Category Archives: Health Care Reform

Offer Opt-Out Payments? Don’t Get Snared in Overtime Liability

aaron-burden-27662.jpg

If you are an employer within the jurisdiction of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and offer cash payments to employees who opt out of group health coverage (“opt-out payments”), what you don’t know about the court’s 2016 opinion in Flores v. City of San Gabriel may hurt you.

Specifically, the Ninth Circuit court held that opt-out payments had to be included in the regular rate of pay used to calculate overtime payments under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). In May 2017 the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review the opinion, making it controlling law within the Ninth Circuit, and hence in the states of Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Washington.

The Flores case arose when a group of active and former police officers in the City of San Gabriel sought overtime compensation based on opt-out payments they received between 2009 and 2012 under a flexible benefits plan maintained by the City.  The plan required eligible employees to purchase dental and vision benefits with pre-tax dollars; they could also use the plan to purchase group health insurance.  Employees could elect to forgo medical benefits upon proof of alternative coverage; in exchange they received the unused portion of their benefits allotment as a cash payment added to their regular paycheck.  The opt-out payments were not insubstantial, ranging from $12,441 annually in 2009 to $15,659.40 in 2012.  The City’s total expenditure on opt-out payments exceeded $1.1 million dollars in 2009 and averaged about 45% of total contributions to the flexible benefits plan over the three years at issue.

The court held that the City had not properly excluded the opt-out payments from the regular rate of pay for overtime purposes under the FLSA, as they were items of compensation even though not tied directly to specific hours of work, and further that the “bona fide” benefit plan exemption did not apply, because the cash opt-out payments received under the flex plan comprised far more than an “incidental” portion of the benefits received.

Despite the significant potential impact of getting this classification wrong, the City appears not to have sought a legal opinion on whether it could permissibly exclude the opt-out payments under the FLSA. Instead, a City employee testified that it followed its normal process of classifying the item of pay through joint decision by the payroll and human resources departments, without any further review of the classification or other due-diligence.  For this oversight, the court awarded liquidated damages against the City for failure to demonstrate that it acted in good faith and on the basis of “reasonable grounds” to believe it had correctly classified the opt-out payments under the FLSA.  Further, the court approved a three-year statute of limitations for a “willful” violation of the FLSA, rather than the normal two year period, on the grounds that the City was on notice of its FLSA requirements, yet took “’no affirmative action to ensure compliance with them.’”

Although Flores involved a benefit plan maintained by a public entity, there is nothing in the Ninth Circuit’s opinion that limits its scope to public entity employers. Therefore employers within the Ninth Circuit who offer opt-out payments should review their payroll treatment of these amounts and seek legal counsel in the event there if potential overtime liability under the FLSA. They should also confirm that cash opt-out payments remain an “incidental” percentage of total flex benefits, which the Department of Labor has traditionally defined as no more than 20% of total plan benefits.  In Flores the Ninth Circuit suggested that this was not a definitive threshold, but that it was likely lower than 40% of total benefits.  Finally, employers offering opt-out payments should also revisit the other legal compliance hurdles that these payments present under the ACA, which after its recent reprieve from repeal/replace legislation, remains, for now, the law of the land.

Leave a comment

Filed under Benefit Plan Design, Cafeteria Plans, FLSA, Fringe Benefits, Health Care Reform, Overtime, Post-Election ACA, PPACA, Uncategorized

5 Things California Employers Should Know About the Current State of Health Care Reform

by Amy Evans, HIP, President, Colibri Insurance Services and Christine P. Roberts, Mullen & Henzell L.L.P.

There is still a lot of debate going on at the federal and state levels about health care reform. In Washington, D.C., the Senate is working on a second round of revisions to the American Health Care Act (AHCA), but there is lack of alignment within the Republican party about the new plan, and the current administration is now occupied by other items. At the state level, a Senate bill proposing a state-wide single-payer health care system is making its way through the legislature and generating a lot of conversation about a complete overhaul of health care financing and delivery. With all of the uncertainty and political noise, it can be difficult for employers to know where to put their attention and resources. Here are five things California employers should know about the current state of health care reform.

