On June 22, 2017, the United States Senate released a “Discussion Draft” of the “Better Care Reconciliation Act of 2017” (BCRA), which would substitute the House’s House Resolution 1628, a reconciliation bill aimed at “repealing and replacing” the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA). The House bill was titled the “American Health Care Act of 2017” (AHCA). Employers with group health plans should continue to monitor the progress in Washington, D.C., and should not stop adhering to any provisions of the ACA in the interim, or begin planning to comply with provisions in either the BCRA or the AHCA.

Next Steps

  • The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) is expected to score the bill by Monday, June 26, 2017.
  • The Senate will likely begin the voting process on the bill on June 28 and a final vote is anticipated sometime on June 29.
  • The Senate and House versions will have to be reconciled. This can be done with a conference committee, or by sending amendments back and forth between the chambers. With a conference committee, a conference report requires agreement by a majority of conferees from the House, and a majority of conferees by the Senate (not both together). Alternatively, the House could simply agree to the Senate version, or start over again with new legislation.

The BCRA

Like the AHCA, the BCRA makes numerous changes to current law, much of which impact the individual market, Medicare, and Medicaid with effects on employer sponsored group health plans. Also like the AHCA, the BCRA removes both the individual and the employer shared responsibility penalties. The BCRA also pushes implementation of the Cadillac tax to 2025 and permits states to waive essential health benefit (EHB) requirements.

The BCRA would change the excise tax paid by health savings account (HSA) owners who use their HSA funds on expenses that are not medical expenses under the Internal Revenue Code from the current 20 percent to 10 percent. It would also change the maximum contribution limits to HSAs to the amount of the accompanying high deductible health plan’s deductible and out-of-pocket limitation and provide for both spouses to make catch-up contributions to HSAs. The AHCA contains those provisions as well.

Like the AHCA, the BCRA would remove the $2,600 contribution limit to flexible health spending accounts (FSAs) for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2017.

The BCRA would allow individuals to remain on their parents’ plan until age 26 (the same as the ACA’s regulations, and the AHCA) and would not allow insurers to increase premium costs or deny coverage based on pre-existing conditions. Conversely, the AHCA provides for a “continuous health insurance coverage incentive,” which will allow health insurers to charge policyholders an amount equal to 30 percent of the monthly premium in the individual and small group market, if the individual failed to have creditable coverage for 63 or more days during an applicable 12-month look-back period.

The BCRA would also return permissible age band rating (for purposes of calculating health plan premiums) to the pre-ACA ratio of 5:1, rather than the ACA’s 3:1. This allows older individuals to be charged up to five times more than what younger individuals pay for the same policy, rather than up to the ACA limit of three times more. This is also proposed in the AHCA.

The ACA’s cost sharing subsidies for insurers would be eliminated in 2020, with the ability of the President to eliminate them earlier. The ACA’s current premium tax credits for individuals to use when purchasing Marketplace coverage would be based on age, income, and geography, and would lower the top threshold of income eligible to receive them from 400 percent of the federal poverty level (FPL) to 350 percent of the FPL. The ACA allowed any “alien lawfully present in the US” to utilize the premium tax credit; however, the BCRA would change that to “a qualified alien” under the definition provided in the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996. The BCRA would also benchmark against the applicable median cost benchmark plan, rather than the second lowest cost silver plan.

As HSAs get bandied about in Senate discussions, be sure to view UBA’s “Special Report: How Health Savings Accounts Measure Up”, for a detailed look at the prevalence and enrollment rates among HSA (and HRA) plans by industry and region, including how much employers are contributing to these plans.

 

By Danielle Capilla

Originally Published By United Benefit Advisors

Last fall, President Barack Obama signed the Protecting Affordable Coverage for Employees Act (PACE), which preserved the historical definition of small employer to mean an employer that employs 1 to 50 employees. Prior to this newly signed legislation, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) was set to expand the definition of a small employer to include companies with 51 to 100 employees (mid-size segment) beginning January 1, 2016.

If not for PACE, the mid-size segment would have become subject to the ACA provisions that impact small employers. Included in these provisions is a mandate that requires coverage for essential health benefits (not to be confused with minimum essential coverage, which the ACA requires of applicable large employers) and a requirement that small group plans provide coverage levels that equate to specific actuarial values. The original intent of expanding the definition of small group plans was to lower premium costs and to increase mandated benefits to a larger portion of the population.

