HHS Secretary Announces One-Year Delay for Nonprofits with Religious Beliefs in Complying with No-Cost Women’s Preventive Services

01/24/12

After receiving comments on the interim final rule requiring most health insurance plans to cover preventive services for women including recommended contraceptive services without copays, coinsurance or deductibles, Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius announced that nonprofit employers who, based on religious beliefs, do not currently provide contraceptive coverage, will be given an additional year, until Aug. 1, 2013, to comply with the new law.

HHS also released an amendment to the prevention regulation that allows religious institutions that offer insurance to their employees the choice of whether or not to cover contraception services.  This regulation is modeled on the most common accommodation for churches available in the majority of the 28 states that already require insurance companies to cover contraception.  The full text can be found at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-08-03/pdf/2011-19684.pdf

HHS welcomes comment on this policy; comments are due on or before Sept. 30, 2012.

For more information on the HHS guidelines for expanding women’s preventive services, please visit: http://www.healthcare.gov/news/factsheets/womensprevention08012011a.html.  The guidelines can be found at: www.hrsa.gov/womensguidelines/.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • email
  • LinkedIn
  • MySpace
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • Twitter
  • Netvibes
  • Posterous
  • Tumblr

IRS Releases 2011 Form 8941 and Instructions for Claiming

01/24/12

The IRS has released the 2011 version of Form 8941, which is used by eligible small employers to calculate their health care tax credit.  Once calculated, the tax credit is claimed as a general business credit on Form 3800 (or by tax-exempt small employers as a refundable credit on Form 990-T).  As background, employers with fewer than 25 employees and average annual wages of less than $50,000 per employee that offer health insurance coverage under a qualifying arrangement may qualify for a tax credit of up to 35 percent of the non-elective contributions they make toward premium cost.  A qualifying arrangement is generally one under which the employer contributes a uniform percentage of at least 50 percent of the premium cost for employees.

Form 8941 has been shortened for 2011 to remove the reporting of carry-forwards, carry-backs, and passive activity limitations for this credit, which are now reported on Form 3800 (General Business Credit).  Because the tax credit became effective in 2010 and applied to portions of 2010 that preceded its enactment, there was transition relief in effect to help more employers satisfy the uniformity requirement for 2010.  That transition relief is now expired, but IRS guidance has provided clarification on how certain arrangements under which an employee pays less than 50 percent for some employees may nonetheless satisfy the uniformity requirement for years prior to 2014. Those rules vary, depending on how tiers of coverage are structured and whether composite billing or list billing is used.  The 2011 Instructions to Form 8941 have been revised, in part, to provide more detail about what constitutes a qualifying arrangement.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • email
  • LinkedIn
  • MySpace
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • Twitter
  • Netvibes
  • Posterous
  • Tumblr

More IRS Guidance On W-2 Reporting of Health Coverage

01/20/12

Overview of Reporting Requirement

Before addressing the recent guidance, it is worth noting some key points that have not changed.  For instance, this reporting requirement remains optional for 2011, but then required for 2012.

Also preserved is a postponement of this requirement for “small” employers.  Any employer that is required to issue fewer than 250 W-2s for 2011 (or that would have been required to issue fewer than 250 W-2s had it not engaged an agent to handle this reporting) qualifies for this postponement.  The soonest such a small employer might be required to report the value of its employees’ health coverage is January of 2014 (on the 2013 W-2).

Once this reporting requirement does apply, the value of employer-sponsored health coverage is to be reported in Box 12 of the W-2, using the code “DD.”  Finally, this latest Notice reemphasizes that nothing in this new reporting requirement will cause an employee to be taxed on any employer-provided health coverage.

Calculating the Cost of Coverage

Although the Notice addresses numerous questions, most employers will simply want to know how to calculate the cost of the coverage to be reported on each W-2.  The amount to be reported should reflect both the employer and employee portions of that cost, with the annual amount equal to the sum of all monthly amounts (and under all plans sponsored by the same employer).

If a plan is insured, the amount to be reported should be the insurance premium charged for whatever level of coverage an employee received.  If a plan is self-funded, the general rule is to use the “applicable premium” calculated for COBRA purposes.  An example in the Notice makes clear that this does not include the additional 2% administrative fee allowed to be charged to COBRA beneficiaries.

Although these few rules should cover the vast majority of cases, the Notice does provide certain permissible alternatives.  For instance, a “modified COBRA premium method” may be used if an employer subsidizes a plan’s COBRA premiums.  If an employer makes a good-faith estimate of the “applicable premium” – and then uses that estimate in calculating a subsidized COBRA premium – the employer may report the estimated amount as the cost of coverage on an employee’s W-2.