1) California is leading the discussion about single-payer. California Senate Bill 562 is currently making its way through the state legislation. If enacted, SB 562 would eliminate the private health insurance system in California, including health insurance carriers, health insurance brokers and employer-sponsored health insurance benefits. It would replace them with a state-run, “single-payer” system called the Healthy California program, which would be governed by a 9-member executive board, and guided by a 22-member public advisory committee. At this juncture, funding measures for the bill are vague but include appropriation of existing federal funding for Medicare, Medi-Cal, CHIP and other health benefits provided to California residents, as well as an increase in payroll taxes. The estimated cost for this system is $400 billion annually, which is twice the size of the current budget for the entire state. SB 562 is widely popular in concept but also widely misunderstood, with many confusing it for a universal coverage system that would be supplemented by private and employer-sponsored coverage. The bill is currently in suspense with the Appropriations Committee in Sacramento. The committee chair (who is also the author of the bill) may wait for the results of a detailed study on the bill’s cost and impact, or he may choose to send it to the Senate for a vote. If the bill makes it through the Senate and the Assembly (which it is likely to do because it is such a popular concept), it is anticipated that it will be vetoed by Governor Jerry Brown, who has already expressed concerns about the bill’s financing. Alternatively, the legislature could vote on the bill and then table it until a new governor takes office in 2018. Either way, the bill would become a ballot measure to be approved by voters. Progress of the American Health Care Act in Washington, D.C. will impact SB 562 because the state bill would make use of state innovation waivers, which are slated to expand under the AHCA, but federal retooling of health care reform won’t impede SB 562’s progress to the Governor’s desk. Employers who offer health insurance as a benefit to attract and retain quality employees should be aware of the meaning and impact of this single-payer bill and should continue to track its progress.

 2) “Play or Pay” is still in play. The Affordable Care Act (ACA)’s “play or pay” penalties are still in place, so Applicable Large Employers are required to offer affordable, minimum value health insurance to eligible employees or pay a penalty. The current administration has suggested that they will reduce the penalties to $0 retroactive to 2016, but that has not happened yet. The 1094/1095 reporting requirements also remain in place. There has been some recent talk that penalty notices for 2015 and 2016 may be going out soon, perhaps first to the employers who have the largest penalty assessments.†  However, the Internal Revenue Service is also significantly understaffed so the availability of resources to enforce these penalties remains in doubt. Applicable Large Employers should continue to assess their play or pay options, track employee hours and offers of coverage, and complete 1094/1095 reporting for 2017. They should also address any penalty notifications from the IRS in a timely manner.

3) If there are no penalties, revenue has to come from another source. The extremely unpopular revenue-generating pieces of the ACA, including the individual mandate, the employer mandate, and the Cadillac Tax (currently delayed to 2020) are likely to be cut from the new AHCA, but that would create a shortfall in revenue that would need to made up elsewhere. The employer exclusion is a popular target in current discussions – this is the tax benefit that allows employer contributions to health insurance to be considered separate from employee income. If the employer exclusion is capped or eliminated, it will effectively increase taxes on the approximately 50% of U.S. residents who receive health insurance through their employers, and deliver a huge blow to the employer-sponsored health insurance system. Employers who offer health insurance as a benefit to attract and retain quality employees should be aware of the meaning and impact of capping or eliminating the employer exclusion.

4) 2018 Health insurance renewals will be business as usual. Insurance carriers filed their health insurance plan designs and rates with the regulatory agencies (Department of Insurance and Department of Managed Health Care) for 2018, so any substantive changes to plans (for example, removing Essential Health Benefits) won’t happen until 2019. For employers offering coverage, this means business as usual for 2018 health insurance renewals. Expect increases to premiums to average 10-15%. Also expect lots of plan changes – some plans may be discontinued and participants will be mapped to new plans; benefits many change even if plan names remain the same; carriers may reduce networks and pharmacy benefits and increase deductibles and out of pocket maximums to keep premiums in check.

