Call 800-272-1144

Benefits Blog

IRS Proposes Permanent 30-day Extension to ACA Reporting Deadline

On November 22, 2021, the IRS filed a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“Proposed Rule”) that among other things, provides for an automatic 30-day extension of the deadline for applicable large employers (“ALEs”) to furnish annual Forms 1095-C to individuals for calendar years beginning after December 31, 2021.  Further, the Proposed Rule allows ALEs to voluntarily adopt this extension for calendar years beginning after December 31, 2020, which means this would apply to calendar year 2021 Forms 1095-C, which are due in 2022.

Generally, the deadline is January 31 each year, and current regulations allow the IRS to grant an extension of time of up to 30 days to furnish Forms 1095-B and 1095-C to individuals for good cause shown; however, recognizing the current January 31 deadline is difficult to meet, the Proposed Rule eliminates the good cause shown standard and simply allows for an automatic 30-day extension to March 2, 2022.  In years where the deadline falls on a weekend or holiday, the forms are due the next business day.

The deadline to file the Forms 1094-B or C and 1095-B or C with the IRS are not extended and will remain February 28 for paper filings and March 31 if filed electronically, though pursuant to current regulations, companies may receive an automatic 30-day extension of time to file the forms with the IRS by submitting Form 8809, Application for Extension of Time to File Information Returns, on or before the due date for filing the forms.

Additionally, because the penalty for the individual mandate is currently $0, for any calendar year in which it remains $0, the Proposed Rule provides relief (consistent with relief provided for tax years 2019 and 2020) from furnishing Forms 1095-B to …

By |December 1st, 2021|Uncategorized|Comments Off on IRS Proposes Permanent 30-day Extension to ACA Reporting Deadline
Read More

OSHA Emergency Temporary Standard for COVID-19 Vaccine and Testing Stayed By 5th Circuit Court of Appeals

President Biden announced that he ordered OSHA to develop an emergency temporary standard (ETS) that would require private employers with 100 or more employees to mandate that employees either receive one of the three available COVID-19 vaccines or submit to weekly COVID-19 testing.  On November 5, 2021, OSHA published its COVID-19 Vaccination and Testing Emergency Temporary Standard, which included a summary, fact sheet, and FAQs.  The ETS was immediately challenged by a number of petitioners, including states and private companies, seeking to permanently enjoin enforcement of the ETS.  On November 6, 2021, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (the 5th Circuit), temporarily stayed enforcement of the ETS pending briefing by the parties and expedited judicial review.

After completing its expedited review, on November 12, 2021, the 5th Circuit affirmed its initial stay, holding that petitioners met all four factors to establish the need for further stay, and ordered OSHA to take no further steps to implement or enforce the ETS pending adequate judicial review of the request for permanent injunction.  The U.S. Department of Justice disagreed that an immediate stay was necessary given that a “multi-circuit lottery” will occur on or about November 16, after which all lawsuits challenging the ETS will be heard by one federal appeals court.

OSHA ETS

As a reminder, the ETS requires employers with 100 or more employees to develop and implement a mandatory, written COVID-19 vaccination policy by December 5, 2021, or a written policy requiring employees to either be vaccinated or produce a negative COVID-19 test result and wear a face covering at work. Employers are required to begin enforcing the policy on January 4, 2022, meaning most employees of covered employers would …

By |November 17th, 2021|Broad Reach Benefits, Compliance, Employee Benefits, Employee Benefits Adviser, Human Resources, Medical, Wellness|Comments Off on OSHA Emergency Temporary Standard for COVID-19 Vaccine and Testing Stayed By 5th Circuit Court of Appeals
Read More

Legal Alert- IRS Issues Affordability Percentage Adjustment for 2022

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has released Rev. Proc. 2021-36, which contains the inflation adjusted amounts for 2022 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 2022, the affordability percentage for employer mandate purposes is indexed to 9.61%.  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.
2022* $2,750 $4,120 9.61%
2021 $2,700 $4,060 9.83%
2020 $2,570 $3,860 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 2022 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 an employer that employed 50 or more full-time equivalent employees on average in the prior calendar year. Coverage is considered affordable if the employee’s required contribution for self-only coverage on the employer’s lowest-cost, minimum value plan does not exceed 9.61% of the employee’s household income in 2022 (prior years shown above). An ALE may rely on one or more safe harbors in determining if coverage is affordable: W-2, Rate of Pay, and Federal Poverty Level.

