Top 10 ACA Related Issues Small Business Owners Should Know About This Fall – Part 2 of 2

Last week, we addressed five compliance issues arising from the Affordable Care Act (the “ACA”) that small business owners should be familiar with this fall.  Each of the issues were somewhat tactical in nature.  They are the types of matters that an owner can comfortably assign to a good HR professional for resolution.

On the other hand, the five ACA related issued described below are much more strategic. They are not simply “check the box” compliance issues. They require at least some consideration by the business’s entire leadership team.

Therefore, without further ado we will move on to…

5.  The Rise (or Fall) of Self-Funded Group Health Coverage

Because of the ACA’s modified community rating rules, many small groups that had enjoyed lower rates due to their younger or healthier workforce face enormous rate increases.

Modified community rating requires insurers in the small group market to charge the same premium to everyone with adjustments being allowed only for family size, geography, smoking and age.  What’s more, the allowable adjustments for age have been reduced by 40% in most cases.  Self-funded group health plans are not subject to ACA’s rating rules and therefore are attractive to more small employers.

Historically, self-funding has been too risky for small employers.  In the past, groups that had bad experiences with self-funded plans might find themselves unable to get out of them.  Prior to the passage of the ACA, carriers could refuse to offer fully insurance plans to certain groups.  Therefore, a self-funded group that experienced high claims could find themselves locked out of the fully-insured market by carriers refusing to quote them.  ACA has eliminated this problem going forward so groups have less concern about trying out self-funding to see if it works for them.  If it doesn’t, they can just return to fully insured world next year.

In response to this new ACA inspired increase in demand, the insurance industry is making self-funding based plans available to smaller and smaller groups.  This article from Inc. online provides a fuller explanation of why self-funding has become more appealing for smaller employers in an ACA world.

4.  SHOP Exchanges and Premium Tax Credits

One of the promises of the ACA was that small employers would have access to a broader array of coverage choices to offer their employees.  So far, this promise remains unfulfilled.

The plan was that through their state’s small group health insurance exchange (the “SHOP”), small employers could provide their employees with a defined contribution towards health insurance expenses and the employees could then choose the coverage option among several that best suited their family’s needs.

The SHOP would then aggregate billing for the employer for the choices made by its employees.

So far, neither of these capabilities are fully available in any states relying on federally facilitated SHOPs.   For 2015, some states with federal exchanges are able to offer multiple plans from the same carrier within the same metal tier but otherwise, there is no employee choice.

Six state run SHOP exchanges have been authorized to offer expanded employee choice in 2015.

SHOP exchanges across the country generally offer fewer plan options than are available to small group’s outside the SHOP.  This begs the question, with less choice and no employee choice advantages, why SHOP in the first place?

The simple answer is that beginning in 2015, tax credits available to small employers for health insurance premiums will only be available for coverage purchased through the SHOP.

For employers who qualify, the credits can be substantial.  They can amount to up to 50% of the health insurance premium paid.  Employers with less than 25 employees who also average salary or wages less than $50,000 per employee per year can qualify for some amount of premium tax credit.  The credit percentage will be lower than 50% for employers with more than 10 employees or whose average annual employee pay is more than $25,000.

More information on health insurance premium tax credits can be found online within the IRS’s website.

3.  The End of Individual Insurance Reimbursement Arrangements

In September of 2013, the IRS issued Notice 2013-54.  In it, the IRS ruled that any employer sponsored arrangement that reimburses employees for the purchase of individual health insurance violates the ACA.

Historically, employers have been able to reimburse employees on a tax-exempt basis for individual insurance premiums.  The tax code clearly authorizes the reimbursements (and in fact this section of the code remains unchanged by the ACA).  However, even before passage of the ACA there were concerns about whether such arrangements constituted group health plans under ERISA, thereby triggering other federal requirements such as COBRA and HIPAA.

In Notice 2013-54, the IRS essentially ruled that such arrangements are group health plans.  As such, they are subject to ACA’s prohibition against annual or lifetime benefit limits under group health plans.  Furthermore, they ruled that limiting reimbursements to the amount of an employee’s individual insurance premium worked as an annual limit on benefits and therefore violated the ACA.

Over the winter, various commentators and vendors attempted to parse the language of Notice 2013-54 to find a viable method of retaining employer reimbursements of individual insurance premiums.  In response, in May of 2014, the IRS reiterated their position with even clearer language and clarified that such arrangements would be subject to ACA’s $100 per day per covered employee statutory penalty.

For those running the math in your head, that’s $36,500 per employee per year.

Unfortunately, too many small employers retain these reimbursement arrangements into 2014.  They are either unaware of the IRS’s guidance or have been convinced by a service provider that the provider’s “special” way of arranging these reimbursements avoids the IRS’s prohibition.

