Affordable Care Act: Important Deadline for Employee Notices of the Health Insurance Marketplace (Exchange) Due October 1, 2013

By Gretchen Harders and Michelle Capezza

On May 8, 2013, the Employee Benefits Security Administration of the Department of Labor (the “DOL”) issued Technical Release 2013-02 (the “Release”) providing important guidance under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (the “Affordable Care Act”) with regard to the requirement that employers provide notices to their employees of the existence of the Health Insurance Marketplace, generally referred to previously as the Exchange. These employee notices must be provided to existing employees no later than October 1, 2013. This deadline is intended to correspond to the open enrollment period for the Marketplace commencing October 1, 2013 for coverage through the Marketplace beginning January 1, 2014. The Release includes temporary guidance and two model employee notices of the Marketplace upon which employers may rely. The Release further provides an updated model election notice for group health plans for purposes of the continuation coverage provisions under the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (“COBRA”) to include information of the health coverage options offered to individuals through the Marketplace for comparative purposes.

Employee Notice of the Marketplace. The Affordable Care Act amended the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) to require employers to issue employees a notice of the health coverage options available under the Marketplace. The FLSA requirement was required to have been satisfied on or before March 1, 2013; however, given the regulatory delays in establishing and approving the Marketplace, the DOL extended the deadline. The guidance under this Release is temporary through the applicability date of October 1, 2013, but may be relied upon until future guidance and regulations are issued.

Which employers are required to comply with the notice requirements?

Whether or not required to “pay or play” under the Affordable Care Act, all employers subject to the FLSA must provide the employee notice. The FLSA generally applies to employers that employ one or more employees and are engaged in or produce goods for interstate commerce. The FLSA also covers, among other things, hospitals, schools, institutions of higher education and federal, state and local government agencies. To determine whether an employer is subject to the FLSA, the DOL provides an internet assistance tool at http://www.dol.gov/elaws/esa/flsa/scope/screen24.asp.

Which employees must receive the notice?

Employers must provide the employee notice to each employee whether or not the employee has part-time or full-time status. It does not matter whether the employee is enrolled or eligible to enroll in a group health plan. A separate notice is not required to dependents or other individuals who may become eligible for coverage under the plan, but are not employees.

What information must the notice provide?

The employee notice must contain the following information:

  • The existence of the Marketplace;
  • The contact information and description of services offered on the Marketplace;
  • A statement that the individual may be eligible for a premium tax credit if the employee purchases a qualified plan on the Marketplace; and
  • A statement that if the employee purchases a qualified plan on the Marketplace, the employee may lose the employer contribution to any health benefit plan offered by the employer and all or a portion of employer contributions may be excluded from federal income.

What are the DOL model notice(s)?

The DOL has provided two model employee notices available on its website, one for employers who do not offer a health plan and one for employers who offer a health plan to some or all employees. The Release provides that employers may use the model notice(s) provided the notice(s) include the information described above.

The model employee notice for employers who do not offer health coverage includes the information described above, as well as an explanation of the impact of the availability of employer health coverage on the employee’s eligibility for subsidies on the Marketplace. The model employee notice does not require the employer to provide specific contact information for the Marketplace in the state where the employee resides, but rather refers the employee to the http://www.healthcare.gov website for contact information for the Marketplace in the employee’s area. This model employee notice requires the employer to provide contact information for the employer, including the employer’s EIN. This is the information an employee will need to include in an application for a premium subsidy on a Marketplace.

The model employee notice for employers who do offer health coverage generally includes the same information as the model employee notice for employers who do not offer health coverage. This model employee notice does, however, require the employer to provide contact information to obtain more information about the employer’s health care coverage. The disclosure requires the employer to state whether the health care coverage is offered to all employees and, if not to all employees, a description of those employees eligible for health care coverage. It also requires the employer to state whether it offers dependent coverage and which dependents are eligible. Finally, the employer is required to disclose whether the health care coverage offered meets the minimum value standard and that the cost of coverage is intended to be affordable. The Department of Treasury and Internal Revenue Service recently issued proposed guidance to assist employees in assessing whether the coverage offered provides minimum value. See our prior blog post New Proposed Guidance for Determining Whether Employer-Sponsored Health Plan Provides Minimum Value.

