 34.9 percent, surpassing those enrolled in preferred provider organization (PPO) plans at 33 percent. Even with the continued shift to CDHPs, the average annual costs were $12,202 for New York, which remained the second-highest cost state, followed by $12,064 for New Jersey, and rounding out the top five, Massachusetts and Vermont flip-flopped from 2015 with Massachusetts at $11,956 and Vermont at $11,762.

As was the case in 2015, Alaska continues to lead all states in average health plan costs, topping New York by more than $1,000 per employee, with an average cost of $13,251. While year-over-year the average cost for Alaska only increased 3.35 percent, the gap increased to 36.2 percent above the national average of $9,727.

Keeping close to the national average increase, the top five states all saw a year-over-year increase of less than 4.5 percent. Unfortunately, even at a modest increase, the one thing that the top five have in common is that they all are more than 20 percent above the national average for health plan costs per employee.

See the original article Here.

Source:

Weimer M. (2017 February 15). Best and worst states for group health care costs [Web blog post]. Retrieved from address http://blog.ubabenefits.com/best-and-worst-states-for-group-health-care-costs


Large Employer Health Plans Could Also See Some Impacts From Obamacare Overhaul

Obamacare repeal could have a huge impact on employer healthcare plans. According to this article from Kaiser Health News large employers might feel some of the Obamacare overhauls ripple effect by Michelle Andrews

If you think that because you get health insurance through your job at a big company, you won’t be affected if Republicans overhaul Obamacare, think again.  Several of the law’s provisions apply to plans offered by large employers too (with some exceptions for plans that were in place before the law passed in March 2010).

It’s not yet clear how President-elect Donald Trump and the congressional Republicans plan to revamp the federal health law. They have not agreed on a plan, and they do not have enough votes in the Senate to fully repeal the current statute. So they are planning to use a budgeting rule to disassemble part of the law, and that will limit what they can change. But they also may seek revisions in important regulations and guidance that have determined how the law is implemented.

Nonetheless, as the tensions grow in Washington over the future of the health law, it is important to understand some of its effects on large-group plans.

No Copays For Preventive Services

The health insurance offered by big companies is typically pretty comprehensive, the better to attract and keep good employees. But Obamacare broadened some coverage requirements. Under the law, insurers and employers have to cover many preventive services without charging people anything for them. The services that are required with no out-of-pocket payments include dozens of screenings and tests, including mammograms and colonoscopies, that are recommended by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force; routine immunizations endorsed by the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices; and a range of services that are recommended specifically for children and for women by the federal Health Resources and Services Administration.

The change that affects the most people on an ongoing basis is likely the requirement that plans cover without cost sharing all methods of contraception approved by the Food and Drug Administration. (There are limited exceptions for religious employers.)

“In terms of sustained costs, birth control is probably the biggest,” said Caroline Pearson, a senior vice president at Avalere Health.

No Annual Or Lifetime Limits On Coverage

Even the most generous plans often had lifetime maximum coverage limits of a few million dollars before the health law passed, and some plans also imposed annual coverage limits. The health law eliminated those dollar coverage limits.

Annual Cap On Out-Of-Pocket Payments For Covered Services

The health law set limits on how much people can be required to pay in deductibles, copayments or coinsurance every year for covered care they receive from providers in their network. In 2017, the limit is $7,150 for individuals and $14,300 for families.

“Many employers often had an out-of-pocket limit anyway, but this guarantees protection for people with high needs,” said JoAnn Volk, a research professor at Georgetown University’s Center on Health Insurance Reforms, who has written on this issue.

Adult Kids’ Coverage Expanded

The law allowed workers to keep their children on their plans until they reach age 26, even if they’re married, financially independent and live in another state. Republicans have said they may keep this popular provision in place if they dismantle the law.

Guaranteed External Appeal Rights

Consumers who disagree with a health plan’s decision to deny benefits or payment for services can appeal the decision to an independent review panel.

The provision applies to all new health plans, including those offered by self-funded companies that pay their workers’ claims directly and who were previously exempt from appeals requirements.