At this point, we can only advise those employers to run, not walk, away from those arrangements and those advisers as they are playing Russian Roulette with the future of their business.

2.  The Individual Mandate, Subsidies and Related Employer Concerns

Employers that historically have not offered coverage to their employees and those that do not subsidize coverage for the dependents of their employees must consider how the new individual mandate might affect their ability to retain their best employees.

Beginning in 2014, individuals who do not purchase coverage for themselves and their dependents will be subject to tax penalties unless they access a waiver from coverage.  Although the amount of the penalties is small (as little as $95 per person in 2014) they will escalate over time (at least $325 per person and as much as 2% of household income in 2015).

The amounts of the penalties will never exceed the cost of actually purchasing coverage so individuals that don’t see value in coverage most likely won’t be motivated to purchase it on their own.  However, they will view employment opportunities without family insurance coverage as less valuable than competing job offers with coverage because of the tax.

Conversely, the rules governing individual subsidies create a perverse incentive for small employers and their employees.  Subsidies are only available to individuals who are not offered employer sponsored coverage that is affordable for the employee.  The affordability for the non-employee eligible individual is irrelevant.

Therefore, consider a single mom who  is eligible for group coverage through her employment that could cover herself and her child.   Let’s assume the common situation where her employer subsidizes employee only coverage so that it is deemed affordable for her but provides no contribution towards her child’s coverage.  Under the ACA, her child will not be eligible for subsidized coverage regardless of this mom’s income.  She might be better off moving to a job that doesn’t offer coverage at all so that she get subsidized coverage for herself and her child.

This scenario requires small employers to really understand the value their employees place on coverage (on in the example above, non-coverage).

1.  The Employer Mandate and the 50-99 Full Time Equivalent Transitional Relief

Since the passage of the ACA, every business owner has probably invested at least minimal effort in determining whether or not they are subject to the law’s employer mandate.

For some groups, working through the process of counting full-time employees and FTEs, applying control group rules and identifying the appropriate measurement periods has been confusing.

The process has only been made even more complicated by the recent delays and changes in the application of the employer mandate.

First the mandate was delayed from January 2014 until the first day of the employer’s plan year in 2014.  Then it was delayed until the first day in 2015.  Then it was delayed until the first day of the employer’s plan year in 2015.  Then it was delayed until 2016 for employers with 50-99 full-time equivalents.

Assuming there are no more delays in the effective date of the mandate, employers that historically have not provided coverage to their employees must determine the best course for the future.

Should they begin to offer coverage and absorb the additional expense or should they pay the tax?

Perhaps there is yet another alternative such as reducing the workforce or modifying the workforce’s part-time/full-time status or splitting the company up into smaller unaffiliated organizations.

Finding the best solution will only come after careful consideration of the the company’s goals and strategy.

But ultimately, these decisions must also factor in complex ACA concepts.  What  are the rules governing the two different employer mandate penalties?  What is the cheapest coverage that can be provided to escape one or both of the penalties?

For employers subject to the employer mandate in 2015, it is getting a little late in the game to address these issues but there is a large number of employers who are now on the clock for 2016.

Good luck!

That’s All Folks!

We hope that the series of articles over the last two weeks designed for small business owners has given you at least one piece of information that will either help you avoid trouble or save money in the near future.

If you have questions about any of the items posted above, please contact one of Admin America’s compliance experts via e-mail or toll free at 1-800-366-2961.

Top 10 ACA Related Issues Small Business Owners Should Know About This Fall – Part 1 of 2

The Affordable Care Act has absorbed too much energy from small business owners over the past several years.  2014 has seen so many aspects of the law take effect that it’s easy for business owners who need to focus on more important things (like making money in their core business) to be overwhelmed by all of the new responsibilities. Then dangerous things can slip through the cracks.  So what ACA issues should they actually be concerned about?

This article addresses five of the ten ACA related issues Admin America believes small business owners must be aware of as 2014 winds down.  The five items listed here are compliance related and therefore somewhat tactical in nature.

Later this week, we will follow up this article with another post of five additional issues that are much more strategic in nature.  We thought we’d get the easier ones out of the way first so business owners could ease into this process.

We’ll present the issues in reverse order in homage to David Letterman…

10.  90 Day Limit on Health Plan Eligibility Waiting Periods

For plan years beginning on or after January 1, 2014, group health plans must limit their eligibility waiting periods to more than 90 days.  So many small businesses moved their plan anniversary dates to December 1 last year that this fall’s open enrollment will be the first time that they must comply with this rule.