The model employee notice includes optional information that an employer may provide to the employee based on the Marketplace Employer Coverage Tool to better understand their coverage choices, including whether the employee is eligible in the next three months for employer coverage, whether the employer offers a health plan that meets the minimum value standard, the premium for employee-only coverage under the lowest-cost plan that meets the minimum value standard if the employee received the maximum discount for any tobacco cessation program, and what changes the employer will make for the next plan year. Although this information is optional, it may be to an employer’s benefit to demonstrate, where appropriate, that its plan is providing minimum value and is affordable.

When must the employee notice be provided and what are the acceptable delivery methods?

Current employees before October 1, 2013 must be provided with the notice no later than October 1, 2013. Beginning October 1, 2013, the employer must provide each new employee the notice at the time of hire, which will be considered timely provided in 2014 if provided within 14 days of the employee’s start date.

The employee notice must be provided free of charge in writing in a manner calculated to be understood by the average employee. The employee notice may be provided by first class mail or electronically if in accordance with the DOL’s electronic disclosure safe harbor.

COBRA Model Notice. Under COBRA, an individual who was covered by a group health plan the day before a qualifying event occurred may be eligible to elect COBRA continuation coverage. These qualified beneficiaries must be provided with an election notice within 14 day after the plan administrator receives notice of a qualifying event. The COBRA election notice is required to include specific information.

The DOL updated its model COBRA election notice to provide information about the Marketplace for the purposes of informing qualified beneficiaries that they may also be eligible for a premium tax credit to pay for coverage offered through the Marketplace. It also includes clarification on the limit on pre-existing conditions exclusions beginning in 2014. Such information is not specifically required under the Affordable Care Act and should have no impact on whether an employer is subject to the employer responsibility penalties if in fact a former employee obtains coverage on the Marketplace.

The Release provides that the use of the model COBRA election notice completed appropriately will be considered good faith compliance with the COBRA election requirements. The model COBRA election notice does not provide a specific deadline or compliance date. Employers may wish to review their existing COBRA election notices for changes relating to the Affordable Care Act.

Employers have long been waiting for specific guidance from the DOL on the employee notice requirements. Now that it is here, compliance should be addressed well before the October 1, 2013 deadline.

Why the Technology Industry Can Help Build A Better Workplace

By Michelle Capezza

I recently read Sheryl Sandberg’s Lean In, which includes a call to action for men and women to end gender bias in the workplace.  Yet, Lean In is not only a discussion about gender bias and stereotypes, women being held back or holding back themselves but, it’s a call to action as a society to work together toward equality.  A common question that has followed for many who have read the book is where do we begin; how can we move forward as a society to address the issues that face all of us in the workplace, men and women of all races, cultures, ages, and religious backgrounds.  How do we all, regardless of our backgrounds or position in life, move forward to lead more happy, prosperous, fulfilling lives while delivering to our employers.  It seems insurmountable, and, also unfortunate to say we cannot do anything unless the entire world changes.    But from an economic standpoint, can’t we make changes one business at a time, one industry at a time?

The technology industry seems well-poised to make advancements in this regard as it is an industry replete with intelligent, creative, forward-thinking people and the perfect place to set standards, trends and changes.  The technology industry is also fertile ground for start-up businesses to start from scratch and implement new ways of thinking about getting things done.  This industry can advance the workplace of tomorrow by implementation of progressive workplace policies and benefits while achieving what has yet to be achieved in technological advancements.

The time is long overdue to examine workplace policies and benefits which are already governed by a myriad of employment and benefit laws in the U.S., and find ways to further develop or expand these policies.  Research has shown that one of the keys to productivity and improving the company bottom line is fostering an engaged and happy workforce.  When workers feel valued and able to progress in their positions, they are more likely to contribute their all to the job and the company. Workplace policies alone will not end workplace biases or discrimination, but they can provide the workplace culture and supportive infrastructure that will enable all workers to perform their jobs to their best ability, to have their performance judged based on objective, realistic and attainable goals, and allow them the flexibility to juggle their personal and familial responsibilities in order to be the happy and fulfilled workers they need to be in order to attend to their employer’s demands.

