It’s not surprising that 2017 stands to be the year many will have an experience to share using a Telemedicine or a Virtual Doctor service. With current market trends, government regulations, and changing economic demands, it’s fast becoming a more popular alternative to traditional healthcare visits.  And, as healthcare costs continue to rise and there are more strategic pricing options and digital models available to users, the appeal for consumers, self-insured employers, health systems and health plans to jump on board is significant.

In a recent study conducted by the Aloft Group on the state of Telemedicine, 47.7% of respondents weren’t sure about what Telemedicine meant, but it’s possible they may have experienced it, as 52.4% have had interaction with a physician or clinician via email or text. Further, 78.5% of respondents indicated they would be comfortable talking with a physician using an online method.

Dr. Tony Yuan, an experienced ER doctor in San Diego, who also consults for Doctor on Demand, provides insight into this increasing trend during a recent Q and A session. Currently, over half of the patients he sees in his ER could utilize a digital healthcare model. In fact, 90% of patients who head to the ER for minor illnesses can be treated through this service. So, the next sinus, ear infection, or other minor health issue just may provide you and your family the chance to try what will become the new standard in minor healthcare.

Here are few benefits TeleMedicine has to offer:

It’s Fast and Simple

There’s no question apps are available for everything to make our lives easier—and TeleMed is no exception. Within minutes, standard first time users can set up an account, complete a few medical profile questions, then create and save a session. Having the ability to log on with a board-certified physician or clinician 24/7/365, using any PC, smart device, and even phone in some cases, saves time and money. Many services, like Teledoc and MDLive, will connect you with a licensed doctor or clinician online in just a few minutes – no scheduling or wait required. Once on, you can discuss your healthcare needs confidentially. After the visit, the doctor will update his/her records, notify your primary care physician of the call, and send an electronic prescription to the pharmacy of your choice, if necessary—all in the time it takes for a lunch break.

 

It’s Flexible

The ability to connect with a professional whether you are at home, work, or traveling makes getting the care you need invaluable. How often have you experienced the symptoms—or the full blown-effect—of getting sick while traveling? Many, no doubt, have had to adjust flight/travel plans to get the help needed from their PCP, in order to avoid getting worse.  By using an app or online service from your smart phone or laptop, you’re able to get the antibiotics you need quicker without cutting trips short or missing work to do so.

 

In addition, patients in smaller communities without the resources available of classically- trained, emergency-med physicians, see the benefit and flexibility of tapping into these online doctor services. Not only is it a plus for the patient to access more advanced care if needed, doctors in these rural areas value this as well. These digital healthcare models provide immediate, life-saving tools for both doctors and their patients who may not have access to higher, acute facilities.

 

It’s Affordable

Many TeleMedicine services now accept insurance, making a patient’s visit free, or at minimum the same as most deductible or co-insurance amounts for office visits; around $40. For those on a high-deductible plan, paying $40 for an online doctor service is a much cheaper alternative than paying $150 or more for an Urgent Care visit, or over $1200 for a trip to the ER. For employers, group options are low cost and can be a clear asset when creating solutions EEs will value.

 

It’s Beneficial to Employers

Today, 3 of 5 corporations, or 59% of employers provide digital healthcare benefits to their employees. As an employer, the benefits are straightforward. First, employees can participate in professional consultations for their family members or themselves without taking away from productivity. Second, when employers incorporate these services into their benefit plans, non-emergency care is redirected from expensive ER visits, ultimately saving thousands of dollars or more to the bottom line. Additionally, TeleHealth services offer frequent monitoring from clinicians for those employees who may need regular support due to more chronic issues, reducing trips to the hospital. Reducing these costs have a direct ROI for the employer and relieves the stress on the employee’s pocketbook. Third, many companies are now adding this digital benefit to their packages as a way to recruit new talent.

 

There’s no doubt 2017 will see a greater opportunity for all to experience the increasing trend of Telemed. Creating a clear communication strategy to make sure employees know how to find, access and utilize this service to the highest potential is key.

Cafeteria plans, or plans governed by IRS Code Section 125, allow employers to help employees pay for expenses such as health insurance with pre-tax dollars. Employees are given a choice between a taxable benefit (cash) and two or more specified pre-tax qualified benefits, for example, health insurance. Employees are given the opportunity to select the benefits they want, just like an individual standing in the cafeteria line at lunch.