Similarly, if an employer chose to continue charging a prior-year COBRA premium during the reporting year (and determines in good faith that the reporting year’s cost of COBRA coverage was at least as large as the prior year’s), the employer may use that prior-year COBRA premium (again, minus the 2% administrative fee) to satisfy this W-2 reporting mandate.

Finally, the Notice provides a number of permissible options if an employer charges a “composite” rate for active employees (such as the same amount for either employee-only or employee-plus-spouse coverage), but then calculates separate rates for COBRA purposes.  Subject to certain limitations, such an employer may report either the composite rate or the COBRA rate (minus the 2% administrative charge).

Employers wishing to rely on any of these special rules should read the Notice carefully for additional restrictions and limitations.

Recent Clarifications

Among the recent clarifications contained in Notice 2012-9 are the following:

There is no need to report any employee contributions to a flexible spending account (“FSA”).  However, if an employee allocates any employer “flex credits” to a health FSA, those employer amounts must be reported. 
 
Whether the value of dental or vision coverage must be reported on a W-2 depends on whether that coverage constitutes an “excepted benefit” under the HIPAA portability and nondiscrimination rules.  In general, this would be the case if either (1) the coverage is offered under a separate policy, certificate, or contract of insurance, or (2) participants have the right to elect the dental or vision coverage and must pay an additional premium if they do so.  The value of such excepted benefits need not be reported. 
 
An employee assistance program (“EAP”), wellness program, or on-site medical clinic may be subject to this reporting requirement if it constitutes a “group health plan.”  However, the reporting of these benefits will be required only if the employer charges a separate premium for someone to receive COBRA coverage under these benefits. 
 
Even if an employer is not required to report the value of certain types of health coverage – either the types listed immediately above, or coverage received under a health reimbursement arrangement (“HRA”), as noted in the prior guidance – the employer may choose to report these amounts.  For some employers, this approach may be more consistent with the systems in place to track the value of the various types of coverage provided to each employee.
 
Pre-existing rules require an employer to provide a W-2 within 30 days of a request received from an employee who terminates during the calendar year.  Under this recent Notice, however, such a W-2 need not report the cost of any health coverage received by that employee.
 
Moreover, if an employer waits until year-end to supply W-2s to terminated employees (the more usual case), those W-2s may report either the value of the coverage received only while an active employee or the value of the coverage received through the end of the year (thereby including the value of any COBRA coverage).  The employer must be consistent, however, in selecting one of these two approaches.
 
In a bit of welcome news, the Notice provides that an employer need not report the value of health coverage received by any individuals who are not otherwise entitled to receive a W-2.  These might include COBRA beneficiaries, retirees, non-employee directors, or independent contractors.
 
The IRS Form W-3 (which is used to transmit employee W-2 data to the IRS) need not report the cost of any health coverage.
 
In general, this W-2 reporting requirement applies even to the value of any health coverage that must be included in an employee’s taxable income.  This might include the value of coverage provided to an employee’s domestic partner, or to a non-dependent child over age 27.  Contrary to the earlier guidance, however, it is not necessary to report the value of coverage that is taxable only because (1) a self-funded plan discriminates in favor of highly compensated individuals (in violation of Section 105(h) of the Tax Code), or (2) an employee is a 2% or more shareholder in a Subchapter S corporation.
 
If a single plan provides both health coverage and non-health coverage (such as disability or life insurance), an employer may use any reasonable method to allocate the total cost of coverage between the two categories – and then report only the cost of the health coverage.  Alternatively, if either the health coverage or the non-health coverage is merely “incidental” to the other type of coverage, the employer may treat the plan as though it provided only the primary type of coverage.
 
The value of the coverage provided to an employee may be determined on the basis of the facts known to the employer on December 31 of the reporting year.  Accordingly, any information learned after that date may be disregarded, even if that information results in the employee’s coverage during the reporting year either increasing or decreasing in value.  The value might increase, for example, if an employee was allowed to retroactively add coverage for a newborn child who was born during the reporting year.  It could decrease if an employee retroactively dropped coverage for a former spouse in connection with a divorce.
 
If the final pay period in a calendar year laps over into the following year, an employer may allocate the value of any health coverage received during that pay period between the two calendar years, based on a reasonable allocation of the days falling within each year.  Alternatively, so long as it is done consistently, the employer may allocate that entire pay period to either of the two calendar years.
 