In this vein, and as a starting point, I encourage our technology business leaders to strategically think about the following types of workplace policies and benefits that can be implemented or enhanced in their companies to foster revolutionary change:

  • Creative solutions to the 24/7 workweek (which may include flexible work schedules, shifts or mid-day siestas that can still equate to 40 hours per week minimums)
  • Remote Working Arrangements (which may include certain standards for in-office time)
  • Incentive Compensation Programs based on objective metrics and hours of service
  • Performance reviews conducted by objective third-parties
  • Paid maternity and paternity leave policies (which may include gradual return-to-work programs during the first 3 to 6 months following birth or adoption)
  • On-ramp and off-ramp Programs for men and women to re-engage workers who may have left or need to leave the workplace for a myriad of reasons
  • Business Development and Mentoring Programs to provide roadmaps for business-specific progression tailored to the company’s needs
  • Sabbaticals (which can include time-off for professional enhancement to serve business needs)
  • Wellness Programs (to promote the health and well-being of workers)
  • Dependent Care Reimbursement Account Plans
  • On-Site Child Care
  • Access to long term care policies at group rates

This list is not exhaustive.  Once an assessment is completed regarding the business’ current workplace and benefits policies in effect,  I encourage business leaders to work with legal counsel to determine how to further develop or implement these types of policies and benefits in compliance with applicable laws.  We at Epstein Becker & Green are well-positioned to assist in this endeavor.

Technology has brought us the ability to accomplish tasks that were previously unimaginable.  The technology industry can also help us re-design the workplace of tomorrow.  All businesses can thrive and be more profitable when everyone is engaged, valued and firing on all cylinders.

Timeline of Highlights for Employer Group Health Plan Compliance with the Affordable Care Act

by Joan A. Disler, Michelle Capezza, and Gretchen Harders

Now that the Supreme Court of the United States has upheld essentially all of the provisions of the Obama administration’s Affordable Care Act (“ACA”), employers are faced with looming deadlines to bring their group health plans into compliance with the ACA’s numerous new requirements. We have prepared for employers a timeline of the highlights of the upcoming deadlines for compliance with the ACA that apply to non-grandfathered group health plans.

Click here to access a copy of the timeline (PDF).

Timeline image

Health FSAs-Plan for the $2500 Cap

Cafeteria plans which provide a health flexible spending arrangement (FSA) allow participants to make pre-tax salary contributions to an account in order to receive reimbursements to pay for medical expenses that are not reimbursed through insurance or another arrangement (e.g., co pays, deductibles, eyeglasses).  Prior to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, sponsors of these plans could set an annual limit for contributions to health FSAs per plan terms.  Sponsors typically established such limits by taking into consideration the uniform coverage rule which requires that if a participant elected the maximum amount permitted and incurred a reimbursable claim early in the year, the claim would need to be paid even if the full salary reductions up to that limit had not yet been made.  Effective for cafeteria plan years beginning after 2012, the Affordable Care Act requires that health FSAs limit employee salary reduction contributions to $2500 per plan year (to be indexed for cost of living adjustments).  Cafeteria plans must be amended to reflect this new limit (or a lower limit) before December 31, 2014 but must operate in compliance with these changes in the law for plan years beginning after December 31, 2012.  The limit does not apply to certain employer flex credits, health savings accounts, health reimbursement arrangements or contributions used to pay the employee share of health premiums.

The IRS has issued Notice 2012-40 to provide guidance on issues related to these requirements.  For example, for plans that provide a grace period for use of contributions, unused salary reduction contributions to the health FSA for plan years beginning in 2012 or later that are carried over into the grace period for that plan year will not count against the $2500 limit for the subsequent plan year. Also, the $2500 limit is the maximum contribution each employee can make under all of the cafeteria plans of a single employer (determined on a controlled group basis) for a plan year regardless of the number of their dependents (but two spouses who are eligible to contribute to a health FSA may do so, each subject to their own maximum limit even if both participate in the same health FSA sponsored by the same employer).  An employee employed by two or more employers that are not members of the same controlled group may elect up to $2500 (as indexed for inflation) under each employer’s health FSA.

