Login to MedCon Connect for Live Updates

Your trusted advisors at MedCon Benefit Systems Group, Inc. would like to take this opportunity to remind our clients to login to MedCon Connect for live updates regarding health care reform and other compliance related issues. MedCon Connect is our company portal designed exclusively for clients so they may have access to a myriad of HR and Benefits related resources. Anything from wellness program design, health care reform related notices, employee handbook templates to benchmark surveys can be found within the portal, available to clients 24/7.

Although we attempt to update this blog on a regular basis, the portal and direct client communications via email are our primary avenues for compliance updates. As always, you may also contact us directly.

The Effects of Age Rating Band Changes Under Health Care Reform

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) includes provisions that prohibit discrimination by health plans against people with pre-existing conditions and provide certain protections for consumers. Effective for plan years beginning on or after Jan. 1, 2014, ACA extends guaranteed issue protections for individuals and employers, prohibits the use of health and other factors to set premium rates, limits age rating and prohibits insurers from dividing up insurance pools.

On Feb. 22, 2013, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) released an advance copy of a final rule regarding ACA’s health insurance market reforms and existing rate review program. These reforms apply to health insurance issuers offering non-grandfathered coverage both inside and outside of ACA’s health insurance exchanges (Exchanges).

Fair Health Insurance Premiums

ACA and the final rule limit the factors that can vary premium rates in small group and individual markets for non-grandfathered plans. Specifically, health insurance issuers will only be allowed to vary premiums based on:

  • Age (within a 3:1 ratio for adults);
  • Tobacco use (within a 1.5:1 ratio, subject to wellness program requirements in the small group market);
  • Family size; and
  • Geography.

All other rating factors are prohibited. This means that several factors frequently used to set premiums, such as health status, claims history, duration of coverage, gender, occupation, small employer size and industry, can no longer be used.

These limitations represent minimum federal standards for fair health insurance premiums. States can choose to enact stronger consumer restrictions. In addition, starting in 2017, states have the option of allowing large employers to purchase coverage through the Exchanges. For states that choose this option, these rating rules would also apply to all large group health insurance coverage.

Naturally, older patients tend to utilize health care more than younger patients. Currently the 5:1 age rate band, which is effective in 42 states, spreads the premium costs over 5 ranges of age groups. An older individual will pay no more than five times what a younger individual pays in premium, as set by the limits. On January 1, 2014, those premium costs will change overnight for both groups, with the younger patients’ premiums going up as much as 50% and the older patients’ premiums dropping up to 10%. While this is great news for some, it will likely drive premium rates even higher overall. If the younger population experiences an increase in premium that is unaffordable, they may choose not to purchase coverage or possibly drop current coverage. As the young patients drop off and leave only older patients who utilize health care more frequently, premiums will increase for everyone.

Age rating band changes, combined with limitations on other rating factors such as gender, health status and loss of SIC code discounts will increase your group coverage costs in 2014. Additionally, there are several fees which will become effective in January: exchange fees, insurance assessment fees, health insurance industry fees and the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute Fee. While insurance companies are responsible for some of these fees, much of the cost will likely be shifted employers and in turn, employees.

Some industry experts expect fully insured health plans to experience minimum increases of 30% on 2014 renewals. As HHS releases new information almost daily, MedCon Benefit Systems Group, Inc. is assisting clients in plan design strategy and preparation to meet compliance rules. If you are unsure where you stand in the world of health care reform, MedCon is here to help.

Sources: Department of Health and Human Services and Insurance Network America

*The information discussed on this page is not intended to be exhaustive nor should any discussion or opinion be construed as legal advice. Readers should contact legal counsel for legal advice.

HHS to Delay Part of Small Employer Exchanges

Beginning in 2014, individuals and small employers will be able to purchase health insurance through online competitive marketplaces, or Exchanges. The Affordable Care Act (ACA) requires each state that chooses to operate an Exchange to also establish a Small Business Health Options Program (SHOP) Exchange. The SHOP Exchange is intended to assist eligible small employers in providing health insurance for their employees.

