All posts tagged Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

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

Cafeteria plans, or plans governed by IRS Code Section 125, allow employers to help employees pay for expenses such as health insurance with pre-tax dollars. Employees are given a choice between a taxable benefit (cash) and two or more specified pre-tax qualified benefits, for example, health insurance. Employees are given the opportunity to select the benefits they want, just like an individual standing in the cafeteria line at lunch.

Only certain benefits can be offered through a cafeteria plan:

  • Coverage under an accident or health plan (which can include traditional health insurance, health maintenance organizations (HMOs), self-insured medical reimbursement plans, dental, vision, and more);
  • Dependent care assistance benefits or DCAPs
  • Group term life insurance
  • Paid time off, which allows employees the opportunity to buy or sell paid time off days
  • 401(k) contributions
  • Adoption assistance benefits
  • Health savings accounts or HSAs under IRS Code Section 223

Some employers want to offer other benefits through a cafeteria plan, but this is prohibited. Benefits that you cannot offer through a cafeteria plan include scholarships, group term life insurance for non-employees, transportation and other fringe benefits, long-term care, and health reimbursement arrangements (unless very specific rules are met by providing one in conjunction with a high deductible health plan). Benefits that defer compensation are also prohibited under cafeteria plan rules.

Cafeteria plans as a whole are not subject to ERISA, but all or some of the underlying benefits or components under the plan can be. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) has also affected aspects of cafeteria plan administration.

Employees are allowed to choose the benefits they want by making elections. Only the employee can make elections, but they can make choices that cover other individuals such as spouses or dependents. Employees must be considered eligible by the plan to make elections. Elections, with an exception for new hires, must be prospective. Cafeteria plan selections are considered irrevocable and cannot be changed during the plan year, unless a permitted change in status occurs. There is an exception for mandatory two-year elections relating to dental or vision plans that meet certain requirements.

Plans may allow participants to change elections based on the following changes in status:

  • Change in marital status
  • Change in the number of dependents
  • Change in employment status
  • A dependent satisfying or ceasing to satisfy dependent eligibility requirements
  • Change in residence
  • Commencement or termination of adoption proceedings

Plans may also allow participants to change elections based on the following changes that are not a change in status but nonetheless can trigger an election change:

  • Significant cost changes
  • Significant curtailment (or reduction) of coverage
  • Addition or improvement of benefit package option
  • Change in coverage of spouse or dependent under another employer plan
  • Loss of certain other health coverage (such as government provided coverage, such as Medicaid)
  • Changes in 401(k) contributions (employees are free to change their 401(k) contributions whenever they wish, in accordance with the administrator’s change process)
  • HIPAA special enrollment rights (contains requirements for HIPAA subject plans)
  • COBRA qualifying event
  • Judgment, decrees, or orders
  • Entitlement to Medicare or Medicaid
  • Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) leave
  • Pre-tax health savings account (HSA) contributions (employees are free to change their HSA contributions whenever they wish, in accordance with the their payroll/accounting department process)
  • Reduction of hours (new under the ACA)
  • Exchange/Marketplace enrollment (new under the ACA)

Together, the change in status events and other recognized changes are considered “permitted election change events.”

Common changes that do not constitute a permitted election change event are: a provider leaving a network (unless, based on very narrow circumstances, it resulted in a significant reduction of coverage), a legal separation (unless the separation leads to a loss of eligibility under the plan), commencement of a domestic partner relationship, or a change in financial condition.

There are some events not in the regulations that could allow an individual to make a mid-year election change, such as a mistake by the employer or employee, or needing to change elections in order to pass nondiscrimination tests. To make a change due to a mistake, there must be clear and convincing evidence that the mistake has been made. For instance, an individual might accidentally sign up for family coverage when they are single with no children, or an employer might withhold $100 dollars per pay period for a flexible spending arrangement (FSA) when the individual elected to withhold $50.

Plans are permitted to make automatic payroll election increases or decreases for insignificant amounts in the middle of the plan year, so long as automatic election language is in the plan documents. An “insignificant” amount is considered one percent or less.

Plans should consider which change in status events to allow, how to track change in status requests, and the time limit to impose on employees who wish to make an election.

Cafeteria plans are not required to allow employees to change their elections, but plans that do allow changes must follow IRS requirements. These requirements include consistency, plan document allowance, documentation, and timing of the election change. For complete details on each of these requirements—as well as numerous examples of change in status events, including scenarios involving employees or their spouses or dependents entering into domestic partnerships, ending periods of incarceration, losing or gaining TRICARE coverage, and cost changes to an employer health plan—request UBA’s ACA Advisor, “Cafeteria Plans: Qualifying Events and Changing Employee Elections”.