The lower cost theory was based on the premise that broadening the risk pool of covered individuals within the small group market would spread the costs over a larger population, thereby reducing premiums to all. However, after further scrutiny and comments, there was concern that the expanded definition would actually increase premium costs to the mid-size segment because they would now be subject to community rating insurance standards. This shift to small group plans might also encourage mid-size groups to leave the fully-insured market by self-insuring – a move that could actually negate the intended benefits of the expanded definition.

Another issue with the ACA’s expanded definition of small group plans was that it would have resulted in a double standard for the mid-size segment. Not only would they be subject to the small group coverage requirements, but they would also be subject to the large employer mandate because they would meet the ACA’s definition of an applicable large employer.

Note: Although this bill preserves the traditional definition of a small employer, it does allow states to expand the definition to include organizations with 51 to 100 employees, if so desired.

By Vicki Randall
Originally published by www.ubabenefits.com

Last Friday, one of President Donald Trump’s first actions in office was to make good on a campaign promise to move quickly to repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA). He issued Executive Order 13765, Minimizing the Economic Burden of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act Pending Repeal. The one-page executive order (EO) is effective immediately and very light on details, with the goal to minimize the financial and regulatory burdens of the ACA while its repeal is pending. The EO directs the Executive Branch agency heads (those in the departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and the Treasury) in charge of enforcing the ACA to “exercise all authority and discretion available to them to waive, defer, grant exemptions from, or delay the implementation of any provision or requirement of the Act that would impose a fiscal burden on any State or a cost, fee, tax, penalty, or regulatory burden on individuals, families, healthcare providers, health insurers, patients, recipients of healthcare services, purchasers of health insurance, or makers of medical devices, products, or medications.”

While Congress works on the ACA repeal through budget reconciliation, which allows for quick consideration of tax, spending, and debt limit legislation, President Trump is tackling the regulatory enforcement actions of the law. The practical impact of the EO is limited to agency enforcement discretion and requires agencies to implement the EO in a manner consistent with current law, including assuring that any required changes to applicable regulations will follow all administrative requirements for notice and comment periods.

The bottom line is that until the agency heads in Labor, Health and Human Services, and the Treasury are confirmed and take charge of their departments, there will probably be little change in agency enforcement action right away. The broader changes to amend or repeal the ACA will take even more time to implement.

What Employers and Plan Sponsors Should Know Now

While the EO does not specifically refer to the ACA compliance burdens on employers or plan sponsors, such as the employer or individual mandates, required health benefits coverage, reporting or employee notification requirements, the language addresses the actions that the federal agencies can take to soften enforcement until the repeal is accomplished. It does direct the government to address the taxes and penalties associated with the ACA. So what does that mean for employers and plan sponsors now?

IRS employer reporting delay? Not yet. The top concern of employers is whether or not those subject to the shared responsibility provisions of the law would need to submit their 1094/1095 reports of coverage to the IRS by February 28 (or March 31, if filing electronically) and provide their employees with individual 1095-C statements by March 2. These reports are essential for the IRS to assess penalties under the law, and this reporting has been a burden for employers. Unfortunately for employers, the order did not mention delaying or eliminating this reporting requirement.

What employers should do now:

  • Applicable large employers (ALEs) subject to the employer mandate should plan to comply with their 1094/1095 reporting obligations this year.
  • All employers should continue to comply with all current ACA requirements until there is further guidance from the lawmakers.

We’ve Got You Covered

We’ll be monitoring President Trump’s actions to reduce regulatory burdens on American businesses along with Congressional legislative actions that can impact your business operations. Look for ThinkHR’s practical updates where we’ll analyze these developments and break them down into actionable information you need to comply with the changing laws and regulations.

By Laura Kerekes, SPHR, SHRM-SCP
Originally published by www.thinkhr.com

In a few weeks, a second season of shared responsibility reporting will begin. For some of you, last year’s inaugural year of reporting may have felt eerily similar to Lewis Carroll’s famous book. You know the one. It included a little girl falling down a dark hole, a rabbit frantically checking his watch and a lot of other crazy characters. Now that you have the benefit of one year of reporting under your belt, let’s look at the reporting forms and try to make them less confusing by breaking them down.

