Page 3 of 3
Employers struggling with how to meet the Affordable Care Act (ACA) regulations received some relief in July 2013 when the U.S. Treasury announced a one-year delay on implementation of the “pay or play” mandate. This mandate would have required most employers with the at least 50 full-time equivalent employees to provide affordable, minimum value health insurance coverage to their full-time employees by January 1, 2014, or pay a penalty.
However, the delay on implementation of the “pay or play” mandate did not delay the individual mandate, which will require most individuals to purchase health insurance coverage in 2014, or pay a tax penalty. The Treasury has also indicated that the delay in the employer mandate will not affect an employee’s access to the premium tax credits available to individuals who purchase coverage through the Exchange beginning January 1, 2014.
There are many other ACA provisions that will require compliance by January 1, 2014, including:
So, What Should Employers Be Doing Now?
Employers should first make sure their plans comply, or will comply in 2014, with all ACA provisions that have not been delayed. Next, employers should plan for eventual application of the pay or play mandate to their workforce. This should include:
The one-year delay also gives employers more time to see whether changes in the law may relieve them from expanding coverage to workers who average more than 30 hours per week or perform only seasonal labor. As of mid -September, at least four bills had been introduced to change the full-time employee standard to 40 hours. At this point, the chances of passage are unclear, so this will be an important issue to watch.
While the delay in the pay or play mandate gives employers additional time, the clock is ticking for many other ACA compliance efforts, and employers should be prepared and seek guidance now.
The U.S. Administration announced on July 2, 2013, that it will not require employers to provide health insurance for full time workers under the Health Care Reform Employer Mandate (also known as Pay or Play) until 2015. This move will cause a delay in a key provision of Health Care Reform that was scheduled to go into effect in 2014. The delay represents the administration’s response to widespread complaints about the reporting requirements for employers who are subject to the mandate.
The Affordable Care Act requires all employers with more than 50 full time workers to provide affordable health insurance or face a fine as much as $3000 per employee. The policy has raised concerns that companies would downsize their workforce or cut workers’ hours in order to dodge the new mandate.
The Obama Administration has announced that this provision was delayed so officials could simplify reporting requirements and give employers ample time to adjust their health care coverage.
The postponement does not affect other central provisions of the law, including the individual mandate or the establishment of the health insurance marketplaces, known as Exchanges, which are both still set to go into effect in January 2014.
Formal guidance is expected to be released this week. The Obama Administration has said that once the formal guidance is release they will work with employers to encourage them to voluntarily implement this information in 2014 to allow for a smoother transition into 2015.
Proposed guidance on the 90 day waiting period limit that was set in place by the Affordable Care Act (ACA) was issued on March 21, 2013 by the Department of Labor, Health & Human Services, and the Treasury (the “Departments”). This rule will apply to plan years beginning on or after January 1, 2014.
The 90 day limit set under Health Care Reform prevents an eligible employee or dependent from having to wait more than 90 days before coverage under a group health plan becomes effective. All calendar days (including weekends and holidays) are counted when determining what date the employee has satisfied the 90 day probationary period.
The Departments have confirmed that there is no de minimis exception for the difference between 90 days and 3 months. Therefore, plans with a 3 month waiting period in their group benefit contracts (including the Section 125 plan document) will need to make sure these are amended for the 2014 plan year. In addition, plans with a waiting period in which coverage begins on the first day of the month immediately following 90 days will also need to be amended as coverage can not begin any later than the 90th day. Employers who prefer to use a first day of the month starting date for coverage rather than a date sometime mid-month should consider implementing a 60 day waiting period instead. If an employer runs into an instance where an employee is in the middle of their waiting period when the regulations become effective (on the group’s renewal anniversary date on or following January 1, 2014), the waiting period for the employee may need to be shortened if it would exceed the 90 days.
Caution: Employers sponsoring a group health plan should also be mindful of the rules under the employer “pay or play” mandate. The 90 day limit on waiting periods offers slightly more flexibility than the employer mandate. For instance, if an employer’s health plan provides employees will become eligible for coverage 90 days after obtaining a pilot’s license, that requirement would comply with the 90 day limit on waiting periods. However, the same employer could be liable under the employer mandate for failing to provide coverage to a full time employee within 3 months of their date of hire. So, employers sponsoring a group health plan should confirm that any plan eligibility criteria aligns with both the employer mandate and the 90 day limit on waiting periods.