No Waiting Periods To Join A Plan 

Employers used to be able to make new employees wait indefinitely before they were eligible for coverage under the company plan. No more. Now the waiting time for coverage can be no more than 90 days.

No Waiting Periods For Coverage Of Pre-Existing Conditions 

Prior to the ACA, employers could delay covering workers’ chronic and other health conditions for up to a year after they became eligible for a plan. Under the ACA, that’s no longer allowed. As a practical matter, though, coverage of pre-existing conditions was rarely an issue in large-group plans, say some health insurance experts.

“It was difficult administratively, and the law of large numbers” meant that one individual’s health care costs didn’t generally have a noticeable impact on the group, said Karen Pollitz, a senior fellow at the Kaiser Family Foundation. (KHN is an editorially independent program of the foundation.)

Repeal could reopen the door to that prohibited practice, however.

Standardized Plan Descriptions

The law requires all plans to provide a “summary of benefits and coverage” in a standard format that allows consumers to understand their coverage and make apples-to-apples plan comparisons. 

Basic Coverage Standards For Large-Group Plans

The health law isn’t as prescriptive with large-group plans about the specific benefits that have to be offered. They aren’t required to cover the 10 essential health benefits that individual and small-group plans have to include, for example. But the law does require that big companies offer plans that meet a “minimum-value” standard paying at least 60 percent of the cost of covered services, on average. Those that don’t could face a fine.

Initially, the online calculator that the federal Department of Health and Human Services provided to help large employers gauge compliance with the minimum value standard gave the green light to plans that didn’t cover hospitalization services or more than a few doctor visits a year. Now plans must provide at least that coverage to meet federal standards.

The result: Large employers generally no longer offer so-called “mini-med” policies with very skimpy benefits.

If the health law is repealed, that could change. In some industries with lower-wage workers and smaller profit margins, “they might begin to offer them again, and employees might demand it” to help make the premiums more affordable, said Steve Wojcik, vice president of public policy at the National Business Group on Health, a membership organization representing large employers.

Although the law strengthened coverage for people in large-group plans in several ways, consumer advocates have complained about shortcomings. It aimed to ensure that coverage is affordable by requiring that individuals be responsible for paying no more than 9.69 percent of their household income for individual employer coverage, for example.

If their insurance costs more than that, workers can shop for coverage on the marketplaces set up by the health law and be eligible for premium tax credits — if their income is less than 400 percent of the federal poverty level (about $47,000). But the standard does not take into consideration any additional costs for family coverage.

Consumer advocates also point to the wellness regulations as a problematic area of the law. The health law increased the financial incentives that employers can offer workers for participating in workplace wellness programs to 30 percent of the cost of individual coverage, up from 20 percent.

Such incentives can effectively coerce people into participating and sharing private medical information, critics charge, and unfairly penalize sick people.

“It potentially allows [plans] to discriminate against people with medical conditions, which the ACA is supposed to eliminate,” said Linda Blumberg, a senior fellow at the Urban Institute’s Health Policy Center.

See the original article Here.

Source:

Andrews M. (2017 January 17). Large employer health plans could also see some impacts from obamacare overhaul [Web blog post]. Retrieved from address http://khn.org/news/large-employer-health-plans-could-also-see-some-impacts-from-obamacare-overhaul/


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.


IRS may have big ACA employer tax woes, advocate says

IRS may play a big part in your company’s ACA tax filing. Checkout this article from Benefits Pro about what the IRS will be looking for in companies ACA filings this year by Allison Bell

An official who serves as a voice for taxpayers at the Internal Revenue Service says the IRS may be poorly prepared to handle the wave of employer health coverage offer reports now flooding in.

The Affordable Care Act requires “applicable large employers” to use Form 1095-C to tell their workers, former workers and the IRS what, if any, major medical coverage the workers and former workers received. Most employers started filing the forms in early 2016, for the 2015 coverage year.

This year, the IRS is supposed to start imposing penalties on some employers who failed to offer what the government classifies as solid coverage to enough workers.