5) Cost-containment tools are gaining in popularity. As out of pocket costs continue to increase for health insurance participants, we will continue to see a move towards consumer-driven health care, where participants are encouraged to be more involved in the spending of their health care dollars. Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) are growing in popularity again, carriers are providing tools to promote transparency for comparison shopping, and alternative delivery systems like telehealth, nurse on call, minute clinics, free-standing urgent care centers, and even flat-fee house calls are gaining in popularity. Health Reimbursement Arrangements (HRAs), self-funding arrangements and cash-benefit policies can also be effective tools for cost containment. Employers should work with their health insurance brokers and other benefit advisers to assess the value of these tools in their current employee benefits programs.

In closing, employer-provided health benefits rest on shifting legal sands and that is likely to remain the case for some time.   Planning opportunities, and pitfalls, will arise as the reform process moves forward and the informed employer will be in the best position to navigate the changes ahead.

†Hat tip to Ryan Moulder, Lead Counsel at Accord-ACA for this detail.

Leave a comment

Filed under Affordable Care Act, American Health Care Act, Applicable Large Employer Reporting, Benefit Plan Design, California Insurance Laws, California SB 562, Employer Shared Responsibility, Health Care Reform, Post-Election ACA, Single Payer Health Systems

Untangling ACA Opt-Out Payment Rules

cable-584498_960_720

As group health coverage premiums soar ever higher, it has become increasingly popular for employers to offer employees cash in exchange for their opting out of group coverage. When the cash opt-out payments are provided outside of a Section 125 cafeteria plan, they may have the unintended consequence of reducing the affordability of employer group health coverage, because the IRS views the cash opt-out payment as compensation that the employee effectively forfeits by enrolling in coverage.[1]  Unaffordable coverage may entitle the employee to premium tax credits under IRC § 36, and may also exempt the employee from individual mandate duties under IRC § 5000A.  This post focuses on the impact of opt-out payments on “applicable large employers” subject to employer shared responsibility duties under the ACA.  For such employers, reduced affordability of coverage will impact how offers of coverage are reported under ACA reporting rules (IRC § 6056) and could trigger excise tax payments under IRC § 4980H(b).

By way of background, the IRS addressed opt-out payments last year in the form of Notice 2015-87, concluding that a “conditional” opt-out payment – one that requires that the employee meet a criterion in addition to declining employer group coverage, such as showing proof of other group coverage – would not affect affordability. The Notice also offered transition relief for unconditional offers (paid simply for declining employer coverage) that were in place as of December 16, 2015, the date the Notice was published.  Unconditional opt-out arrangements adopted after December 16, 2015 do impact affordability.

Subsequently, in July 2016, the IRS addressed the affordability issue in proposed regulations under IRC § 36, governing individuals’ eligibility for premium tax credits. The proposed regulations refer to “eligible” opt-out arrangements rather than conditional ones.  An eligible opt-out payment  is one under which an employee’s right to receive payment is conditioned on the employee providing reasonable evidence that the employee and all his or her dependents (the employee’s “expected tax family”) have or will have minimum essential coverage other than individual coverage (whether purchased on or off the health exchange/Marketplace).  Reasonable evidence may include the employee’s attestation to the fact of other coverage, or provision of proof of coverage, but in any event the opt-out payment cannot be made if employer knows or has reason to know that the employee/dependents does not have or will not have alternative coverage.  Evidence of the alternative coverage must be provided no less frequently than every plan year, and no earlier than the open enrollment period for the plan year involved.

The proposed regulations are expected to be finalized this year and thus the “eligible opt-out arrangement” rules likely will apply to plan years beginning on or after January 1, 2017.   In the meantime, the following provides guidance to applicable large employers on conditional and unconditional opt-out payments for purposes of 2016 ACA compliance, and ACA reporting due to be furnished to employees and filed with the IRS early in 2017:

Unconditional opt-out arrangement: opt-out payments increase employee contributions for purposes of the “affordability” safe harbor, and should be added to line 15 of Form 1095-C, unless the arrangement was already in effect on December 16, 2015.  “In effect” for these purposes means that (i) the employer offered the arrangement (or a substantially similar arrangement) for a plan year that includes December 16, 2015; (ii) the employer’s board of directors or authorized officer specifically adopted the arrangement before December 16, 2015; or (iii) the employer communicated to employees in writing, on or before December 16, 2015, that it would offer the arrangement to employees at some time in the future.