Background

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), commonly called the Affordable Care Act (ACA), included various mandates to ensure all citizens have affordable coverage for health care expenses. There is a mandate at the individual level and then other mandates at the employer level.

  • Individual Shared Responsibility Mandate: This mandate requires all citizens to have minimum essential coverage (MEC). If they do not, they must qualify for an exception or they will be subject to a penalty. Individuals use the 1095 forms, or a similar statement, to document that they have the required coverage.
  • Employer Shared Responsibility Mandates: These mandates apply to group health plans. One requirement is that all plans that provide MEC must report who is covered by their plan. There are also requirements which only apply to employers that are considered to be an applicable large employer (ALE), which is defined as any employer that employed, on average, at least 50 full-time employees. These requirements mandate that all ALEs must provide MEC to their full-time employees and this MEC needs to be affordable. If they do not provide MEC, they could be subject to a penalty (sometimes referred to as the “A” penalty). If the MEC they provide does not meet the definition of affordable, then the ALE could be subject to a different penalty (sometimes referred to as the “B” penalty).

In general, the objective of 1094/1095 reporting is (1) to verify those individuals who had the required MEC; and, (2) to make sure ALEs are offering affordable MEC to their full-time employees. If this isn’t happening, 1094/1095 reporting provides the information necessary for the IRS to know whether a penalty to the individual, or to the ALE, is in order.

1095-B vs. 1095-C, “I don’t understand the difference!”

1095-B

Form 1095-B provides evidence that an individual had MEC. It provides reporting strictly for the individual shared responsibility mandate. It will not trigger any employer shared responsibility penalties. It is used to provide documentation for an individual to preclude them from an individual penalty. The 1095-B is required of employer group health plans in two situations:

Situation 1: the plan is fully-insured. It is the insurance carrier’s responsibility to file the 1094/1095-B with the IRS.

Situation 2: the plan is self-insured and you are not an ALE. It is the employer’s responsibility to file with the IRS.

In these situations, a Form 1095-B is to be generated for all covered individuals regardless of employment status.

When is a Form 1095-B required

1095-C

Form 1095-C provides evidence that an ALE offered, or did not offer, affordable MEC to all full-time employees. In other words, it documents whether an ALE met the employer shared responsibility requirements. For self-insured ALEs, Form 1095-C also provides documentation that an individual had MEC, thereby meeting the individual shared responsibility requirement.

Because, in some situations, this form reports on both the employer and the individual shared responsibility mandates, it can feel nonsensical at times. To make sense, a short history lesson may be helpful.

History of Form 1095-C

When the proposed reporting regulations were first released for comment, the 1095-B was to be used for individual shared responsibility reporting and the 1095-C was to be used exclusively for employer shared responsibility reporting. As such, the 1095-C was only a two-part form with Part I being employer identification information and Part II being information on the offer of coverage that was made to full-time employees.

If the reporting forms had remained as initially proposed, self-insured ALEs would have been required to make two filings (the 1094/1095-B filing and 1094/1095-C filing). Why? Because they have a responsibility to report everyone that has MEC through their plan and they also have a responsibility to report on the offers of coverage they made to full-time employees.

Debate over this double filing requirement ensued and ultimately resulted in change. This change eliminated the double filing requirement for self-insured ALEs by revising the 1095-C. The resulting form still has Parts I and II referenced above, but it now also has Part III where employers can report the individual coverage information that was originally proposed to be reported on the 1095-B.

All ALEs are required to file Form 1095-C. However, which parts of the Form 1095-C you complete will be determined according to three situations as follows:

Situation 1 – Fully-insured Health Plan: You will complete Parts I and II for all individuals that were full-time employees at some point during the year. Part III information will be reported by your insurance company on Form 1095-B.

Situation 2 – Self-insured Health Plan: You will complete Parts I, II and III for all individuals that were full-time employees at some point during the year, as well as for individuals that have MEC through your plan.

Situation 3 – No Health Plan: If you are an ALE with no health plan, you will complete Parts I and II for all individuals that were full-time employees at some point during the year.

Which parts of Form 1095-C does an ALE need to complete

Let’s recap the 1095-C:

  • The 1095-C is required of all ALEs.
  • The 1095-C is a three-part form.
    Part I captures employer identification information.

    Part II is the area used to report what offers of coverage were made and whether or not those offers were affordable. This part addresses the employer shared responsibility mandates and determines whether or not employers are at risk for an employer penalty.