The Departments have also announced that HIPAA Certificates of Creditable Coverage will be phased out by 2015. Plans will not be permitted to impose any pre-existing condition exclusions effective for plan years beginning on or after January 1, 2014. This provision is also in effect for enrollees who are under age 19. Plan sponsors must continue to provide Certificates through December 31, 2014 since individuals enrolling in plans with plan years beginning later than January 1 may still be subject to pre-existing condition exclusions up through 2014.
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (the “ACA”) adds a new Section 4980H to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 which requires employers to offer health coverage to their employees (aka the “Employer Mandate”). The following Q&As are designed to deal with commonly asked questions. These Q&As are based on proposed regulations and final regulations, when issued, may change the requirements.
Question 1: What Is the Employer Mandate?
On January 1, 2014, the Employer Mandate will requiring large employers to offer health coverage to full-time employees and their children up to age 26 or risk paying a penalty. These employers will be forced to make a choice:
OR
This “play or pay” system has become known as the Employer Mandate. The January 1, 2014 effective date is deferred for employers with fiscal year plans that meet certain requirements.
Only “large employers” are required to comply with this mandate. Generally speaking, “large employers” are those that had an average of 50 or more full-time or full-time equivalent employees on business days during the preceding year. “Full-time employees” include all employees who work at least 30 hours on average each week. The number of “full-time equivalent employees” is determined by combining the hours worked by all non-full-time employees.
To “play” under the Employer Mandate, a large employer must offer health coverage that is:
This includes coverage under an employer-sponsored group health plan, whether it be fully insured or self-insured, but does not include stand-alone dental or vision coverage, or flexible spending accounts (FSA).
Coverage is considered “affordable” if an employee’s required contribution for the lowest-cost self-only coverage option does not exceed 9.5% of the employee’s household income. Coverage provides “minimum value” if the plan’s share of the actuarially projected cost of covered benefits is at least 60%.
If a large employer does not “play” for some or all of its full-time employees, the employer will have to pay a penalty, as shown in following two scenarios.
Scenario #1- An employer does not offer health coverage to “substantially all” of its full-time employees and any one of its full-time employees both enrolls in health coverage offered through a State Insurance Exchange, which is also being called a Marketplace (aka an “Exchange”), and receives a premium tax credit or a cost-sharing subsidy (aka “Exchange subsidy”).
In this scenario, the employer will owe a “no coverage penalty.” The no coverage penalty is $2,000 per year (adjusted for inflation) for each of the employer’s full-time employees (excluding the first 30). This is the penalty that an employer should be prepared to pay if it is contemplating not offering group health coverage to its employees.
Scenario #2- An employer does provide health coverage to its employees, but such coverage is deemed inadequate for Employer Mandate purposes, either because it is not “affordable,” does not provide at least “minimum value,” or the employer offers coverage to substantially all (but not all) of its full-time employees and one or more of its full-time employees both enrolls in Exchange coverage and receives an Exchange subsidy.
In this second scenario, the employer will owe an “inadequate coverage penalty.” The inadequate coverage penalty is $3,000 per person and is calculated, based not on the employer’s total number of full-time employees, but only on each full-time employee who receives an Exchange subsidy. The penalty is capped each month by the maximum potential “no coverage penalty” discussed above.
Because Exchange subsidies are available only to individuals with household incomes of at least 100% and up to 400% of the federal poverty line (in 2013, a maximum of $44,680 for an individual and $92,200 for a family of four), employers that pay relatively high wages may not be at risk for the penalty, even if they fail to provide coverage that satisfies the affordability and minimum value requirements.
Exchange subsidies are also not available to individuals who are eligible for Medicaid, so some employers may be partially immune to the penalty with respect to their low-wage employees, particularly in states that elect the Medicaid expansion. Medicaid eligibility is based on household income. It may be difficult for an employer to assume its low-paid employees will be eligible for Medicaid and not eligible for Exchange subsidies as an employee’s household may have more income than just the wages they collect from the employer. But for employers with low-wage workforces, examination of the extent to which the workforce is Medicaid eligible may be worth exploring.
Exchange subsidies will also not be available to any employee whose employer offers the employee affordable coverage that provides minimum value. Thus, by “playing” for employees who would otherwise be eligible for an Exchange subsidy, employers can ensure they are not subject to any penalty, even if they don’t “play” for all employees.
Our topic this month covers the Final Rule from HHS and the Exchanges.
Areas discussed include:
Contact us today for more information on this topic.