All posts tagged health insurance

Most Partners of United Benefit Advisors (UBA) and their clients have benefits enrollment down pat. They know what to communicate to employees, and when. Employees, too, are usually familiar with the process. For example, they know what to expect when they start comparing their medical plan options to their 401(k) contributions. But not all benefits are created equally. Some require more communication, understanding, and detail. Long-term care insurance (LTCi) is one of those products. More than any other benefit, it calls for well-thought-out employee education.

LTCi education is critical to employees for the following reasons:

Underwriting concessions are available for a limited time only and an employee’s health determines approval. Employers are able to offer LTCi with reduced underwriting, but the employees can only take advantage of this offer during initial enrollment. It will not be available at any other time – including during future open-enrollment periods – so it’s essential that employees understand the advantages of this benefit at a time when they will receive their best opportunity for approval.
LTCi isn’t just another voluntary benefit, it’s an important component of any employee’s retirement plan. Long-term care can be a huge financial burden for many Americans. Those who buy LTCi are doing so to protect their savings and assets down the road. As a result, LTCi becomes a critical aspect of an overall retirement plan. Employees will want guidance on which coverage options best suit their financial needs.
LTCi is often a one-time purchase and employees may face closed plans and rate increases. Unlike other benefits where providers may change from year-to-year, the majority of LTCi purchasers will hold on to their original plan for life. As the market evolves and carriers develop new products, an employer may be administering multiple LTCi programs to employees. Employees will be curious how their plan stacks up – especially if they have a plan with MetLife, John Hancock, Prudential, or CNA since those carriers no longer offer new LTCi plans. Employees may also be impacted by rate increases with these carriers and will need education-based support on what decisions to make regarding their increased premium. Helping employees compare programs will allow them to make an informed decision about their plan.

What Employees Need to Know

Employees need focused time, separate from other benefits education, to learn about LTCi. It is important to communicate with them, both in writings and through in-person or Web meetings, so that they can learn:

What long-term care is, how likely it is they will need it, how it’s delivered, and the costs associated with it
What LTCi covers and how it differs from other benefits
The risks associated with not having LTCi
Myths about long-term care coverage (for example, that it’s only needed by the elderly or that it only covers nursing home care)
An overview of options and an understanding of all possible solutions for long-term care
Tax incentives available for LTCi
The right time to buy LTCi and the risks associated with waiting
Decision-making tools to help select the best coverage levels for their needs

We’ve had a great reception from UBA Partners and clients who are interested in LTCi for their employees. One of the primary themes we continue to hear is that LTCi is on the to-do list for many brokers and employers. When employees have all of this information laid out in an accessible, easy-to-understand way, they will be able to make informed decisions about this valuable benefit.

Originally published by www.ubabenefits.com

One thing rings true when it comes to the Affordable Care Act (ACA): “expect the unexpected.” I know this sounds cliché, but it was my best attempt to describe the experience HR professionals encounter as they attempt to comply with this somewhat murky piece of legislation. Last year on December 28, we were alerted a month from the approaching deadline that the forms and filing requirements had moved two and three months out to address challenges. This was a fairly drastic move within a month of a significant compliance deadline.

As a leading provider of ACA solutions to hundreds of employers, we are finding this concern about uncertainty spills into the 2016 tax season. To provide some useful guidance, I thought it would be helpful to share with you a roll-up of common questions and key issues we are receiving from our clients over the past several months:

