Employer Mandate Delayed. Many Questions Remain

Employer Play-or-Pay Mandate Penalties and Certain Employer Reporting Requirements Delayed Until 2015

Posted: 11 Jul 2013 09:27 AM PDT

Copyright ©2013 Towers Watson. All Rights Reserved

Treasury Says No Impact on Any Other Provisions of the PPACA in 2014

The Obama Administration unexpectedly announced on July 2 that employers will be provided an additional year, until 2015, before any penalties are assessed under the employer play-or-pay mandate in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) (i.e., both the $2,000- and $3,000-per-year employer penalties are delayed until 2015).

In addition, the mandatory employer and insurer reporting requirements (including identification of full-time employees and their months of coverage) under Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Sections 6055 and 6056 are also delayed for a year. Thus, employers will not incur penalties for failing to provide affordable, minimum-value health coverage to their full-time employees in 2014, nor will insurers or employers be required to comply with the extensive information reporting requirements under those code sections for the 2014 calendar year.

In an unusual fashion, the Obama Administration announced the delay only via postings on the Treasury Department and White House websites. Mark Mazur, assistant secretary for tax policy at the Treasury wrote in a blog post, “We have heard concerns about the complexity of the requirements and the need for more time to implement them effectively.” Mazur went on to write that “our actions today do not affect employees’ access to the premium tax credits available under the ACA (nor any other provision of the ACA).”

The Administration stated that the goals of the one-year delay are twofold. First, it will allow the government to consider ways to simplify the new reporting requirements, and second, it will provide time for employers to adapt health coverage and reporting systems. It is important to note that the delay also takes a controversial piece of the law off the table before the midterm congressional elections.

According to the Treasury, rules regarding the delay will be proposed this summer. Employers will be encouraged but not required to adopt and follow those reporting requirements in 2014. The full text of the announcement by the Treasury can be found at treasury.gov.

What Does This Mean?

Aside from the delay in employer reporting under IRC Sections 6055 and 6056, and the delay in the play-or-pay penalties, the Treasury says the delays will not affect employees’ access to the premium tax credits nor any other provision of the PPACA. Even if one accepts that statement at face value, employers need to begin considering the potential impact of the delay as we await details from the government that will provide answers to the following questions:

§ What is the practical impact of the delay in play-or-pay penalties on counting employee hours in 2014 (i.e., will employers be required to identify full-time employees in 2014 for any other reasons, aside from play-or-pay, such as inquiries from public health insurance exchanges)?

§ Will employers still need to distribute the mandatory notice to employees regarding public health insurance exchanges by October 1, 2013? If so, should that notice be modified to reflect the delay in the employer play-or-pay mandate? Similarly, what is the relevance of information in the government’s model notice regarding details of the employer’s group health plan in view of the delay in the play-or-pay mandate?

§ If employers will not be subject to the play-or-pay mandate in 2014, how will public health insurance exchanges determine eligibility for the premium tax credit (recalling that individuals are ineligible for the credit if they have been offered minimum essential coverage that is affordable and of minimum value)?

§ Will the public health insurance exchanges still be contacting employers in 2014 to verify employee information (in some cases) on employees’ full-time status and health coverage contributions (for purposes of the premium tax credit) — even though employers will not be subject to penalties under the play-or-pay mandate? If so, will the affordability and minimum value of employer coverage still need to be determined in 2014 for purposes of the premium tax credit if those same elements of the play-or-pay requirements are waived for employers in 2014?

§ How will the individual mandate be affected by the delay in the employer play-or-pay mandate? Will there now be political pressure to delay the individual mandate if the employer play-or-pay mandate has effectively been deferred to 2015?

Meanwhile, it seems relatively clear that other provisions of the PPACA that become effective in 2014 can proceed without being affected by the one-year delay in the employer play-or-pay mandate. For example, the annual distribution of Summaries of Benefits and Coverage (SBCs), compliance with the new out-of-pocket maximum limits and 90-day waiting period limit on group health plans, as well as the annual $63-per-covered-life, transitional-reinsurance fee do not appear to be affected by the delay.

Employers should anticipate questions and concerns from stakeholders about this latest development. Employees, vendors, line supervisors, senior management, board members and others will all react to media coverage of the delay, and some confusion should be expected. Employers should begin to consider some thoughtful messaging about this development even as we await details from the Treasury.

Conclusion

The main elements of the PPACA were designed to take effect in 2014 in a sort of health care reform grand opening. The announcement of the delay by the Treasury on July 2 appears to set the stage for a “soft opening” for health care reform in 2014. For employers, most of the implications will flow from the one-year delay in enforcement of the play-or-pay penalties and the delay in information reporting under IRC Sections 6055 and 6056. While nothing in this latest bit of drama suggests that health care reform is going away, further guidance will be needed from the government to understand the full implications of the delay for employers. That guidance is promised by the Treasury this summer, and Towers Watson will be following those developments closely in order to assist plan sponsors through this period.