    Part III, which only gets completed if you have a self-insured plan, is the area used to report who had MEC through your plan. This part addresses the individual shared responsibility mandate and determines whether or not an individual is at risk for an individual penalty.

Final Thoughts

Keep in mind, if you have a self-insured plan, a Form 1095-C is required for all full-time employees, as well as anyone who had coverage through your plan, so there may be situations where you are required to produce a 1095-C for individuals that do not meet the ACA full-time employee definition that identifies those employees for whom you have an employer shared responsibility requirement. In these situations, Part II can cause concern, or an initial fear, that a penalty could be assessed because these individuals may not meet the affordability requirement. Remember, these individuals do not meet the full-time definition, therefore, they cannot trigger an employer shared responsibility penalty.

That’s 1095-B and 1095-C in a nutshell, albeit a very large nutshell. Although there are still a lot of crazy characters associated with ACA reporting, perhaps this has shed some light on the dark hole you may feel like you fell into and, hopefully, you can parlay it into a smoother reporting process in the new year. Happy reporting!

Resources

Employers that did not fulfill all of their obligations under the employer shared responsibility provision (play or pay) in regard to the 2015 plan year might owe a penalty to the IRS. In addition, employers will be notified if an employee who either was not offered coverage, or who was not offered affordable, minimum value, or minimum essential coverage, goes to the Exchange and gets a subsidy or “advance premium tax credit.” To understand this “Employer Notice Program” the appeals process, and how affordability must be documented, request UBA’s newest ACA Advisor, “IRS reporting Now What?”

UBA has created a template letter that employers may use to draft written communication to employees regarding what to expect in relation to IRS Forms 1095-B and 1095-C, and what employees should do with a form or forms they receive. The template is meant to be adjustable for each employer, and further information could be added if it is pertinent to the employer or its workforce. Employers can now request this template tool from a local UBA Partner.

Originally published by www.ubabenefits.com

 

Recently, the Department of the Treasury, Department of Labor (DOL), and Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) (collectively, the Departments) issued FAQs About Affordable Care Act Implementation Part 34 and Mental Health and Substance Use Disorder Parity Implementation.

The Departments’ FAQs cover two primary topics: tobacco cessation coverage and mental health / substance use disorder parity.

Tobacco Cessation Coverage

The Departments seek public comment by January 3, 2017, on tobacco cessation coverage. The Departments intend to clarify the items and services that must be provided without cost sharing to comply with the United States Preventive Services Task Force’s updated tobacco cessation interventions recommendation applicable to plan years or policy years beginning on or after September 22, 2016.

Mental Health / Substance Use Disorder Parity

Generally, the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 (MHPAEA) requires that the financial requirements and treatment limitations imposed on mental health and substance use disorder (MH/SUD) benefits cannot be more restrictive than the predominant financial requirements and treatment limitations that apply to substantially all medical and surgical benefits.

A financial requirement (such as a copayment or coinsurance) or quantitative treatment limitation (such as a day or visit limit) is considered to apply to substantially all medical/surgical benefits in a classification if it applies to at least two-thirds of all medical/surgical benefits in the classification.

If it does not apply to at least two-thirds of medical/surgical benefits, it cannot be applied to MH/SUD benefits in that classification.

If it does apply to at least two-thirds of medical/surgical benefits, the level (such as 80 percent or 70 percent coinsurance) of the quantitative limit that may be applied to MH/SUD benefits in a classification may not be more restrictive than the predominant level that applies to medical/surgical benefits (defined as the level that applies to more than one-half of medical/surgical benefits subject to the limitation in the classification).

In performing these calculations, the determination of the portion of medical/surgical benefits subject to the quantitative limit is based on the dollar amount of all plan payments for medical/surgical benefits in the classification expected to be paid under the plan for the plan year. The MHPAEA regulations provide that “any reasonable method” may be used to determine the dollar amount of all plan payments for the substantially all and predominant analyses.

MHPAEA’s provisions and its regulations expressly provide that a plan or issuer must disclose the criteria for medical necessity determinations with respect to MH/SUD benefits to any current or potential participant, beneficiary, or contracting provider upon request and the reason for any denial of reimbursement or payment for services with respect to MH/SUD benefits to the participant or beneficiary.