  1. Will the ACA be delayed again in 2016? We do not see the filing requirements delayed again in 2016. The delay for 2015 was a one-time delay, and the IRS has signaled this to be the case on their conference calls.
  2. What changes do we need to be concerned with in the 1094-C and 1095-C forms? Overall, the changes to these forms are minor in 2016. The 2015 Qualifying Offer, a form of transition relief, was eliminated from the 1094 form. The biggest changes are with two contingent offer of coverage codes 1J and 1K. The idea behind these new offer codes is that employer coverage is contingent upon not having coverage available elsewhere. If this better describes how you offer coverage, you may want to consider selecting these codes over the traditional 1A or 1E.
  3. Will it be easier to work with name/TIN mismatches flagged through the corrections process? In the first year it was difficult to work with IRS requested corrections because you often could not identify which covered individual generated the error (we didn’t know if it was the employee, a dependent, or both). Several IRS conference calls have signaled they will be providing more detail on the corrections this year. If your ACA solution communicates with the IRS Affordable Care Act Information Returns (AIR) system, you will likely be able to display the detail of this error message and act on it. A side-note: remaining corrections from 2015 do not have a specific due date, but should be addressed as soon as possible.
  4. Why do we still have transition relief in 2016? The expectations for many is that transition relief was simply a 2015 phenomenon. While non-calendar year and 2015 Qualifying Offer Transition Relief have been eliminated, 4980H Transition Relief has remained into 2016 for “non-calendar” plans that meet certain criteria. This means that employers who might be facing shared responsibility penalties in 2016 can still take advantage of one of the two types of relief: 1) if you average 50 to 99 FTEs you are shielded for the 2015 non-calendar year plan for the months that spill into 2016 (e.g., a July 1 plan will be shielded for the first six months of 2016), or 2) the same applies for 100+ clients in terms of being able to leverage the 70 percent offer requirement.
  5. Will it be easier this year? This is a general question that depends on the solution you use. Overall, we believe the answer is a resounding “YES!” With our solution, a large number of clients are able to take advantage of an automated renewal process that transitions setup from 2015 and trends existing employees from December 31, 2015, into 2016. Vendors have learned how to make this process easier for their customers after all the pain they experienced in 2015. Everything from data collection, filing and corrections process should be more automated this year.

Originally published by www.ubabenefits.com

 

A cafeteria plan is an employer-provided written plan that offers employees the opportunity to choose between at least one permitted taxable benefit and at least one qualified employee benefit. There is no federal law that requires employers to establish cafeteria plans; however, some states require employers to have cafeteria plans for employees to pay for health insurance on a pre-tax basis.

To comply with Internal Revenue Code Section 125, a cafeteria plan must satisfy a set of structural requirements and a set of nondiscrimination rules. Violations of the structural requirements will disqualify the entire plan so that no employee obtains the favorable tax benefits under Section 125, even if the plan meets the nondiscrimination rules. Violations of the nondiscrimination rules have adverse consequences only on the group of employees in whose favor discrimination is prohibited.

A cafeteria plan must pass an eligibility test, a contributions and benefits test, and a concentration test for highly compensated individuals to receive the tax benefits of Section 125. Failure to meet these nondiscrimination requirements has no effect on non-highly compensated cafeteria plan participants.

The IRS issued proposed cafeteria plan regulations on August 6, 2007. Final regulations have not been issued. According to the proposed regulations, taxpayers may rely on the proposed regulations for guidance pending the issuance of final regulations.

The proposed cafeteria plan regulations make it clear that the plan must meet the nondiscrimination tests. Also, the plan must not discriminate in favor of highly compensated participants in its operation. For example, a plan might be considered discriminatory if adoption assistance is added to the plan when the CEO is in the process of adopting a child and adoption assistance is dropped when the adoption is final.

Be aware that Section 125 nondiscrimination rules are separate from and unrelated to Section 105(h) nondiscrimination rules. Further, Section 125 nondiscrimination rules apply to all cafeteria plans regardless of their status as fully insured, self-funded, church plan, or governmental plan.

As a practical matter, these nondiscrimination rules prohibit executive health plans offered through a cafeteria plan.

Nondiscrimination testing can help employers avoid rule violations. But there are a number of definitions of key terms used in the tests that must be understood prior to completing the tests:

Highly Compensated Individuals. Highly compensated individuals are defined as:

  • Officers
  • Five percent shareholders
  • Highly compensated employees (HCEs)
  • Spouses or dependents of any of the preceding individuals

Highly Compensated Participant. A highly compensated participant is a highly compensated individual who is eligible to participate in the cafeteria plan.

Officers. Officers include any individual who was an officer of the company for the prior plan year (or current plan year in the case of the first year of employment).

Five Percent Shareholders. Five percent shareholders include any individual who – in either the preceding plan year or current plan year – owns more than five percent of the voting power or value of all classes of stock of the employer, determined without attribution.

Highly Compensated. Highly compensated means any individual or participant who – for the prior plan year or the current plan year in the case of the first year of employment – had annual compensation from the employer in excess of the compensation amount specified in the Internal Revenue Code and, if elected by the employer, was also in the top-paid group of employees for the year. For 2016, the applicable compensation amount is $120,000.

