This is the Health Care Reform 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.
Get a Nasty Letter 226-J from the IRS? Enforcement for 2016 Pay Or Play Rules Begins
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) began issuing enforcement letters related to employers’ compliance with the employer shared responsibility rules under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) for the 2016 calendar year. These letters, known as Letter 226-J, inform employers of their potential liability for an employer shared responsibility penalty, if any, for 2016.
The IRS only sends these letters to employers that are subject to the employer shared responsibility rules, known as applicable large employers (ALEs). The determination of whether an ALE may be liable for a penalty, and the amount of the proposed penalty in Letter 226-J, are based on information from Forms 1094-C and 1095-C filed by the ALE and the individual income tax returns filed by the ALE’s employees.
What You Need To Do
Employers that receive a Letter 226-J must respond to the letter, either agreeing with the proposed penalty or disagreeing with part or all of the proposed amount. The IRS provides an employer response form, Form 14764, for employers to use for this purpose. The IRS maintains a website on understanding Letter 226-J for employers who receive an enforcement letter.
Background
The ACA’s employer shared responsibility rules require ALEs to offer affordable, minimum value health coverage to their full-time employees or pay a penalty. These rules, also known as the “employer mandate” or “pay or play” rules, only apply to ALEs, which are employers with, on average, at least 50 full-time employees, including full-time equivalent employees, during the preceding calendar year.
The employer shared responsibility rules took effect for most ALEs beginning on Jan. 1, 2015. However, some ALEs may have had additional time to comply with these requirements. An ALE may be subject to a penalty only if one or more […]
District Court Judge in Texas Strikes Down the ACA – But Law Remains in Effect for Now
On Friday, December 14, a federal judge in Texas issued a partial ruling that strikes down the entire Affordable Care Act (ACA) as unconstitutional. The White House has stated that the law will remain in place, however, pending the appeal process. The case, Texas v. U.S., will be appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in New Orleans, and then likely to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The plaintiffs in Texas (a coalition of twenty states) argue that since the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act zeroed out the individual mandate penalty, it can no longer be considered a tax. Accordingly, because the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the ACA in 2012 by saying the individual mandate was a legitimate use of Congress’s taxing power, eliminating the tax penalty imposed by the mandate renders the individual mandate unconstitutional. Further, the individual mandate is not severable from the ACA in its entirety. Thus, the ACA should be found unconstitutional and struck down.
The court in Texas agreed, finding that the individual mandate can no longer be fairly read as an exercise of Congress’s Tax Power and is still impermissible under the Interstate Commerce Clause—meaning it is unconstitutional. Also, the court found the individual mandate is essential to and inseverable from the remainder of the ACA, which would include not only the patient protections (no annual limits, coverage of pre-existing conditions) but the premium tax credits, Medicaid expansion, and of course the employer mandate and ACA reporting.
Several states such as Massachusetts, New York and California have since intervened to defend the law. They argue that, if Congress wanted to repeal the law it would have done so. The Congressional record makes it clear Congress was voting only […]
IRS Extends Deadline for Furnishing Form 1095, Extends Good-Faith Transition Relief
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has released Notice 2018-94, extending the deadline for furnishing 2018 Forms 1095-B and 1095-C to individuals from January 31, 2019 to March 4, 2019, as well as penalty relief for good-faith reporting errors.
The due date for filing the forms with the IRS was not extended and remains February 28, 2019 (April 1, 2019 if filed electronically). Despite the repeal of the “individual mandate” beginning in 2019 as part of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, the ACA’s information reporting requirements remain in effect, as the IRS uses the reporting to administer the employer mandate and premium tax credit program. The IRS is studying whether and how the reporting requirements under section 6055 (relating to insurance companies and self-insured plans) should change, if at all, for future years.
The instructions to Forms 1094-C and 1095-C allow employers to request a 30-day extension to furnish statements to individuals by sending a letter to the IRS with certain information, including the reason for delay. However, because the Notice’s extension of time to furnish the forms is as generous as the 30-day extension contained in the instructions, the IRS will not formally respond to requests for an extension of time to furnish 2018 Forms 1095-B or 1095-C to individuals.
Employers may still obtain an automatic 30-day extension for filing with the IRS by filing Form 8809 on or before the forms’ due date. An additional 30-day extension is available under certain hardship conditions. The Notice encourages employers who cannot meet the extended due dates to furnish and file as soon as possible and advises that the IRS will take such furnishing and filing into consideration when determining whether to abate penalties […]
Medical Loss Ratio Rebates
Medical Loss Ratio Rebates Under the Affordable Care Act
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) has provided guidance on the Affordable Care Act’s (“ACA’s”) medical loss ratio (“MLR”) rule, which requires health insurers to spend a certain percentage of premium dollars on claims or activities that improve health care quality or provide a rebate to policyholders. HHS has released amended and final regulations (the “Regulations”), which govern the distribution of rebates by issuers in group markets. At the same time, the U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”) issued Technical Release 2011-04 (“TR 2011-04”), which clarifies how rebates will be treated under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”).