HHS will establish and operate a federally-facilitated Exchange (FFE) in each state that does not establish its own Exchange. The FFE will include both individual market and SHOP components.

Small employers with up to 100 employees will be eligible to participate in the Exchanges. However, until 2016, states may limit participation in the SHOP Exchanges to businesses with up to 50 employees. Beginning in 2017, states may allow businesses with more than 100 employees to participate in the Exchanges.

On March 11, 2013, HHS issued a proposed rule that would amend some of the standards for SHOP Exchanges. Most notably, the proposed rule creates a transition policy regarding an employee’s choice of qualified health plans (QHPs) in the SHOP. The transition policy would delay implementation of the employee choice model as a requirement for all SHOPs for one year, until 2015.

FUNCTIONS OF THE SHOP EXCHANGE

On March 27, 2012, HHS issued a final rule on establishment of the Exchanges. This final rule describes the minimum functions of a SHOP. The final rule provides that a SHOP must allow employers the option to offer employees all QHPs at a level of coverage chosen by the employer—bronze, silver, gold or platinum. In addition, the final rule permits SHOPs to allow a qualified employer to choose one QHP for its employees.

In a separate final rule issued in March 2013, HHS provided that the federally-facilitated SHOP (FF-SHOP) would give employers the choice of offering only a single QHP, as employers customarily do today, in addition to the choice of offering all QHPs at a single level of coverage.

TRANSITION POLICY

In the proposed rule, HHS provides a transition policy for 2014 plan years that is intended to provide all SHOPs (both state SHOPs and the FF-SHOP) with additional time to prepare for the employee choice model.

Under the transition policy, for plan years beginning on or after Jan. 1, 2014, and before Jan. 1, 2015, state SHOPs would not have to allow employers to offer their employees a choice of QHPs at a single level of coverage. However, a SHOP may decide to provide this option to employers for 2014 plan years.

In addition, for plan years beginning on or after Jan. 1, 2014, and before Jan. 1, 2015, FF-SHOPs would not allow qualified employers to offer their employees a choice of QHPs at a single level of coverage. For 2014 plan years, the FF-SHOP would assist employers in choosing a single QHP to offer their qualified employees.

According to HHS, the transition policy would increase the stability of the small group market while providing small groups with the benefits of SHOP in 2014 (for example, choice among competing QHPs and access for qualifying small employers to the small business health insurance tax credit).

The 2012 final rule also included a premium aggregation function for the SHOP that was designed to assist employers whose employees were enrolled in multiple QHPs. Because this function will not be necessary in 2014 for SHOPs that delay implementation of the employee choice model, the proposed rule would make the premium aggregation function optional for plan years beginning before Jan. 1, 2015.

MedCon Benefit Systems, Inc. will continue to monitor health care reform developments and will provide updated information as it becomes available.

*This Legislative Brief is not intended to be exhaustive nor should any discussion or opinion be construed as legal advice. Readers should contact legal counsel for legal advice.

Exchange Notice Requirements Delayed

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) requires employers to provide all new hires and current employees with a written notice about ACA’s health insurance exchanges (Exchanges), effective March 1, 2013.

On Jan. 24, 2013, the Department of Labor (DOL) announced that employers will not be held to the March 1, 2013, deadline. They will not have to comply until final regulations are issued and a final effective date is specified.

This MedCon Benefit Systems, Inc. Legislative Brief details the expected timeline for the exchange notice requirements.

Exchange Notice Requirements

In general, the notice must:

  • Inform employees about the existence of the Exchange and give a description of the services provided by the Exchange;
  • Explain how employees may be eligible for a premium tax credit or a cost-sharing reduction if the employer’s plan does not meet certain requirements;
  • Inform employees that if they purchase coverage through the Exchange, they may lose any employer contribution toward the cost of employer-provided coverage, and that all or a portion of this employer contribution may be excludable for federal income tax purposes; and
  • Include contact information for the Exchange and an explanation of appeal rights.

This requirement is found in Section 18B of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), which was created by the ACA. The DOL has not yet issued a model notice or regulations about the employer notice requirement.

When do Employers have to Comply with the Exchange Notice Requirements?

