Employee Communications

This is the Employee Communications category of the Broad REach Benefits blog. At Broad Reach Benefits, we focus on employers that have between 30 and 500 benefit eligible employees. We’re employee benefit specialists, not a big box brokerage firm or payroll company with a sales force peddling policies.

EEOC’s Status Report in AARP v. EEOC Creates Uncertainty for Wellness Programs

In its March 30 status report to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in American Association for Retired Persons (AARP) v. EEOC, the EEOC stated that “it does not currently have plans to issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking addressing incentives for participation in employee wellness programs by a particular date certain, but it also has not ruled out the possibility that it may issue such a Notice in the future.”

Employers continue to face uncertainty as to wellness program incentives subject to the ADA and GINA (i.e., those with medical exams or disability-related inquiries) as the EEOC awaits confirmation of Janet Dhillon as EEOC Chair and considers “a number of policy choices available.” In other words, the EEOC may wait until the Senate confirms outstanding nominations before re-engaging in the rulemaking process, leaving wellness programs open to challenge in 2019 by employees who feel that the incentives (or penalties) are so great that they render the program involuntary.

Background

As background, under the ADA, wellness programs that involve a disability-related inquiry or a medical examination must be “voluntary.” Similar requirements exist under GINA when there are requests for an employee’s family medical history (typically as part of a health risk assessment). For years, the EEOC had declined to provide specific guidance on the level of incentive that may be provided under the ADA, and their informal guidance suggested that any incentive could render a program “involuntary.” In 2016, after years of uncertainty on the issue, the agency released rules on wellness incentives that resemble, but do not mirror, the 30% limit established under U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) regulations applicable to health-contingent employer-sponsored wellness programs.   While the regulations appeared to be […]

By |April 17th, 2018|Employee Benefits, Employee Benefits Adviser, Employee Communications, Retired, U.S. Department of Labor|Comments Off on EEOC’s Status Report in AARP v. EEOC Creates Uncertainty for Wellness Programs

Agencies Release Proposed Regulations on Short-Term Limited Duration Insurance

On February 20, 2018, the U.S. Departments of Labor, Treasury, and Health and Human Services (Agencies) released proposed regulations that expand the availability of short-term limited duration insurance (STLDI). STLDI is offered in the individual (non-group) insurance market and is generally used by individuals such as students or individuals between jobs. Therefore, the direct impact to employers is limited; however, there is some concern that this rule may disrupt the individual and small group markets and is seen by some as a further step by the Trump administration to erode Obama-era regulations.

The rule reverses prior regulations that limited the duration of STLDI coverage to less than 3 months after the original effective date of the contract. If finalized, the rule would extend the permitted duration of STLDI to a period of less than 12 months. The rule does not require issuers to guarantee renewability of STLDI policies; however, it does not prohibit individuals from re-applying for coverage for another 364 days (which would likely be subject to medical underwriting).

The proposed regulations are in furtherance of an October 2017 Executive Order instructing the Agencies to consider ways to promote healthcare choice and competition by, among other things, expanding the availability of STLDI. The regulations are open for public comment for 60 days.

Although STLDI is sold in the individual market, it is exempt from ACA’s insurance mandates, which typically makes it more affordable than the ACA-compliant plans that are required to offer coverage in ten broad categories of essential health benefits and contain other consumer protections. STLDI, on the other hand, is not required to cover essential benefits and may contain preexisting condition exclusions and annual and lifetime limits.

There is concern that expansion of STLDI […]

By |March 6th, 2018|Disability, Employee Benefits, Employee Communications, Medical, Short Term Disability|Comments Off on Agencies Release Proposed Regulations on Short-Term Limited Duration Insurance

DOL Releases Proposed Rule Expanding Association Health Plans

Earlier this month, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) issued a proposed rule to expand the opportunity of unrelated employers of all sizes (but particularly small employers) to offer employment-based health insurance through Association Health Plans (AHPs). This rulemaking follows President Trump’s October 12, 2017 Executive Order 13813, “Promoting Healthcare Choice and Competition Across the United States,” which stated the Administration’s intention to prioritize the expansion of access to AHPs.