If the employer’s coverage is not affordable under one of the safe harbors and a full-time …

By |September 21st, 2021|Affordable Care Act, Compliance, Disability, Employee Benefits, Employee Benefits Adviser, Employee Communications, Human Resources, IRS, Legislation, Medical, Private Health Care Exchange, U.S. Department of Labor, Wellness|Comments Off on Legal Alert- IRS Issues Affordability Percentage Adjustment for 2022
Read More

President Orders OSHA To Develop Mandatory Vaccine Requirement for Large Employers

President Biden announced that he ordered OSHA to develop emergency temporary standards (ETSs) that would require employers with 100 or more employees to mandate that employees either receive one of the three available COVID-19 vaccines or submit to at least weekly COVID-19 testing.  Employers who do not comply with these requirements could be fined approximately $13,650 per employee.  The President also announced the OSHA ETSs will require employers to offer paid time off to employees to receive the vaccine, as well as any time necessary to recover from a reaction to the vaccine.

The President also issued executive orders requiring federal executive branch employees to be fully vaccinated (i.e., no weekly testing option) and federal contractor employees under new or newly extended/newly optioned contracts to comply with vaccine safety protocols.  He also announced (1) health care workers at certain facilities that receive Medicaid or Medicare funding must be fully vaccinated, (2) that the Department of Transportation will double its fines for individuals who refuse to wear masks on public transportation, and (3) increased testing availability for individuals either at home (through certain, chosen retailers who will sell the kits at cost) [1] and at pharmacies.

The pending OSHA ETSs, and approaches large employers (i.e., 100 or more employees) and small employer (i.e., fewer than 100 employees) can take to incentivize vaccines are the focus of this alert.

Background

On August 23, 2021, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine, one of the three COVID-19 vaccines approved for emergency use in the United States.  Due to this approval and the rampant spread of the COVID-19 Delta variant, employers recently began implementing different approaches to encourage individuals to receive the COVID-19 vaccine.  Some implemented …

By |September 16th, 2021|Affordable Care Act, Compliance, Employee Benefits, Employee Benefits Adviser, Employee Communications, Health Care Reform, Human Resources, Legislation, Medical, U.S. Department of Labor, Wellness|Comments Off on President Orders OSHA To Develop Mandatory Vaccine Requirement for Large Employers
Read More

Legal Alert: COVID-19 Plan Design

As the U.S. continues to battle the COVID-19 pandemic, vaccinations of Americans age 12 and older are underway with approximately half of the eligible population vaccinated against the virus. In the States, there are currently three vaccines—one from Moderna, Pfizer and Johnson & Johnson—that are available, with distribution being handled at the state and local level.

To help combat the pandemic, many employers are implementing some level of a vaccine mandate at work, with some employers requiring all employees who return to the office to be vaccinated (ex: Google, Facebook and Anthem), requiring all new hires to show proof of vaccination (Disney) or merely requiring all their U.S.-based employee population to be vaccinated by a certain date (United Airlines). Members of the U.S. military will also be required to be vaccinated as a matter of national security to maintain military readiness.

As businesses are eager to return to the office and bring customers back on-site as applicable, many employers are wondering if they can modify their group health plan design to provide richer benefits for employees who are vaccinated.

Specifically, employers are wondering if:

  • They can limit eligibility for their group health plan to only employees who have received the vaccine (or who have a medical or religious waiver);
  • They can charge vaccinated employees lower premiums, co-pays or deductible limits (or, conversely, charge non-vaccinated employees higher premiums, co-pays or deductibles);
  • Exclude all COVID-19 treatment from group health plan coverage for employees who are not vaccinated (example: the plan would deny all claims for out-patient, in-patient or prescription drug treatment of COVID-19 for individuals who are not vaccinated;
  • Provide larger HSA, HRA, or FSA contributions to individuals who are vaccinated.