Medical Loss Ratio Rule
The MLR rule requires health insurance companies in the group or individual market to provide an annual rebate to enrollees if the insurer’s “medical loss ratio” falls below a certain minimum level—generally, 85 percent in the large group market and 80 percent in the small group or individual market. For these purposes, the numerator of the MLR equals the insurer’s incurred claims and expenditures for activities that improve health care quality, and the denominator equals the insurer’s premium revenue minus federal and state taxes and licensing and regulatory fees.
Defining Group Size
For purposes of the MLR rule, the Affordable Care Act defines “small” and “large” group markets by reference to insurance coverage sold to small employers or large employers. The Affordable Care Act defines a small employer as one that employs 1-100 employees and a large employer as one that employs 101 or more employees. However, states are permitted to limit the definition of a small employer to one that employs 1-50 employees.
Rebates under ERISA
TR 2011-04 clarifies that insurers must provide any […]
DOL Releases Final Rule Expanding Association Health Plans
DOL Releases Final Rule Expanding Association Health Plans
The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) has issued a final rule expanding the opportunity of unrelated employers of all sizes (but particularly small employers) to offer employment-based health insurance through Association Health Plans (AHPs). Significantly, the final rule applies “large group” coverage rules under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) to qualifying AHPs.
The final rule confirms that AHPs may be formed by employers in the same trade, industry, line of businesses, or profession. They may also be formed based on a geographic test such as a common state, city, county or same metropolitan area (even if the metropolitan area includes more than one State).
The final rule contains staggered effective dates:
- All associations (new or existing) may establish a fully insured AHP beginning September 1, 2018.
- Existing associations that sponsored an AHP on or before the date the final rule was published may establish a self-insured AHP beginning January 1, 2019.
- All other associations (new or existing) may establish a self-insured AHP beginning April 1, 2019.
We will expand upon these issues in future alerts. In the meantime, highlights of the final rule are as follows:
- Existing bona fide associations may continue to rely on prior DOL guidance. The final rule provides an additional mechanism for AHPs to sponsor a single ERISA-covered group health plan.
- AHPs may self-insure under the final rule; however, the DOL anticipates that many AHPs will be subject to state benefit mandates. States retain the authority to adopt minimum benefit standards, including standards similar to those applicable to individual and small group insurance policies under the ACA, for all AHPs.
- The primary purpose of the association may be to offer health coverage to its members; […]
IRS Issues Affordability Percentage Adjustment for 2019
In Rev. Proc. 2018-34, the IRS released the inflation adjusted amounts for 2019 relevant to determining whether employer-sponsored coverage is “affordable” for purposes of the Affordable Care Act’s (“ACA’s”) employer shared responsibility provisions and premium tax credit program. As shown in the table below, for plan years beginning in 2019, the affordability percentage is 9.86% of an employee’s household income or applicable safe harbor.
| Code Section | 4980H(a) | 4980H(b) | 36B(b)(3)(A)(i) |
| Description | Potential annual penalty for failure to offer coverage to at least 95% (70% in 2015) of full-time employees (calculated per full-time employee, minus 30 (80 in 2015))[1] | Potential annual penalty if coverage is offered but is not affordable or does not provide minimum value (calculated per full-time employee who receives a subsidy)[2] | Premium credits and affordability safe harbors
Section 4980H penalties may be triggered by a full-time employee receiving a PTC |
| 2019 | $2,500* | $3,750* | 9.86% |
| 2018 | $2,320 | $3,480 | 9.56% |
| 2017 | $2,260 | $3,390 | 9.69% |
| 2016 | $2,160 | $3,240 | 9.66% |
| 2015 | $2,080 | $3,120 | 9.56% |
| 2014** | $2,000 | $3,000 | 9.50% |
* Estimated based on premium adjustment percentage in the 2019 Notice of Benefit and Payment Parameters
**No employer shared responsibility penalties were assessed for 2014.
Under the ACA, applicable large employers (ALEs) – generally those with 50 or more full-time equivalent employees on average in the prior calendar year – must offer affordable health insurance to full-time employees to avoid an employer shared responsibility payment. Coverage is “affordable” if the employee’s required contribution for self-only coverage under the employer’s lowest-cost minimum value plan does not exceed 9.5% (as indexed) of the employee’s household income for the year. In lieu of household income, employers may rely on one or more of the following safe harbor alternatives when […]
New Jersey Enacts State Individual Mandate and Reinsurance Program
On May 30, 2018, New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy signed two bills into law that are designed to stabilize and reduce health insurance premiums in the individual market.