Section 18B provides that employer compliance with the notice requirements must be carried out “[i]n accordance with regulations promulgated by the Secretary [of Labor].” Accordingly, the DOL has announced that, until regulations are issued and become applicable, employers are not required to comply with the exchange notice requirements.

The DOL has concluded that the notice requirement will not take effect on March 1, 2013, for several reasons. First, this notice should be coordinated with HHS’s educational efforts and IRS guidance on minimum value. Second, the DOL is committed to a smooth implementation process, including:

  • Providing employers with sufficient time to comply; and
  • Selecting an applicability date that ensures that employees receive the information at a meaningful time.

The DOL expects that the timing for distribution of notices will be the late summer or fall of 2013, which will coordinate with the open enrollment period for Exchanges.

The DOL is considering providing model, generic language that could be used to satisfy the notice requirement. As a compliance alternative, the DOL is also considering allowing employers to satisfy the notice requirement by providing employees with information using the employer coverage template as discussed in the preamble to the Proposed Rule on Medicaid, Children’s Health Insurance Programs and Exchanges.

Future guidance on complying with the notice requirement under FLSA section 18B is expected to provide flexibility and adequate time to comply.

Source: U.S. Department of Labor

 

*This MedCon Benefit Systems, Inc. Legislative Brief is not intended to be exhaustive nor should any discussion or opinions be construed as legal advice. Readers should contact legal counsel for legal advice.

Form W-2 Reporting Requirements

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) requires employers to report the aggregate cost of employer-sponsored group health plan coverage on their employees’ Forms W-2. The purpose of the reporting requirement is to provide information to employees regarding how much their health coverage costs. The reporting does not mean that the cost of the coverage is taxable to employees.

This reporting requirement was originally effective for the 2011 tax year (for the W-2 Forms due by the end of January 2012). However, the IRS later made reporting optional for 2011 for all employers. The IRS further delayed the reporting requirement for small employers (those that file fewer than 250 Forms W-2) by making it optional for these employers until further guidance is issued. For the larger employers, the reporting requirement is mandatory for the 2012 Forms W-2 (that must be issued by the end of January 2013).

The IRS has provided interim guidance on how employers should comply with the Form W-2 reporting requirement. This guidance was first issued in April 2011 in Notice 2011-28. The IRS then revised and clarified its interim guidance by releasing Notice 2012-9 on Jan. 3, 2012. Notice 2012-9 provides technical reporting information for employers that include health coverage cost information on Forms W-2 for 2012 and later years. Employers that voluntarily comply with the reporting requirement for 2011 may also rely on the IRS’s interim guidance in Notice 2012-9.

This MedCon Benefit Systems, Inc. Legislative Brief describes the Form W-2 reporting requirement, including guidance provided by the IRS in Notice 2012-9.

Form W-2 Reporting Requirement

Section 9002(a) of ACA provides that employers must disclose the aggregate cost of applicable employer-sponsored coverage provided to employees on the Form W-2. Section 9002(a) specifically adds this information to the list of other items that must be included on the Form W-2. These items include information such as the individual’s name, social security number, wages, tax deducted, the total amount incurred for dependent care assistance under a dependent care assistance program and the amount contributed to any health savings account (HSA) by the employee or his or her spouse.

The inclusion of this information on the Form W-2 does not change the requirements with respect to taxable income, or the tax exclusion for amounts paid for medical care or coverage. Those items are addressed in another portion of the tax law that is not affected by this change. However, this information may be used to determine whether a plan is a “Cadillac plan” for purposes of the excise tax on high-cost health plans that will take effect in 2018.

The IRS has clarified that the reporting rule does not require an employer to issue a Form W-2 including the aggregate cost of coverage to an individual if the employer does not otherwise have to issue a W-2 for that person. For example, an employer would not have to issue a Form W-2 to a retiree or other former employee receiving no reportable compensation.

Employers Subject to the Reporting Requirement

In general, all employers that provide applicable employer-sponsored coverage must comply with the Form W-2 reporting requirement. This includes government entities, churches and religious organizations, but does not include Indian tribal governments or tribally chartered corporations wholly owned by an Indian tribal government.