Only certain benefits can be offered through a cafeteria plan:

  • Coverage under an accident or health plan (which can include traditional health insurance, health maintenance organizations (HMOs), self-insured medical reimbursement plans, dental, vision, and more);
  • Dependent care assistance benefits or DCAPs
  • Group term life insurance
  • Paid time off, which allows employees the opportunity to buy or sell paid time off days
  • 401(k) contributions
  • Adoption assistance benefits
  • Health savings accounts or HSAs under IRS Code Section 223

Some employers want to offer other benefits through a cafeteria plan, but this is prohibited. Benefits that you cannot offer through a cafeteria plan include scholarships, group term life insurance for non-employees, transportation and other fringe benefits, long-term care, and health reimbursement arrangements (unless very specific rules are met by providing one in conjunction with a high deductible health plan). Benefits that defer compensation are also prohibited under cafeteria plan rules.

Cafeteria plans as a whole are not subject to ERISA, but all or some of the underlying benefits or components under the plan can be. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) has also affected aspects of cafeteria plan administration.

Employees are allowed to choose the benefits they want by making elections. Only the employee can make elections, but they can make choices that cover other individuals such as spouses or dependents. Employees must be considered eligible by the plan to make elections. Elections, with an exception for new hires, must be prospective. Cafeteria plan selections are considered irrevocable and cannot be changed during the plan year, unless a permitted change in status occurs. There is an exception for mandatory two-year elections relating to dental or vision plans that meet certain requirements.

Plans may allow participants to change elections based on the following changes in status:

  • Change in marital status
  • Change in the number of dependents
  • Change in employment status
  • A dependent satisfying or ceasing to satisfy dependent eligibility requirements
  • Change in residence
  • Commencement or termination of adoption proceedings

Plans may also allow participants to change elections based on the following changes that are not a change in status but nonetheless can trigger an election change:

  • Significant cost changes
  • Significant curtailment (or reduction) of coverage
  • Addition or improvement of benefit package option
  • Change in coverage of spouse or dependent under another employer plan
  • Loss of certain other health coverage (such as government provided coverage, such as Medicaid)
  • Changes in 401(k) contributions (employees are free to change their 401(k) contributions whenever they wish, in accordance with the administrator’s change process)
  • HIPAA special enrollment rights (contains requirements for HIPAA subject plans)
  • COBRA qualifying event
  • Judgment, decrees, or orders
  • Entitlement to Medicare or Medicaid
  • Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) leave
  • Pre-tax health savings account (HSA) contributions (employees are free to change their HSA contributions whenever they wish, in accordance with the their payroll/accounting department process)
  • Reduction of hours (new under the ACA)
  • Exchange/Marketplace enrollment (new under the ACA)

Together, the change in status events and other recognized changes are considered “permitted election change events.”

Common changes that do not constitute a permitted election change event are: a provider leaving a network (unless, based on very narrow circumstances, it resulted in a significant reduction of coverage), a legal separation (unless the separation leads to a loss of eligibility under the plan), commencement of a domestic partner relationship, or a change in financial condition.

There are some events not in the regulations that could allow an individual to make a mid-year election change, such as a mistake by the employer or employee, or needing to change elections in order to pass nondiscrimination tests. To make a change due to a mistake, there must be clear and convincing evidence that the mistake has been made. For instance, an individual might accidentally sign up for family coverage when they are single with no children, or an employer might withhold $100 dollars per pay period for a flexible spending arrangement (FSA) when the individual elected to withhold $50.

Plans are permitted to make automatic payroll election increases or decreases for insignificant amounts in the middle of the plan year, so long as automatic election language is in the plan documents. An “insignificant” amount is considered one percent or less.

Plans should consider which change in status events to allow, how to track change in status requests, and the time limit to impose on employees who wish to make an election.

Cafeteria plans are not required to allow employees to change their elections, but plans that do allow changes must follow IRS requirements. These requirements include consistency, plan document allowance, documentation, and timing of the election change. For complete details on each of these requirements—as well as numerous examples of change in status events, including scenarios involving employees or their spouses or dependents entering into domestic partnerships, ending periods of incarceration, losing or gaining TRICARE coverage, and cost changes to an employer health plan—request UBA’s ACA Advisor, “Cafeteria Plans: Qualifying Events and Changing Employee Elections”.

