All posts tagged health care

Last fall, President Barack Obama signed the Protecting Affordable Coverage for Employees Act (PACE), which preserved the historical definition of small employer to mean an employer that employs 1 to 50 employees. Prior to this newly signed legislation, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) was set to expand the definition of a small employer to include companies with 51 to 100 employees (mid-size segment) beginning January 1, 2016.

If not for PACE, the mid-size segment would have become subject to the ACA provisions that impact small employers. Included in these provisions is a mandate that requires coverage for essential health benefits (not to be confused with minimum essential coverage, which the ACA requires of applicable large employers) and a requirement that small group plans provide coverage levels that equate to specific actuarial values. The original intent of expanding the definition of small group plans was to lower premium costs and to increase mandated benefits to a larger portion of the population.

The lower cost theory was based on the premise that broadening the risk pool of covered individuals within the small group market would spread the costs over a larger population, thereby reducing premiums to all. However, after further scrutiny and comments, there was concern that the expanded definition would actually increase premium costs to the mid-size segment because they would now be subject to community rating insurance standards. This shift to small group plans might also encourage mid-size groups to leave the fully-insured market by self-insuring – a move that could actually negate the intended benefits of the expanded definition.

Another issue with the ACA’s expanded definition of small group plans was that it would have resulted in a double standard for the mid-size segment. Not only would they be subject to the small group coverage requirements, but they would also be subject to the large employer mandate because they would meet the ACA’s definition of an applicable large employer.

Note: Although this bill preserves the traditional definition of a small employer, it does allow states to expand the definition to include organizations with 51 to 100 employees, if so desired.

By Vicki Randall
Originally published by www.ubabenefits.com

One of President Donald Trump’s first actions in office was to make good on a campaign promise to move quickly to repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA). He issued Executive Order 13765, Minimizing the Economic Burden of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act Pending Repeal. The one-page executive order (EO) is effective immediately and very light on details, with the goal to minimize the financial and regulatory burdens of the ACA while its repeal is pending. The EO directs the Executive Branch agency heads (those in the departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and the Treasury) in charge of enforcing the ACA to “exercise all authority and discretion available to them to waive, defer, grant exemptions from, or delay the implementation of any provision or requirement of the Act that would impose a fiscal burden on any State or a cost, fee, tax, penalty, or regulatory burden on individuals, families, healthcare providers, health insurers, patients, recipients of healthcare services, purchasers of health insurance, or makers of medical devices, products, or medications.”

While Congress works on the ACA repeal through budget reconciliation, which allows for quick consideration of tax, spending, and debt limit legislation, President Trump is tackling the regulatory enforcement actions of the law. The practical impact of the EO is limited to agency enforcement discretion and requires agencies to implement the EO in a manner consistent with current law, including assuring that any required changes to applicable regulations will follow all administrative requirements for notice and comment periods.

The bottom line is that until the agency heads in Labor, Health and Human Services, and the Treasury are confirmed and take charge of their departments, there will probably be little change in agency enforcement action right away. The broader changes to amend or repeal the ACA will take even more time to implement.

What Employers and Plan Sponsors Should Know Now

While the EO does not specifically refer to the ACA compliance burdens on employers or plan sponsors, such as the employer or individual mandates, required health benefits coverage, reporting or employee notification requirements, the language addresses the actions that the federal agencies can take to soften enforcement until the repeal is accomplished. It does direct the government to address the taxes and penalties associated with the ACA. So what does that mean for employers and plan sponsors now?

IRS employer reporting delay? Not yet. The top concern of employers is whether or not those subject to the shared responsibility provisions of the law would need to submit their 1094/1095 reports of coverage to the IRS by February 28 (or March 31, if filing electronically) and provide their employees with individual 1095-C statements by March 2. These reports are essential for the IRS to assess penalties under the law, and this reporting has been a burden for employers. Unfortunately for employers, the order did not mention delaying or eliminating this reporting requirement.

What employers should do now:

  • Applicable large employers (ALEs) subject to the employer mandate should plan to comply with their 1094/1095 reporting obligations this year.
  • All employers should continue to comply with all current ACA requirements until there is further guidance from the lawmakers.