However, the Departments recognize that additional information regarding medical/surgical benefits is necessary to perform the required MHPAEA analyses. According to the FAQs, the Department have continued to receive questions regarding disclosures related to the processes, strategies, evidentiary standards, and other factors used to apply a nonquantitative treatment limitation (NQTL) with respect to medical/surgical benefits and MH/SUD benefits under a plan. Also, the Departments have received requests to explore ways to encourage uniformity among state reviews of issuers’ compliance with the NQTL standards, including the use of model forms to report NQTL information.

To address these issues, the Departments seek public comment by January 3, 2017, on potential model forms that could be used by participants and their representatives to request information on various NQTLs. The Departments also seek public comment on the disclosure process for MH/SUD benefits and on steps that could improve state market conduct examinations or federal oversight of compliance by plans and issuers, or both.

Originally published by www.ubabenefits.com

 

Following the November 2016 election, Donald Trump (R) will be sworn in as the next President of the United States on January 20, 2017. The Republicans will also have the majority in the Senate (51 Republican, 47 Democrat) and in the House of Representatives (238 Republicans, 191 Democrat). As a result, the political atmosphere is favorable for the Trump Administration to begin implementing its healthcare policy objectives. Representative Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) will likely remain the Speaker of the House. Known as an individual who is experienced in policy, it is expected that the Republican House will work to pass legislation that follows the health care policies in Speaker Ryan’s “A Better Way” proposals. The success of any of these proposals remains to be seen.

Employers should be aware of the main tenets of President-elect Trump’s proposals, as well as the policies outlined in Speaker Ryan’s white paper. These proposals are likely to have an impact on employer sponsored health and welfare benefits. Repeal of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) and capping the employer-sponsored insurance (ESI) exclusion for individuals would have a significant effect on employer sponsored group health plans.

Trump Policy Proposals

President-elect Trump’s policy initiatives have seven main components:

  • Repeal the ACA. President-elect Trump has vowed to completely repeal the ACA as his first order of Presidential business.
  • Allow health insurance to be purchased across state lines.
  • Allow individuals to fully deduct health insurance premium payments from their tax returns.
  • Allow individuals to use health savings accounts (HSAs) in a more robust way than regulation currently allows. President-elect Trump’s proposal specifically mentions allowing HSAs to be part of an individual’s estate and allowing HSA funds to be spent by any member of the account owner’s family.
  • Require price transparency from all healthcare providers.
  • Block-grant Medicaid to the states. This would remove federal provisions on how Medicaid dollars can and should be spent by the states.
  • Remove barriers to entry into the free market for the pharmaceutical industry. This includes allowing American consumers access to imported drugs.

President-elect Trump’s proposal also notes that his immigration reform proposals would assist in lowering healthcare costs, due to the current amount of spending on healthcare for illegal immigrants. His proposal also states that the mental health programs and institutions in the United States are in need of reform, and that by providing more jobs to Americans we will reduce the reliance of Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP).

Speaker Ryan’s “A Better Way” Proposal

In June 2016, Speaker Ryan released a series of white papers on national issues under the banner “A Better Way.” With Republican control of the House and Senate, it would be plausible that elected officials will begin working to implement some, if not all, of the ideas proposed. The core tenants of Speaker Ryan’s proposal are:

  • Repeal the ACA in full.
  • Expand consumer choice through consumer-directed health care. Speaker Ryan’s proposal includes specific means for this expansion, namely by allowing spouses to make catch-up contributions to HSA accounts, allow qualified medical expenses incurred up to 60 days prior to the HSA-qualified coverage began to be reimbursed, set the maximum contribution of HSA accounts at the maximum combined and allowed annual high deductible health plan (HDHP) deductible and out-of-pocket expenses limits, and expand HSA access for groups such as those with TRICARE coverage. The proposal also recommends allowing individuals to use employer provided health reimbursement account (HRA) funds to purchase individual coverage.
  • Support portable coverage. Speaker Ryan supports access to financial support for an insurance plan chosen by an individual through an advanceable, refundable tax credit for individuals and families, available at the beginning of every month and adjusted for age. The credit would be available to those without job-based coverage, Medicare, or Medicaid. It would be large enough to purchase a pre-ACA insurance policy. If the individual selected a plan that cost less than the financial support, the difference would be deposited into an “HSA-like” account and used toward other health care expenses.
  • Cap the employer-sponsored insurance (ESI) exclusion for individuals. Speaker Ryan’s proposal argues that the ESI exclusion raises premiums for employer-based coverage by 10 to 15 percent and holds down wages as workers substitute tax-free benefits for taxable income. Employee contributions to HSAs would not count toward the cost of coverage on the ESI cap.
  • Allow health insurance to be purchased across state lines.
  • Allow small businesses to band together an offer “association health plans” or AHPs. This would allow alumni organizations, trade associations, and other groups to pool together and improve bargaining power.
  • Preserve employer wellness programs. Speaker Ryan’s proposal would limit the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) oversight over wellness programs by finding that voluntary wellness programs do not violate the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) and the collection of information would not violate the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (GINA).
  • Ensure self-insured employer sponsored group health coverage has robust access to stop-loss coverage by ensuring stop-loss coverage is not classified as group health insurance. This provision would also remove the ACA’s Cadillac tax.
  • Enact medical liability reform by implementing caps on non-economic damages in medical malpractice lawsuits and limiting contingency fees charged by plaintiff’s attorneys.
  • Address competition in insurance markets by charging the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to study the advantages and disadvantages of removing the limited McCarran-Ferguson antitrust exemption for health insurance carriers to increase competition and lower prices. The exemption allows insurers to pool historic loss information so they can project future losses and jointly develop policy.
  • Provide for patient protections by continuing pre-existing condition protections, allow dependents to stay on their parents’ plans until age 26, continue the prohibitions on rescissions of coverage, allow cost limitations on older Americans’ plans to be based on a five to one ratio (currently the ratio is three to one under the ACA), provide for state innovation grants, and dedicate funding to high risk pools.

Speaker Ryan’s white paper also addresses more robust protection of life by enforcing the Hyde Amendment (which prohibits federal taxpayer dollars from being used to pay for abortion or abortion coverage) and improved conscience protections for health care providers by enacting and expanding theWeldon Amendment.

Speaker Ryan also proposes other initiatives including robust Medicaid reforms, strengthening Medicare Advantage, repealing the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) that was once referred to as “death panels,” combine Medicare Part A and Part B, repealing the ban on physician-owned hospitals, and repealing the “Bay State Boondoggle.”

Process of Repeal

Generally speaking, the process of repealing a law is the same as creating a law. A repeal can be a simple repeal, or legislators can try to pass legislation to repeal and replace. Bills can begin in the House of Representatives, and if passed by the House, they are referred to the Senate. If it passes the Senate, it is sent to the President for signature or veto. Bills that begin in the Senate and pass the Senate are sent to the House of Representatives, which can pass (and if they wish, amend) the bill. If the Senate agrees with the bill as it is received from the House, or after conference with the House regarding amendments, they enroll the bill and it is sent to the White House for signature or veto.

Although Republicans hold the majority in the Senate, they do not have enough party votes to allow them to overcome a potential filibuster. A filibuster is when debate over a proposed piece of legislation is extended, allowing a delay or completely preventing the legislation from coming to a vote. Filibusters can continue until “three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn” close the debate by invoking cloture, or a parliamentary procedure that brings a debate to an end. Three-fifths of the Senate is 60 votes.

There is potential to dismantle the ACA by using a budget tool known as reconciliation, which cannot be filibustered. If Congress can draft a reconciliation bill that meets the complex requirements of our budget rules, it would only need a simple majority of the Senate (51 votes) to pass.

Neither President-elect Trump nor Speaker Ryan has given any indication as to whether a full repeal, or a repeal and replace, would be their preferred method of action.

The viability of any of these initiatives remains to be seen, but with a Republican President and a Republican-controlled House and Senate, if lawmakers are able to reach agreeable terms across the executive and legislative branches, some level of change is to be expected.

Originally published by www.ubabenefits.com

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) imposes a penalty on “large” employers that either do not offer “minimum essential” (basic medical) coverage, or who offer coverage that is not affordable (the employee’s cost for single coverage is greater than 9.5 percent of income) or it does not provide minimum value (the plan is not designed to pay at least 60 percent of claims costs). A large employer is one that employed at least 50 full-time or full-time equivalent employees during the prior calendar year. To discourage employers from breaking into small entities to avoid the penalty, the ACA provides that, for purposes of the employee threshold, the controlled group and affiliated service group aggregation rules will apply to health plans. Essentially, this means that the employees of a business with common owners or that perform services for each other may need to be combined when determining if the employer is “large.”