By Danielle Capilla
Originally published by www.ubabenefits.com

On December 13, 2016, former President Obama signed the 21st Century Cures Act into law. The Cures Act has numerous components, but employers should be aware of the impact the Act will have on the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act, as well as provisions that will impact how small employers can use health reimbursement arrangements (HRAs). There will also be new guidance for permitted uses and disclosures of protected health information (PHI) under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). We review the implications with HRAs below; for a discussion of all the implications, view UBA’s Compliance Advisor, “21st Century Cares Act”.

The Cures Act provides a method for certain small employers to reimburse individual health coverage premiums up to a dollar limit through HRAs called “Qualified Small Employer Health Reimbursement Arrangements” (QSE HRAs). This provision will go into effect on January 1, 2017.

Previously, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) issued Notice 2015-17 addressing employer payment or reimbursement of individual premiums in light of the requirements of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA). For many years, employers had been permitted to reimburse premiums paid for individual coverage on a tax-favored basis, and many smaller employers adopted this type of an arrangement instead of sponsoring a group health plan. However, these “employer payment plans” are often unable to meet all of the ACA requirements that took effect in 2014, and in a series of Notices and frequently asked questions (FAQs) the IRS made it clear that an employer may not either directly pay premiums for individual policies or reimburse employees for individual premiums on either an after-tax or pre-tax basis. This was the case whether payment or reimbursement is done through an HRA, a Section 125 plan, a Section 105 plan, or another mechanism.

The Cures Act now allows employers with less than 50 full-time employees (under ACA counting methods) who do not offer group health plans to use QSE HRAs that are fully employer funded to reimburse employees for the purchase of individual health care, so long as the reimbursement does not exceed $4,950 annually for single coverage, and $10,000 annually for family coverage. The amount is prorated by month for individuals who are not covered by the arrangement for the entire year. Practically speaking, the monthly limit for single coverage reimbursement is $412, and the monthly limit for family coverage reimbursement is $833. The limits will be updated annually.

Impact on Subsidy Eligibility. For any month an individual is covered by a QSE HRA/individual policy arrangement, their subsidy eligibility would be reduced by the dollar amount provided for the month through the QSE HRA if the QSE HRA provides “unaffordable” coverage under ACA standards. If the QSE HRA provides affordable coverage, individuals would lose subsidy eligibility entirely. Caution should be taken to fully education employees on this impact.

COBRA and ERISA Implications. QSE HRAs are not subject to COBRA or ERISA.

Annual Notice Requirement. The new QSE HRA benefit has an annual notice requirement for employers who wish to implement it. Written notice must be provided to eligible employees no later than 90 days prior to the beginning of the benefit year that contains the following:

  • The dollar figure the individual is eligible to receive through the QSE HRA
  • A statement that the eligible employee should provide information about the QSE HRA to the Marketplace or Exchange if they have applied for an advance premium tax credit
  • A statement that employees who are not covered by minimum essential coverage (MEC) for any month may be subject to penalty

Recordkeeping, IRS Reporting. Because QSE HRAs can only provide reimbursement for documented healthcare expense, employers with QSE HRAs should have a method in place to obtain and retain receipts or confirmation for the premiums that are paid with the account. Employers sponsoring QSE HRAs would be subject to ACA related reporting with Form 1095-B as the sponsor of MEC. Money provided through a QSE HRA must be reported on an employee’s W-2 under the aggregate cost of employer-sponsored coverage. It is unclear if the existing safe harbor on reporting the aggregate cost of employer-sponsored coverage for employers with fewer than 250 W-2s would apply, as arguably many of the small employers eligible to offer QSE HRAs would have fewer than 250 W-2s.

Individual Premium Reimbursement, Generally. Outside of the exception for small employers using QSE HRAs for reimbursement of individual premiums, all of the prior prohibitions from IRS Notice 2015-17 remain. There is no method for an employer with 50 or more full time employees to reimburse individual premiums, or for small employers with a group health plan to reimburse individual premiums. There is no mechanism for employers of any size to allow employees to use pre-tax dollars to purchase individual premiums. Reimbursing individual premiums in a non-compliant manner will subject an employer to a penalty of $100 a day per individual they provide reimbursement to, with the potential for other penalties based on the mechanism of the non-compliant reimbursement.

By Danielle Capilla
Originally published by www.ubabenefits.com

Employer-sponsored health insurance is greatly affected by geographic region, industry, and employer size. While some cost trends have been fairly consistent since the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) was put in place, United Benefit Advisors (UBA) finds several surprises in their 2016 Health Plan Survey.