Overview

If adopted, the proposed rule would expand the definition of “employer” within the meaning of ERISA section 3(5) to broaden the criteria for determining when unrelated employers, including sole proprietors and self-employed individuals, may join together in a “bona fide group or association of employers” that is treated as the “employer” sponsor of a single multiple employer “employee welfare benefit plan” and “group health plan.”

By treating the association itself as the “employer” sponsor of a single plan, the regulation would facilitate the adoption and administration of such arrangements. The proposed rule does not appear to limit the size of employers who may participate in an AHP.

Significantly, the proposed rule would apply “large group” coverage rules under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) to qualifying AHPs. AHPs that buy insurance would not be subject to the insurance “look-through” doctrine (i.e., the concept that the size of each individual employer participating in the association determines whether that employer’s coverage is subject to the small group market or the large group market rules). Instead, because an AHP would constitute a single plan, whether the plan would be buying insurance as a large or small group plan would be determined by reference to the number of employees in the entire AHP. This would offer a key advantage to […]

By |January 25th, 2018|Compliance, Disability, Employee Benefits, Employee Communications, Health Care Reform, Human Resources, Medical|Comments Off on DOL Releases Proposed Rule Expanding Association Health Plans

DOL Announces April 1 Applicability of Final Disability Plan Claims Procedure Regulations

The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) announced its decision for April 1, 2018, as the applicability date for ERISA-covered employee benefit plans to comply with a final rule (released in December 2016) that imposes additional procedural protections (similar to those that apply to health plans) when dealing with claims for disability benefits. In October 2017, the DOL had announced a 90-day delay of the final rule, which was scheduled to apply to claims for disability benefits under ERISA-covered benefit plans that were filed on or after January 1, 2018.

Effective Date

While the DOL’s news release indicates that the DOL has decided on an April 1 applicability date for the final rule, the regulatory provision modified by the 90-day delay specified that the final rule will apply to claims filed “after April 1, 2018.”

Plans Subject to the Final Rule

The final rule applies to plans (either welfare or retirement) where the plan conditions the availability of disability benefits to the claimant upon a showing of disability. For example, if a claims adjudicator must make a determination of disability in order to decide a claim, the plan is subject to the final rule. Generally, this would include benefits under a long-term disability plan or a short-term disability plan to the extent that it is governed by ERISA.

However, the following short-term disability benefits are not subject to ERISA and, therefore, are not subject to the final rule:

The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) announced its decision for April 1, 2018, as the applicability date for ERISA-covered employee benefit plans to comply with a final rule (released in December 2016) that imposes additional procedural protections (similar to those that apply to health plans) when dealing with […]

By |January 24th, 2018|Disability, Employee Benefits, Employee Communications, Human Resources, Legislation, Long Term Disability, Short Term Disability|Comments Off on DOL Announces April 1 Applicability of Final Disability Plan Claims Procedure Regulations

Massachusetts Releases Proposed Regulations on EMAC Supplement; HIRD Form Returns

On August 1, 2017, Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker signed H.3822, which increases the existing Employer Medical Assistance Contribution (EMAC) and imposes an additional fee (EMAC Supplement) on employers with employees covered under MassHealth (Medicaid) or who receive subsidized coverage through ConnectorCare (certain plans offered through Massachusetts’ Marketplace). The increased EMAC and the EMAC Supplement are effective for 2018 and 2019 and are intended to sunset after 2019.

On November 6, 2017, the Massachusetts Department of Unemployment Assistance (DUA) released proposed regulations on the EMAC. Also on November 6, Governor Baker signed H.4008, which includes a provision that requires Massachusetts employers to submit a health insurance responsibility disclosure (HIRD) form annually.

The increased EMAC and the EMAC supplement are intended to be offset by a reduction in the increase of unemployment insurance rates in 2018 and 2019. The unemployment insurance relief is estimated to save employers $334 million over the next two years.

The EMAC itself is relatively new, having been created in 2014 after the repeal of Massachusetts’ “fair share” employer contribution. The EMAC applies to employers with six or more employees working in Massachusetts and applies regardless of whether the employer offers health coverage to its employees. Currently, the EMAC is .34% of wages up to $15,000, which caps out at $51 per employee per year. For 2018 and 2019, it will increase to .51%, or $77 per employee per year. In 2018, the EMAC and EMAC Supplement are expected to raise $75 million and $125 million in revenue, respectively.