If Donald Trump’s promise holds true, the Affordable Care Act could be on its way out. Along with it may…

Nina Olson, the national taxpayer advocate, says the IRS was not equipped to test the accuracy of ACA health coverage information reporting data before the 2016 filing season, for the 2015 coverage year. The IRS expected to receive just 77 million 1095-C forms for 2015, but it has actually received 104 million 1095-C’s, and it has rejected 5.4 percent of the forms, Olson reports.

“Reasons for rejected returns include faulty transmission validation, missing (or multiple) attachments, error reading the file, or duplicate files,” Olson says.

Meanwhile, the IRS has had to develop a training program for the IRS employees working on employer-related ACA issues on the fly, and it was hoping in November to provide the training this month, Olson says.

“The training materials are currently under development,” Olson says. She says her office did not have a chance to see how complete the training materials are, or how well they protect taxpayer reports.

Olson discusses those concerns about IRS efforts to administer ACA tax provisions and many other tax administration concerns in a new report on IRS performance. The Taxpayer Advocate Service prepares the reports every year, to tell Congress how the IRS is doing at meeting taxpayers’ needs.

In the same report, Olson talks about other ACA-related problems, such as headaches for ACA exchange plan premium tax credit subsidy users who are also Social Security Disability Insurance program users, and she gives general ACA tax provision administration data.

APTC subsidy

The ACA premium tax credit subsidy program helps low-income and moderate-income exchange plan users pay for their coverage.

Exchange plan buyers who qualify can get the tax credit the ordinary way, by applying for it when they file their income tax returns for the previous year. But about 94 percent of tax credit users receive the subsidy in the form of an “advanced premium tax credit.”

When an exchange plan user gets an APTC subsidy, the IRS sends the subsidy money to the health coverage issuer while the coverage year is still under way, to help cut how much cash the user actually has to pay for coverage.

When an APTC user files a tax return for a coverage year, in the spring after the end of the coverage year, the user is supposed to figure out whether the IRS provided too little or too much APTC help. The IRS is supposed to send cash to consumers who got too little help. If an APTC user got too much help, the IRS can take some or all of the extra help out of the user’s tax refund.

Another ACA provision, the “individual shared responsibility” provision, or individual coverage mandate provision, requires many people to obtain what the government classifies as solid major medical coverage or else pay a penalty.

Individual taxpayers first began filing ACA-related tax forms in early 2015, for the 2014 coverage year. Early last year, individual taxpayers filed ACA-related forms for the second time, for the 2015 coverage year.

Only 6.1 million taxpayers told the IRS they owed individual mandate penalty payments for 2015, down from 7.6 million who owed the penalty for 2014.

But, in part because the ACA designed the mandate penalty to get bigger each year for the first few years, the average penalty payment owed increased to $452 for 2015, from $204 for 2014.

The number of households claiming some kind of exemption from the penalty program increased to 8.6 million, from 8.4 million.

The number of filers who said they had received APTC help increased to 5.3 million for 2015, up from 3.1 million for 2014. And the amount of APTC help reported increased to $18.9 billion for 2015, from $11.3 billion in APTC subsidy help for 2014.

That means the 2015 recipients were averaging about $3,566 in reported subsidy help in 2015, down from $3,645 in reported help for 2014.

Olson says her office helped 10,910 taxpayers with ACA premium tax credit issues in the 12-month period ending Sept. 30, 2016, up from 3,318 in the previous 12-month period.

One of her concerns is how the Social Security Disability Insurance program, which is supposed to serve people with severe disabilities, interacts with the ACA provision that requires people who guess wrong about their income during the coverage year to pay back excess APTC subsidy help.

SSDI lump-sum payment headaches

Some Social Security Disability Insurance recipients have to fight with the Social Security Administration for years to qualify for benefits. Once the SSDI recipients win their fights to get benefits, the SSA may pay them all of the back benefits owed in one big lump sum.

The big, lump-sum disability benefits payments may increase the SSDI recipients’ income for a previous year so much they end up earning too much for that year to qualify for ACA premium tax credit help, Olson says in the new report.