Key Employee. A key employee is a participant who, at any time during the plan year, is one of the following:

  • An officer with annual compensation greater than an indexed amount ($170,000 for 2016)
  • A five percent owner of the employer
  • A one percent owner having compensation in excess of $150,000

For comprehensive information on the eligibility test—including the safe harbor and unsafe harbor percentages and example scenarios—as well as the contributions and benefits test, and safe harbors, request UBA’s Compliance Advisor, “Nondiscrimination Rules for Cafeteria Plans”.

Originally published by www.ubabenefits.com

Minimum essential coverage (MEC) is the type of coverage that an individual must have under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA). Employers that are subject to the ACA’s shared responsibility provisions (often called “play or pay”) must offer MEC coverage that is affordable and provides minimum value.

In the fall of 2015 the IRS issued Notice 2015-68 stating it was planning to propose regulations on reporting MEC that would, among other things, require health insurance issuers to report coverage in catastrophic health insurance plans, as described in section 1302(e) of the ACA, provided through an Affordable Insurance Exchange (an Exchange, also known as a Health Insurance Marketplace). The notice also covered reporting of “supplemental coverage” such as a health reimbursement arrangement (HRA) in addition to a group health plan.

Recently, the IRS released the anticipated proposed regulations, incorporating the guidance given in Notice 2015-68. These regulations are generally proposed to apply for taxable years ending after December 31, 2015, and may be relied on for calendar years ending after December 31, 2013.

The proposed regulations provide that:

  1. Reporting is required for only one MEC plan or program if an individual is covered by multiple plans or programs provided by the same provider.
  2. Reporting generally is not required for an individual’s eligible MEC only if the individual is covered by other MEC for which section 6055 reporting is required.

These rules would apply month by month and individual by individual. Once finalized, the regulations would adopt the same information provided in the final instructions for reporting under sections 6055 and 6056 of the ACA.

For examples under the first rule and more detail on the second rule, as well as how to avoid penalties, view UBA’s ACA Advisor, “Reporting Minimum Essential Coverage”.

Originally published by www.ubabenefits.com

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) has brought about many changes to the health insurance industry. As we are now in the sixth year of implementation of the Act, we are seeing more changes coming just around the corner.

Generally speaking, most health plans can be classified into two categories: HMO and PPO. With an HMO plan, you choose your physician group where you will seek services, and you choose a primary care physician that you will see for all of your needs, who will refer you to a specialist or other service facility, if needed. The HMO model is designed to be as cost-effective as possible, only providing services when the physician deems it necessary, or solely for the benefit of the patient.

Due to the ACA, with an HMO plan, a woman is no longer required to get a referral from her primary care physician to an OB-GYN, and a parent is not required to get a referral to a pediatrician for his or her children even though neither are classified as primary care physicians.

In contrast, a PPO plan has more flexibility for the patient. With a PPO plan you are encouraged to see physicians and providers that are participating in your plan’s network, but are not required to do so. You can, in fact, see any doctor or provider that you wish, when you wish to see them, and without a referral from your primary care physician.

However, times they are a-changin’. Beginning January 1, 2017, Covered California, California’s state insurance exchange, will require both HMO and PPO enrollees to specify their primary care physician during the enrollment process. If one is not selected, the plan will select one for the plan participant. A plan participant is allowed to change their primary care physician at any time. Right now, this is only being implemented for individual plan subscribers.

It is expected that this change will be implemented for group PPO plan subscribers in 2018.

Beginning in 2012, the ACA implemented the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) fee. This is a charge of $1 to $2 per enrollee, per year in a plan. If the plan is fully insured, the fee is paid to the government directly by the insurance carrier. If the plan is self-funded it is paid by the plan sponsor using IRS Form 720 and is due by July 31 for the previous plan year.

The purpose of the PCORI is to help analyze the overall costs of health care and identify trends to find ways to best reduce the overall cost of health care.

HMOs like Kaiser Permanente have fully integrated information systems that allow them to track each patient electronically so that they can see everything about the patient in one place. By tracking each patient, notes from the nurses and physicians, treatments, and medications, they can track costs and trends easily by mining the data from the system.