Proposed Regulations on EMAC Supplement

The EMAC Supplement applies to employers with 6 or more employees in Massachusetts. Under the EMAC Supplement, employers must pay 5% of annual wages up to the annual wage cap […]

By |November 22nd, 2017|Disability, Employee Communications, Legislation, Medical, Private Health Care Exchange|Comments Off on Massachusetts Releases Proposed Regulations on EMAC Supplement; HIRD Form Returns

IRS Increases Health FSA Contribution Limit for 2018, Adjusts Other Benefit Limits

On October 20, 2017, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) released Revenue Procedure 2017-58, which raises the health Flexible Spending Account (FSA) salary reduction contribution limit by $50 to $2,650 for plan years beginning in 2018. The Revenue Procedure also contains the cost-of-living adjustments that apply to dollar limitations in certain sections of the Internal Revenue Code.   The following summarizes other adjustments relevant to individuals and employer sponsors of welfare and fringe benefit plans.

Qualified Commuter Parking and Mass Transit Pass Monthly Limit Increase

For 2018, the monthly limitation for the qualified transportation fringe benefit is $260, as is the monthly limitation for qualified parking (in both cases, a $5 increase from the 2017 limit).

Small Employer Health Insurance Tax Credit Average Annual Wage Limit Increase

For 2018, the maximum average annual wages of employees used for determining who is an eligible small employer for purposes of the credit is $53,400 (a $1,000 increase from the 2017 threshold). The average annual wage level at which the tax credit begins to phase out for eligible small employers is $26,700 (a $500 increase from the 2017 threshold).

Adoption Assistance Tax Credit Increase

For 2018, the amount that can be excluded from an employee’s gross income for the adoption of a child with special needs is $13,840 (a $270 increase from the 2017 limit). The maximum amount that can be excluded from an employee’s gross income for the amounts paid or expenses incurred by an employer for qualified adoption expenses furnished pursuant to an adoption assistance program for other adoptions by the employee is $13,840 (a $270 increase from the 2017 limit). The amount excludable from an employee’s gross income begins to phase out for taxpayers with modified adjusted gross income in excess of […]

By |October 25th, 2017|Employee Benefits, Employee Communications, Health Care Reform|Comments Off on IRS Increases Health FSA Contribution Limit for 2018, Adjusts Other Benefit Limits

IRS Reverses Policy on Certifying Individual Mandate Compliance

On Oct. 13, 2017, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) reversed a recent policy change in how it monitors compliance with the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) individual mandate. For the upcoming 2018 filing season (filing 2017 tax returns):

  • The IRS‎ will not accept electronically filed tax returns where the taxpayer does not certify whether the individual had health insurance for the year; and
  • Paper returns that do not certify compliance with the individual mandate may be suspended pending receipt of additional information, and any refunds due may be delayed.

Action Steps

To avoid refund and processing delays when filing 2017 tax returns in 2018, taxpayers should indicate whether they (and everyone on their return) had health coverage, qualified for an exemption or are paying an individual mandate penalty. This process reflects the ACA’s requirements and the IRS’s obligation to administer the law.

The Individual Mandate

The ACA’s individual mandate, which took effect in 2014, requires most individuals to obtain acceptable health insurance coverage for themselves and their family members or pay a penalty.

The individual mandate is enforced each year on individual federal tax returns. Starting in 2015, individuals filing a tax return for the previous tax year will indicate, by checking a box on their individual tax returns, which members of their family (including themselves) had health insurance coverage for the year (or qualified for an exemption from the individual mandate). Based on this information, the IRS will then assess a penalty for each nonexempt family member without coverage.