In light of the $2500 limit, the Treasury Department and IRS have asked for comments whether the “use-or-lose” rule for health FSAs should be modified, which currently requires that unused amounts in a health FSA be forfeited at the end of a plan year (subject to any grace period terms). Comments are requested on whether there should be additional flexibility with respect to the operation of the use-or-lose rule for health FSAs and how such flexibility could be formulated.  Comments must be submitted by August 17, 2012 to the IRS and can be submitted electronically to Notice.comments@irscounsel.treas.gov with the subject line “Notice 2012-40”.

JOBS Act Provides Encouragement for Start-Ups and Emerging Growth Companies

On April 5, 2012, President Obama signed into law the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act or JOBS Act.  In light of the sharp decline in the number of companies entering the U.S. capital markets through IPOs over the last ten years, Congress recognized a need for this legislation since small companies are critical to economic growth and job creation.  To promote growth and assist small companies in gaining access to capital, the JOBS Act amends the securities laws in several ways, which include the following:

(i)                  Establishes a new category of issuers known as “Emerging Growth Companies” (EGCs) which are issuers that have total annual gross revenues of less than $1 billion (after December 8, 2011).  EGCs  are exempt from certain regulatory requirements until the earliest of the date (a) five years from the date of their IPO, (b) they have $1 billion in annual gross revenue or (c) they become a large accelerated filer (i.e. a company with worldwide public float of $700 million or more);

(ii)                While EGCs must comply with SEC-mandated quarterly and annual disclosures, they would be exempt from Section 404(b) Sarbanes-Oxley requirements regarding auditor attestations of management’s assessment of its internal controls, for a transition period of up to 5 years.  EGC management would still need to establish and maintain internal controls over financial reporting and its CEO and CFO would still need to certify the company financial statements;

(iii)               Allows EGCs to provide audited financial statements for the two years prior to registration rather than three years.  Within a year of an IPO, the EGC would report three years’ worth of financial statements;

(iv)              Provides exceptions to rules on mandatory audit firm rotation;

(v)                Exempts EGCs from certain requirements under Dodd-Frank legislation such as the say on pay requirements and disclosure of median compensation ratios of all employees compared to the CEO.  EGCs would still comply with corporate governance and listing requirements including board member independence rules;

(vi)              Provides for more communications and information flow to investors and special provisions for providing draft registration statements for non-public review.  On April 10, 2012, the SEC Division of Corporate Finance issued FAQs addressing questions relating to the confidential submission of registration statements;

(vii)             Provides special exemptions in connection with solicitation and advertising to accredited investors;

(viii)           Establishes new thresholds for registration; and

(ix)              Sets forth special rules for a “Crowdfunding” exemption-Capital Raising Online While Deterring Fraud and Unethical Non-Disclosure. This allows for aggregate sales to all investors up to $1 million using web-based platforms (up to the greater of $2000 or 5% of the annual income/net worth of such investor (with additional requirements)).

Start-ups and emerging growth companies should take the time to explore the JOBS Act and the related guidance being issued.  The new law may address a particular hurdle previously faced which would allow certain companies to move forward and grow.

 



The Supreme Court Mulls Obamacare; The Health Care Industry Mulls The Supreme Court

By Stuart M. Gerson

The three days of arguments about the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act are complete. The Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States have conducted their post-argument conference and are now turning their attention to the drafting and the discussions that will lead to a majority opinion and, likely, several dissents and concurrences. The Court's decision should be issued before the end of June. Health care companies and employers, like the rest of the population, await the ultimate decision. However, there are several matters that can be identified in the short run.

A link to this Implementing Health and Insurance Reform publication is attached here: http://www.ebglaw.com/showclientalert.aspx?Show=15893

Final Extensions Provided for Retirement Plan Fee Disclosures and PPACA Summary of Benefits Coverage

On February 2, 2012, the U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”) issued final regulations under Section 408(b)(2) of ERISA.  As a result, there is a new due date of July 1, 2012 by which certain service providers must make compensation disclosures to responsible plan fiduciaries of defined benefit and defined contribution plans (such as pension and 401(k) plans).  This provides an extension of the April 1, 2012 due date issued under prior guidance.  The regulations set forth the types of information that must be disclosed so that the plan fiduciaries can assess the reasonableness of the compensation paid for necessary services and identify potential conflicts of interest in order to avoid a prohibited transaction with respect to the arrangement (and penalties which would result).   Plan fiduciaries should be in contact with their service providers to obtain these disclosures as soon as possible.  Time will be needed to analyze the information received, and to ensure that existing contracts/arrangements are reasonable. Disclosures are also required reasonably in advance of the dates contracts/arrangements are entered into, renewed or extended.  This extension also further extends the due date for the participant-level disclosures that plan fiduciaries of participant-directed individual account plans such as the 401(k) plan are required to make to participants under Section 404(a) of ERISA so that the participants have the information they need to sufficiently manage their individual accounts.  The new due date for these disclosures is no later than August 30, 2012 (which was May 31, 2012 under prior guidance) and the issuance of the first quarterly participant statements to include required information is now November 14, 2012.