The SSDI recipients may then have to pay all of the ACA premium tax credit help they received back to the IRS, Olson says.

So far, IRS lawyers have not figured out any law they can use to protect the SSDI recipients from having to pay large amounts of premium tax credit help back to the government, Olson says.

For now, she says, her office is just trying to work on a project to warn consumers about how accepting any lump-sum payment, including an SSDI lump-sum benefits payment, might lead to premium tax credit headaches.

See the original article Here.

Source:

Bell A. (2017 January 16). IRS may have big ACA employer tax woes, advocate says [Web blog post]. Retrieved from address http://www.benefitspro.com/2017/01/16/irs-may-have-big-aca-employer-tax-woes-advocate-sa?page_all=1


Feds pump out even more Obamacare instructions

Have you heard about the recent changes coming to the ACA? If not take a look at this great article from HR Morning about the recent changes that will be going into effect for the ACA by Jared Bilski

If you believe Republicans on Capitol Hill, the Affordable Care Act (ACA) isn’t long for this world. Still, the Obama administration continues to clarify how businesses are supposed to comply with the law’s many provisions. 

The Department of Labor (DOL), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) just put their heads together for the 35th time to address questions surrounding Obamacare reforms.

Here’s some of the most useful info to come out of this latest FAQ:

Qualified small employer HRA

As HR Morning reported previously, the 21st Century Cures Act, among other things, allows certain small employers to offer a general purpose stand-alone health reimbursement arrangement (HRA) without violating the ACA. It is also referred to as a “qualified small employer health reimbursement arrangement” — or QSEHRA.

The FAQ touches on how this new law jibes with the ACA and clarified that in order to be a QSEHRA, the structure of the plan must:

  • be funded entirely by an eligible employer — one with fewer than 50 full-time equivalent employees in the prior year and that doesn’t offer a group health plan to any of its employees
  • provide payment to, or reimbursement of, an eligible employee for medical care under Code section 213(d)
  • not reimburse more than $4,950 for eligible expenses for individuals or $10,000 for families, and
  • be provided to all eligible employees of the employer offering the HRA.

One thing the 21st Century Cures Act (and the feds’ FAQ) doesn’t address: Whether the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) applies to a QSEHRA.

Special Enrollment & HIPAA

The FAQ also addressed special enrollment for group health plans under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). Because HIPAA generally allows current employees and dependents to enroll in a company’s group health plan if the employees/dependents lose their previous coverage, they must be offered the same special enrollment option if they lose individual market coverage (i.e., health coverage they obtained through the individual Obamacare marketplace — or “exchanges”).

This could happen to individual market participants if an insurer that was covering an employee/dependent decides to stop offering that individual market coverage. As we saw last year, several major insurers have taken that step.

One exception to this special enrollment: If the loss of coverage is due to a failure to pay premiums in a timely manner — or “for cause.”

Updated women’s preventive services

As you know, under the ACA, non-grandfathered health plans are required to provide recommended preventives services for women without any cost-sharing.

Those services are listed in the Health Resources and Services Administration’s (HRSA) guidelines, and the guidelines were just updated on December 20, 2016. The updated guidelines bolster many of the existing covered preventive care services for women in the areas of:

  • breast cancer
  • cervical cancer
  • gestational diabetes
  • HIV, and
  • domestic violence.

The services in the updated guidelines must be covered — without cost-sharing — for plan years beginning on or after December 20, 2017 (Jan. 1, 2018 for calendar year plans). Until then, plans can keep using the previous HRSA guidelines.

See the original article Here.

Source:

Bilski J. (2017 January 6). Feds pump out even more Obamacare instructions [Web blog post]. Retrieved from address http://www.hrmorning.com/feds-pump-out-even-more-obamacare-instructions/


Get Health Insurance Through Your Employer? ACA Repeal Will Affect You, Too

Great article from Health Affairs about the effects of ACA repeal on employer healthcare by JoAnn Volk

Much of the recent attention on the future of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) has focused on the fate of the 22.5 million people likely to lose insurance through a repeal of Medicaid expansion and the loss of protections and subsidies in the individual insurance market. Overlooked in the declarations of who stands to lose under plans to “repeal and replace” the ACA are those enrolled in employer-sponsored health plans — the primary source of coverage for people under 65.