Most PPO plans do not track this data, in part because patients in the past have not had to choose a primary care physician or provider group. When they can see whomever they choose, it makes tracking of this data very difficult across multiple providers. In addition, participants in a small group, fully-insured plan are pooled with other small groups where claim data is not shared with the plan sponsor, and there is no need to track it closely as the information at the patient level is not relevant to the actuaries that calculate plan costs and premiums.

However, that is going to change. In order to study the overall cost of medical care, identify trends, and discover ways to curb inflating costs, data is needed, and selecting a primary care physician for plan participants is the first step.

Cigna, which provides both HMO and PPO plans, has implemented a Collaborative Care Program with more than 120 physician groups in 29 states, including provider group Palo Alto Medical Foundation (PAMF) in the San Francisco Bay area. By tracking client claims data and patient outreach programs to help patients to remember to take their medications as prescribed and continue with follow up treatments, PAMF has been able to reduce its inflation trend by 5 percent compared to other providers in the San Francisco Bay Area. The goal is to duplicate and build on the success that Cigna has already shown through its program and control and reduce the cost of health care.

So when you or your employees are applying for health insurance, make sure that primary care physician information is handy, because it is going to be needed.

Originally published by www.ubabenefits.com

0826The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) established national standards to secure and protect the privacy of health information. The Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act (HITECH) requires the Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) Office for Civil Rights (OCR) to conduct audits of covered entities and business associates in order to ensure compliance with the HIPAA Privacy, Security, and Breach Notification Rules.

OCR initiated a pilot program in 2012 to assess the processes implemented by 115 covered entities to comply with HIPAA’s requirements. The pilot program was a three-step process: (1) initial protocol development, (2) test of these protocols by conducting 20 audits, and (3) full audit execution using revised protocol materials, which were completed by the end of December 2012.

OCR selected a pool of covered entities for audits that broadly represented a wide range of healthcare providers, health plans, and healthcare clearinghouses. Criteria to select entities to be audited included whether the entity was public or private, size of the entity, affiliation with other healthcare organizations, the type of entity and relationship to patient care, past and present interaction with OCR concerning HIPAA enforcement and breach notification, as well as geographic factors.

A wide range of covered entities were audited in Phase 1. The audit process began when selected entities received a notification letter from OCR notifying them of their selection and asking them to provide documentation of their privacy and security compliance efforts. Every audit included a site visit during which auditors interviewed key personnel and observed processes to determine compliance. Following the site visit, auditors developed a draft audit report which described how the audit was conducted, what the findings were, and what actions the covered entity took in response to those findings. The covered entity had the opportunity to remedy any compliance issues. The final report included the steps the entity took to resolve any compliance issues identified by the audit and it also described best practices.

OCR used the final audit to understand HIPAA compliance efforts and to determine the types of technical assistance that should be developed and the types of corrective action that are most effective. The technical assistance and best practices that OCR generated assisted covered entities and business associates in improving their efforts to keep health records safe and secure.

Originally published by United Benefit Advisors – Read More

UBA’s Special Report – Trends in Prescription Drug Benefits explores our Health Plan Survey findings in more detail, particularly examining what’s happening with prescription drug plan design among different group sizes, regions and industries. When it comes to copay amounts, median retail prescription drug copays are $10/$30 for two-tier plans, $10/$35/$55 for three-tier plans, and $10/$35/$60/$100 for four-tier plans. These amounts have remained largely flat from 2014.

Generic drugs in the lowest tier generally cost less than $10, so employees are paying all or most of the generic cost with the tier 1 copay. This makes it difficult to raise that amount, especially if employers are concerned about medication adherence. But in four-tier models, the tier 3 copay increased 20%. Since this tier covers non-formulary brands, copay increases may continue as drug costs in this category soar.

Median Prescription Retail Copays by Plan Design            © 2016 United Benefit Advisors. All rights reserved.

While median copays in four-tier plans see no fluctuation among region, size or industry, three-tier plans show some creative cost management among some groups. For example, the largest employers (1,000+ employees) and Northeastern groups are pushing up the tier 3 copay above average. With employers flocking to 4+ tier plans, copay hikes in three-tier models may become more common for those hesitant to expand drug tiers.