Conditional opt-out arrangement: opt-out payments do not increase employee contributions whether or not the condition is met.  Do not include the opt-out payment in line 15 of Form 1095-C.

Opt-out arrangement under a collective bargaining agreement (CBA): if the CBA was in effect before December 16, 2015, treat as a conditional opt-out arrangement, as above, and do not include in line 15 of Form 1095-C.

Medicare Secondary Payer Act/TRICARE Implications: An applicable large employer for ACA purposes will also be subject to provisions of the Medicare Secondary Payer Act (MSPA) that prohibit offering financial incentives to Medicare-eligible employees (and persons married to Medicare-eligible employees) in exchange for dropping or declining private group health coverage[2]. In the official Medicare Secondary Payer (MSP) Manual, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) takes the position that a financial incentive is prohibited even if it is offered to all individuals who are eligible for coverage under a private group health plan, not just those who are Medicare-eligible. Traditionally the CMS has not actively enforced this rule, and has focused on incentives directed at Medicare-eligible populations. However, there are reports that the CMS may be retreating from its unofficial non-enforcement position with respect to opt-out payments. At stake is a potential civil monetary penalty of up to $5,000 for each violation. As a consequence, MSPA-covered employers with Medicare-eligible employees, or employees who are married to Medicare-eligible persons, should not put an opt-out arrangement in place, or continue an existing one, without first checking with their benefits attorney. Finally, please note that there are similar prohibitions on financial incentives to drop military coverage under TRICARE. TRICARE is administered by the Department of Defense, but along the same principles as apply to MSPA.

Note:   This post was published on October 6, 2016 by Employee Benefit Adviser.

[1] Note: employer flex contributions to a cafeteria plan reduce affordability unless they are “health flex contributions,” meaning that (i) the employee cannot elect to receive the contribution in cash; and (ii) the employee may use the amount only to pay for health-related expenses, whether premiums for minimum essential coverage or for medical expense reimbursements permitted under Code § 213, and not for dependent care expenses or other non-health cafeteria plan options. See IRS Notice 2015-87, Q&A 8.

 

[2] An employer is covered by the MSPA if it employs 20 or more employees for each working day in at least 20 weeks in either the current or the preceding calendar year.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2 Comments

Filed under Affordable Care Act, Applicable Large Employer Reporting, Benefit Plan Design, Cafeteria Plans, Employer Shared Responsibility, Flex Plans, Health Care Reform, PPACA

Benefits Compliance: Where You Get It; What You Need (Poll)

Y01VDYAX63Changes in the law and continued advances in technology have made benefits compliance a constantly shifting landscape.  As one of many potential sources for your own path towards benefits compliance, E for ERISA would very much appreciate your participation in the following poll, which asks a few simple questions about where you currently get your benefits compliance services and what you may still need in that regard.  Thank you in advance for (anonymously) sharing your thoughts and experiences.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under 401(k) Plans, 403(b) Plans, Affordable Care Act, Applicable Large Employer Reporting, Benefit Plan Design, Employer Shared Responsibility, ERISA, Federally Facilitated Exchange, Fiduciary and Fee Issues, Fiduciary Issues, Fringe Benefits, Health Care Reform, HIPAA and HITECH, Payroll Issues, Plan Reporting and Disclosure Duties, PPACA, Profit Sharing Plan, Uncategorized

Exchange Subsidy Notices: Prelude to ACA Tax Assessments

After a one-year delay, the federally-facilitated exchange (www.healthcare.gov) has begun mailing Applicable Large Employers (ALEs) notices listing employees who qualified for and received advance payment of premium tax credits or cost sharing reductions (collectively, “exchange subsidies”) for one or more months to date in 2016.  There is a model federal subsidy notice; state-facilitated health exchanges may use their own subsidy notices. In 2016, the notices will go to mailing addresses that employees supplied while enrolling on an exchange and hence may include worksite addresses rather than an employer’s administrative headquarters.  For that reason, ALEs should track all work locations for receipt of the exchange notices.