For 2012, small employers are not subject to the reporting requirement. Small employers will continue to be exempt from the reporting requirement for later years, unless and until the IRS issues further guidance.

An employer is considered a small employer if it had to file fewer than 250 Forms W-2 for the prior calendar year. Thus, if an employer is required to file fewer than 250 Forms W-2 for 2011, the employer would not be subject to the reporting requirement for 2012. The IRS has indicated that the Internal Revenue Code’s aggregation rules do not apply for purposes of determining whether an employer filed fewer than 250 Forms W-2 for the prior year. However, if an employer files fewer than 250 Forms W-2 only because it uses an agent to file them, the employer does not qualify for the small employer exemption.

Coverage That Must Be Reported

Under the Form W-2 reporting requirement, the information that must be reported relates to “applicable employer-sponsored coverage.” Applicable employer-sponsored coverage is, with respect to any employee, coverage under any group health plan made available to the employee by the employer which is excludable from the employee’s gross income under Code section 106.

For purposes of this reporting requirement, it does not matter whether the employer or the employee pays for the coverage – it is the aggregate cost of the coverage that must be reported. The aggregate cost of the coverage is determined using rules similar to those used for determining the applicable premiums for purposes of COBRA continuation coverage. It must be determined on a calendar year basis.

Some types of coverage do not need to be reported on the Form W-2 under this requirement. These are:

  • Coverage under a dental or vision plan that is not integrated into a group health plan providing other types of health coverage;
  • Coverage under a health reimbursement arrangement (HRA);
  • Coverage under a multiemployer plan;
  • Coverage for long-term care;
  • Coverage under a self-insured group health plan that is not subject to COBRA (such as a church plan);
  • Coverage provided by the government primarily for members of the military and their families;
  • Excepted benefits, such as accident or disability income insurance, liability insurance, or workers’ compensation insurance;
  • Coverage for a specific disease or illness or hospital indemnity or other fixed indemnity insurance, provided the coverage is offered as independent, noncoordinated benefits and payment for the benefits is taxable to the employee; and
  • Coverage under an employee assistance program (EAP), wellness program or on-site medical clinic if the employer does not charge COBRA beneficiaries a premium for the benefits.

The reporting requirement does not apply to amounts contributed to an Archer medical savings account (Archer MSA) or amounts contributed to an HSA. Those amounts are already required to be separately accounted for on the Form W-2.

Also, salary reduction contributions to a health flexible spending arrangement (FSA) under a cafeteria plan are not required to be reported. However, if the amount of the health FSA for the plan year (including optional employer flex credits) exceeds the salary reduction elected by the employee for the plan year, the amount of the health FSA minus the salary reduction election for the health FSA must be reported.

Example: ABC Company maintains a cafeteria plan that offers permitted taxable benefits (including cash) and qualified nontaxable benefits (including a health FSA). The plan offers a flex credit in the form of a match of each employee’s salary reduction contribution. Sandy makes a $700 salary reduction election for a health FSA. ABC Company provides an additional $700 to the health FSA to match Sandy’s salary reduction election. The amount of the health FSA for Sandy for the plan year is $1,400. The amount of Sandy’s health FSA ($1,400) for the plan year exceeds the salary reduction election ($700) for the plan year. ABC Company must include $700 ($1,400 health FSA amount minus $700 salary reduction) in determining the aggregate reportable cost.

In addition, employers may include in the Form W-2 reportable amount the cost of coverage that is not required to be included in the aggregate reportable cost, such as HRA coverage, provided the coverage is applicable employer-sponsored coverage and is calculated under a permissible method.

Methods of Reporting

Coverage Provided after Termination of Employment

If an employer provides coverage (such as continuation coverage) to an employee who terminates employment during the year, the employer may apply any reasonable method of reporting the cost of coverage for that year, as long as that method is used consistently for all employees. Regardless of the method used, an employer does not have to report any amount for an employee who requests a Form W-2 before the end of the calendar year in which the employee terminated employment.