The aggregation rules are very complicated and may require a large amount of information to do an accurate analysis. This article does not address all of the possible considerations or all of the intricacies of the rules, and assumes that the regulations that apply to retirement plans will also apply to health plans. We strongly encourage employers with complex arrangements to consult with their attorney or accountant.

Controlled Group

When one business owns a significant part of another business, there may be a “controlled group.” There are four types of controlled groups – parent-subsidiary, brother-sister, combined, and life insurance.

Ownership includes:

  • Stock ownership in a corporation
  • Capital interest or profits in a partnership
  • Membership interest in an LLC
  • A sole proprietorship
  • Actuarial interest in a trust or estate
  • A controlling interest in a tax-exempt organization (80 percent of the trustees or directors are also trustees, directors, agents or employees of the other organization or the other organization has the power to remove a trustee or director)
  • A government entity, including a school, if there is common management or supervision or one entity sets the budget or provides 80 percent of the funding for the other.

Affiliated Service Groups

If the company regularly performs certain types of personal services or management functions with or for related entities, it may be part of an “affiliated service group” even if there is not common ownership.

An affiliated service group is basically a group of businesses working together to provide services to each other or jointly to customers, and can be one of three types:

  • A-Organization (A-Org), which consists of a First Service Organization (FSO) and at least one A-Org
  • B-Organization (B-Org) which consists of an FSO and at least one B-Org
  • Management groups

Only entities that provide personal services are subject to the affiliated service group rules. Attribution rules similar to those that apply to controlled groups apply to affiliated service groups.

For detailed information on the four types of controlled groups, three types of affiliated service groups and other related aggregation rules, request UBA’s ACA Advisor, “Controlled Groups and Affiliated Service Groups: How They Apply to the ACA”

Originally published by www.ubabenefits.com

Minimum essential coverage (MEC) is the type of coverage that an individual must have under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA). Employers that are subject to the ACA’s shared responsibility provisions (often called “play or pay”) must offer MEC coverage that is affordable and provides minimum value.

In the fall of 2015 the IRS issued Notice 2015-68 stating it was planning to propose regulations on reporting MEC that would, among other things, require health insurance issuers to report coverage in catastrophic health insurance plans, as described in section 1302(e) of the ACA, provided through an Affordable Insurance Exchange (an Exchange, also known as a Health Insurance Marketplace). The notice also covered reporting of “supplemental coverage” such as a health reimbursement arrangement (HRA) in addition to a group health plan.

Recently, the IRS released the anticipated proposed regulations, incorporating the guidance given in Notice 2015-68. These regulations are generally proposed to apply for taxable years ending after December 31, 2015, and may be relied on for calendar years ending after December 31, 2013.

The proposed regulations provide that:

  1. Reporting is required for only one MEC plan or program if an individual is covered by multiple plans or programs provided by the same provider.
  2. Reporting generally is not required for an individual’s eligible MEC only if the individual is covered by other MEC for which section 6055 reporting is required.

These rules would apply month by month and individual by individual. Once finalized, the regulations would adopt the same information provided in the final instructions for reporting under sections 6055 and 6056 of the ACA.

For examples under the first rule and more detail on the second rule, as well as how to avoid penalties, view UBA’s ACA Advisor, “Reporting Minimum Essential Coverage”.

Originally published by www.ubabenefits.com

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) has brought about many changes to the health insurance industry. As we are now in the sixth year of implementation of the Act, we are seeing more changes coming just around the corner.

Generally speaking, most health plans can be classified into two categories: HMO and PPO. With an HMO plan, you choose your physician group where you will seek services, and you choose a primary care physician that you will see for all of your needs, who will refer you to a specialist or other service facility, if needed. The HMO model is designed to be as cost-effective as possible, only providing services when the physician deems it necessary, or solely for the benefit of the patient.

Due to the ACA, with an HMO plan, a woman is no longer required to get a referral from her primary care physician to an OB-GYN, and a parent is not required to get a referral to a pediatrician for his or her children even though neither are classified as primary care physicians.