The date coverage takes effect must be within 90 calendar days of the date any non-time oriented requirements for coverage are met by an employee.   Non-time oriented requirements are still allowed.  For example, if coverage is restricted to salaried employees, an employee who transitions from hourly wages to salary must be allowed to enroll in coverage effective no later than 90 days after the date of that transition.

It’s critical to remember that 90 days does not equal 3 months under this rule.  Also, the practice of using separate eligibility dates and coverage effective dates may not extend the 90 day maximum.

9.  New Health FSA Eligibility Restrictions

Also for plan years beginning on or after January 1, 2014, employers who do not provide group health insurance coverage may no longer sponsor Health Flexible Spending Arrangements (FSAs) for their employees.

In addition, employees who are not eligible for coverage under their employer’s group health insurance may not participate in the employer’s Health FSA. However, employees are not required to enroll in the employer’s group health insurance coverage in order to participate in the Health FSA, they merely must be eligible to enroll.

There are some narrow exceptions to these rules for Health FSAs that only provide limited benefits (such as reimbursement of dental and vision expenses only).

8.  HRAs Must Be Integrated With Other Group Health Insurance Coverage

One more 2014 plan year limitation applies to Health Reimbursement Arrangements (HRAs).

HRAs can no longer reimburse employees for out of pocket medical expenses except unless the reimbursements are “integrated” with other group health insurance coverage. This means that HRAs are largely restricted to reimbursing employees for deductible, co-insurance and co-payment expenses under the integrated group health plan.

Interestingly, it is possible to integrate HRA coverage with an employee’s coverage under another employer’s group health plan.  For example, a HRA could reimburse an employee for expenses paid towards a deductible within a group health plan sponsored by the employee’s spouse that provides coverage to the employee’s child.

HRA coverage can not be integrated with any form of individual market health insurance.

Again, there are some narrow exceptions to these rules for HRAs that only provide limited benefits or that only provide coverage to retirees.

7.  PCORI Tax Filings

Employers that sponsor HRAs with plan years that ended any time last year should verify that they have payed their 2014 PCORI Taxes.

The Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) is funded by a small annual tax on group health plans.  For most small businesses, the tax on their group health insurance is paid by their health insurance carrier.  However, employers that also have HRAs are also required to pay the PCORI tax on those plans as well.

HRA Plan Sponsors are required to file IRS Form 720 and pay the appropriate annual tax amount to the IRS before the last day of July in the calendar year after the appropriate plan year end date.  For plan years that ended any time in 2013, the tax return and payment was due on July 31, 2014.

For plans that failed to file on time, standard tax penalties and interest will apply.  The good news is that the tax for plans ending last year were only $1 or $ 2 per covered employee for the year.  The amount depends on which month the plan year ended ($1 if the year ended on or before September 30, 2013 and $2 if it ended later in the year).

By the way, employers with HRA plans years that ended in the last quarter of 2012 were also required to file in 2013 so if they weren’t aware of this requirement, they may need to file two separate late returns.

6.  Employer Reporting Requirements for 2015

In early 2016, insurance carriers and employers will for the first time report to the federal government information about who is covered under their health plans. However, employers need to understand how this requirement will affect them now as they must begin tracking the reportable information at the beginning of 2015.

Employers that will be required to file are those that either provide group health coverage through a self-funded arrangement and/or those that are considered to be a “member” of an Applicable Large Employer (“ALE”).  ALEs are employers or a combination of employers within a control group with 50 or more Full-Time Equivalent employees (“FTEs”).

The purpose of this reporting requirement is to provide the government with the information necessary to enforce PPACA’s individual and employer mandates.

The reports will indicate which individuals were actually covered and during which months.  The employers’ reports will also identify employees who had access to group insurance coverage but didn’t take it. Employers will also report information about the quality and employee cost of the coverage the employer sponsors.

The reporting will work much like the current W2 system whereas information will be provided separately to the IRS and to the covered individuals or employees.  The information must be provided to the applicable individuals by the last day of January following the year for which it applies.  Filings with the IRS will be due either by the end of February or March (the latter date is available if the filing is electronic).

Therefore the first filings will be due to covered individuals and the IRS in the winter of 2016.  This is true for ALE members even if they are eligible for the one year transitional relief from the employer mandate (which applies to ALEs with less than 100 full time equivalent employees).

Earlier this summer, the IRS release drafts of the required filing forms and instructions and invited official comments.  Final versions of the forms and the instructions should be available by the end of 2014.

But wait, there’s more!

Stay tuned for our next installment where we will cover our Top 5 ACA Related Issues for Small Business Owners.

In the meantime, if you have questions about any of the items posted above, please contact one of Admin America’s compliance experts via e-mail or toll free at 1-800-366-2961.