Job-based plans offered to employees and their families cover 150 million people in the United States. If the ACA is repealed, they stand to lose critical consumer protections that many have come to expect of their employer plan.

It’s easy to understand the focus on the individuals who gained access to coverage thanks to the health reform law. ACA drafters targeted most of the law’s insurance reforms at the individual and small-group markets, where consumers and employers had the greatest difficulty finding affordable, adequate coverage prior to health reform. The ACA’s market reforms made coverage available to those individuals with pre-existing conditions who couldn’t obtain coverage in the pre-ACA world, and more affordable for those low- and moderate-income families who couldn’t afford coverage on their own.

Less noticed, but no less important, the ACA also brought critical new protections to people in large employer plans. Although most large employer plans were relatively comprehensive and affordable before the ACA, some plans offered only skimpy coverage or had other barriers to accessing care, leaving individuals—particularly those with costly, chronic health conditions—with big bills and uncovered medical care. For that reason, the ACA extended several meaningful protections to employees of large businesses.

Preventive Services Without Cost-Sharing

The ACA requires all new health plans, including those sponsored by employers, to cover recommended preventive services without cost-sharing, bringing new benefits to 71 million Americans. That means individuals can get the screenings, immunizations, and annual check-ups that can catch illness early or prevent it altogether without worrying about meeting a costly deductible or co-payment. With that peace of mind, it’s no wonder it’s one of the most popular provisions of the ACA. Women employees can also access affordable contraception, making available a wider variety of contraceptive choices and increasing use of long-term contraceptive methods.

Pre-Existing Condition Exclusions

Under the ACA, employers cannot impose a waiting period for coverage of a pre-existing condition. Prior to the ACA, individuals who became eligible for an employer plan—for example, once hired for a new job—might have to wait up to 12 months for the plan to cover pre-existing health conditions. You could “buy down” that waiting period with months of coverage under another plan, so long as it was the right kind of plan and you didn’t go without coverage for 63 days or more. But if you lost your job, couldn’t afford COBRA, went a few months without coverage and then were lucky enough to get another job with benefits, you might find the care you needed wasn’t covered under your plan for an entire year.

Dependent Coverage To Age 26

The ACA requires all health plans, including those sponsored by large employers, to cover dependents up to age 26. Prior to the ACA, one of the fastest growing groups of uninsured was young adults — not because they turned down coverage offered to them, but because they were less likely to have access to employer-based plans or other coverage. The result has been a dramatic increase in the number of insured young adults, particularly among those with employer-sponsored coverage. This ACA requirement is one provision President-elect Trump and many anti-ACA legislators have pledged to retain.

Annual Out-Of-Pocket Limit

The ACA requires all new health plans, including those sponsored by employers, to cap the amount individuals can be expected to pay out-of-pocket each year. Prior to the ACA, even those with the security of coverage on the job couldn’t count on protection from crippling out-of-pocket costs.

Prohibition On Annual And Lifetime Limits

The ACA prohibits employer plans from having an annual or lifetime dollar limit on benefits. Prior to the ACA, employer plans often included a cap on benefits; when employees hit the cap, the coverage cut off. For individuals who needed costly care, like a baby born prematurely or those with hemophilia or multiple sclerosis, that often meant a desperate scramble to find new coverage options as one after another benefit limit was reached.

External Review

The ACA guarantees individuals the right to an independent review of a health plan’s decision to deny benefits or payment for services, regardless of whether the employer plan is insured or self-funded. Prior to the ACA, only workers in insured plans had the right to an independent review of a denied claim. But more than 60 percent of workers are in self-funded plans, and the only option for those workers to hold their plan accountable was to sue, an expensive and lengthy process.

If you’re one of the 150 million people who get their coverage through an employer plan, you may want to pay attention to the prognostications of what’s to become of the ACA. Your access to high-quality, affordable health care will depend on the outcome.