- The New Jersey Health Insurance Market Preservation Act is a state individual mandate, requiring individuals in New Jersey to maintain acceptable health coverage or pay a penalty, effective in 2019.
- The New Jersey Health Insurance Premium Security Act establishes a health insurance reinsurance plan in the state. New Jersey intends to seek federal funding for this program through a Section 1332 State Innovation Waiver made available under the Affordable Care Act (ACA).
These new laws are among the first state laws passed in response to changes made to the federal ACA. New Jersey is only the second state to enact its own health insurance individual mandate. Individuals in New Jersey should ensure that they are in compliance with the state individual mandate beginning in 2019.
State Individual Mandate
Effective beginning in 2019, the New Jersey Health Insurance Market Preservation Act imposes a state individual mandate that largely mirrors the ACA’s federal individual mandate requirement. The ACA’s individual mandate penalty has been effectively eliminated beginning in 2019.
New Jersey’s individual mandate requires most individuals in the state (and their family members) to be covered under minimum essential coverage for each month of the year, beginning in 2019. Individuals that don’t obtain acceptable health insurance coverage will be penalized.
Notably, the new law provides that the state individual mandate penalty will not be enforced for any tax year in which the ACA’s federal premium tax credits become unavailable.
Minimum Essential Coverage
For purposes of the New Jersey individual mandate, the term “minimum essential coverage” (MEC) has the same definition as under the ACA.
MEC […]
IRS Adjusts 2018 HSA Contribution Limit – Again
The IRS has announced it is modifying the annual limitation on deductions for contributions to a health savings account (“HSA”) allowed for taxpayers with family coverage under a high deductible health plan (“HDHP”) for the 2018 calendar year. Under Rev. Proc. 2018-27, taxpayers will be allowed to treat $6,900 as the annual limitation, rather than the $6,850 limitation announced in Rev. Proc. 2018-18 earlier this year.
The HSA contribution limit for individuals with family HDHP plan coverage was originally issued as $6,900 last May in Rev. Proc. 2017-37. Earlier this year, the IRS announced a $50 reduction in the maximum deductible amount from $6,900 to $6,850 due to changes made by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.
Due to widespread complaints and comments from individual taxpayers, employers and other major stakeholders, the IRS has decided it is in the best interest of “sound and efficient” tax administration to allow individuals to treat the originally released $6,900 as the 2018 family limit. The IRS acknowledged that many individuals had already made the maximum HSA contribution for 2018 before the deduction limitation was lowered and many other individuals had made annual salary reduction elections for HSA contributions through employers’ cafeteria plans based on the higher limit. Additionally, the costs of modifying various systems to reflect the reduced maximum would be significantly greater than any tax benefit associated with an unreduced HSA contribution.
Alternatively, if an individual decides not to repay such a distribution it will not have to be included in gross income or subject to the additional 20% tax as long as the distribution is received by the individual’s 2018 tax return filing due date. This tax […]
IRS Adjusts HSA Contribution Limit, Provides Transition Relief for Certain Non-Compliant HDHPs
In Rev. Proc. 2018-18, the IRS has released adjusted contribution limits for health savings accounts (HSAs) due to changes made by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA). As shown below, the new HSA contribution limit for individuals with family high deductible health plan (HDHP) coverage is $6,850, a $50 reduction from the previously announced inflation-adjusted amount for 2018. Other HSA/HDHP figures remain unchanged.
| 2018 HDHP and HSA Limits | Single / Family |
| Annual HSA Contribution Limit | $3,450 / $6,850 |
| Minimum Annual HDHP Deductible | $1,350 / $2,700 |
| Maximum Out-of-Pocket for HDHP | $6,650 / $13,300 |
HSA Contributions in Excess of $6,850
While most employees with family HDHP coverage will not have contributed more than $6,850 through salary reductions at this point in 2018, employers will need to communicate the reduction to employees and reduce elections for employees who have elected $6,900 (and who will not be age 55 by the end of 2018). If an employer has already funded $6,900 on a non-taxable basis, they should include the additional $50 in the employee’s income and the employee may take a corrective distribution to avoid excess contribution penalties.
In most cases, the only task for employers will be to inform employees of the adjustment and, specifically, inform those who elected $6,900 (or $7,900 for employees who will be age 55+ at the end of 2018) that their election will be capped at $6,850 (as adjusted for the $1,000 catch-up).
Adoption Assistance Adjustment
The TCJA also reduces the amount that can be excluded from an employee’s gross income for the adoption of a child with special needs from $13,840 to $13,810. The phase-out also begins at a lower level than previously expected – $207,140 (reduced from $207,580) and is completely phased out for taxpayers with modified adjusted gross […]
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 […]