Example: Bob is an employee of XYZ Company on January 1, and continues employment through April 25. Bob had individual coverage under XYZ Company’s group health plan through April 30, with a cost of coverage of $350 per month. Bob elected continuation coverage for the six months following termination of employment, covering the period May 1 through October 31, for which he paid $350 per month. XYZ Company will have applied a reasonable method of reporting Bob’s cost of coverage if it uses either of the following methods consistently for all employees who terminate coverage during the year:

  • Reports $1,400 as the reportable cost under the plan for the year, covering the four months during which Bob performed services and had coverage as an active employee; or
  • Reports $3,500 as the reportable cost under the plan for the year, covering both the monthly periods during which Bob performed services and had coverage as an active employee, and the monthly periods during which Bob had continuation coverage under the plan.

Programs with Non-reportable Benefits

Also, if a program offers benefits that must be reported, and other benefits that are not subject to reporting, an employer may use any reasonable allocation method to determine the cost of the portion of the program providing a reportable benefit. If the portion of the program that provides a reportable benefit is only incidental in comparison to the portion of the program providing other benefits, the employer is not required to include either portion of the cost on the Form W-2.

Coverage Periods Spanning Calendar Years

If a coverage period, such as the final payroll period of a calendar year, includes December 31 and continues into the next calendar year, the employer has the following options:

  • Treat the coverage as provided during the calendar year that includes December 31;
  • Treat the coverage as provided during the following calendar year; or
  • Allocate the cost of coverage between each of the two calendar years using a reasonable allocation method that is consistently applied to all employees. The allocation method should generally relate to the number of days in the period of coverage that fall within each of the two calendar years.

Compliance Steps for Employers

Employers that file 250 or more Forms W-2 for 2011 will have to comply with the reporting requirement for 2012 (W-2 Forms provided in January 2013). These employers should ensure that they (or their payroll providers) are prepared to gather the health coverage information in advance of having to complete the Forms W-2 for 2012. In doing so, they should make sure they can identify the applicable employer-sponsored coverage that was provided to each employee and be prepared to calculate the aggregate cost of that coverage.

Employers may also have to address questions from employees regarding whether their health benefits are taxable under this new requirement. They can assure employees that this reporting is for informational purposes only, to show employees the value of their health care benefits so they can be more informed consumers. The amount reported does not affect tax liability, as the value of the employer contribution to health coverage continues to be excludible from an employee’s income, and it is not taxable.

 

MedCon Benefit Systems, Inc. will continue to update you if additional information becomes available with respect to this reporting requirement.

How Employers Should Handle MLR Rebates

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) requires health insurance issuers to spend a minimum percentage of their premium dollars on medical care and health care quality improvement. This percentage, or medical loss ratio (MLR), is 85 percent for issuers in the large group market and 80 percent for issuers in the small and individual group markets. Issuers that do not meet the applicable MLR standard must provide rebates to consumers.

The MLR requirements, which are enforced by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), became effective for issuers in 2011. Rebates must be paid by August 1 following the end of the MLR reporting year. Thus, issuers are required to pay rebates by Aug. 1, 2012, based on their 2011 MLRs.

In a report on 2011 MLR data, HHS noted that the vast majority of individuals are insured by issuers that met or exceeded the applicable MLR standard. However, for 2011, issuers in the large and small group markets are still expected to return $386 million and $321 million, respectively, in rebates.

Employers with insured group health plans may receive rebates this summer based on their issuer’s 2011 MLR data. Issuers were required to submit their 2011 MLR reports to HHS by June 1, 2012, so they may already know whether they will be issuing rebates by Aug. 1, 2012. Employers that expect to receive rebates should become familiar with the MLR rebate rules and should decide how they will administer the rebates. For assistance with rebates, please contact your MedCon Benefit Systems, Inc. representative.

MLR rebates

An issuer that does not meet its MLR standard must provide a rebate to the policyholder, which is typically the employer that sponsors the plan in the group health plan context. For current enrollees, issuers may provide rebates in the form of a lump-sum payment or a premium credit (that is, a reduction in the amount of premium owed).