Based on responses from more than 11,000 employers, UBA announces the top five best and worst states for group health care costs.

Watch this short video and contact us for more information about the Survey!

Many employers benchmark their health plan against carrier provided national data. While that is a good place to start, regional cost averages vary, making it essential to benchmark both nationally and regionally—as well as state by state. For example, a significant difference exists between the cost to insure an employee in the Northeast versus the Central U.S.—plans in the Northeast continue to cost the most since they typically have lower deductibles, contain more state-mandated benefits, and feature higher in-network coinsurance, among other factors.

UBA Health Plan Survey Costs by Region

Drilling down even more, comparing yourself to your industry peers can tell a very different story.

UBA Health Plan Survey Costs by Industry

Consider a manufacturing plant in Georgia that offers a PPO. Its premium cost for single coverage is $507 per month. Compare this with the benchmarks for all plans and you can see that it is $2 per month less than the national average. When compared with other PPOs in the Southeast region, this employer’s cost is actually $2 more than the average. This employer’s cost appears to be higher or lower compared with national and regional benchmarks, depending on which benchmark is used. Yet this employer’s cost is actually higher than its closest peers’ costs when using the state-specific benchmark, which in Georgia is $468. Bottom line, this employer’s monthly single premium is actually $39 more than its competitors in the state.UBA Health Plan Survey Plan Comparison

As our CEO, Les McPhearson, recently stated, “Benchmarking by state, region, industry, and group size is critical. We see it time and time again, especially with new clients. An employer benchmarks their rates nationally and they seem at or below average, but once we look at their rates by plan type across multiple carriers and among their neighboring competitors or like-size groups, we find many employers leave a lot on the bargaining table.”

By RJ Nelson
Originally published by www.ubabenefits.com

 

Determining how an employer develops the most effective formulary, while protecting the financial stability of the plan, is certainly the challenge of this decade. Prescription management used to mean monitoring that the right people are taking medications to control their disease while creating strategies to move them from brand name to generic medications. With the dawn of specialty medications, formulary management has become a game of maximizing the pass-through of rebates, creating the best prior authorization strategies and tiering of benefits to create some barrier to more expensive medications, all without becoming too disruptive. As benefits managers know, that is a difficult challenge. The latest UBA Health Plan Survey revealed that 53.6 percent of plans offer four tiers or more, a 21.5 percent increase from last year and nearly a 55.5 percent increase in just two years. Thus, making “tiering” a top strategy to control drug costs. There are many additional opportunities to improve and help control the pharmacy investment, but focusing on the key components of formulary management and working on solutions that decrease the demands for medications are critical to successful plan management.

When developing a formulary, Brenda Motheral, RPh, MBA, Ph.D., CEO of Archimedes, suggests that chasing rebates is not a strategy to optimize your investment. Some of the highest rebates may be from medications that add no better therapeutic value than an inexpensive medication that does not offer a rebate, but net cost is much lower than the brand or specialty medication being offered. Best formulary management will mean that specific medications that do not offer a significant therapeutic value are removed from the formulary, or are covered at a “referenced price” so the member pays the cost difference. Formulary management will need to focus on where the drug is filled and which medications are available.

When setting up parameters on where a drug is to be filled, the decision needs to be made if a plan will promote mail order. Mail order, if used and monitored appropriately, makes it more convenient for a patient to receive their regularly used medications and may provide savings. In fact, the UBA Health Plan Survey finds that more than one-third (36.3 percent) of prescription drug plans provide a 90-day supply at a cost of two times retail copays. But if mail order programs are not monitored, people can continue to receive medications that are no longer required and never used, adding to medical spend waste. Furthermore, in our analysis, we are finding that not all medications are less expensive through mail order, as shown in Figure 1 below. Therefore, examining the cost differential is critical in a decision to promote, or not promote, mail order.

Figure 1

Drug Name Rx Category Mail Order Retail
Zytiga® Malignancies $8,749 $6,027
Sumatriptan Succinate Migrane / Neurologic $575 $308
Ranexa® Cardiovascular $259 $413

 

Another formulary consideration is in monitoring the increase in same drug pricing. The stories surrounding the price increases of EpiPens® has been well-documented, but how well do you understand the impact of price increases on your plan? Monitoring price increases, as shown in Figure 2, may help an employer turn to their pharmacy benefit manager (PBM) to ask for help in controlling these price increases, or help in decisions related to formulary inclusion.