Each notice will identify one or more employees who received subsidies in 2016, and if the names include those of full-time employees who were offered affordable, minimum value or higher coverage (or enrolled in coverage, even if unaffordable) for the period involved, an appeal is appropriate and must be made within 90 days of the date on the exchange subsidy notice. This Employer Appeal Request Form may be used for http://www.healthcare.gov as well as the following state-based exchanges:  California, Colorado, D.C., Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York and Vermont.  The appeals process is carried out via mail or fax this year but will eventually convert to a digital format.

Remember, these exchange subsidy notices are not themselves assessments of ACA penalty taxes which is a separate process carried out by IRS. And the IRS will assess ACA penalty taxes for 2015 without benefit of subsidy notices for that year.   However the subsidy notices now being released do provide a “heads up” regard to potential 2016 tax liability, and by filing an appeal an ALE can build the file it will need in the event of a later penalty tax assessment. Not only will a timely appeal document the fact that no ACA penalty tax should apply, it may also prevent the employee in question from later having to refund subsidy amounts to IRS, either through a reduced tax refund or with out-of-pocket funds.

In this regard, ALEs should keep in mind that coverage that is unaffordable for exchange purposes (i.e. entitles an individual to exchange subsidies) may be affordable for employer safe harbor/penalty assessment purposes (i.e., prevents assessment of an ACA employer penalty tax). They both use the same affordability percentage – 9.66% in 2016 – but apply it to different base amounts.  The exchanges look at the employee’s modified adjusted gross income (MAGI), which may be higher than the employer’s safe harbor definition (for instance when the employee’s household includes other wage earners), or may be smaller than the employer’s safe harbor definition (for instance, when the employee has large student loan interest expenses and/or alimony payments, both of which are excluded from MAGI).  Thus there will be instances in which an employer bears no ACA penalty liability with regard to coverage that is unaffordable for exchange purposes. The appeals process will make available to an employer information as to whether an employee’s household income exceeded the affordability threshold for exchange subsidies, along with other data used to establish eligibility for exchange subsidies.  A flowchart of the exchange subsidy notice and appeals process follows:Flowchart for Handling Exchange Subsidy Notices

We do not yet have details on how the IRS will go about assessing ACA penalties on ALEs for 2015 and subsequent years, other than that employers will have an opportunity to contest a tax assessment. All the more reason to engage in the appeal process, where appropriate, with regard to subsidy notices.

Leave a comment

Filed under Affordable Care Act, Covered California, Employer Shared Responsibility, Federally Facilitated Exchange, Health Care Reform, Health Insurance Marketplace, Premium Tax Credits, State Exchange

Final Rules on Wellness Program Design: A Chart and FAQs

Recent months have seen a flurry of new guidance related to wellness programs:

  • On May 17, 2016 the EEOC published final regulations and interpretive guidance on wellness programs that include disability-related questions (such as a Health Risk Assessment or HRA) and/or medical examinations (such as biometric testing). The new rules and guidance fall under Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which permits collection of medical information under an employer’s “voluntary” wellness program. They replace proposed rules and guidance which were published in April 2015. We addressed the proposed rules in an earlier post.
  • In addition, EEOC published in the same issue of the Federal Register final regulations on wellness program participation by employees’ spouses, under Title II of the Genetic Information Nondisclosure Act (GINA). For GINA purposes, health status or health history about a family member, including a spouse, constitutes genetic of the employee. The rule replaces proposed regulations issued in October 2015.
  • In connection with the final rules the EEOC also published a model confidentiality notice to be provided to wellness program participants.
  • Finally, the Internal Revenue Service issued guidance regarding taxation of cash rewards to participate in wellness programs, and reimbursement of premiums paid through cafeteria plan deductions.