We’ve Got You Covered

We’ll be monitoring President Trump’s actions to reduce regulatory burdens on American businesses along with Congressional legislative actions that can impact your business operations. Look for ThinkHR’s practical updates where we’ll analyze these developments and break them down into actionable information you need to comply with the changing laws and regulations.

By Laura Kerekes, SPHR, SHRM-SCP
Originally published by www.thinkhr.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.

Check out this video and contact us to go over the UBA Health Plan Survey.

 

 

 

 

Many employee benefit limits are automatically adjusted each year for inflation (this is often referred to as an “indexed” limit). UBA offers a quick reference chart showing the 2017 cost of living adjustments for health and Section 125 plans, qualified plans, Social Security/Medicare withholding, compensation amounts and more. This at-a-glance resource is a valuable desk tool for employers and HR practitioners.

Here’s a snapshot of a section of the 2017 health plan limits; be sure to request the complete chart from a UBA Partner.

2017 health plan limits

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

Measuring program value, or return on investment, is critical and imperative in managing a healthy wellness program. Further, clearly identifying and objectively evaluating the impact helps keep the vendor focused on what is critical for the employer. If these programs are not having the impact intended, then the cost of those services is only adding to medical spending waste.

When adding wellness services to any employer benefits package, it is imperative to clearly identify the intended impact and outcome. Outcomes fall into three general categories:

  1. Employee satisfaction with the employer, which adds to recruitment and retention
  2. Reducing biometric risk and improving the health of the population
  3. Reducing medical spending

Employee Satisfaction

In the book, Shared Values, Shared Results by Dee W. Eddington, Ph.D., and Jennifer S. Pitts, Ph.D., the value of employees appreciating the benefits an employer offers is clearly outlined as a win-win strategy. If an employer’s intent in providing wellness services is to improve the support for its employees, then measuring the satisfaction related to those outcomes is critical. Employee surveys are typically the best approach to gather outcomes related to these intended programs. Some key questions to ask may include:

  • Is working at this organization beneficial for my health? (“Strongly Agree” to “Disagree” responses)
  • Do I trust that my organization cares about me? (“Strongly Agree” to “Disagree” responses)
  • Which of the following wellness program initiatives do you find to be valuable? (list all programs offered)

Collecting employee, or spouse, feedback on these programs will provide insight to allow an employer/ consultant to know if programs are appreciated, or if modifications are required in order to achieve the desired outcomes.

Reducing Biometric Risk and Controlling Disease

If the intent of a wellness program is to help improve the health of individuals so that future medical spending will be reduced, then it is critical to determine if the program is engaging the correct members and then measure the impact on their risk. At Vital Incite, we utilize Johns Hopkins’ risk indexing along with biometric risk migration to provide feedback to vendors and employers of the impact of their programs. Some suggested goals may include:

  • Engaging 80 percent of persons with high risk biometrics
  • Reduction in weight of persons overweight or obese by greater than 5 percent in 30 percent of the engaged population
  • Of diabetics with an A1c greater than 7 percent, 80 percent will reduce their A1c by 1 percent in one year
  • Of persons with blood pressure in the high-risk range, 40 percent will have achieved controlled blood pressure without adding medications in one year
  • Of persons who take fewer than 10,000 steps per day, 70 percent will increase their average step count by 20 percent or more

These goals need to be very specific and targeted to address the exact needs of your population, measuring what is most likely to have an impact on a person’s long-term health. This provides specific direction for your wellness providers, but allows an employer/consultant to monitor the impact throughout the year to continue to redirect communication and services to help provide the best outcomes.

The first step in any program is to engage the intended audience. UBA’s Health Plan Survey finds that 54.6 percent of employers with wellness programs use components such as on-site or telephone coaching for high-risk employees, an increase of 7.5 percent from last year. Once you target the intended audience, engagement of those at risk is critical. Monitoring this subset of data can make sure the vendor resources are directed appropriately and, many times, identify areas where the employer may be able to help.

Engagement of High Risk Individuals in CoachingOf course, engagement is only the first step and the intended outcome is to reduce risk or slow down the progression of risk increasing, that is really the final outcome desired. The following illustration allows employers and the vendor solution to monitor the true impact of the program by reviewing the risk control, or improvement based on program participation.