By Danielle Capilla
Originally published by www.ubabenefits.com

On December 13, 2016, former President Obama signed the 21st Century Cures Act into law. The Cures Act has numerous components, but employers should be aware of the impact the Act will have on the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act, as well as provisions that will impact how small employers can use health reimbursement arrangements (HRAs). There will also be new guidance for permitted uses and disclosures of protected health information (PHI) under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). We review the implications with HRAs below; for a discussion of all the implications, view UBA’s Compliance Advisor, “21st Century Cares Act”.

The Cures Act provides a method for certain small employers to reimburse individual health coverage premiums up to a dollar limit through HRAs called “Qualified Small Employer Health Reimbursement Arrangements” (QSE HRAs). This provision will go into effect on January 1, 2017.

Previously, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) issued Notice 2015-17 addressing employer payment or reimbursement of individual premiums in light of the requirements of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA). For many years, employers had been permitted to reimburse premiums paid for individual coverage on a tax-favored basis, and many smaller employers adopted this type of an arrangement instead of sponsoring a group health plan. However, these “employer payment plans” are often unable to meet all of the ACA requirements that took effect in 2014, and in a series of Notices and frequently asked questions (FAQs) the IRS made it clear that an employer may not either directly pay premiums for individual policies or reimburse employees for individual premiums on either an after-tax or pre-tax basis. This was the case whether payment or reimbursement is done through an HRA, a Section 125 plan, a Section 105 plan, or another mechanism.

The Cures Act now allows employers with less than 50 full-time employees (under ACA counting methods) who do not offer group health plans to use QSE HRAs that are fully employer funded to reimburse employees for the purchase of individual health care, so long as the reimbursement does not exceed $4,950 annually for single coverage, and $10,000 annually for family coverage. The amount is prorated by month for individuals who are not covered by the arrangement for the entire year. Practically speaking, the monthly limit for single coverage reimbursement is $412, and the monthly limit for family coverage reimbursement is $833. The limits will be updated annually.

Impact on Subsidy Eligibility. For any month an individual is covered by a QSE HRA/individual policy arrangement, their subsidy eligibility would be reduced by the dollar amount provided for the month through the QSE HRA if the QSE HRA provides “unaffordable” coverage under ACA standards. If the QSE HRA provides affordable coverage, individuals would lose subsidy eligibility entirely. Caution should be taken to fully education employees on this impact.

COBRA and ERISA Implications. QSE HRAs are not subject to COBRA or ERISA.

Annual Notice Requirement. The new QSE HRA benefit has an annual notice requirement for employers who wish to implement it. Written notice must be provided to eligible employees no later than 90 days prior to the beginning of the benefit year that contains the following:

  • The dollar figure the individual is eligible to receive through the QSE HRA
  • A statement that the eligible employee should provide information about the QSE HRA to the Marketplace or Exchange if they have applied for an advance premium tax credit
  • A statement that employees who are not covered by minimum essential coverage (MEC) for any month may be subject to penalty

Recordkeeping, IRS Reporting. Because QSE HRAs can only provide reimbursement for documented healthcare expense, employers with QSE HRAs should have a method in place to obtain and retain receipts or confirmation for the premiums that are paid with the account. Employers sponsoring QSE HRAs would be subject to ACA related reporting with Form 1095-B as the sponsor of MEC. Money provided through a QSE HRA must be reported on an employee’s W-2 under the aggregate cost of employer-sponsored coverage. It is unclear if the existing safe harbor on reporting the aggregate cost of employer-sponsored coverage for employers with fewer than 250 W-2s would apply, as arguably many of the small employers eligible to offer QSE HRAs would have fewer than 250 W-2s.

Individual Premium Reimbursement, Generally. Outside of the exception for small employers using QSE HRAs for reimbursement of individual premiums, all of the prior prohibitions from IRS Notice 2015-17 remain. There is no method for an employer with 50 or more full time employees to reimburse individual premiums, or for small employers with a group health plan to reimburse individual premiums. There is no mechanism for employers of any size to allow employees to use pre-tax dollars to purchase individual premiums. Reimbursing individual premiums in a non-compliant manner will subject an employer to a penalty of $100 a day per individual they provide reimbursement to, with the potential for other penalties based on the mechanism of the non-compliant reimbursement.