Overview. The new ADA and GINA regulations supplement, and in some instances contradict, existing wellness regulations under HIPAA, as modified by the ACA. Most notably, the HIPAA/ACA rules do not impose any incentive limitation on wellness programs that are “participation only,” whereas the ADA and GINA rules do impose a maximum incentive limit if the “participation only” program includes an HRA or biometric testing. The ADA and GINA regulations apply to employers with 15 or more employees, and to wellness programs that are “self-standing” as well as those offered in connection with a group health plan. HIPAA/ACA rules apply only to wellness programs that themselves comprise a group health plan, or that are offered with group health plans.

Effective Dates. The ADA and GINA incentive limits and ADA notice requirement discussed below go into effect for plan years beginning on or after January 1, 2017 (in most cases this will be the year of the health plan to which the wellness program relates). Employers may choose to voluntarily comply with these rules prior to that time. The balance of the new guidance goes into effect immediately, as the EEOC has characterized it as clarification of existing law.

Compliance Chart. Below is a chart summarizing permissible dollar or in-kind incentives for wellness program participation, along with some other requirements under the new ADA and GINA regulations, followed by some frequently asked questions on the new wellness program guidance.

Capturechart

* If multiple health plans are offered, the 30% limit applies to the lowest cost major medical plan. If no plans are offered, the reference point is the premium paid for a 40 year old non-smoker enrolled in the second-lowest silver plan on the health exchange in the employer’s region.

Q.1:     What are reasonable design criteria for wellness programs under ADA regulations? 

A.1:      A wellness program is “reasonably designed to promote health or prevent disease” if it is (a) not highly suspect in the method chosen to promote health or prevent disease; (b) does not require an overly burdensome period of time to participate, involve unreasonably intrusive procedures or significant costs; (c) is not a subterfuge for violating the ADA or other legal requirements or a means to simply shift costs from employer to employees; and, (d) if medical information is collected, the program provides feedback or advice to participants about risk factors or uses aggregate medical data to design programs or treat specific conditions.

Q.2: How do these requirements differ from the requirements for wellness programs under HIPAA/ACA?

A.2: In addition to the differences in incentive limits noted in the chart above, the HIPAA/ACA test applies a reasonable design criteria only to health-contingent wellness programs, while the ADA rules apply to participation-only wellness programs that include HRAs and/or biometric testing.  In addition, the HIPAA/ACA rules require that participants have a chance to qualify for the full incentive at least annually, and must offer to waive incentive criteria, or offer a reasonable alternative standard, to permit equal participation by all similarly situated participants.  This is somewhat similar, but not identical, to the ADA reasonable accommodation requirement.  HIPAA/ACA also requires that notice of the waiver/reasonable alternative standard be provided.

Q.3: Do GINA wellness program regulations add any requirements?

A.3: Yes, if a spouse is requested to complete an HRA or undergo biometric testing, a separate incentive limit equal to 30% of the total cost of self-only coverage applies, and the spouse must sign a written, knowing and voluntary authorization to take part in the HRA or biometric testing.  The authorization must describe the genetic information being obtained (e.g. health history information in an HRA), how it will be used, and any restrictions on its disclosure.  Additionally, employers may not deny access to coverage or otherwise retaliate in the event a spouse refuses to provide HRA/biometric testing.

Q.4: What are the criteria of a “voluntary” wellness program under ADA regulations?

A.4: A wellness program is voluntary for ADA purposes if employees are not required to participate in the program, are not punished for not participating (e.g., not granted access to all health benefits or plan options), and are not subjected to adverse employment action, retaliation, coercion or other prohibited conduct in order to get them to participate, or to reach certain health goals. In addition, incentives are capped at the percentages shown in the chart, and participants are provided with a written notice re: collection and use of medical information.  The EEOC has provided a form of model notice.

Q.5: What does the model EEOC notice state, and is it mandatory or can we use our own version?