Participant vs non-participant results

Reducing Medical Spending

Although many employers are interested in helping their employees become healthier, the reality is these efforts have to help reduce medical costs or increase productivity so these efforts are sustainable. Since, to date, few employers have data on productivity, the analysis then is focused on reducing medical spending. The correct analysis depends on the size of your population and the targeted audience, but a general analysis to determine if those engaged are costing less than persons who have similar risk on your plan would look something like the analysis below.

participant engagement chart

If your program is targeted specifically on a disease state, then the impact on the cost to care for that disease state may be more appropriate. In the example below, the employer instituted a program to help asthmatics, and therefore, the analysis is related to the total cost to care for asthma comparing the year prior to the program to the year of the program. In this analysis, the impact is very clear.

Impact of Program on Cost for all ID-Asthma

The employer anticipated first year savings due to high emergency room (ER) utilization for persons with asthma and the report proved that along with ER utilization declining, the total cost of care for asthma significantly declined.

Summary

In summary, having a clear understanding of the expectation and desired outcomes and monitoring that impact throughout the year, we believe, drives better outcomes. When we first started analyzing outcomes of programs, the impact of many programs were far less impressive than vendor reports would allow us to believe. That false sense of security is not because they were trying to falsify information, but the reports did not provide enough detail to fully illustrate the impact. Most vendor partners don’t have access to all of the data to provide a full analysis and others will only show what makes them look good. But, if you identify the impact you need in order to achieve success, all parties involved focus on that priority and continually work to improve that impact. We believe that wellness programs can have an impact on a population culture, health and cost of care if appropriately managed.

Originally published by www.ubabenefits.com

Recently, the U.S. Department of the Treasury, Department of Labor (DOL), and Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) (collectively the Departments) issued final regulations regarding the definition of short-term, limited-duration insurance, standards for travel insurance and supplemental health insurance coverage to be considered excepted benefits, and an amendment relating to the prohibition on lifetime and annual dollar limits.

Effective Date and Applicability Date

These final regulations are effective on December 30, 2016. These final regulations apply beginning on the first day of the first plan or policy year beginning on or after January 1, 2017.

Short-Term, Limited-Duration Insurance

Short-term, limited-duration insurance is a type of health insurance coverage designed to fill temporary gaps in coverage when an individual is transitioning from one plan or coverage to another plan or coverage. Although short-term, limited-duration insurance is not an excepted benefit, it is exempt from Public Health Service Act (PHS Act) requirements because it is not individual health insurance coverage. The PHS Act provides that the term ‘‘individual health insurance coverage’’ means health insurance coverage offered to individuals in the individual market, but does not include short-term, limited-duration insurance.

On June 10, 2016, the Departments proposed regulations to address the issue of short-term, limited-duration insurance being sold as a type of primary coverage.

The Departments have finalized the proposed regulations without change. The final regulations define short-term, limited-duration insurance so that the coverage must be less than three months in duration, including any period for which the policy may be renewed. The permitted coverage period takes into account extensions made by the policyholder ‘‘with or without the issuer’s consent.’’ A notice must be prominently displayed in the contract and in any application materials provided in connection with enrollment in such coverage with the following language:

THIS IS NOT QUALIFYING HEALTH COVERAGE (‘‘MINIMUM ESSENTIAL COVERAGE’’) THAT SATISFIES THE HEALTH COVERAGE REQUIREMENT OF THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT. IF YOU DON’T HAVE MINIMUM ESSENTIAL COVERAGE, YOU MAY OWE AN ADDITIONAL PAYMENT WITH YOUR TAXES.

The revised definition of short-term, limited-duration insurance applies for policy years beginning on or after January 1, 2017.

Because state regulators may have approved short-term, limited-duration insurance products for sale in 2017 that met the definition in effect prior to January 1, 2017, HHS will not take enforcement action against an issuer with respect to the issuer’s sale of a short-term, limited-duration insurance product before April 1, 2017, on the ground that the coverage period is three months or more, provided that the coverage ends on or before December 31, 2017, and otherwise complies with the definition of short-term, limited-duration insurance in effect under the regulations. States may also elect not to take enforcement actions against issuers with respect to such coverage sold before April 1, 2017.

