Alera Group Employees Relieve $1.35M of Medical Debt Across NJ

Alera Group, Inc. employees announced their alleviation of $1.35 million of medical debt for families located across the state of New Jersey through two of its New Jersey based divisions, CRISP and Broad Reach Benefits. This gift is part of approximately $19 million in healthcare debt being relieved by Alera Group employees for struggling households across the country, an effort that began during the 2020 holiday season and remains open for contributions today. Alera is one of the youngest and fastest growing privately held, national insurance brokerage firms in the country.

Alera employees worked directly with the debt-forgiveness nonprofit, RIP Medical Debt, to identify individuals and families with outstanding healthcare-related bills in more than 200 cities located in 35 counties across the country. Founded by two former debt collectors, RIP is able to purchase medical debts for those most in need in bundled portfolios for a fraction of their face value.

“The global pandemic has impacted the lives of millions of people across the country, with so many families struggling to pay off soaring medical bills associated with getting sick in this environment,” stated David Russo, a partner at CRISP. “Giving back to the local communities in which we live is at the heart of what Alera Group stands for, and we are proud to be part of such an incredible initiative that is easing the worries of families across New Jersey during these challenging times.” 

Rather than waking up to the knocking of a debt collector, thousands of Americans will receive letters of forgiveness to alert them of the gift from Alera employees. These letters will be delivered by March 2021 and beyond, targeting individual and families living below 200% of the poverty […]

By |February 16th, 2021|Broad Reach Benefits, Employee Benefits Adviser, Employee Communications, Medical, Uncategorized|Comments Off on Alera Group Employees Relieve $1.35M of Medical Debt Across NJ

Deadline to Pay COBRA Premiums and Certain Other ERISA and Internal Revenue Codes Due to COVID-19 Extended

The impacts of the COVID-19 National Emergency, as declared by President Trump on March 13, 2020, have been vast.  As a result, many employers and employees are struggling to meet their various filing, notice, election, or other deadlines.  In order to ease this burden on employers, plans and participants, on April 28, 2020, the Department of Labor (DOL), the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), and Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued much needed guidance and relief. Notably, the guidance requires employers and plans to suspend the deadline for qualified beneficiaries to elect COBRA or pay COBRA premiums from March 1, 2020 until 60 days after the National Emergency ends (or such other date as specified by the Agencies)

DOL Relief for Group Health Plans and Disability and Other Welfare Plans

EBSA Disaster Relief Notice 2020-01, eases the burden for group health plans, disability plans, and pension plans to provide notices and disclosures required under ERISA and Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (the “Code”) by clarifying, among other things, that:

  • Neither the plan nor the employer will violate ERISA for failing to timely furnish a notice, disclosure, or document that must be furnished between March 1, 2020, and 60 days after the announced end of the COVID-19 National Emergency, if they act in good faith and make the disclosure as soon as administratively practicable under the circumstances.
  • Plans and employers may communicate electronically with plan participants and beneficiaries who they reasonably believe have effective access to electronic means of communication, including email, text messages, and continuous access websites.
  • Filing relief for Form 5500 applies per IRS Notice 2020-23, which was issued earlier this month.  IRS Notice 2020-23 provides that employers with plan […]
By |May 1st, 2020|Uncategorized|Comments Off on Deadline to Pay COBRA Premiums and Certain Other ERISA and Internal Revenue Codes Due to COVID-19 Extended

Our Team is Here for You, Your Employees and Their Families

Our team is focused on helping our many friends, clients, and associates through these difficult times. There is tremendous pressure to either maintain business operations or figure out how to restructure in the short-term to come out on the other side of this pandemic. Either way, it is no small feat.

We are here to help, with no strings attached. We have the information and the resources to help. Feel welcome to reach out to any of our team for information or assistance relating to employee benefits or property & casualty issues, compliance, or the latest COVID-19 regulations that are coming out at a rapid pace.

We are Stronger Together!

Watch our Stronger Together Video

By |April 10th, 2020|Employee Benefits, Uncategorized|Comments Off on Our Team is Here for You, Your Employees and Their Families

IRS Issues Affordability Percentage Adjustment for 2020

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has released Rev. Proc. 2019-29, which contains the inflation adjusted amounts for 2020 used to determine whether employer-sponsored coverage is “affordable” for purposes of the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) employer shared responsibility provisions and premium tax credit program. As shown in the table below, for plan years beginning in 2020, the affordability percentage for employer mandate purposes is indexed to 9.78%.  Employer shared responsibility payments are also indexed.

Code Section 4980H(a) 4980H(b) 36B(b)(3)(A)(i)
Description Coverage not offered to 95% (or all but 5) of full-time employees. Coverage offered, but unaffordable or is not minimum value. Premium credits and affordability safe harbors.
2020* $2,580 $3,870 9.78%
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%

*Section 4980H(a) and (b) penalties for 2019 and 2020 are projected.

