Uncategorized |

Tight Labor Market Heightens Importance Of Protecting IP & Other Data Against Departing Employee Risks

January 24, 2022

With employers increasingly competing for workers., U.S. businesses should shore-up legal and operational data security and intellectual property safeguards against misappropriation, misuse or damage by departing workers.

January, 2022 Bureau of Labor Statistics (“BLS”) data released January 21, 2022 confirms employee turnover continues to rise as employers compete for workers in today’s worker-strapped employment market.

BLS reported on January 21, 2022 that:

Job openings rates decreased in 16 states, increased in 3 states, and were little changed in 31 states and the District of Columbia on the last business day of November;
Quits rates increased in 22 states and decreased in 2 states; and
Total separations rates increased in 13 states.

See BLS State Job Openings and Labor Turnover Summary

The resulting competition for workers makes it increasingly difficult for businesses to retain and recruit sufficient workers to meet their operating needs. The National Association of Manufacturers 2021 Fourth Quarter Manufacturers’ Outlook Survey released in December 2921 sighted the shortage of workers as a leading business concern. Meanwhile, a recent Goldman Sachs survey shows small business owners identify finding workers as their top business challenge.

With the pool of unemployed workers continuing to decline, employers understandably increasingly are looking to entice employed workers away from their existing positions. Consequently, savvy business leaders should recognize that along with working to recruit additional workers to meet their growth needs, their organizations also need tot take steps to retain key workers and protect against the loss of know how and intellectual property in the face of stepped up efforts of other employers to recruit their valuable employees.

In recognition other businesses may target their best workers, businesses reliant upon labor competitive workforces should both to review existing compensation to deter against the loss of key workers and to strengthen their non competition, trade secret and other intellectual property safeguards to minimize intellectual property and other competitive risks that typically rise from another employer’s recruitment of a key employee.

When conducting these activities, businesses should start my re-evaluating their current employment, noncompete, trade secret and other practices both for market competitiveness and their legal effectiveness in light of widespread changes in market practices and legal rules.

Business concerned about protecting against the loss of workers or intellectual property are cautioned to confirm that their policies and practices are reviewed and updated to take into account evolving market and legal rules and practices. Changing federal tax and other rules may impact the employer’s expectations and responsibilities concerning the tax and treatment of bonus or other golden handcuffs intended by the business to incent key workers to stay with the organization. Along side with these changing rules, evolving federal antitrust enforcement guidance, state regulatory and enforcement precedent, and other federal and state changes also may impact traditional employer noncompetition, nonsolicitation, trade secret and other commonly used employee retention, intellectual property and other business intelligence safeguards. Consequently businesses intending to use and rely upon these practices will want to review and update these practices to avoid unanticipated legal barriers to enforcement and maximize the reliability of these safeguards both against existing employees who may depart employment now, and the future separation of new recruits.

Beyond ensuring that legal policies and practices are up-to-date, employers also should consider whether their operational practices safeguard their data and other sensitive business information against misappropriation or misuse. information requiring protection includes not only traditionally recognized trade secrets and confidential information critical to business competitiveness, as well as credit card and other personal and business information of customers and business partners, licenses, human resources, tax and other data that the business has a contractual or statutory obligation to protect against improper access, use or disclosure. In addition to adopting appropriate privacy, investigation, background consent and other policies and procedures to position the company to legally monitor and investigate potential inappropriate dealings with these and other sensitive resources, savvy businesses will work with legal counsel to implement appropriate processes and procedures for ongoing prevention, monitoring and redress of suspicious access and other improper activities involving these materials.