What if you build it and NOBODY comes? What happens if you offer health insurance coverage to your employees and only a few take it? Will you be penalized?

What if you build it and NOBODY comes? What happens if you offer health insurance coverage to your employees and only a few take it? Will you be penalized?

Many Large/Small employers are sweating whether insurance companies will allow them to have a plan if they don’t meet participation guidelines (roughly a minimum of 50% of employees must enroll for coverage or else the insurance company will NOT offer coverage – it’s more complex than that, but good enough this post).

The short answer is that if you are a small employer, the answer is YES you will be able to offer coverage without meeting participation guidelines, BUT open enrollment will ONLY be November 15 through December 15^th for a January 1^st start date. If you do meet the insurance company participation guidelines, you can have any renewal date you choose (just like it is now).

What about large employers who have less than 50 employees who want coverage? I have a client who has 268 full time employees, but only 16 will take the coverage. Will they be penalized? The answer is “we don’t know.” The National Association of Health Underwriters is working with HHS to come up with rules surrounding this occurrence.  My best guess is that there will be something just like what will happen for a small group (above).  Of course if you can be creative with “Standard Measurement Periods” and the “Look Back Period” you may be able to say to an insurance company that you only have 16 employees eligible for coverage. Most insurance companies at this point would consider the group a “small employer group” as they’d only recognize the 16 employees as full time eligible (and meet the participation guidelines).

Now let’s say that out of the 16 eligible, only 2 want the insurance (meaning you DON’T meet the guidelines). They would not be allowed to have the November 15^th – December 15^th open enrollment period because this special “Open Enrollment” period due to lack of participation would most likely be done only within the SHOP (small employer group health insurance) Exchange. 

As it is in the Exchange, the Government would not allow this particular group to shop in the exchange because, according to the ACA formula, they are a “large group employer.”  See the very last sentence of this blog post as to why I say this.

Companies with 50+employees who take coverage have more flexibility when it comes to getting insured. Some insurance carriers will say 20% participation (with a minimum of 50 taking coverage) is okay.

Ultimately, this is another thing that was unforeseen by the lawmakers which needs to be resolved.   

  

Below is text I took that describes the participation/open enrollment guidelines.

The following excerpt is from the Federal Register, Vol 78, No. 39/ Wednesday, February 27, 2013/ Rules and Regulations, page 13416. Here is a link from the state of Kentucky or you can google it yourself. http://healthbenefitexchange.ky.gov/Documents/Guaranteed%20Availability%20of%20Coverage.pdf

Comment: We received a few comments about the proposal that issuers would be allowed to decline to offer coverage to small employers for failure to satisfy minimum contribution or group participation requirements under state law or the SHOP standards.

Several commenters expressed support for the policy and recommended extending it to the large group market. One commenter emphasized that minimum participation and contribution standards must be reasonable and not burdensome to the point that small employers are discouraged from offering coverage.

Response: Upon further consideration of this issue, we have determined that small employers cannot be denied guaranteed availability of coverage for failure to satisfy minimum participation or contribution requirements.

As in the case of the bona fide association exception discussed above, while Congress left in place an exception for failure to meet contribution or participation requirements under the guaranteed renewability requirement in section 2703(b), it provided no such exception from the guaranteed availability requirement in section 2702.

To the contrary, language in the guaranteed availability provision for group health plans that was in place before the Affordable Care Act was not included in section 2702.

Accordingly, the proposed approach would conflict with the guaranteed availability provisions in section 2702 of the PHS Act. Moreover, permitting issuers to deny coverage altogether to a small employer with between 50 and 100 employees based on a failure to meet minimum participation or contribution requirements could subject such employer to a shared responsibility payment under section 4980H of the Code for a failure to offer coverage to its employees.

While section 2702 contains no exception to guaranteed availability based on a failure to meet contribution or minimum participation requirements, section 2702(b)(1) permits an issuer to limit enrollment in coverage to open and special enrollment periods.

Under our authority in section 2702(b)(3) to define ‘‘open enrollment periods,’’ we are providing in this final rule that, in the case of a small employer that fails to meet contribution or minimum participation requirements, an issuer may limit its offering of coverage to an annual open enrollment period, which we set forth in this final rule as the period beginning November 15 and extending through December 15 of each year.

As such, the group market will have continuous open enrollment, except for small employers that fail to meet contribution or minimum participation requirements, for which the enrollment period may be limited to the annual enrollment period described above, from November 15 through December 15. This approach addresses concerns about adverse selection in a manner that is consistent with the statutory provisions. We do not extend this provision to the large group market because large employers generally do not present the same adverse selection risk as small employers.