At …

By |September 7th, 2021|Compliance, Employee Benefits, Employee Benefits Adviser, Employee Communications, Human Resources, Medical|Comments Off on Legal Alert: COVID-19 Plan Design
Read More

Summary of Mental Health Parity and Transparency Provisions Under the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021

The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (the “CAA”), which was signed into law on December 27, 2020, included several provisions impacting group health plans and health insurance issuers.  Below is a summary of the provisions focused on mental health parity and health plan transparency (specifically, broker/consultant commissions and pharmacy benefits and drug costs).

Mental Health Parity

The Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 (MHPAEA), prohibits a group health plan from applying financial requirements (e.g., deductibles, co-payments, coinsurance, and out-of-pocket maximums), quantitative treatment limitations (e.g., number of treatments, visits, or days of coverage), or non-quantitative treatment limitations (such as restrictions based on facility type) to its mental health and substance use disorder benefits that are more restrictive than those applied to the plan’s medical and surgical benefits.

MHPAEA compliance has been a focus in DOL audits in recent years.  As part of the action plan for enhanced enforcement in 2018, the DOL, HHS and IRS released a self-compliance tool plans and issuers can use to evaluate their plan.  However, Section 203 of the CAA took this a step further, requiring more active engagement by group health plans.

Beginning on February 10, 2021, group health plans were required to perform and document comparative analyses of the design and application of non-quantitative treatment limitations (NQTLs).  Specifically, the NQTL analyses must include certain information specified in the CAA, such as, among other things, specific plan terms or other relevant terms regarding NQTLs and the specific substance abuse, mental health, medical and surgical benefits to which they apply, and the factors used to determine that NQTLs will apply to mental health or substance use disorder benefits and medical or surgical benefits.

Per the CAA, the DOL, IRS (Treasury) and HHS are required …

By |August 23rd, 2021|Affordable Care Act, Compliance, Employee Benefits, Employee Communications, Health Care Reform, Human Resources, IRS, Legislation, Medical, U.S. Department of Labor, Voluntary Benefits, Wellness|Comments Off on Summary of Mental Health Parity and Transparency Provisions Under the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021
Read More

Legal Alert: COVID-19 Plan Design

As the United States continues to battle the COVID-19 pandemic, vaccinations of Americans age 12 and older is underway with approximately half of the eligible population vaccinated against the virus. In the United States, there are currently three vaccines — one from Moderna, one from Pfizer and one from Johnson & Johnson—that are available, with distribution being handled at the state and local level.

To help combat the pandemic, many employers are implementing some level of a vaccine mandate at work, with some employers requiring all employees who return to the office to be vaccinated (e.g., Google, Facebook), requiring all new hires to show proof of vaccination (Delta Airlines) or merely requiring all their U.S.-based employee population to be vaccinated by a certain date (United Airlines). Members of the United States military will also be required to be vaccinated as a matter of national security to maintain military readiness.

As businesses are eager to return to the office and bring customers back on-site as applicable, many employers are wondering if they can modify their group health plan design to provide richer benefits for employees who are vaccinated.

Specifically, employers are wondering if:

  • They can limit eligibility for their group health plan to only employees who have received the vaccine (or who have a medical or religious waiver);
  • They can charge vaccinated employees lower premiums, co-pays, or deductible limits (or, conversely, charge non-vaccinated employees higher premiums, co-pays or deductibles);
  • Exclude all COVID-19 treatment from group health plan coverage for employees who are not vaccinated (example: the plan would deny all claims for out-patient, in-patient or prescription drug treatment of COVID-19 for individuals who are not vaccinated;
  • Provide larger HSA, HRA, or FSA contributions to individuals who are vaccinated.

At the most basic …

By |August 16th, 2021|Affordable Care Act, Compliance, Employee Benefits, Employee Benefits Adviser, Employee Communications, Health Care Reform, Human Resources, Medical, Wellness|Comments Off on Legal Alert: COVID-19 Plan Design
Read More

Agencies Release First Rule on the No Surprises Act

On July 13, 2021, the DOL, HHS, and IRS released a joint Interim Final Rule implementing specified provisions of the No Surprises Act, a new law included within the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021.  The No Surprises Act addresses, among other things, a prohibition on surprise billing, which impacts emergency room parity rules previously implemented under the Affordable Care Act (“ACA”) and ACA provisions related to provider choice.