For information on final regulations regarding excepted benefits, specifically similar supplemental coverage and travel insurance—as well as information on the definition of essential health benefits for purposes of the prohibition on lifetime and annual limits, view UBA’s ACA Advisor, “Regulations Regarding Short-Term Limited-Duration Insurance, Excepted Benefits, and Lifetime/Annual Limits.”

Originally published by www.ubabenefits.com

This week, the U.S. Senate passed the 21st Century Cures Act which includes a provision allowing small businesses to offer a new type of health reimbursement arrangement for their employees’ health care expenses, including individual insurance premiums. The act was previously passed by the House and President Obama is expected to sign it shortly. The provision for Qualified Small Employer Health Reimbursement Arrangements (QSEHRAs), a new type of tax-free benefit, takes effect January 1, 2017. Further, the act retroactively relieves small employers from the threat of excise taxes under prior rules for plan years beginning before 2017.

Background

Employers of all sizes currently are prohibited from making or offering any form of payment to employees for individual health insurance, whether through premium reimbursement or direct payment. Employers also are prohibited from providing cash or compensation to employees if the money is conditioned on the purchase of individual health insurance. (Some exceptions apply; e.g., retiree-only plans, dental/vision insurance.) Violations can result in excise taxes of $100 per day per affected employee.

The prohibition, implemented under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), was intended to discourage employers from canceling their group plans and pushing workers into the individual insurance market. The rules have been particularly disruptive for small businesses, however, since previously it had been common practice for many small employers to subsidize the cost of individual policies instead of offering group coverage. The new law, passed this week with broad bipartisan support, responds to the concerns of small businesses.

New Qualified Small Employer HRAs

The new law does not repeal the ACA’s general prohibition against employer payment of individual insurance premiums. Rather, it provides an exception for a new type of arrangement — a Qualified Small Employer HRA or QSEHRA — provided that specific conditions are met.

First, the employer must meet two conditions:

  • Employs on average no more than 50 full-time and full-time-equivalent employees. In other words, the employer cannot be an applicable large employer as defined under the ACA; and
  • Does not offer a group health plan to any of its employees.

Next, the QSEHRA must meet all of the following conditions:

  • It is funded solely by the employer; employee contributions are not permitted;
  • It is offered to all full-time employees, although the employer may choose to include seasonal or part-time employees and/or may exclude employees with less than 90 days of service;
  • For tax-free QSEHRA benefits, the employee must have minimum essential coverage (e.g., medical insurance under an individual policy);
  • It pays or reimburses healthcare expenses (e.g., § 213(d) expenses) and premiums for individual policies;
  • It does not pay or reimburse contributions for any employer-sponsored group coverage;
  • The same benefits and terms apply to all eligible employees, except the benefit amount may vary by:
    • Single versus family coverage;
    • Prorated amounts for partial-year coverage (e.g., new hires); and
    • For premium reimbursements, variations consistent with the age- and family-size rating structure of a representative individual policy; and
  • Benefits do not exceed $4,950 if single coverage (or $10,000 if family coverage) per 12-month plan year. Amounts are prorated if covered for less than 12 months. Limits will be indexed for inflation.

Coordination with Exchange Subsidies

Coverage under a QSEHRA will affect the employee’s eligibility for a subsidized individual policy from an insurance Exchange (Marketplace). Any subsidy for which the employee would otherwise qualify will be reduced dollar-for-dollar by the QSEHRA.

Benefit Laws

Group health plans are subject to numerous federal laws, including SPD and other notice requirements under ERISA, coverage continuation requirements under COBRA, and benefit mandates under the ACA. The new law specifies that QSEHRAs are not group health plans, so COBRA and other requirements will not apply.

QSEHRA Notices

Small employers offering QSEHRAs will be required to provide a notice to each eligible employee that:

  • Informs the employee of the QSEHRA benefit amount;
  • Instructs the employee that he or she must give the QSEHRA information to the Exchange if applying for a subsidy for individual insurance; and
  • Explains the tax consequences of failing to maintain minimum essential coverage.