In contrast, a PPO plan has more flexibility for the patient. With a PPO plan you are encouraged to see physicians and providers that are participating in your plan’s network, but are not required to do so. You can, in fact, see any doctor or provider that you wish, when you wish to see them, and without a referral from your primary care physician.

However, times they are a-changin’. Beginning January 1, 2017, Covered California, California’s state insurance exchange, will require both HMO and PPO enrollees to specify their primary care physician during the enrollment process. If one is not selected, the plan will select one for the plan participant. A plan participant is allowed to change their primary care physician at any time. Right now, this is only being implemented for individual plan subscribers.

It is expected that this change will be implemented for group PPO plan subscribers in 2018.

Beginning in 2012, the ACA implemented the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) fee. This is a charge of $1 to $2 per enrollee, per year in a plan. If the plan is fully insured, the fee is paid to the government directly by the insurance carrier. If the plan is self-funded it is paid by the plan sponsor using IRS Form 720 and is due by July 31 for the previous plan year.

The purpose of the PCORI is to help analyze the overall costs of health care and identify trends to find ways to best reduce the overall cost of health care.

HMOs like Kaiser Permanente have fully integrated information systems that allow them to track each patient electronically so that they can see everything about the patient in one place. By tracking each patient, notes from the nurses and physicians, treatments, and medications, they can track costs and trends easily by mining the data from the system.

Most PPO plans do not track this data, in part because patients in the past have not had to choose a primary care physician or provider group. When they can see whomever they choose, it makes tracking of this data very difficult across multiple providers. In addition, participants in a small group, fully-insured plan are pooled with other small groups where claim data is not shared with the plan sponsor, and there is no need to track it closely as the information at the patient level is not relevant to the actuaries that calculate plan costs and premiums.

However, that is going to change. In order to study the overall cost of medical care, identify trends, and discover ways to curb inflating costs, data is needed, and selecting a primary care physician for plan participants is the first step.

Cigna, which provides both HMO and PPO plans, has implemented a Collaborative Care Program with more than 120 physician groups in 29 states, including provider group Palo Alto Medical Foundation (PAMF) in the San Francisco Bay area. By tracking client claims data and patient outreach programs to help patients to remember to take their medications as prescribed and continue with follow up treatments, PAMF has been able to reduce its inflation trend by 5 percent compared to other providers in the San Francisco Bay Area. The goal is to duplicate and build on the success that Cigna has already shown through its program and control and reduce the cost of health care.

So when you or your employees are applying for health insurance, make sure that primary care physician information is handy, because it is going to be needed.

Originally Published by www.ubabenefits.com

 

abridged fromhealthcareGov www.healthcare.gov

The fee for not having health insurance

If you can afford health insurance but choose not to buy it, you must pay a fee called the individual shared responsibility payment. (The fee is sometimes called the “penalty,” “fine,” or “individual mandate.”)

  • You owe the fee for any month you, your spouse, or your tax dependents don’t have health insurance that qualifies as minimum essential coverage.
  • You pay the fee when you file your federal tax return for the year you don’t have coverage.
  • In some cases, you may qualify for a health coverage exemption from the requirement to have insurance. If you qualify, you won’t have to pay the fee.
The fee for not having health insurance in 2016

The fee is calculated 2 different ways – as a percentage of your household income, and per person. You’ll pay whichever is higher.

Percentage of income

  • 2.5% of household income
  • Maximum: Total yearly premium for the national average price of a Bronze plan sold through the Marketplace

Per person

  • $695 per adult
  • $347.50 per child under 18
  • Maximum: $2,085
Paying the fee
  • Using the percentage method, only the part of your household income that’s above the yearly tax filing threshold ($10,150 for individuals, $20,300 for couples filing jointly in 2014, the most recent year available) is counted.
  • Using the per-person method, you pay only for people in your household who don’t have insurance coverage.
  • If you have coverage for part of the year, the fee is 1/12 of the annual amount for each month you (or your tax dependents) don’t have coverage.
  • If you’re uncovered only 1 or 2 months, you don’t have to pay the fee at all.
    You pay the fee when you file your federal tax return for the year you don’t have coverage.

Read More …

Switching over to AEIS Advisors was the best decision we’ve made this year. Ronald and his team were able to identify discrepancies on our billing statements which got missed by our last broker, and they saved us over $8,000 in credits! AEIS has proven to be an attentive and caring company, looking out for the best needs of their clients."

- Director of Operations

Categories