As five-tier plans emerge, the median copays are $10/$10/$40/$70/$100. This will be an important baseline to watch now that the UBA Health Plan Survey will start to break this out separately. In predictable fashion, small groups tend to set copays higher than average, while the large groups are below average. Regionally, the West is experimenting with driving the fifth tier copay significantly higher than average ($150) while keeping the other copays at or below average. The Central U.S. is pushing most copays in five-tier plans higher than average.

Originally published by United Benefit Advisors – Read More

pills0805According to UBA’s new Special Report – Trends in Prescription Drug Benefits, 61.8% of plans required employees to pay more when they elect brand-name drugs over an available generic drug (a 5.5% increase from 2014); 37.9% of those plans require the added cost even if the physician notes “dispense as written.” On the other hand, only 1% of plans offer no coverage for brand-name drugs if generics are available and 37.2% offer no added cost coverage. So while most employers aren’t completely penalizing those who choose brand-name drugs, more and more plans are requiring employees to pay higher copays when they elect brand-name drugs. Some plans have a mandated step therapy program that makes sure employees try a lower class alternative before they move to a medication in a higher class (or try a generic or generic equivalent in a particular therapeutic class). Some plans exclude certain drugs altogether. This cost pressure has made employers more aware of drug costs, so many are beginning to educate employees about using benefits cost-effectively. Here’s what our Health Plan Survey data shows about which employers are steering employees to generics:

  • Predictably, the larger the employer, the more generous it is in covering brand name drugs either with no added cost or at least not incurring added cost when the physician notes “dispense as written.” Seventy-seven percent of plans for groups with 1,000+ employees fall in this category while only 51% of small group plans offer this benefit.
  • Plans in the central U.S. and within the construction, agriculture, mining, and transportation industries are making the most aggressive push to generic drugs, with only 46.3% and 53.8%, respectively, providing relief for brand name drugs.

While injectable drugs are often watched as a significant liability when it comes to cost containment, nearly all plans have no separate deductible for these medications. Additional tiers, coinsurance models and mail order benefits are overwhelmingly the way employers are dealing with the highest cost drugs.

In 2015 alone, 38 specialty drugs received FDA approval, and more are in the pipeline. “The latest development among aggressively managed drug plans is to move specialty drugs (oral and injectable) to the major medical portion of the policy, delivering an initial 7- to 15-day supply to confirm the drug’s effectiveness before dispensing a full 30-day supply” says Scott Deru, President of UBA Partner Firm Fringe Benefit Analysts. “Requirements also include frequent patient follow-up to verify adherence to the prescription schedule, any adverse reactions, and to verify that mail order drugs amounting to tens of thousands of dollars are being tracked and received by the patient. Other cost containment strategies include bringing a registered nurse to a patient’s home for infusion therapy to avoid the facility and prescription mark-up costs from inpatient and outpatient facilities.”

Originally published by United Benefit Advisors – Read More

The Latest UBA Survey data shows employers are flocking to two strategies to control rising prescription drug costs: moving to blended copay/coinsurance models vs. copay only, and adding tiers to the prescription drug plans. Almost half (48.9%) of prescription drug plans utilize three tiers (generic, formulary brand, and non-formulary brand), 4.3% retain a two-tier plan, and 44.1% offer four tiers or more. The number of employers offering drug plans with four tiers or more increased 34% from 2014 to 2015. The fourth tier (and additional tiers) pays for biotech drugs, which are the most expensive. By segmenting these drugs into another category with significantly higher copays, employers are able to pass along a little more of the cost of these drugs to employees. Over the last two years, the number of plans with four or more tiers grew 58.1%, making this a rapidly growing strategy to control costs.

Employers with 1 to 99 employees have been driving the trend to adopt prescription drug plans with four or more tiers. In three years, plans with four or more tiers increased approximately 60% among these groups, making this the top cost-containment strategy for small employers, who make up the backbone of America.

Even the largest employers (1,000+ employees), 81% of which historically have offered plans with two or three tiers, have seen a 12.9% decrease in these plans as they, too, migrate to plans with four or more tiers (albeit more slowly).