Although prior guidance suggested that both hospital indemnity insurance and coverage for a specific disease or illness were entirely exempt from this W-2 reporting requirement, the most recent Notice limits this exemption to plans under which an employee pays the full premium for that coverage on an after-tax basis.  If an employer pays any portion of the premium – or if an employee pays any portion of the premium on a pre-tax basis – the entire value of the coverage must be reported.  As a result, even some “voluntary insurance arrangements” (which are exempt from most requirements of ERISA) must be reported on a W-2 – that is, if employees pay their premiums on a pre-tax basis.

Although the first W-2s on which the value of health coverage must be reported are not due until January 31, 2013, employers will want to ensure that they are able to capture all the data they will need in order to comply with this reporting requirement.  For instance, they will need to know the type and level of coverage received by each employee during each month (or pay period) during 2012.  This may require that payroll software be reprogrammed in the very near term to preserve a record of these coverage levels.

The IRS expects to issue still further guidance on this reporting requirement.  According to Notice 2012-09, however, any such guidance will be prospectively effective only.  Moreover, it will apply only to calendar years beginning at least six months after that additional guidance is issued.  For this reason, employers who are subject to this W-2 reporting requirement in 2012 should assume that this is the final guidance they will receive before reaching their compliance deadline.

 

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • email
  • LinkedIn
  • MySpace
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • Twitter
  • Netvibes
  • Posterous
  • Tumblr

Do You Like To Eat Out?

01/12/12

Our own Terriann Procida is Chairperson for this year’s Samaritan Healthcare & Hospice Gala taking place February 25th in Mt. Laurel, NJ.  As part of the fundraiser we are selling raffle tickets for $5 to win 12, $200 Gift Certificates to the following restaurants:  Amada, Brio, Caffe Aldo Lamberti, Cafe Madison, Cuba Libre, Luke Palladino’s, McCormick’s & Schmicks, Ponzio’s, Seasons 52, Stephen Starr Restaurants, Villagio Italian Restaurant and Wolfgang Puck.  This is a great way to support a great cause so let us know how many you would like!  If you would like to donate anything for the Silent Auction at the Gala please let us know and we would be happy to come pick it up!

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • email
  • LinkedIn
  • MySpace
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • Twitter
  • Netvibes
  • Posterous
  • Tumblr

IRS Issues Additional Guidance on Form W-2 Health Care

01/06/12

The U.S. Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has issued Notice 2012-9 to provide additional guidance on the informational reporting to employees of the cost of their employer-sponsored group health plan coverage on Form W-2.  The IRS requested public comments on the W-2 reporting requirement in Notice 2011-28. Notice 2012-9 responds to these comments and amends, restates and supersedes Notice 2011-28.  Specifically, the new notice includes guidance on the W-2 reporting as it relates to small employers, flexible spending accounts, dental and vision plans, COBRA and health reimbursement arrangements.

Health care cost information will have to be reported on 2012 W-2s, which will be issued in 2013. Under previous IRS guidance, smaller employers — those that distribute fewer than 250 W-2s in 2011 — are exempt from this requirement until at least 2014 and possibly longer.

The latest guidance, released Tuesday, makes clear that employers can — but are not required to — report contributions to health reimbursement arrangements in calculating health care costs.  In addition, the cost of providing coverage through employee assistance programs, wellness programs or on-site medical clinics is not required to be reported if the employer does not charge premiums for the coverage to COBRA beneficiaries.  The guidance also clarifies that the reporting requirement does not apply to Indian Tribal governments.

The latest guidance also reiterates numerous provisions in last year’s guidance, including that the cost of coverage that is taxable to employees, such as for a child over age 26, must be reported on the W-2, and that contributions employees make to flexible spending accounts are to be excluded from the health care cost figure.

The full 23-page text of the Notice can be found at:
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/n-12-09.pdf.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • email
  • LinkedIn
  • MySpace
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • Twitter
  • Netvibes
  • Posterous
  • Tumblr

Soup’s On!

01/05/12

Several studies show that soup eaters end up weighing less than those who don’t eat much soup, according to Penn State nutrition professor Barbara Rolls, co-author of “Volumetrics: Feel Full on Fewer Calories.”
“Incorporating soups into a weight-management plan can really help save calories,” she notes. She also likes it as a snack: “When you get the munchies, it’s much better to have some soup than to go to the candy machine.”