A.5: The notice, which should be provided prior to participation in an HRA or biometric exam, may be modified but must be written in language that recipients can understand, and must describe what medical information is collected, what measures will be used to protect its privacy and security, and must state that the information will not be sold, exchanged, transferred, or otherwise disclosed except as necessary and permitted under law in order to implement the wellness program.  Some of the provisions may repeat provisions of an existing HIPAA privacy notice.

Q.6: Can we email the ADA wellness program notice or must we distribute by hand?

A.6: You can email it so long as you are certain the email will reach the intended employees, e.g. through use of a current work email address, and so long as proper attention is brought to the nature of the notice (for instance, do not attach it to an email already containing a number of other, unrelated human resource forms or disclosures). You may also distribute in hard copy.  Your distribution method should take into account employee disabilities such as visual impairment, or learning disabilities.

Q.6: What confidentiality requirements apply under ADA regulations?

A.6: The employer must receive wellness data in aggregate form only, and may not require an employee to agree to the sale, exchange, sharing, transfer or other disclosure of medical information, or to waive ADA confidentiality protections, as a condition for participation.  Note that ADA confidentiality rules would apply to a wellness program not linked to a group health plan, and for a wellness program that is a health plan or is linked to one, HIPAA/ACA privacy, security and breach notification measures must also be followed.  These rules independently would prohibit the employer from viewing individualized health data.

Q.7: What is the impact of “de minimis” wellness incentives such as tee-shirts and water bottles?

A.7: The ADA regulations do not recognize a “de minimis” rule, thus the approximate dollar value of all “in-kind” incentives should be counted towards the 30% incentive limit.  By contrast, for federal income tax purposes, the IRS allows small items such as tee-shirts and water bottles to be excluded from participants’ taxable income as de minimis fringe benefits under Internal Revenue Code (“Code”) Section 132(e).  See IRS Memo 2016-22031, discussed below.

Q.8: How does the IRS treat cash incentives to participate in a wellness program treated under the Internal Revenue Code?

A.8: In IRS Memo 2016-22031 the IRS concluded that cash incentives to take part in a wellness program, or amounts paid or reimbursed for more than de minimis items that do not qualify as Code Section 213(d) medical expenses (such as gym memberships) are included in employees’ taxable income.  The same is true when an employer uses a wellness program to reimburse employees for premium or other coverage amounts withheld from their salary under a Section 125 cafeteria plan.

Q.9: What is the ADA’s  “insurance safe harbor” or “bona fide benefit plan” safe harbor, and can employers use it to justify a wellness program that does not meet the new ADA wellness program criteria?

A.9: The insurance safe harbor or “bona fide benefit plan” safe harbor permits the gathering of health data from employees so long as it is for underwriting or risk classification purposes, e.g., in order to determine insurability or establish premiums and other costs of coverage.   The safe harbor typically would apply to an insurance carrier but also could apply to a self-insured health plan.  In the past several years, a few employers have successfully used the safe harbor to prevail over EEOC federal court challenges to wellness programs that conditioned very high financial incentives on completion of an HRA or biometric testing; see, e.g., Seff v. Broward County, 691 F.3d 1221 (11th Cir. 2012); EEOC v. Flambeau, Inc., 131 F. Supp. 3d 849 (W.D.Wis. 2015).  The ADA regulations expressly make the insurance safe harbor unavailable to employers sponsoring wellness programs, but this does not resolve how the issue will be determined in federal courts.

Q.10: Are there other GINA regulations that impact wellness programs?

A.10: Yes, Title I of GINA applies to health insurance issuers and group health plans (including self-insured health plans), and prohibits requiring an individual to provide genetic information (including through answering a family history question on an HRA) prior to or in connection with plan enrollment, or at any time in connection with “underwriting purposes,” which broadly refers to any provision of a reward or incentive.  As a result of GINA Title I, a plan may use an HRA that requests family medical history only if it is requested to be completed after plan enrollment and is unrelated to enrollment, and if there is no premium reduction or any other reward offered.