Also, to avoid having to pay a rebate, an issuer may institute a “premium holiday” during an MLR reporting year if it finds that its MLR is lower than the required percentage. According to HHS, an issuer may use a premium holiday only if it is permissible under state law. Also, any issuers using premium holidays must meet certain other requirements, such as providing the holiday in a nondiscriminatory manner and refunding premium overpayments.

How an employer should handle any MLR rebate it receives from an issuer depends on the type of group health plan (an ERISA plan, a non-federal governmental group health plan or a non-ERISA, non-governmental plan) and whether the rebate is considered a plan asset.

ERISA Plans

Most, but not all, group health plans are governed by ERISA. Employers with ERISA plans should not assume that they can simply retain an MLR rebate. The Department of Labor (DOL) issued Technical Release 2011-4 to explain how ERISA’s fiduciary duty and plan asset rules apply to MLR rebates. Any rebate amount that qualifies as a plan asset under ERISA must be used for the exclusive benefit of the plan’s participants and beneficiaries.

Is the Rebate a Plan Asset?

According to Technical Release 2011-4, in the absence of specific plan or policy language addressing these types of distributions, whether the rebate will constitute a plan asset depends, in part, on the identity of the policyholder and on the source of premium payments.

  • If the plan or its trust is the policyholder, the policy is an asset of the plan and the entire rebate must be treated as a plan asset.
  • If the employer is the policyholder, as is most often the case, the portion of the rebate that must be treated as a plan asset depends on who paid the insurance premiums. For example:
    • If the premiums were paid entirely out of trust assets, the entire rebate amount is a plan asset;
      • If the employer paid 100 percent of the premiums, the rebate is not a plan asset and the employer can retain the entire rebate amount;
  • If participants paid 100 percent of the premiums, the entire rebate amount is a plan asset; and
    • If the premiums were paid partly by the employer and partly by the participants, the percentage of the rebate equal to the percentage of the cost paid by participants is a plan asset.

How Should the Rebate be Used?

Once an employer determines that all or a portion of an MLR rebate is a plan asset, it must decide how to use the rebate for the exclusive benefit of the plan’s participants and beneficiaries. DOL Technical Release 2011-04 identifies the following methods for applying the rebates:

  • The rebate can be distributed to participants under a reasonable, fair and objective allocation method. If the employer finds that the cost of distributing shares of a rebate to former participants approximates the amount of the proceeds, the fiduciary may decide to limit rebates to current participants.
  • If distributing payments to participants is not cost-effective because the amounts are small or would give rise to tax consequences to the participants, the employer may utilize the rebate for other permissible plan purposes, such as applying the rebate toward future participant premium payments or toward benefit enhancements.

If a plan provides benefits under multiple policies, the employer must be careful to allocate the rebate for a particular policy only to the participants who were covered by that policy. According to the DOL, using a rebate generated by one plan to benefit another plan’s participants would be a breach of fiduciary duty.

Is There a Time Limit for Using Rebates?

To the extent a rebate qualifies as a plan asset, ERISA would generally require the amount to be held in trust. However, most group health plans receiving rebates do not maintain trusts because their premiums are paid from the employer’s general assets (including employee payroll deductions). In Technical Release 2011-4, the DOL provides relief from the trust requirement for premium rebates that are used within three months of their receipt.

In addition, directing an issuer to apply the rebate toward future participant premium payments or toward benefit enhancements adopted by the plan sponsor would avoid the need for a trust and, in some circumstances, may be consistent with the employer’s fiduciary duties. Employers that decide to take this approach should coordinate with their insurance issuers to establish the process for handling rebates.

Non-federal Governmental Plans

Group health plans maintained by non-federal government employers (for example, state and local governments) are not governed by ERISA’s fiduciary standards. HHS’ interim final regulations on the MLR rules address how rebates for these plans should be handled.

Under these regulations, employers must use the portion of the rebate attributable to the amount of premium paid by employees for the benefit of its employees covered under the policy. This portion of the rebate must be applied to reduce employees’ premiums or must be provided to these employees as a cash refund. Under either option, the rebate may be applied to employees enrolled during the year in which the rebate is paid, rather than during the MLR reporting year.