The Interim Final Rules will be finalized on September 13, 2021 and apply for plan years beginning on or after January 1, 2022.

Background 

ACA Provider Choice and Emergency Services Requirements

Under §2719A of the ACA, most group health plans that require designation of a participating primary care provider must permit the participant or beneficiary to designate an available, participating primary care provider of their choice, and must inform participants of their ability to make a designation or, if they don’t, a primary care provider will be designated for them. A participant can designate a pediatric primary care provider for children, and the notice must inform participants and beneficiaries that they do not need prior authorization from the plan to access participating Ob-Gyn providers, though prior authorization may be required for certain services and providers may have to comply with any referral processes.  The ACA did not extend these requirements to “excepted benefits” such as stand-alone dental or vision plans, and grandfathered health plans were exempt from complying.

Additionally, §2719A of the PHSA requires emergency services to be provided:

  • Without prior authorization (whether they are provided by an in-network or out-of-network provider);
  • Without regard to whether the health care provider furnishing the emergency services is a participating network provider with respect to the services; and
  • Without imposing administrative requirements or limitations on …
By |August 10th, 2021|Affordable Care Act, Compliance, Employee Benefits, Employee Benefits Adviser, Employee Communications, Health Care Reform, IRS, Medical, U.S. Department of Labor, Voluntary Benefits, Wellness|Comments Off on Agencies Release First Rule on the No Surprises Act
Read More

IRS Releases Second Quarter Form 720 for PCORI Fee Payments

Employers that sponsor self-insured group health plans, including health reimbursement arrangements (HRAs) should keep in mind the upcoming July 31, 2021 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 are required to pay PCORI fees until 2029, as it only applies to plan years ending on or before September 30, 2029.

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.  This year, employers will pay the fee for plan years ending in 2020.

The fee is due by July 31, 2021 and varies based on the applicable plan year as follows:

  • For plan years that ended between January 1, 2020 and September 30, 2020, the fee is $2.54 per covered life.
  • For plan years that ended between October 1, 2020 and December 31, 2020, the fee is $2.66 per covered life.

For example, for a plan year that ran from July 1, 2019 through June 30, 2020 the fee is $2.54 per covered life. The fee for calendar year 2020 plans is $2.66 per covered life. 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 …

By |May 19th, 2021|Employee Benefits, Employee Communications, Human Resources, IRS, Medical, Private Health Care Exchange, U.S. Department of Labor, Voluntary Benefits|Comments Off on IRS Releases Second Quarter Form 720 for PCORI Fee Payments
Read More

Plan Design and Considerations Based on Section 1557 of the ACA and the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Employers that sponsor group health plans have many regulations to consider in their plan design choices, including nondiscrimination regulations. One of the newest sources of nondiscrimination rules is Section 1557 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA). Employers also have to consider overarching laws and regulations that impact both their employment practices and their group health plans, such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

In recent years disparate treatment on the basis of sex, particularly gender identity and sexual orientation, has been a hotbed of discussion and litigation. Adding additional confusion has been shifts in interpretations and enforcement of Section 1557 between the last three presidential administrations.

Employers should be sure to consider the impact of both Section 1557, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as they make benefit plan design choices, as well as in developing overall employment practices.

Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Bostock v. Clayton County

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is an important law that is both a civil rights and labor law and on its basic level outlaws discrimination on the basis or race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. More specifically under Title VII, which governs equal employment opportunity, it is unlawful for an employer to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment for any of the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

The heart of the most recent Supreme Court ruling on Title VII in Bostock v. Clayton County was an employee’s “sex” included an employee’s sexual orientation or gender identity, therefore, protecting an employee from termination …

By |May 14th, 2021|Broad Reach Benefits, Compliance, Employee Benefits, Health Care Reform, Human Resources, Legislation, Medical|Comments Off on Plan Design and Considerations Based on Section 1557 of the ACA and the Civil Rights Act of 1964
Read More