**No employer shared responsibility penalties were assessed for 2014.

Under the ACA, applicable large employers (ALEs) must offer affordable health insurance coverage to full-time employees. If the ALE does not offer affordable coverage, it may be subject to an employer shared responsibility payment. An ALE is […]

By |July 24th, 2019|Health Care Reform, Human Resources, Legislation, Medical, Uncategorized|Comments Off on IRS Issues Affordability Percentage Adjustment for 2020

Treating Employees Differently- Health Plan Rules

Do you want to be selective and treat employees differently for purposes of group health plan benefits?  For example, some employers may consider implementing the following plan designs:

  • A health plan “carve-out” that insures only select groups of employees (for example, a management carve-out);
  • Different levels of benefits for groups of employees; or
  • Employer contribution rates vary based on employee group.

In general, employers may treat employees differently, as long as they are not violating federal rules that prohibit discrimination in favor of highly compensated employees. These rules currently apply to self-insured health plans and arrangements that allow employees to pay their premiums on a pre-tax basis. The nondiscrimination requirements for fully insured health plans have been delayed indefinitely.

Employers should also confirm that any health plan rules do not violate other federal laws that prohibit discrimination. In addition, employers with insured plans should confirm that carve-out designs comply with any minimum participation rules imposed by the carrier.

Health Plan Design – General Rules

Nondiscrimination Tests

In general, a health plan will not have problems passing any applicable nondiscrimination test when the employer treats all of its employees the same for purposes of health plan coverage (for example, all employees are eligible for the health plan, and the plan’s eligibility rules and benefits are the same for all employees). However, treating employees differently may make it more difficult for a health plan to pass the applicable nondiscrimination tests. Examples of plan designs that may cause problems with nondiscrimination testing include:

  • Only certain groups of employees are eligible to participate in the health plan (for example, only salaried or management employees);
  • The health plan has different employment requirements for plan eligibility (for example, waiting periods and entry dates) for different employee groups;
  • Plan benefits or contribution rates vary based on employment classification, years of service or amount of compensation (for example, management employees pay a lower premium or receive additional benefits); or
  • The employer maintains separate health plans for different groups of employees.

Before implementing one or more of these plan designs, employers should confirm that the arrangement will comply with any applicable rules that prohibit discrimination in favor of highly compensated employees. Under currently applicable law, if a health plan is discriminatory, highly compensated employees will lose certain tax benefits under the plan. […]

By |April 19th, 2019|Compliance, Employee Benefits, Medical, Section 125, Uncategorized|Comments Off on Treating Employees Differently- Health Plan Rules

ACA Taxes Affected by the Spending Resolution

On Jan. 22, 2018, President Donald Trump signed into law a short-term continuing spending resolution to end the government shutdown and continue funding through Feb. 8, 2018. The continuing resolution impacts three taxes and fees under the Affordable Care Act (ACA).

Specifically, the continuing resolution:

  • Delays implementation of the Cadillac tax on high-cost group health coverage until 2022;
  • Provides an additional one-year moratorium on the health insurance providers fee for 2019 (although the fee continues to apply for 2018); and
  • Extends the moratorium on the medical device excise tax for an additional two years, through 2019.

Employers should be aware of the evolving applicability of existing ACA taxes and fees so that they know how the ACA affects their bottom lines. Broad Reach Benefits, Inc will continue to keep you informed of changes.

Cadillac Tax Delayed

The ACA imposes a 40 percent excise tax on high-cost group health coverage, also known as the “Cadillac tax.” This provision taxes the amount, if any, by which the monthly cost of an employee’s applicable employer-sponsored health coverage exceeds the annual limitation (called the employee’s excess benefit). The tax amount for each employee’s coverage will be calculated by the employer and paid by the coverage provider who provided the coverage.

Although originally intended to take effect in 2013, the Cadillac tax was immediately delayed until 2018 following the ACA’s enactment. A federal budget bill enacted for 2016 further delayed implementation of this tax until 2020, and also:

  •      Removed a provision prohibiting the Cadillac tax from being deducted as a business expense; and
  •      Required a study to be conducted on the age and gender adjustment to the annual limit.

The continuing […]

By |January 24th, 2018|Uncategorized|Comments Off on ACA Taxes Affected by the Spending Resolution

2017 ACA Reporting Furnishing Deadline Delayed

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS), on Dec. 22, 2017, issued Notice 2018-06 to:

  • Extend the due date for furnishing forms under Sections 6055 and 6056 for 2017 for 30 days, from Jan. 31, 2018, to March 2, 2018; and
  • Extend good-faith transition relief from penalties related to 2017 information reporting under Sections 6055 and 6056.

Notice 2018-06 does not extend the due date for filing forms with the IRS for 2017. The due date for filing with the IRS under Sections 6055 and 6056 remains Feb. 28, 2018 (April 2, 2018, if filing electronically).

Action Steps

The IRS is encouraging reporting entities to furnish statements as soon as they are able. No request or other documentation is required to take advantage of the extended deadline.