By Danielle Capilla
Originally published by www.ubabenefits.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

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

 

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

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

0608blogWith the passage of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), the federal government became much more involved in what had always been a heavily regulated, but predominately private industry. What many people have forgotten is that the ACA was not the first legislation to be passed that involved private and employer-sponsored health and welfare plans.

The Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) is not just about retirement plans. For example, it requires health and welfare plans to generate and retain certain documents related to the plan, such as the Summary Plan Description (SPD), and requires the plan sponsor to distribute certain notices to plan participants and beneficiaries. (For more in formation about how ERISA may impact you, request UBA’s publication, “Reporting and Plan Documents under ERISA and Cafeteria Plan Rules.”)

The Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act has affected the way private health information is handled when it is stored on or transmitted via an electronic device. The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) of 1996 has also had a strong impact on health and welfare plans but, like ERISA, it has not always been heavily regulated.

The passage of the ACA has shined a light on many other prior pieces of legislation. With both the Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA) and the IRS having enforcement rights over the ACA, and everyone looking for revenue, the searchlight is starting to shine brighter, and the beam is becoming wider.

What does this mean for sponsors of health and welfare plans? Basically, it means that regulations that were previously considered to be guidelines now need to be taken more seriously, and where there are gaps, plan sponsors need to be sure to take the time to address them before an audit by the EBSA or Office of Civil Rights (OCR) results in fines. While the OCR has always conducted health plan audits for HIPAA compliance, the agency is really going to be stepping up enforcement in 2017, and is compiling a list of potential plans to audit before the end of 2016.

One of the requirements of HIPAA is that the covered entity must safeguard the Protected Health Information (PHI) of plan participants. HIPAA defines a covered entity as a health care provider or health plan, which includes insurance carriers, government programs, and welfare benefit plans. However, many plans require other entities to have access to that same information in order to fulfill the benefit obligations of the plan to the plan participants. For example, the plan has to transmit participant data or enrollment forms to the insurance broker or carrier so the participant can begin receiving benefits of the plan, such as going to see a doctor.

In order for the covered entity to be sure that the PHI of the plan participant is kept safe under the HIPAA requirements, it can enter into a Business Associate Agreement (BAA) with the other party so that they can exchange PHI information for business purposes. A business associate could be an insurance broker, COBRA vendor, HR or benefits database vendor, IT vendors, or offsite shredding vendor. A BAA outlines the responsibilities for each party, helps to protect the other party in case of a security breach, and defines how the PHI that is exchanged can be used.

A covered entity should also outline policies and procedures that identify the employees who need access to PHI and limit access to those employees, in addition to limiting the amount and type of information disclosed.

Originally published by United Benefit Advisors – Read More

0603The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) recently issued a final rule implementing Section 1557 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), which will take effect on July 18, 2016. If entities need to make changes to health insurance or group health plan benefit design as a result of this final rule, such provisions have an applicability date of the first day of the first plan year beginning on or after January 1, 2017.

ACA Section 1557 provides that individuals shall not be excluded from participation, denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any health program or activity which receives federal financial assistance from HHS on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, age, or disability. The rule applies to any program administered by HHS or any health program or activity administered by an entity established under Title I of the ACA. These applicable entities are “covered entities” and include a broad array of providers, employers, and facilities. State-based Marketplaces are also covered entities, as are Federally-Facilitated Marketplaces.

The final regulations are aimed primarily at preventing discrimination by health care providers and insurers, as well as employee benefits programs of an employer that is principally or primarily engaged in providing or administering health services or health insurance coverage, or employers who receive federal financial assistance to fund their employee health benefit program or health services. Employee benefits programs include fully insured and self-funded plans, employer-provided or sponsored wellness programs, employer-provided health clinics, and longer-term care coverage provided or administered by an employer, group health plan, third party administrator, or health insurer.

Affected employers include:

  • Hospitals
  • Nursing homes
  • Home health agencies
  • Laboratories
  • Community health centers
  • Therapy service providers (physical, speech, etc.)
  • Physicians’ groups
  • Health insurers
  • Ambulatory surgical centers
  • End stage renal dialysis centers
  • Health related schools receiving federal financial assistance through grant awards to support 40 health professional training programs

When determining if it receives federal financial assistance through Medicaid payments, meaningful use payments, or other payments a physician or physicians’ group would not count Medicare Part B payments because that is not considered federal financial assistance. In the proposed rule, HHS estimated that most physicians will still be a covered entity because they accept federal financial assistance from other sources. The final rule includes the same estimate of physicians receiving federal financial assistance as in the proposed rule because almost all practicing physicians in the United States accept some form of federal reimbursement other than Medicare Part B. As a result, most physicians are reached by this rule.