On February 9, 2012, the DOL, and the U.S. Departments of Treasury and Health and Human Services issued the final regulations regarding the Summary of Benefits Coverage and the uniform glossary for group health plans under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The requirements to provide a Summary of Benefits Coverage, notice of modification, and uniform glossary apply for disclosures to participants and beneficiaries who enroll or re-enroll in group health coverage through an open enrollment period (including re-enrollees and late enrollees) beginning on the first day of the first open enrollment period that begins on or after September 23, 2012.  For disclosures to participants and beneficiaries who enroll in group health plan coverage other than through an open enrollment period (including individuals who are newly eligible for coverage and special enrollees), the requirements apply beginning on the first day of the first plan year that begins on or after September 23, 2012.   The requirements under these rules are also applicable to health insurance issuers beginning on September 23, 2012. These regulations set forth numerous guidelines concerning the contents, format, language, and other parameters of the Summary of Benefits Coverage, the uniform glossary, and notices of modifications.  Failure to comply with these rules can include penalties and excise taxes under ERISA and the Code.

Plan sponsors and fiduciaries should ensure that they have a process in place to review and prepare for the respective disclosures and related tasks.

 

 

PPACA-"Cert. Worthy"

In accordance with the briefing schedule issued last December, initial briefs have been filed with the U.S. Supreme Court for its judicial review of certain issues under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (“PPACA”).  The issues to be reviewed by the Court include whether (i) the minimum coverage provisions under PPACA and individual mandate to buy health insurance is a valid exercise of Congress’ power under Article I of the U.S. Constitution, (ii) the Anti-Injunction Act will prevent a ruling from the Court until such time as a tax is actually collected under PPACA, (iii) the individual mandate, if found unconstitutional, is severable from PPACA so that the law’s other provisions can be upheld, and (iv) Medicaid expansion is constitutional.

In its Brief for Petitioners (Department of Health and Human Services et al. v. State of Florida et al.) concerning the constitutionality of the minimum coverage provision and individual mandate under PPACA, the Obama Administration argues that the minimum coverage provision is within Congress’ power to enact because it is a “necessary component of a broader scheme of interstate economic regulation”. Further, “within that scheme, the provision itself regulates economic conduct with a substantial effect on interstate commerce, namely the way in which individuals finance their participation in the health care market”. The Brief argues that a “point-of-sale” requirement would not have been a feasible alternative in light of the realities of insurance needing to be purchased in advance and the legal duty for emergency care to be provided regardless of ability to pay.  In addition, the Brief argues that Congress’ taxing power also provides support to uphold the minimum coverage provision since the practical operation of the minimum coverage provision is as a tax law where non-exempt federal income taxpayers will have increased tax liability for months in which they fail to maintain minimum coverage for themselves or their dependents.  Respondents arguments are due to be filed on or before February 6, 2012.

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments on these issues in March over a three-day period commencing March 26th.  Before reaching the minimum coverage and individual mandate debate, the Court will need to determine if the Anti-Injunction Act will prevent a ruling until 2014 when the provisions actually take effect and a tax is imposed.  It is anticipated that if this hurdle can be surmounted, the Court may issue an Opinion on the constitutional issues this June.  Undoubtedly, this will be an important decision to watch.