Leave a comment

Filed under Affordable Care Act, Americans with Disabilities Act, Benefit Plan Design, Cafeteria Plans, Flex Plans, Fringe Benefits, GINA/Genetic Privacy, Health Care Reform, HIPAA and HITECH, PPACA, Wellness Programs

It’s Time for ALEs to “Do the Math” on Controlled Group Status

Applicable Large Employers (ALEs) subject to the ACA’s employer shared responsibility and reporting duties are running out of time in which to ascertain whether or not they are part of an “Aggregated ALE Group,” the members of which are treated as a single employer for benefit plan and certain ACA purposes. This in turn requires an analysis under Internal Revenue Code controlled group rules, as discussed below.

A definitive answer to the question of aggregated group status is required in order to file the Form 1094-C transmittal for employee statements (Forms 1095-C), which is due in hard copy by May 31, 2016, or via e-filing by June 30, 2016. (E-filing is encouraged for all ALEs but is mandated for those filing 250 or more Form 1095-C employee statements).

Specifically, Part II of Form 1094-C, line 21 asks whether the “ALE Member” filing the Form is part of an “Aggregated ALE Group,” and if the answer is yes, the ALE Member must identify, in Part III, the name and EIN of all other ALE Members of the Aggregated ALE Group.  Form 1094-C, like other IRS forms, must be signed under penalty of perjury.

Some ALEs with fewer than 50 full-time employees, including full-time equivalents (FTEs), are subject to employer shared responsibility only because they are part of an Aggregated ALE Group that collectively employs 50 or more full-time/FTE employees (or, in 2015, 100 or more).

Larger employers that have always had 100 or more full-time/FTE employees of their own may also have had to determine their status as part of an Aggregated ALE Group in order to determine who should furnish Form 1095-C employee statements for employees who worked for more than one aggregated employer during the same calendar month. (Generally the employer for whom the employee worked the most hours of service would be considered the reporting employer for that month.)

In either situation, these ALEs should already know that they are members of an Aggregated ALE Group and be in a position to identify other members of the Group on Part III of Form 1094-C.

However, employers that have always had 100 or more full-time/FTE employees of their own, and who have not shared employees with other group members as described above, may not have had occasion to determine whether or not they are part of an Aggregated ALE Group with other companies related in ownership. Now they must do so in order to accurately complete Form 1094-C.

In addition to Form 1094-C reporting duties, accurate knowledge of controlled group status is necessary in the event an ALE is subject to excise tax penalties under Internal Revenue Code (“Code”) § 4980H(a).  Before applying the excise tax rate ($270 per month, in 2016) to all full-time employees, the ALE may subtract the first 30 full-time employees.  That “budget” of 30 excludible full-time employees (80, in 2015) must be allocated among members of the Aggregated ALE Group in proportion to their total number of full-time employees.[1]

The three types of Aggregated ALE Groups are:

  • a “controlled group” consisting solely of corporations as defined under Code § 414(b);
  • a group of trades or businesses that includes partnerships and LLCs, that are under “common control” as defined under Code § 414(c); or
  • businesses, usually professional service organizations, that together form an “affiliated service group” (ASG) as defined under Code § 414(m).

The controlled group/common control/ASG rules (collectively, the “common control rules”) have applied for benefit plan purposes for many years but they have achieved new prominence under the ACA employer shared responsibility and ALE reporting rules. Determining whether or not common control exists requires identification and analysis of the relevant facts and application of the law to them, in the form of the above-cited Code sections, related Treasury Regulations, other agency guidance and federal case law.  The rules governing common control status are complex and can require a significant amount of factual digging, including when business ownership interests are held by family members or in trust, and where ownership interests must be traced through several layers of entity ownership.  Applicable large employers that share ownership with other business entities, particularly those with employees, and that have not already ascertained their common control status for ACA purposes, are encouraged to get this process started without further delay.

 

[1] Although aggregated group status is used to determine status as an ALE, and in order to allocate the budget of 30 excludible full-time employees, excise tax liability is determined separately for each ALE member within the group.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Affordable Care Act, Applicable Large Employer Reporting, Benefit Plan Design, Common Control Issues, Employer Shared Responsibility, Health Care Reform, PPACA