Previous Policy on “Silent Returns”

Effective Feb. 6, 2017, the IRS announced that it would not automatically reject individual tax returns that did not provide this health insurance coverage information for 2016 (known as “silent returns”). Instead, […]

By |October 17th, 2017|Compliance, Employee Benefits, Employee Communications, Health Care Reform, Human Resources, Legislation, Medical|Comments Off on IRS Reverses Policy on Certifying Individual Mandate Compliance

Legal Alert: Court Requires EEOC to Substantiate 30% Limit on Wellness Program Incentives

On August 22, 2017, a federal court in the District of Columbia ordered the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to reconsider the limits it placed on wellness program incentives under final regulations the agency issued last year under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA).  As part of the final regulations, the EEOC set a limit on incentives under wellness programs equal to 30% of the total cost of self-only coverage under the employer’s group health plan.  The court found that the EEOC did not properly consider whether the 30% limit on incentives would ensure the program remained “voluntary” as required by the ADA and GINA and sent the regulations back to the EEOC for reconsideration.

In the meantime, to avoid “potentially widespread disruption and confusion” the court decided that the final regulations would remain in place while the EEOC determines how it will proceed (e.g., provide support for its regulations, appeal the decision, or change the regulations). As background, under the ADA, wellness programs that involve a disability-related inquiry or a medical examination must be “voluntary.”  Similar requirements exist under GINA when there are requests for an employee’s family medical history (typically as part of a health risk assessment).  For years, the EEOC had declined to provide specific guidance on the level of incentive that may be provided under the ADA, and their informal guidance suggested that any incentive could render a program “involuntary.”  In 2016, after years of uncertainty on the issue, the agency released rules on wellness incentives that resemble, but do not mirror, the 30% limit established under U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) regulations applicable to health-contingent employer-sponsored wellness programs.  While the regulations appeared to be […]

By |September 11th, 2017|Compliance, Disability, Employee Benefits, Employee Communications, Health Care Reform, Legislation, Medical|Comments Off on Legal Alert: Court Requires EEOC to Substantiate 30% Limit on Wellness Program Incentives

Legal Alert: REMINDER: PCORI Fees Due by July 31, 2017

Employers that sponsor self-insured group health plans, including health reimbursement arrangements (HRAs) should keep in mind the upcoming July 31, 2017 deadline for paying fees that fund the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI).  As background, the PCORI was established as part of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) to conduct research to evaluate the effectiveness of medical treatments, procedures and strategies that treat, manage, diagnose or prevent illness or injury.  Under the ACA, most employer sponsors and insurers will be required to pay PCORI fees until 2019.

The amount of PCORI fees due by employer sponsors and insurers is based upon the number of covered lives under each “applicable self-insured health plan” and “specified health insurance policy” (as defined by regulations) and the plan or policy year end date.

  • For plan years that ended between January 1, 2016 and September 30, 2016, the fee is $2.17 per covered life and is due by July 31, 2017.
  • For plan years that ended between October 1, 2016 and December 31, 2016, the fee is $2.26 per covered life and is due by July 31, 2017.

For example, a plan year that ran from October 1, 2015 through September 30, 2016 will pay a fee of $2.17 per covered life.  Calendar year 2016 plans will pay a fee of $2.26 per covered life.

NOTE: The insurance carrier is responsible for paying the PCORI fee on behalf of a fully insured plan.  The employer is responsible for paying the fee on behalf of a self-insured plan, including an HRA.  In general, health FSAs are not subject to the PCORI fee.

Employers that sponsor self-insured group health plans must report and pay PCORI fees using IRS Form 720, Quarterly Federal Excise Tax Return.

Note […]

By |May 31st, 2017|Compliance, Employee Benefits, Employee Benefits Adviser, Employee Communications, Health Care Reform|Comments Off on Legal Alert: REMINDER: PCORI Fees Due by July 31, 2017

Legal Alert: House Republicans Pass American Health Care Act; Bill Heads to Senate for Further Consideration

On Thursday, May 4, by a vote of 217 to 213 (with 20 Republicans voting against the bill), the U.S. House of Representatives passed an amended version of the American Health Care Act (AHCA), which repeals and replaces significant portions of the Affordable Care Act (ACA).

This bill comes several weeks after U.S. House of Representatives’ Speaker Paul Ryan pulled the AHCA […]

By |May 9th, 2017|Compliance, Employee Benefits, Employee Benefits Adviser, Employee Communications, Health Care Reform|Comments Off on Legal Alert: House Republicans Pass American Health Care Act; Bill Heads to Senate for Further Consideration