See the original article Here.

Source:

Volk J. (20174 January 11). Get health insurance through your employer? ACA repeal will affect you, too [Web blog post]. Retrieved from address http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2017/01/11/get-health-insurance-through-your-employer-aca-repeal-will-affect-you-too/


Health Law Sleepers: Six Surprising Health Items That Could Disappear With ACA Repeal

Does ACA repeal have you worried? Look into this great article from Kaiser Health News about some of things that could disappear with ACA repeal by Julie Appleby and Mary Agnes Carey

The Affordable Care Act of course affected premiums and insurance purchasing. It guaranteed people with pre-existing conditions could buy health coverage and allowed children to stay on parents’ plans until age 26. But the roughly 2,000-page bill also included a host of other provisions that affect the health-related choices of nearly every American.

Some of these measures are evident every day. Some enjoy broad support, even though people often don’t always realize they spring from the statute.

In other words, the outcome of the repeal-and-replace debate could affect more than you might think, depending on exactly how the GOP congressional majority pursues its goal to do away with Obamacare.

No one knows how far the effort will reach, but here’s a sampling of sleeper provisions that could land on the cutting-room floor:

CALORIE COUNTS AT RESTAURANTS AND FAST FOOD CHAINS

Feeling hungry? The law tries to give you more information about what that burger or muffin will cost you in terms of calories, part of an effort to combat the ongoing obesity epidemic. Under the ACA, most restaurants and fast food chains with at least 20 stores must post calorie counts of their menu items. Several states, including New York, already had similar rules before the law. Although there was some pushback, the rule had industry support, possibly because posting calories was seen as less onerous than such things as taxes on sugary foods or beverages. The final rule went into effect in December after a one-year delay. One thing that is still unclear: Does simply seeing that a particular muffin has more than 400 calories cause consumers to choose carrot sticks instead?  Results are mixed. One large meta-analysis done before the law went into effect didn’t show a significant reduction in calorie consumption, although the authors concluded that menu labeling is “a relatively low-cost education strategy that may lead consumers to purchase slightly fewer calories.”

PRIVACY PLEASE: WORKPLACE REQUIREMENTS FOR BREAST-FEEDING ROOMS

Breast feeding, but going back to work? The law requires employers to provide women break time to express milk for up to a year after giving birth and provide someplace — other than a bathroom — to do so in private. In addition, most health plans must offerbreastfeeding support and equipment, such as pumps, without a patient co-payment.

LIMITS ON SURPRISE MEDICAL COSTS FROM HOSPITAL EMERGENCY ROOM VISITS

If you find yourself in an emergency room, short on cash, uninsured or not sure if your insurance covers costs at that hospital, the law provides some limited assistance. If you are in a hospital that is not part of your insurer’s network, the Affordable Care Act requires all health plans to charge consumers the same co-payments or co-insurance for out-of-network emergency care as they do for hospitals within their networks. Still, the hospital could “balance bill” you for its costs — including ER care — that exceed what your insurer reimburses it.

If it’s a non-profit hospital — and about 78 percent of all hospitals are — the law requires it to post online a written financial assistance policy, spelling out whether it offers free or discounted care and the eligibility requirements for such programs. While not prescribing any particular set of eligibility requirements, the law requires hospitals to charge lower rates to patients who are eligible for their financial assistance programs. That’s compared with their gross charges, also known as chargemaster rates.

NONPROFIT HOSPITALS’ COMMUNITY HEALTH ASSESSMENTS

The health law also requires non-profit hospitals to justify the billions of dollars in tax exemptions they receive by demonstrating how they go about trying to improve the health of the community around them.

Every three years, these hospitals have to perform a community needs assessment for the area the hospital serves. They also have to develop — and update annually — strategies to meet these needs. The hospitals then must provide documentation as part of their annual reporting to the Internal Revenue Service. Failure to comply could leave them liable for a $50,000 penalty.