Extension of Due Date for Summary of Benefits Coverage under PPACA

On November 17, 2011, the Departments of Labor, Treasury and Health and Human Services issued a set of Frequently Asked Questions About Affordable Care Act Implementation (Part VII) and Mental Health Parity Implementation.  In FAQ 1, the Departments noted that they received many comments on the proposed regulations concerning the requirement to provide group health plan participants and beneficiaries with a summary of benefits coverage that accurately describes the benefits and coverage available under the plan and a uniform glossary of terms (“SBC”).  The FAQs provide that the Departments intend to issue, as soon as possible, final regulations that address these comments and other feedback on the proposed regulations and requirements.  The Departments stated that until final regulations are issued and applicable, plans and issuers are not required to comply with the SBC requirements.  Although the FAQs do not provide information regarding when the final regulations will be issued, they do state that “it is anticipated that the Departments’ final regulations, once issued, will include an applicability date that gives group health plans and health insurance issuers sufficient time to comply”.  Thus, it appears that there will not be a March 23, 2012 effective date for compliance with the SBC requirements.  However, the issuance of the final regulations and the applicability date will need to be monitored.  It would be advisable to continue preparations for compliance with the SBC requirements under current guidance (i.e., gathering and organizing necessary information) and then make any necessary modifications once the final regulations are issued during a final review prior to implementation.

Get Ready for the Summary of Benefits Coverage under PPACA

On March 23, 2012, another requirement under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (the “Act”)  will be effective-the requirement to provide group health plan participants and beneficiaries with a summary of benefits coverage that accurately describes the benefits and coverage available under the plan and a uniform glossary of terms (“SBC”).  These requirements were incorporated under the Internal Revenue Code and ERISA (in addition to existing summary plan description requirements).  Under currently proposed regulations, health insurance issuers will also be required to provide this type of information to group health plan sponsors at the time of application or request for information regarding coverage within seven days of the request (including an obligation to update such information should it change); this information must also be provided upon renewal (30 days in advance of a new policy year in a case of an automatic renewal).  

It is important for plan sponsors of group health plans (both insured and self-insured) to become familiar with these requirements as the effective date will soon be here.  Some of the key elements of the SBC are as follows.  The SBC must address each benefit package offered and be provided with application materials for enrollment or no later than the time of enrollment (with additional rules for special enrollment periods) and no later than 7 days following a request.  If the health insurance issuer offering the coverage provides a complete, timely SBC to the plan’s participants and beneficiaries, the plan’s requirement to provide the SBC will be satisfied.  The SBC must include such information as uniform definitions of insurance and medical terms, description of coverage (as well as cost-sharing information, exceptions and limitations on coverage), continuation of coverage and renewability provisions, examples of coverage/cost for common scenarios (e.g., pregnancy, chronic conditions), premiums and various other statements and contact information.  A statement must also be included regarding whether the plan provides minimum essential coverage-although this requirement will be effective January 1, 2014 to coordinate with other requirements under the Act.

Under the proposed regulations, the SBC may not exceed four double-sided pages in length, and may not include print smaller than 12-point font.  Where 10% of a county is literate only in the same non-English language, interpretive services and written translations of the SBC must be available to those participants and beneficiaries.  Plans and issuers subject to ERISA or the Code may provide the SBC electronically if the rules under the Department of Labor’s electronic disclosure safe harbor are met.  Any state laws that impose on health insurance issuers requirements that are stricter than those imposed by the Act will not be superseded.  The proposed regulations also clarify that material modifications to plans or coverage terms that are not reflected in the SBC must be communicated no later than 60 days prior to their effective date.

There are still many unanswered questions with regard to the SBC such as whether the SBC can be provided as part of a summary plan description (e.g., after a cover page or table of contents) as well as certain timing requirements for providing the SBC (such as providing it along with other plan materials during open enrollment), the terms that should be included in the glossary, and the coverage example scenarios. The comment period on the proposed regulations will close on October 21, 2011. It is anticipated that following the close of the comment period, final guidance will be issued with sufficient time to prepare for the March 23, 2012 effective date.  Failure to adhere to these rules results in penalties: $1000 penalty for any willful failure to provide this information including a separate fine for each individual  or entity for whom there is a failure to provide an SBC (with more guidance concerning the enforcement of these penalties against group health plans to be issued by the Department of Labor), as well as potential $100 per day per individual excise taxes (which will need to be reported on an IRS Form 8928).  It is important to start preparing for these requirements now, and coordinating efforts with plan service providers and insurers to properly organize and present this information to participants and beneficiaries. 