Non-ERISA, Non-governmental Plans

HHS has also addressed rebates for non-governmental group health plans that are not subject to ERISA, such as church plans. Under HHS final regulations, an issuer may make a rebate payment to the policyholder (typically, the employer sponsoring the plan) if it receives the policyholder’s written assurance that the rebate will be used for the benefit of current subscribers using one of the options described above for non-federal governmental plans. Without this written assurance, issuers must pay the rebate directly to employees covered under the policy during the MLR reporting year.

Tax Treatment of Rebates

On April 19, 2012, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) issued a set of frequently asked questions (FAQs) addressing the tax treatment of MLR rebates. In general, the rebates’ tax consequences depend on whether employees paid their premiums on an after-tax or a pre-tax basis.

After-tax Premium Payments

If premiums were paid by employees on an after-tax basis, the rebate will generally not be taxable income to employees and will not be subject to employment taxes. This tax treatment applies if the rebate is paid in cash or if it is applied to reduce current year premiums. However, if an employee deducted the premium payments on his or her prior year taxes, the rebate is taxable to the extent the employee received a tax benefit from the deduction.

Pre-tax Premium Payments

If premiums were paid by employees on a pre-tax basis under a cafeteria plan, the rebate will generally be taxable income to employees in the current year and will be subject to employment taxes. This is the case whether the rebate is paid in cash or is applied to reduce current year premiums. A premium reduction in the current year will reduce the amount that an employee can contribute on a pre-tax basis. Thus, there is a corresponding increase in the employee’s taxable salary that is also wages subject to employment taxes.

Additional Guidance

A copy of DOL Technical Release 2011-4 is available at: www.dol.gov/ebsa/newsroom/tr11-04.html.

A copy of the IRS’ FAQS is available at: www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=256167,00.html.

More MLR guidance is available from HHS at: http://cciio.cms.gov/programs/marketreforms/mlr/index.html.

Legislative Brief: HSA Limits Will Increase for 2013

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) issued Revenue Procedure 2012-26, which increases limits for health savings accounts (HSAs) effective for calendar year 2013. The following HSA limits will increase for 2013.

  • Annual contribution limits for single and family coverage;
  • Maximum out-of-pocket expense limits for coverage under a high deductible health plan (HDHP); and
  • Minimum deductibles for HDHPs.

HSA Contribution Limits

For 2013, the annual HSA contribution limit for an individual with self-only coverage under an HDHP is $3,250 (up from $3,100 for 2012).

For 2013, the annual HSA contribution limit for an individual with family coverage under an HDHP is $6,450 (up from $6,250 for 2012).

HDHP Out-of-Pocket Expense Limits

The maximum out-of-pocket expense (deductibles, co-payments and other amounts, but not premiums) limit for self-only HDHP coverage for 2013 is $6,250, which is up from $6,050 for 2012.

For family HDHP coverage, the maximum out-of-pocket expense limit for 2013 is $12,500, which is up from $12,100 for 2012.

HDHP Deductible Limits

For 2013, the deductibles under an HDHP must be at least $1,250 for self-only coverage (up from $1,200 for 2011 and 2012) and $2,500 for family coverage (up from $2,400 for 2011 and 2012).

**This MedCon Benefit Systems, Inc. Legislative Brief is not intended to be exhaustive nor should any discussion or opinions be construed as legal advice. Readers should contact legal counsel for legal advice. © 2012 Zywave, Inc. All rights reserved.

Health Care Reform in the Supreme Court

Last week, the Supreme Court began hearings regarding the constitutionality of the PPACA. Unum U.S. Senior Vice President and General Counsel Chris Collins released a summary of the major issues to be reviewed by the Court regarding the PPACA.

Likely the most discussed issue thus far has been the constitutionality of the individual mandate, followed by the question of whether or not the PPACA would continue to stand if the individual mandate is deemed unconstitutional. The Court will also need to determine if the case can be decided before 2014 when the “tax penalty” goes into effect.

For the full summary from Chris Collins of Unum, please click here to view. Keep checking back as we follow the Supreme Court activity regarding Health Care Reform.