The construction, mining and retail industries have also been steadily leading the migration to plans with four or more tiers over the last three years, and in the latest UBA survey, 47.5%, 53.2% and 46.3% of their respective plans fall in this category. But this year, the utilities industry has made a more sudden switch, with 58.3% of those plans now consisting of four or more tiers, leapfrogging its perennial tier-climbing peers. This is a significant jump, considering nearly 20% of plans in the utilities industry were still two-tier plans just three years ago—far more two-tier plans than any other industry group at that time. However, this wasn’t a total surprise since, in the 2014 survey year, the industry had an above-average amount of three-tier plans (65.9% vs. an average of 57.1%).

The education and manufacturing industries are more reluctant to shift to plans with four or more tiers. Over the last three years those industries have maintained the highest amounts of three-tier plans, and in the latest survey, 52.8% of their plans remain at three tiers.

Two-tier plans are becoming nearly as rare as single-tier plans, shrinking 45% to 4.3% of all prescription plans in three years. Agriculture has the most holdouts, with 14.8% of plans still comprised of one or two tiers.

Regionally, the East Central U.S. has been leading the migration to plans with four or more tiers for the last three years, followed by North Central and Southeast employers. In the 2015 survey year, Southeast employers eclipsed East Central employers with 60.7% of their plans with four or more tiers.

Strangely enough, East Central and Southeast employers have the lowest percentage of three-tier plans (34.3% and 34.1%, respectively) but the highest percentage of single-tier plans (4.7% and 4.2%, respectively). Other Western employers (excluding California) also have below-average three-tier plans (40.6%), above-average four-tier plans (49.1%) and above-average (10.2%) one- to two-tier plans.

Groups increasing tiers most aggressively for cost savings

California employers have the most two-tier plans (22.9% vs. the average of 4.3%) which, although still off the charts, represents a 20% decline from the previous survey year.

Mid-Atlantic and New England employers have had the most three-tier plans for the last three years, making them the top resisters of plans with four or more tiers over time.

Groups resisting 4+ tier plans

For more information on prescription drug trends, including the companies making an early leap to five-tier plans, download UBA’s free (no form!) publication: Special Report: Trends in Prescription Drug Benefits.

Originally published by UBABenefits.com

 

0624UBAApplicable large employers and self-funded employers of all sizes have now completed the first round of required IRS reporting under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA). The ACA requires individuals to have health insurance, while applicable large employers (ALEs) are required to offer health benefits to their full-time employees. In order for the IRS to verify that (1) individuals have the required minimum essential coverage, (2) individuals who request premium tax credits are entitled to them, and (3) ALEs are meeting their shared responsibility (play or pay) obligations, employers with 50 or more full-time or full-time equivalent employees and insurers were required to report on the health coverage they offered. Similarly, insurers and employers with less than 50 full time employees but that have a self- funded plan also have reporting obligations. All of this reporting is done on IRS Forms 1094-B, 1095-B, 1094-C and 1095-C.

Now that the first set of forms has been completed, many employers are wondering what the next steps are. Employers that did not fulfill all of their obligations under the employer shared responsibility provision (play or pay) might owe a penalty to the IRS. A penalty will be owed in regard to the 2015 plan year if:

  • The employer does not offer health coverage or offers coverage to fewer than 70 percent of its full-time employees and the dependents of those employees, and at least one of the full-time employees receives a premium tax credit to help pay for coverage on a Marketplace; or
  • The employer offers health coverage to all or at least 70 percent of its full-time employees, but at least one full-time employee receives a premium tax credit to help pay for coverage on a Marketplace, which may occur because the employer did not offer coverage to that employee or because the coverage the employer offered that employee was either unaffordable to the employee or did not provide minimum value.

As of March 2016, the only information from the IRS on the payment of these penalties is as follows:

The IRS will adopt procedures that ensure employers receive certification that one or more employees have received a premium tax credit. The IRS will contact employers to inform them of their potential liability and provide them an opportunity to respond before any liability is assessed or notice and demand for payment is made. The contact for a given calendar year will not occur until after the due date for employees to file individual tax returns for that year claiming premium tax credits and after the due date for applicable large employers to file the information returns identifying their full-time employees and describing the coverage that was offered (if any).

If it is determined that an employer is liable for an Employer Shared Responsibility payment after the employer has responded to the initial IRS contact, the IRS will send a notice and demand for payment. That notice will instruct the employer on how to make the payment. Employers will not be required to include the Employer Shared Responsibility payment on any tax return that they file.

 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?”

Originally published by United Benefit Advisors – Read More