Soup Studies
The soup effect has been demonstrated again and again over the past 30 years:
• In a 1980s University of Pennsylvania study, 500 people in a weight-loss program noted each meal they ate for 10 weeks. Some were told to eat soup at least four times a week. The soup eaters ate fewer calories — on average, 100 less per day — and lost the most weight.
• In a Baylor University College of Medicine study, Dr. John Foreyt asked a group of overweight men and women on a low-calorie diet to eat soup every day. They liked it — and were better able to maintain their weight loss than non-soup-eaters.
• At Penn State, Dr. Rolls’ group gave women a 270-calorie first course before lunch. Some got chicken-rice casserole, others got the casserole plus 10 ounces of water. A third group received chicken-rice soup made from the casserole ingredients plus the water. Soup eaters took in about 100 calories fewer at the meal — and they didn’t eat more at dinner.
• In her latest studies, Rolls and colleagues found that the hunger-suppressing benefits of soup last a full two hours.
• In Paris, researchers at the Laboratory of the Neurobiology of Nutrition confirmed that water with a meal doesn’t affect how full people feel — but having the same ingredients as soup does.

Is Soup Unique? Not At All
Eat any filling, low-calorie food as an appetizer or first course, and you’ll likely make it easier to consume fewer calories at that meal. It’s a kind of preemptive eating strategy. Make substitutions you like, ones that can become part of your life.
• Eat an apple or an orange before you go to lunch.
• Order melon as a first course.
• Start with a simple salad of baby spinach leaves and grapefruit segments.
• When you go to the salad bar, fill up your plate with “big” foods like dark leafy greens and vegetables, before going back for more calorically dense choices.

Find Creative Ways to Add More Veggies
• When making pasta sauce, limit the meat and add another onion and a chopped bell pepper or two. Or stir a couple handfuls of baby spinach in at the end of cooking.
• Add diced cooked sweet potato or green peas to pilafs or noodle dishes.
• When cooking a favorite stir-fry, double the vegetable quantity and cut the meat by half.
• Add corn kernels to chili or burrito fillings.

Soup + Walking = 20 Fewer Pounds

“Small changes make a big difference,” says John Foreyt, Ph.D., director of the nutrition research clinic at Baylor University’s College of Medicine in Houston. “For many people, small changes over time are more sensible and more   effective than big changes. I like the 100/100 rule,” he says. “Eat 100 calories less tomorrow, and expend an extra 100 calories in physical activity, such as 20 minutes of walking.” In the course of a year, he notes, such a change may make a difference of 20 pounds.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • email
  • LinkedIn
  • MySpace
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • Twitter
  • Netvibes
  • Posterous
  • Tumblr

Final Rule for CO-OPs – Highlights

12/19/11

On Dec. 8, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) released the Final Rule produced by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to establish the Consumer Operated and Oriented Plan (CO-OP) Program under Section 1322 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA).  The following are some of the highlights:

“Substantially All” Requirement:
-The Final Rule confirms that many larger employers will be able to participate in CO-OPs by permitting up to one-third of all CO-OP contracts to be purchased by such large employers.  It provides that Section 1322′s requirement that “substantially all” health insurance issued by the CO-OP is placed in the individual and small group markets is satisfied where two-thirds of its contracts are in those markets.  The Final Rule confirms also that the two-thirds standard applies to all of the activities in the CO-OP, an interpretation that HHS believes properly encourages providers who may want to offer a CO-OP option to their employees to participate in CO-OP provider networks.

-In response to concerns regarding extensive state licensure requirements and in an attempt to provide flexibility for and ensure the viability of CO-OP providers, the Final Rule significantly extends the timeline when CO-OPs are required to be offering qualified health plans (meeting the “substantially all” requirement).  As a result of this change, a loan recipient will now have two years from the solvency loan draw down dates to begin providing health care coverage in the exchanges and to meet all minimum CO-OP requirements.
 

CO-OP Governance:
-The Final Rule extends the transition period from the formation to the operational board from one to two years after the CO-OP enrollment begins, permits the staggered election of the operational board, and permits the formation board to fill its vacancies, without a contested election. 
-Providers are prohibited from composing a majority of the CO-OP board of directors unless, as will sometimes be the case, the provider-board members purchase the product themselves, in which case they can serve as board members in their capacity as CO-OP members.

Eligible Participants and Sponsor: Under the proposed rule, the following were listed as not eligible to apply for or receive a loan under the CO-OP program:
-Pre-existing insurance issuers;
-Trade associations whose members consist of pre-existing issuers;
-Entities related to pre-existing issuers; 
-Predecessors of pre-existing issuer or related entity
-Organizations sponsored by a state or local governments
-Foundations established by a pre-existing issuer
-Holding companies that control pre-existing issuers
-Organizations sponsored by pre-existing issuers; and
-Organizations that receive more than 25 percent of their total funding (not including loans under the CO-OP program) from pre-existing issuers.