Section 6055 and 6056 Reporting

Sections 6055 and 6056 were added to the Internal Revenue Code (Code) by the Affordable Care Act (ACA).

  • Section 6055 applies to providers of minimum essential coverage (MEC), such as health insurance issuers and employers with self-insured health plans. These entities will generally use Forms 1094-B and 1095-B to report information about the coverage they provided during the previous year.
  • Section 6056 applies to applicable large employers (ALEs)­­—generally, those employers with 50 or more full-time employees, including full-time equivalents, in the previous year. ALEs will use Forms 1094-C and 1095-C to report information relating to the health coverage that they offer (or do not offer) to their full-time employees.

Extended Furnishing Deadline


By |December 22nd, 2017|Uncategorized|Comments Off on 2017 ACA Reporting Furnishing Deadline Delayed

Legal Alert: IRS Updates Employer Mandate FAQs: Indicates that Penalty Letters are Imminent

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has updated its list of frequently asked questions (FAQs) on the Affordable Care Act’s employer shared responsibility provisions – also known as the “pay or play” mandate. In particular, questions 55 through 58 provide guidance for employers who may be subject to shared responsibility payments.   The FAQs indicate that the IRS will begin sending penalty letters to applicable large employers (ALEs) that owe penalties for calendar year 2015 “in late 2017.” Around this time last year, the IRS had indicated that penalty letters for 2015 would be coming “in early 2017;” however, those letters never materialized.   Based on the latest update to its FAQs, it appears that the IRS has worked out the kinks in its systems and is prepared to begin sending penalty letters.


Starting in 2015, the ACA requires ALEs to either “play” by offering affordable health coverage to their full-time employees, or “pay” a penalty if the employer fails to provide affordable health coverage and at least one full-time employee receives a premium tax credit to help purchase coverage through the Health Insurance Marketplace. ALEs are generally those with 50 or more full-time employees, including full-time equivalent employees. Transitional relief was available for 2015 (and, for non-calendar year plans, any portion of the 2015 plan year that fell in 2016) for ALEs with fewer than 100 full-time employees that satisfied the conditions of such transitional relief.

In general, there are two potential penalties (both non-deductible for tax purposes) that could be imposed on an ALE for failure to satisfy the mandate. The first penalty, known as the “no coverage” penalty, is based on whether an ALE fails to offer group health plan coverage to […]

By |November 7th, 2017|Compliance, Employee Benefits, Human Resources, Legislation, Medical, Uncategorized|Comments Off on Legal Alert: IRS Updates Employer Mandate FAQs: Indicates that Penalty Letters are Imminent

Church-affiliated Plans Are Exempt from ERISA- Supreme Court Ruling

The U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision on June 5. 2017 holding that an employee benefit plan may be exempt from the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) as a “church plan” even if a church did not establish it. The court held that the ERISA exemption for church plans applies to certain organizations that are affiliated with churches, regardless of how their benefit plans were established.

Because this is consistent with how federal agencies currently interpret and enforce ERISA, the ruling does not change any obligations for most employers. The decision does, however, settle and resolve a recent wave of litigation involving employers with religious affiliations, such as hospitals.

Action Steps

Employers with church affiliations should be aware of the specific criteria an employee benefit plan must meet to qualify for ERISA’s church-plan exemption. All employers that sponsor employee benefit plans should ensure that their plans either meet the criteria for an ERISA exemption or comply with all applicable ERISA requirements.  […]

By |June 15th, 2017|Uncategorized|Comments Off on Church-affiliated Plans Are Exempt from ERISA- Supreme Court Ruling

Cafeteria Plans: Allowing Midyear Election Changes

If you work in human resources the following scenario should sound familiar: An employee wanders in and starts to complain bitterly that they can no longer afford the medical or dental coverage they signed up for and demand you let them drop the coverage immediately (midyear).  Good luck explaining that it’s not you who won’t let them drop their coverage.  It’s those pesky rules in place within the IRS Section 125 plan you have in place.

Internal Revenue Code Section 125 cafeteria plans state that participant elections must be made before the first day of the plan year or the date taxable benefits would currently be available, whichever comes first. These elections are generally irrevocable until the beginning of the next plan year. This means that participants cannot make changes to their cafeteria plan elections during a plan year just because they no longer want the coverage.

IRS regulations do permit employers to design their cafeteria plans to allow employees to change their elections during the plan year if certain conditions are met. The IRS clearly lists permitted or qualifying events that allow participants to change his or her election midyear as long as the change is consistent with the event.  Some examples are an employee has a spouse who loses or gains employment, birth of a child, marriage and divorce.  Also, the IRS did expand the midyear election change rules in response to certain Affordable Care Act (ACA) provisions.

Download our Compliance Overview Brief, Cafeteria Plans: Midyear Election Changes, for all the details on permitted election changes:

Cafeteria Plans Midyear Election Changes 06 28 16

By |March 28th, 2017|Uncategorized|Comments Off on Cafeteria Plans: Allowing Midyear Election Changes