Figure 2

Drug Name Rx Category Plan Paid per
30-day Supply
(SPLY)
Plan Paid per
30-day Supply
Cialis® Genito-Urinary / Acute Minor $287 $442
AndroGel® Endocrine / Chronic Meidcal $471 $523
Viagra® Genito-Urinary / Acute Minor $615 $978

 

Formulary management solutions can become a cat-and-mouse game. The ultimate approach to manage the total spending on medications is by managing the growing demand. There has been significant press related to the opioid overutilization in the U.S., as illustrated in the article “Prescription Addiction.” But that issue is much broader in our society and relates to taking a pill as a quick solution to solve our medical problems. In March 2016, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) stated that 30 percent of the growth in spending related to medications was due to an increase in prescriptions per person. Certainly, medications should be used when there are no alternatives to control disease or pain. However, turning to medications as a first option for chronic condition control for issues like hypertension, blood sugar control, cholesterol control versus improving diet and exercise, etc., is just a band-aid solution that, in most cases, does not resolve the root issue. Yet, because this is sold as a quick fix, we see an increase in the number of individuals on medications. In 2012, 34 percent of plan members engaged in Vital Incite were taking four or more (active ingredients) medications, and that has grown to more than 45 percent in 2016. The data also illustrates that in 2012 more than 42 percent of members were not on any medications, but that group size has shrunk to only 27 percent. No formulary can impact this issue.

Active Ingredient Use, All Clients, All Members 21 Years and Older

This increased use could be considered an improvement in care if their disease were more controlled. Appropriate and medically-impactful utilization would mean that a person is working toward improving diet and exercise and is taking the least expensive, yet effective, medication to control his or her disease.

Considering that diabetes medication options have really expanded, an employer would hope that the more expensive medication is providing the best control of disease. But, taking the medication alone will not control the disease and, at times, the progression of the medication cost can be related to progression of the disease due to a lack of disease management. For instance, a diabetic may have progressed from taking metphormin (marketed under the tradename Glucophage® among others), which costs approximately $27 per month, to metphormin ER (Glucophage® XR), which allows a person to take only one pill a day, so it may provide increased compliance, but costs $274 per month. Now, the option of taking Glumetza® is offered, which can be reimbursed at up to $3,620 per month, and is said to provide more stable results. But, if we examine the A1c control values from Vital Incite, do we find the reduction in A1c values as evidence that this additional investment in medication options is providing better control? Figure 3 provides an example of A1c control by prescription status. The goal would be that those on medications will become controlled. But, in our data, we are not seeing a significant improvement in persons with HgA1c levels above 7 percent. Control is achieved from diet, exercise, and appropriate medications. There are theories that people on these more expensive medications are using that as an approach to help them maintain their unhealthy behaviors. Therefore, taking medications alone does not appear to provide an effective solution and, in fact, providing chronic condition medications for free, without requiring any other effort, may not be the best investment for an employer.

Figure 3

HgA1c Level In Treatment Untreated Discontinued
Treatment
Possibly
Untreated
< 5.7 6 1 2 3
5.7 to 6.4 21 2 1 11
6.5 to 7.0 17 7
> 7.0 53 4 5

 

In conclusion, determining which issues are having the most impact on an employer group will allow benefits managers to determine the company’s priorities. This is not an easy task, but with pharmacy spend increasing at a national average of 7.3 percent annually and becoming a higher percentage of the overall medical spend, new strategies need to be considered. Focusing on the key components that balance formulary management with the correct approach to manage the demand on medications can influence total pharmacy spend.

Originally published by www.ubabenefits.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

 

Question: If an employee has a small health flexible spending account (FSA) balance with a carryover to the next year, and the employee chooses not to participate in the new FSA year, can the employer force the employee to use those funds so as not to incur additional administrative fees in the next plan year?

Answer: An employer can prevent “perpetual carryovers” by carefully drafting the cafeteria plan document with respect to carryover amounts. IRS guidance allows carryovers to be limited to individuals who have elected to participate in the health FSA in the next plan year. Health FSAs may also require that carryover amounts be forfeited if not used within a specified period of time, such as one year. Note that this plan design requires additional administration (to track the time limit for each carryover dollar, for instance) as well as ordering rules (e.g., will carryovers be used first?), so you will need to carefully review the cafeteria plan document. Under no circumstances are amounts returned to participants.