The Final Rule clarifies that private non-profit hospitals and physician hospital organizations, or other organizations that receive financial support from a state or local government are not instrumentalities of a state or local government, and are therefore eligible CO-OP participants, so long as:
-The entity is not a government organization under state law;
-No employee of state or local government acting in his or her official capacity serves as a senior executive; and
-State or local government employees acting in their official capacities do not comprise the majority of the CO-OP board of directors.

Additionally, the Final Rule permits applicants to receive up to 40 percent of CO-OP funding from a state or local government without being considered an instrumentality of such government entity.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • email
  • LinkedIn
  • MySpace
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • Twitter
  • Netvibes
  • Posterous
  • Tumblr

Essential Health Benefits: HHS Informational Bulletin

12/19/11

On Dec. 16, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued a bulletin outlining the approach (and proposed policies) that HHS intends to pursue in rulemaking to define essential health benefits.  The bulletin can be found at http://www.healthcare.gov/news/factsheets/2011/12/essential-health-benefits12162011a.html.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • email
  • LinkedIn
  • MySpace
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • Twitter
  • Netvibes
  • Posterous
  • Tumblr

Early Retiree Reinsurance Program Wrapping Up

12/14/11

The Early Retiree Reinsurance Program will cease to be operational in short order.  The $5 billion program was created in July of 2010 to help offset employer costs associated with providing health coverage benefits to early retirees and their eligible spouses, surviving spouses, and dependents. 

From the get-go, experts predicted that the program would exhaust its funding quickly, and that is exactly what occurred.  With the reinsurance funds depleted, it is expected that the Dec. 13 edition of the Federal Register will include an announcement that HHS will not accept claims incurred after Dec. 31, 2011.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • email
  • LinkedIn
  • MySpace
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • Twitter
  • Netvibes
  • Posterous
  • Tumblr

HHS Releases FAQs on Implementation of Exchanges, Including Issues Raised by Federally Facilitated Exchanges

12/13/11

On Nov. 29, HHS released 13 Q&As addressing implementation issues for state and federally facilitated Exchanges.  The Q&As cover a range of topics including funding responsibility and resources, information exchanges through federally managed data “hubs,” and shared eligibility verification services.  Among them are Q&As focused on issues raised by federally facilitated Exchanges, highlighted below.

1)One Q&A addresses the coordination of federally facilitated Exchanges and state insurance departments.  The Q&A explains that HHS intends to work with states to preserve the traditional responsibilities of state insurance departments (e.g., licensure, solvency, and network adequacy standards) when establishing a federally facilitated Exchange.

2)A second Q&A raises issues regarding eligibility determinations made by state versus federally facilitated Exchanges.  It concludes that the proposed Exchange rules currently do not distinguish between a state-established Exchange and a federally facilitated Exchange, but based on comments it has received, HHS intends to modify the rules to permit additional options that take into account the different data available to each.

3)Another Q&A asks whether individuals who are enrolled in coverage through a federally facilitated Exchange will have access to premium tax credits, as well as the advance payments of tax credits that will be authorized by Exchanges.  Responding that IRS and HHS regulations are clear on this point and supported by the statute, the Q&A asserts that individuals enrolled in coverage through either a state-established Exchange or a federally facilitated Exchange may be eligible for tax credits, including advance payments.

By way of background, HHS is required to determine by Jan. 1, 2013 whether each state’s Exchange will be fully operational by Jan. 1, 2014.  In states that don’t obtain HHS approval by Jan. 1, 2013, or in states that decide not to establish an Exchange, a federally facilitated Exchange would be implemented by HHS for 2014.

One detail that is drawing attention is whether the premium tax credit will be available to individuals enrolled through a federally facilitated Exchange.  Health care reform requires that if a state doesn’t meet the deadline for establishing an Exchange (or chooses not to establish one), HHS shall “establish and operate such Exchange.”  So, the question becomes, does such a federally facilitated Exchange trigger eligibility for credits that, by statute, may be available to certain individuals enrolled in Exchanges “established by the state”?  Proposed regulations and this guidance suggest it does, but one Senator has written a letter to the Treasury Secretary taking the opposite view.

The full text of the Q&A can be found at:

http://cciio.cms.gov/resources/files/Files2/11282011/exchange_q_and_a.pdf.pdf 

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • email
  • LinkedIn
  • MySpace
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • Twitter
  • Netvibes
  • Posterous
  • Tumblr