Proposed Regulations Released Relating to Health Insurance Premium Tax Credits under Affordable Care Act while Eleventh Circuit Finds Individual Mandate Unconstitutional

On August 12, 2011, the Departments of Treasury and Health and Human Services released Proposed Regulations to provide guidance to individuals who enroll in qualified health plans through State-based Exchanges, as envisioned under the Affordable Care Act, and to provide guidance to Exchanges that make qualified health plans available to individuals and employers.  The Exchanges will be one-stop marketplaces where consumers can buy private health insurance plans.  The premium tax credit is designed to help individuals and families with incomes between 100% and 400% of the federal poverty level (approximately $22,350 to $89,400 for a family of four in 2011) afford health insurance where they are not otherwise eligible for other coverage such as Medicare, Medicaid or affordable employer-sponsored coverage (i.e., the employee only premium exceeds 9.5% of household income or fails to cover 60% of total allowed costs).  These Proposed Regulations provide that the credit may be advanced by the Department of Treasury directly to the insurance company.   Under related employer mandate rules, applicable large employers will be liable for excise taxes effective in 2014 if they have any full-time employees that are certified to receive a premium tax credit or cost-sharing reduction in connection with enrollment in health insurance through a State Exchange and either the employer fails to offer to its full-time employees (and their dependents) the opportunity to enroll in an employer sponsored plan that provides “minimum essential coverage” or offers such a plan that is unaffordable.  The Proposed Regulations relating to the premium tax credits indicate that it is anticipated that future guidance will provide a safe harbor permitting employers to base the affordability calculation on wages they pay their employees rather than on a household income basis. 

While coordination of efforts appear to be underway as they pertain to the employer mandate and individual mandate under the health reform law, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit also issued a decision on August 12, 2011 ruling that the individual mandate under the Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional.  The Court opined that the individual mandate requires Americans to buy an expensive product from a private insurance company from birth to death and that Congress cannot mandate such purchases.  However, there is now a split in the appeals courts as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has found that the individual mandate is constitutional.

It remains to be seen whether a ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court as to the constitutionality of the individual mandate will be issued prior to 2014 and the impact it will have on the role of the Exchanges and employer mandate taxes.  This issue will need to be followed closely in order to properly plan and maintain employer-provided health coverage. 

Department of Labor's EBSA Provides Extension to Applicability Dates for Retirement Plan Fee Disclosures

On July 13, 2011, the U.S. Department of Labor’s Employee Benefits Security Administration issued a final regulation under ERISA to extend and align the applicability dates for retirement plan fee disclosure rules (i.e., the service provider fee and conflicts of interest disclosures to plan fiduciaries as well as the participant-level fee disclosures).  The service provider disclosures may now be provided no later than April 1, 2012 (an extension from January 1, 2012 as indicated in prior guidance).  There may also be additional guidance before the end of this year as to what those disclosures must include but the Department of Labor has indicated that any changes to last year’s interim final regulations pertaining to these disclosures should not require additional compliance time or another extension.  In addition, the new guidance provides that the initial participant-level fee disclosures can be provided after the effective date of the service provider disclosures (no later than May 31, 2012 for a calendar year plan).  This provides an extra month to comply with these rules.  Further, the initial quarterly statements can now be provided by August 14, 2012 (an extension of three months from the last issued guidance).  These extensions will hopefully afford plan sponsors and administrators the requisite additional time for compliance with and coordination of responsibilities with respect to these two requirements. 

It is worth repeating that plan sponsors and fiduciaries of 401(k) plans and pension plans will need to evaluate the reasonableness of the service provider fee disclosures that they will receive and be prepared to terminate contracts/arrangements with service providers that do not comply with the rules. In addition, fiduciaries of 401(k) plans will need to be prepared to organize and distribute the participant-level fee disclosures in accordance with the requirements of those rules.  