Updated IRS Form 720 available for Health Plans to Pay new ACA fee due July 31

Updated IRS Form 720 available for Health Plans to Pay new ACA fee due July 31

By Larry Grudzien , Attorney at Law

With health plans or policies facing a July 31 due date to pay the first patient-centered outcomes research fees, IRS has issued a revised Form 720 and instructions. Filers will enter covered lives subject to the $1 fee for the 2012 plan or policy year in Part II of Form 720 (line 133) to calculate the amount owed. Though Form 720 is used for quarterly excise taxes, filers should only complete line 133 when remitting the annual fee due July 31. Under the Affordable Care Act, the new fee applies to each plan or policy year that ends on or after Oct. 1, 2012, and before Oct. 1, 2019. 

 

Link to Full text of Form 720 (IRS, 3 Jun 2013) (PDF):

 

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f720.pdf

 

Link to Full text of Form 720 instructions for Part II, line 133 (IRS, 3 Jun 2013):

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i720.pdf

 

IRS webpage with Form 720, instructions, and related materials:

http://www.irs.gov/uac/Form-720,-Quarterly-Federal-Excise-Tax-Return

For More Information:

If you have any comments or questions regarding any of above information, please do not hesitate to call Larry Grudzien at (708) 717-9638 or Robert Slayton at 630-779-1144.

Affordable Care Act Open Enrollment FAQ for the Individual Market

Good stuff from BCBS of IL on when an individual can enroll in a health insurance plan.


May 29, 2013

Legislative Update
Affordable Care Act Question of the Week: Exchange Open Enrollment [All Markets]

We have received a number of questions about the initial open enrollment period for the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Beginning Jan. 1, 2014, most U.S. citizens and legal residents will be required to have a minimum level of health care coverage. If you have a general question about an ACA provision, contact your account representative.

Q: If an uninsured does not enroll through a health insurance exchange (also known as a health insurance marketplace) during the open enrollment period for coverage effective Jan. 1, 2014, under what circumstances may an individual enroll and receive coverage during 2014?

A: The initial open enrollment period for the exchange begins Oct. 1, 2013, and extends through March 31, 2014.

If an individual does not enroll during the initial open enrollment period or future enrollment periods (for plan years beginning on or after Jan. 1, 2015, the annual open enrollment period begins Oct. 15 and extends through Dec. 7 of the preceding calendar year), they can enroll if circumstances triggered one of the following events:

A qualified individual and any dependents losing other minimum essential coverage.
A qualified individual gaining or becoming a dependent through marriage, birth, adoption or placement for adoption.
An individual, not previously lawfully present, gaining status as a citizen, national or lawfully present individual in the United States.
A qualified individual experiencing an error in enrollment.
An individual enrolled in a Qualified Health Plan (QHP) adequately demonstrating to the exchange that the QHP in which he or she is enrolled substantially violated a material provision of its contract.
An individual becoming newly eligible or newly ineligible for advance payments of the premium tax credit or experiencing a change in eligibility for cost-sharing reductions.
New QHPs offered through the exchange becoming available to a qualified individual or enrollee as a result of a permanent move.
The individual is an Indian, as defined by the Indian Health Care Improvement Act. (We solicited comment on the potential implications on the process for verifying Indian status for purposes of this special enrollment period.)
A qualified individual or enrollee meeting other exceptional circumstances, as determined by the Exchange or Health & Human Services (HHS). Loss of coverage does not include failure to pay premiums on a timely basis, including COBRA premiums prior to expiration of COBRA coverage.
Unless specifically stated otherwise, an individual or enrollee has 60 days from the date of a triggering event to select a plan. Note: This 60-day Special Enrollment Period (SEP) window applies to the individual market. Group market is 30 days for the SEP window.

Latest News on the Affordable Care Act

I've compiled a series of interesting articles this week about different aspects of the Affordable Care Act.

First, this piece on the Federal Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan’s solvency (or lack thereof). The Federal Government totally under estimated the claims of those people who went on it.

http://newsmanager.commpartners.com/nahuw/issues/2013-05-24/index.html

Second is a study of the current cost of health insurance. Please look at the dollars that are currently being spent and tell me whether this is sustainable.

http://newsmanager.commpartners.com/nahuw/issues/2013-05-24/2.html

Third is Chicago Politics as its best. What do politicians do once they are elected? They hire all of their supporters of course. It looks like if you’d like a job as an assister, go talk to HHS.

http://newsmanager.commpartners.com/nahuw/issues/2013-05-24/3.html

Oops, the Government forgot that some people don’t have bank accounts with which to pay for their premiums.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2013/05/21/184814772/latest-health-hurdle-buying-insurance-without-a-bank-account

Here’s something that came to my attention last week. This is in California, but may apply to other states. Doctors may be stuck with paying for patients’ care due to non-payment of health insurance premiums.

http://www.sacbee.com/2013/05/21/5438115/loophole-in-health-care-law-could.html

Unions are figuring out that they are being treated like everyone else in regards to Health Reform. Businesses don’t get special treatment, but Unions believe they should.

http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/300881-labor-unions-break-ranks-on-health-law

Here’s an interesting study on the impact of increasing premiums and young adults purchasing insurance. Note that this is from an organization that doesn't like the ACA.

http://americanactionforum.org/topic/young-adults%E2%80%99-insurance-decisions-dependent-cost

Small Group and the Affordable Care Act - Do I really need to comply? NO!!!