QSEHRA notices should be provided at least 90 days before the start of the plan year.

Employers also will be required to report the QSEHRA coverage on Form W-2, Box 12. The reporting is informational only and has no tax consequences. Although small employers usually are exempt from this type of W-2 informational reporting, apparently it will be required for QSEHRAs starting with the 2017 tax year.

More Information

To learn more about QSEHRAs starting in 2017, or for details about the relief from excise taxes for small employers before 2017, see the 21st Century Cures Act. The relevant provisions are found in Section 18001 beginning on page 306.

Employers that are considering QSEHRAs are encouraged to work with legal counsel and tax advisors that offer expertise in this area. Starting in 2017, employer-funded QSEHRAs can offer valuable tax-free benefits to employees as long as they are designed and administered to meet all legal requirements.

Originally published by www.thinkhr.com

Significant Shift in Immigration Policy

Trump has been vocal about his stance on immigration in regard to deportation and illegal immigration. He also seeks to strengthen U.S. jobs, wages, and security through the nationwide use of E-Verify. Trump plans to work with Congress to strengthen and expand the use of E-Verify as currently less than half the states require employers to use E-Verify; however, more than 16.4 million cases were run through E-Verify in fiscal year 2016 by employers in every industry, state, and U.S. territory. E-Verify ensures a legal workforce, protects jobs for authorized workers, deters document and identity fraud, and works seamlessly with Form I-9. Employers may also look to the changes in the Form I-9 effective January 21, 2017 designed to make the form more user-friendly and alleviate mistakes, although this was established prior to Trump’s presidency.

Paid Leave for New Mothers

Although the specifics are unclear right now, Trump has proposed six weeks of paid maternity leave to new mothers. These payments would come from recapturing fraud and improper payments in the U.S. unemployment insurance system. Trump has also discussed allowing parents to enroll in tax-free dependent care savings accounts for their children (read in-depth analysis of paid family leave from our own in-house expert Laura Kerekes). According to the National Partnership for Women and Families, employers can expect paid leave to improve worker retention, reduce turnover costs with increased worker productivity, and increase employee loyalty.

Tax Reform

Trump has advocated for significant tax cuts “across the board” by increasing the standard deduction to $30,000 for joint filers (from $12,600), and simplifying the tax code. Trump plans to collapse the seven tax brackets to three with low-income Americans at an income tax rate of 0 percent. Trump’s tax plan also seeks to lower the business tax rate from 35 percent to 15 percent, and eliminate the corporate alternative minimum tax. Proponents of lowering business taxes assert that it creates jobs in the United States rather than overseas, encourages investment in our infrastructure, and because the United States has the highest corporate income tax rates, businesses are at a significant disadvantage. Trump intends to apply this lower rate to all business, both small and large. Additionally, according to Trump’s tax plan, businesses that pay a portion of an employee’s childcare expenses would be permitted to exclude those contributions from income. Employees who are recipients of direct employer subsidies would not be able to exclude those costs from the individual income tax and the costs of direct subsidies to employees could not be used as a cost eligible for the credit.

Repeal of the Affordable Care Act

The Affordable Care Act will be challenged under Trump’s administration. Trump seeks to remove healthcare exchanges and replace them with tax-free health savings accounts for people with high-deductible insurance plans. Trump has also advocated state-based high-risk pools for people with medical conditions that make it hard to get coverage on their own. He also seeks to allow companies to sell insurance across state lines to boost competition and drive down prices.

What’s Next for Employers

Interestingly, the largest impact of a Trump presidency may not be from his stance on these issues but may be seen when it comes time to naming the next U.S. Supreme Court Justices as he will likely appoint four justices during his term in office. Experts predict four because the average age of retirement for a Supreme Court justice has been approximately 78.7 years old, and currently three of the eight justices range in age from 78 – 83. The fourth open seat remains unoccupied since Justice Antonin Scalia’s death in February.

Understandably, there are opposing views to these presented issues, and neither candidate provided many details about how their plans for these issues would be financed or implemented. ThinkHR will follow the changes in labor and employment laws and will provide information and tools to help employers make sense of the changes that impact American businesses.

Originally published by www.thinkhr.com