Department of Labor's EBSA Proposes Extension to Align Applicability Dates for Retirement Plan Fee Disclosures

Last year, two significant sets of regulations were issued that will affect qualified plan fiduciary responsibility and administration.  Last July, interim final regulations were issued requiring retirement plan service providers to disclose detailed information regarding their fees and potential conflicts of interest to plan fiduciaries.  These service provider disclosures were scheduled to apply to plan contracts and arrangements for services on or after July 16, 2011.  Since those regulations were issued, there has been much discussion surrounding compliance with these rules, including whether a summary format of information might be necessary to help plan sponsors understand and know what to do with the financial information that will be disclosed by plan service providers.  The Department then announced earlier this year that it would extend the compliance deadline to January 1, 2012, but this wasn’t yet official.  In addition, participant-level fee disclosure regulations were issued on October 20, 2010 to be effective for plan years on or after November 1, 2011 with a 60-day transition period.  These rules would require plan administrator’s of 401(k) plans, for example,  to disclose certain plan and fee information to participants who direct their investments.  On June 1, 2011, the Department proposed making the January 1, 2012 extension of the service provider disclosures compliance date official, as well as extending the time a calendar year 401k plan has to furnish the initial participant-level fee disclosures to no later than April 30, 2012 (and up to May 15, 2012 with regard to quarterly statements) in order to provided additional time for compliance and coordination of the two efforts. 

It is important to be mindful of these requirements and the upcoming due dates.  Plan sponsors and fiduciaries of 401(k) plans and pension plans will need to evaluate the reasonableness of the service provider fee disclosures that they will receive and be prepared to terminate contracts/arrangements with service providers that do not comply with the rules. In addition, fiduciaries of 401(k) plans will need to be prepared to organize and distribute the participant-level fee disclosures in accordance with the requirements of those rules.  To the extent there are comments on these proposed effective dates, the Department of Labor is currently soliciting comments on these proposals to extend the effective date of the rules mentioned above.  Comments can be submitted on or before June 15, 2011 and can be submitted electronically to  e-ORI@dol.gov

Government Seeks Comments on Employer Mandate Related Issues Under Health Reform

As part of the process of planning for implementation of health reform pursuant to the Affordable Care Act, the Department of Treasury, the Department of Labor and the Department of Health and Human Services are working together to develop a series of regulations and administrative guidance. One aspect of the Affordable Care Act provides that employers with 50 or more full-time employees will be considered “applicable large employers” subject to an employer mandate tax effective in 2014.  Under these rules, such large employers will be liable for excise taxes if they have any full-time employees that are certified to receive a premium tax credit or cost-sharing reduction in connection with enrollment in health insurance through a State Exchange and either the employer fails to offer to its full-time employees (and their dependents) the opportunity to enroll in an employer sponsored plan that provides “minimum essential coverage” or offers such a plan that is unaffordable.  These taxes will be assessed monthly and may be 1/12th of $2000 per full time employee (not counting the first 30 full time employees) in the case where no employer plan is offered.  Where a plan is offered but it is unaffordable (as determined under the rules), the tax scheme will be lesser of 1/12 of $3,000 times the number of employees receiving a premium tax credit or 1/12 of $2,000 times the number of full time employees (not counting the first 30 employees in the calculation).   The definition of full-time employee is critical in determining whether and, if so, to what extent an employer may incur these free-rider liabilities. 

With respect to the employer mandate, the IRS has recently published Notice 2011-36, and seeks comments by June 17, 2011 with respect to potential approaches that may be set forth in future proposed regulations concerning various issues such as who is a full-time employee and possible exceptions for offering coverage to certain categories of workers.    For example, the Affordable Care Act provides that a full-time employee in any month is an employee who is employed on average at least 30 hours of service per week (and equivalencies are used to determine hours of service of employees who are not full-time). However, a number of approaches and definitions will be proposed to address these rules.  Notice 2011-36 includes possible methods for determining whether an employer is an applicable large employer (and application of controlled group rules), rules to determine an employee’s full time status and hours of service (including for hourly and non-hourly employees).  Treasury and IRS are also considering proposing alternatives to a month-by-month determination of full-time employee status such as a look-back/stability period safe harbor to determine whether the employee averaged at least 30 hours of service per week or at least 130 hours of service per month.  The Notice also seeks comments on the interpretation of the 90 day limitation on waiting periods for health plans and how it should be calculated, as well as the interplay of those rules with the employer mandate.

As today’s technology companies grow and compete for top talent, employer-provided benefits such as health coverage will require increased attention.  Proper planning and compliance efforts will be required, and growing companies will want to be mindful of how their workforce is structured as they approach large employer thresholds.  Now is the time to submit comments to the IRS in order to help shape the regulations that will impact these employer excise taxes related to health plans.