A WOMAN’S RIGHT TO CHOOSE … HER OB/GYN

Most insurance plans must allow women to seek care from an obstetrician/gynecologist without having to get a referral from a primary care physician. While the majority of states already had such protections in place, those laws did not apply to self-insured plans, which are often offered by large employers. The health law extended the rules to all new plans. Proponents say direct access makes it easier for women to seek not only reproductive health care, but also related screenings for such things as high blood pressure or cholesterol.

AND WHAT ABOUT THOSE THERAPY COVERAGE ASSURANCES FOR FAMILIES WHO HAVE KIDS WITH AUTISM?

Advocates for children with autism and people with degenerative diseases argued that many insurance plans did not provide care their families needed. That’s because insurers would cover rehabilitation to help people regain functions they had lost, such as walking again after a stroke, but not care needed to either gain functions patients never had, such speech therapy for a child who never learned how to talk, or to maintain a patient’s current level of function. The law requires plans to offer coverage for such treatments, dubbed habilitative care, as part of the essential health benefits in plans sold to individuals and small groups.

See the original article Here.

Source:

Appleby J., Carey M. (2017 January 12). Health law sleepers: six surprising health items that could disappear with ACA repeal [Web blog post]. Retrieved from address http://khn.org/news/health-law-sleepers-six-surprising-health-items-that-could-disappear-with-aca-repeal/?utm_campaign=KHN%3A+Daily+Health+Policy+Report&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=40532225&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-8vl0H_K8CNgaURbqgYS5m3isu1NUGrj0FRIdsUX8JCwcifTDRV-UvKdu6lZGvB06FTyhENvPFLaOMOsIrr2IBVBTNWQg&_hsmi=40532225


HSAs could play bigger role in retirement planning

Did you know that ACA repeal could have and effect on health savings plans (HRA)? Read this interesting article from Benefits Pro about how the repeal of the ACA might affect your HRAs by Marlene Y. Satter

With the repeal of the Affordable Care Act looming, one surprising factor in paying for health care could see its star rise higher on the horizon—the retirement planning horizon, that is. That’s the Health Savings Account—and it’s likely to become more prominent depending on what replaces the ACA.

HSAs occupy a larger role in some of the proposed replacements to the ACA put forth by Republican legislators, and with that greater exposure comes a greater likelihood that more people will rely on them more heavily to get them through other changes.

For one thing, they’ll need to boost their savings in HSAs just to pay the higher deductibles and uncovered expenses that are likely to accompany the ACA repeal.

But for another—and here’s where it gets interesting—they’ll probably become a larger part of retirement planning, since they provide a number of benefits already that could help boost retirement savings.

Contributions are already deductible from gross income, but under at least one of the proposals to replace the ACA, contributions could come with refundable tax credits—a nice perk.

Another proposal would allow HSA funds to pay for premiums on proposed new state health exchanges without a tax penalty for doing so—also beneficial. And a third would expand eligibility to have HSAs, which would be helpful.

But whether these and other possible enhancements to HSAs come to pass, there are already plenty of reasons to consider bolstering HSA savings for retirement. As workers try to navigate their way through the uncertainty that lies ahead, they’ll probably rely even more on the features these plans already offer—such as the ability to leave funds in the account (if not needed for higher medical expenses) to roll over from year to year and to grow for the future, and the fact that interest on HSA money is tax free.

But possibly the biggest benefit to an HSA for retirement is the fact that funds invested in one grow tax free as well. If you can leave the money there long enough, you can grow a sizeable nest egg against potential future health expenses or even the purchase of a long-term care policy. And, at age 65, you’re no longer penalized if you withdraw funds for nonapproved medical expenses.

And if you don’t use the money for medical expenses in retirement, but are past 65, you can use it for living expenses to supplement your 401(k). In that case, you’ll have to pay taxes on it, but there’s no penalty—it just works much like a tax-deferred situation from a regular retirement account.

See the original article Here.

Source:

Satter M. (2017 January 16). HSAs could play bigger role in retirement planning [Web blog post]. Retrieved from address http://www.benefitspro.com/2017/01/16/hsas-could-play-bigger-role-in-retirement-planning?ref=hp-news