You know how things kind of ruminate in the back of your mind for awhile before you "suddenly" have a realization? That's what happened to me a last week.

If your company is less than 50 employees (combining Full Time and Full Time Equivalents), then you are considered a "Small Group" under the definition set out by the Affordable Care Act. While everyone is talking about 30 hours this, Bronze, Silver, Gold, Platinum medal plans that, penalties for not offering minimum coverage and cost, etc. The reality is that you will not be subjected to the employer mandate and therefore will not face any penalties if you do not comply with that mandate such as not offering coverage, not making it "affordable", or not offering compliant coverage (Note that there are other items which you must comply with such as providing a Summary of Benefits of Coverage to each employee).

To be straight, I'm not talking about plan designs or things outside of your control. I'm talking about changing the amount you contribute to your employee's premium, number of hours they are required to work before they are considered full time, etc.

You don't have to offer a plan that meets one of the Medal plans even though the probability of a plan being available that doesn't meet the guidelines is close to zero. You don't have to offer coverage to dependents (BTW, spouses are, by ACA definition, NOT dependents). Of course you may not be able to

You don't have to make sure that the employee only pays no more than 9.5% of their income towards employee only coverage on your lowest compliant plan to meet "Safe Harbor." As a matter of fact, it's probably NOT in your best interest to do this. You may harm your employees unknowingly. For example, if you do offer a "Bronze" level plan and meet the "Safe Harbor" of the above for the employee and offer coverage to their dependents, then your employee is NOT ELIGIBLE FOR A SUBSIDY. If you have lower income employees, this could be bad as a plan within the individual/family exchange may be less expensive and cover more than the plan you offer. For higher income employees who are close to or over the 400% Federal Poverty Level for income, this doesn't impact them much.

What does this mean? It means you have more flexibility that you know. If you have 5 or more employees (for Illinois at least - every state is different, in New York, only employers with over 50 employees are allowed to look at the following plans), and your workforce is younger and healthy, then you may want to explore a "level funded benefit" plan. This is partially self-funding. In the eyes of the government, it is considered self funded and not subject to some of the restrictions of the ACA. In the eyes of your employees, it looks and works exactly like a fully insured plan except with the possibility of receiving money back after your plan year if claims were less than expected.

Also, if your agent hasn't mentioned that you can do an early renewal (this means renewing this year, then renewing again on 12/1/2013) to push off the reforms (including changes in plan designs) until the end of 2014, call and ask them about it.

In general, work with your agent, roll up your sleeves and see what works best for your business first, then employees (understanding that without happy employees, your business will go down the drain).

Obama Administration simplifies, significantly shortens application for health insurance

Obama Administration simplifies, significantly shortens application for health insurance

By Larry Grudzien, Attorney-At-Law

April 30, 2013

 

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) today announced that the application for health coverage has been simplified and significantly shortened. The application for individuals without health insurance has been reduced from twenty-one to three pages, and the application for families is reduce by two-thirds. The consumer friendly forms are much shorter than industry standards for health insurance applications today.

In addition, for the first time consumers will be able to fill out one simple application and see their entire range of health insurance options, including plans in the Health Insurance Marketplace, Medicaid, the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) and tax credits that will help pay for premiums.

The applications released today, which can be submitted starting on October 1, can be found here:

http://cciio.cms.gov/resources/other/index.html#hie

"Consumers will have a simple, easy-to-understand way to apply for health coverage later this year," said CMS Acting Administrator Marilyn Tavenner. "The application for individuals is now three

The online version of the application will be a dynamic experience that shortens the application process based on individuals' responses. The paper application was simplified and tailored to meet personal situations based on important feedback from consumer groups.

Consumers can apply online, by phone or paper when open enrollment begins October 1, 2013. There will be clear information provided about how to complete the application, and how to access help applying and enrolling in coverage.

This consumer-focused approach will facilitate the enrollment of millions of Americans into affordable, high quality coverage while minimizing the administrative burden on states, individuals and health plans.

For more information about the Health Insurance Marketplace, visit: www.HealthCare.gov pages, making it easier to use and significantly shorter than industry standards. This is another step complete as we get ready for a consumer-friendly marketplace that will be open for business later this year."

For More Information:

If you have any comments or questions regarding any of above information, please do not hesitate to contact me at 630-779-1144 or Larry at (708) 717-9638.