Covered entities must take steps to notify beneficiaries, enrollees, applicants, or members of the public of their nondiscrimination obligations with respect to their health programs and activities. Covered entities are required to post notices stating that they do not discriminate on the grounds prohibited by Section 1557, and that they will provide free (and timely) aids and services to individuals with limited English proficiency and disabilities. These notices must be posted in conspicuous physical locations where the entity interacts with the public, in its significant public-facing publications, and on its website home page. In addition, covered entities that employ 15 or more persons must designate a responsible employee to coordinate the entity’s compliance with the rule and adopt a grievance procedure.

For detailed information on how the rule addresses sex, gender, and sexual orientation discrimination, how marketplace plans and third party administrators are affected, discrimination against persons with Limited English Proficiency (LEP) and disabilities, enforcement mechanisms, and the key differences between the proposed and final rule, download UBA’s ACA Advisor, “Nondiscrimination Regulations Relating to Sex, Gender, Age, and More Finalized”.

Originally published by United Benefit Advisors – Read More

With the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) in full swing, private insurance exchanges are picking up steam among midsize employers (those with 50 or more employees) that desire to offer a competitive benefits package and “a new way to buy insurance.” However, the solutions available to employers in this underserved mid-market are limited to a suite of insurance products and a single enrollment system, and many employers are seeking a broader scope of options to fit their individual needs. 

A recent study by Accenture indicates that by 2018, private exchange enrollments will exceed public exchange enrollments. According to Mathew Augustine, CEO of Hanna Global Solutions, the power behind the United Benefit Advisors (UBA) Benefits Passport® private exchange solution, “this trend will be accentuated by solutions that go beyond an insurance exchange and enrollment system by offering more services that can also be unbundled. In addition to insurance, employers want access to advisory services, eligibility management, accounting and auditing, and employee support packaged comprehensively as a single, seamless, elegant, solution – yet they want the flexibility to choose a la carte solutions.” 

This comprehensive solution now offers a great new way, especially for medium sized businesses, to offer their employees a ‘big company experience’ with their employee benefit program. With UBA Benefits Passport, employers get a complete benefits program management solution, and not just a suite of insurance products bundled into an enrollment system. UBA Benefits Passport also offers employers a choice of insurance carriers. If an employer prefers a carrier that is not one of the national insurance carriers currently offered through the UBA Benefits Passport network, it has the capacity to add a carrier of choice in order to better serve that employer. 

UBA Benefits Passport has realized strong momentum in a very short period of time and added 30 new employer groups in the last six months alone. Richard Kosinski, Partner with Brio Benefit Consulting, Inc., a UBA Partner Firm in New York City, said, “my client was not only extremely satisfied, but ‘thrilled’ with what UBA’s Benefits Passport technology is capable of doing and the level of professionalism UBA’s Benefits Passport team showed during the implementation process. In fact, the advanced technology was one of the primary reasons why the employer selected UBA’s Benefits Passport.” 

This is also a new way for employers to ease into cost-effective HR outsourcing, which was previously too expensive for mid-market employers to consider. Because pricing is different for various combinations of services, employers should seek the help of a trusted UBA Partner advisor to develop a cost-effective, custom solution to support their overall benefits and HR staffing strategy,” said Mathew Augustine. 

According to UBA’s Senior V.P. of Partner Relations, Paul Zumbrook, “Benefits Passport is a perfect answer for the mid-market employer who wants to continue to offer group benefits, and believes it is a critical component of their employment value proposition. We are seeing a huge increase in interest and adoption of this benefits management program because of its flexibility, and we expect this to continue well into 2015 and beyond.” 

Learn more about how UBA Benefits Passport can provide simple solutions for you and your employees.

About United Benefit Advisors
United Benefit Advisors is the nation’s leading independent employee benefits advisory organization with more than 200 offices throughout the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom.  As trusted and knowledgeable advisors, UBA Partners collaborate with more than 2,000 fellow professionals to deliver expertise, thought leadership and best-in-class solutions that positively impact employers and make a real difference in the lives of their employees and families.  Employers, advisors and industry-related organizations interested in obtaining powerful results from the shared wisdom of our Partners should visit UBA online at www.UBAbenefits.com.