According to IRS guidance, a health FSA may limit the availability of the carryover of unused amounts (subject to the $500 limit) to individuals who have elected to participate in the health FSA in the next year, even if the ability to participate in that next year requires a minimum salary reduction election to the health FSA for that next year. For example, an employer sponsors a cafeteria plan offering a health FSA that permits up to $500 of unused health FSA amounts to be carried over to the next year in compliance with Notice 2013-71, but only if the employee participates in the health FSA during that next year. To participate in the health FSA, an employee must contribute a minimum of $60 ($5 per calendar month). As of December 31, 2016, Employee A and Employee B each have $25 remaining in their health FSA. Employee A elects to participate in the health FSA for 2017, making a $600 salary reduction election. Employee B elects not to participate in the health FSA for 2017. Employee A has $25 carried over to the health FSA for 2017, resulting in $625 available in the health FSA. Employee B forfeits the $25 as of December 31, 2016 and has no funds available in the health FSA thereafter. This arrangement is a permissible health FSA carryover feature under Notice 2013171. The IRS also clarifies that a health FSA may limit the ability to carry over unused amounts to a maximum period (subject to the $500 limit). For example, a health FSA can limit the ability to carry over unused amounts to one year. Thus, if an individual carried over $30 and did not elect any additional amounts for the next year, the health FSA may require forfeiture of any amount remaining at the end of that next year.

Originally published by www.thinkhr.com

With the election of a new President, health care plans and the fate of the Affordable Care Act are a hot topic of discussion. As part of his 7-tier health plan, President-Elect Donald Trump has proposed a shift in the way health savings accounts (HSAs) are offered to working Americans. Simply put, an HSA is a savings account for medical expenses. They are tax advantaged accounts an individual can open in addition to their current health plan to pay out-of-pocket expenses ranging from co-pays to surgery deductibles. Typically, HSAs have been offered to individuals with high deductible health plans (HDHPs). However, if the President-Elect’s new health plan strategy is enacted, an HDHP would no longer be an eligibility requirement, significantly impacting healthcare options for millions of Americans.

HSA vs. FSA – Which one is right for you?

When choosing a savings account for medical expenses there are two options: HSAs and FSAs. Each type of account is generally non-taxable for qualified medical expenses, except under certain circumstances in which a medical expense was incurred prior to opening an HSA, and each is accumulated by contributions from your paycheck. Some employers offer HSA and FSA matching contributions.

In the past, there have been some prominent differences between health savings accounts and flexible spending accounts (FSAs). Traditionally, FSAs have been the option for those who choose health plans with low deductibles. The money you contribute from your paycheck into your FSA account must be spent within the year, and cannot be rolled over. Conversely, you must have an HDHP to open an HSA, and funds accumulated from paychecks can be rolled over into the next year if left unused.

Accumulating tax advantages have made HSAs more popular and beneficial in comparison to FSAs. When it comes to changing jobs, HSAs typically are not affected, while FSAs are impacted due to restrictions in rollover of funds. However, FSAs do not have eligibility requirements, which have made them more widely available to individuals.

What’s Next? How HSAs would change under Trump’s health plan

Trump’s new health plan would make HSAs readily available to everyone by removing the HDHP eligibility requirements that are currently in place. In addition to this drastic barrier removal, Trump has said he will change policy to allow families to share the accounts between one another. Any contribution or interest-earned by an HSA is tax-deductible, and individuals with HSAs can withdrawal money tax-free for certain medical expenses ranging from transplants to acupuncture. The combination of these three tax-advantages creates an unmatched savings option for those who choose HSAs. While Trump has said he will change some factors of HSAs, he plans to keep these tax advantages.

Who will benefit from the new HSA model?

In the past, HSAs have been more attractive for retirees. Health care costs tend to rise in the retirement stage of life, which makes an HSA a more cost-efficient option for retirees. Since individuals are allowed to take out money for medical expenses without being taxed, retirees have the potential to save large amounts of money in the later stages of their life. However, under Trump’s proposed plan, HSAs will also become increasingly attractive for younger people. Because individuals will continue to be allowed to roll over money contributed to their HSA in a given year into the next, young and healthy people will be able to save sizable amounts for use later in life.

While much remains to be seen about which aspects of President-Elect Trump’s health plan will be enacted when he takes office, take the time now to educate yourself on how an HSA can work for you.

By Nicole Federico and Kate McGaughey

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

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