Furthermore, businesses also should consider the likelihood that departing workers may view their transition to new employment as freeing them to address past perceived wrongs by filing wage and hour, safety, whistleblower or other complaints, charges or litigation. In the face of these risks, employers will want to ensure that their existing wage and hour, harassment,safety and other workforce policies and practices are currently compliant as well as be prepared to respond to any allegations of past misconduct. Employers should carefully conduct exit interviews and investigate any alleged misconduct or other negative feedback to mitigate potential risks and liabilities. Employers also should consult with experienced employment and employee benefits counsel about appropriate design, administration and documentation of these policies, practices, arrangements and activities. Businesses also use special care to manage and relate to defend against whistleblower, interference and retaliation liabilities and claims given recently announced retaliation enforcement initiatives by the Equal Opportunity Commission, the Occupational Safety & Health Administration and other Department of Labor agencies. See e.g. Manage Heightened Retaliation Exposures Arising From COVID-19 Safety, Return-To-Work & Other Practices.

More Information

Solutions Law Press, Inc. also invites you to receive future updates by registering here and participating and contributing to the discussions in our Solutions Law Press, Inc. LinkedIn SLP Health Care Risk Management & Operations Group, HR & Benefits Update Compliance Group, and/or Coalition for Responsible Health Care Policy. If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information including your preferred e-mail by creating your profile here. For specific information about the these or other legal, management or public policy developments, please contact the author Cynthia Marcotte Stamer via e-mail, telephone at (214) 452-8297 or on LinkedIn.

About the Author

Ms. Stamer works with businesses and their management, employee benefit plans, governments and other organizations deal with all aspects of human resources and workforce, internal controls and regulatory compliance, change management and other performance and operations management and compliance. Her day-to-day work encompasses both labor and employment issues, as well as independent contractor, outsourcing, employee leasing, management services and other nontraditional service relationships. She supports her clients both on a real-time, “on demand” basis and with longer term basis to deal with all aspects for workforce and human resources management, including, recruitment, hiring, firing, compensation and benefits, promotion, discipline, compliance, trade secret and confidentiality, noncompetition, privacy and data security, safety, daily performance and operations management, emerging crises, strategic planning, process improvement and change management, investigations, defending litigation, audits, investigations or other enforcement challenges, government affairs and public policy.

A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, the American Bar Foundation and the Texas Bar Foundation, Ms. Stamer also shares her thought leadership, experience and advocacy on these and other concerns by her service as a management consultant, business coach and consultant and policy strategist as well through her leadership participation in professional and civic organizations such her involvement as the Vice Chair of the North Texas Healthcare Compliance Association; Executive Director of the Coalition on Responsible Health Policy and its PROJECT COPE: Coalition on Patient Empowerment; former Board President of the early childhood development intervention agency, The Richardson Development Center for Children; former Gulf Coast TEGE Council Exempt Organization Coordinator; a founding Board Member and past President of the Alliance for Healthcare Excellence; former board member and Vice President of the Managed Care Association; past Board Member and Board Compliance Committee Chair for the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas; a member and policy adviser to the National Physicians’ Council for Healthcare Policy; current Vice Chair of the ABA Tort & Insurance Practice Section Employee Benefits Committee; current Vice Chair of Policy for the Life Sciences Committee of the ABA International Section; Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Section; ABA Real Property Probate and Trust (RPTE) Section former Employee Benefits Group Chair, immediate past RPTE Representative to ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits Council Representative, and Defined Contribution Committee Co-Chair, past Welfare Benefit Committee Chair and current Employee Benefits Group Fiduciary Responsibility Committee Co-Chair, Substantive and Group Committee member, Membership Committee member and RPTE Representative to the ABA Health Law Coordinating Council; past Chair of the Dallas Bar Association Employee Benefits & Executive Compensation Committee; a former member of the Board of Directors, Treasurer, Member and Continuing Education Chair of the Southwest Benefits Association and others.

Ms. Stamer also is a widely published author, highly popular lecturer, and serial symposia chair, who publishes and speaks extensively on human resources, labor and employment, employee benefits, compensation, occupational safety and health, and other leadership, performance, regulatory and operational risk management, public policy and community service concerns for the American Bar Association, ALI-ABA, American Health Lawyers, Society of Human Resources Professionals, the Southwest Benefits Association, the Society of Employee Benefits Administrators, the American Law Institute, Lexis-Nexis, Atlantic Information Services, The Bureau of National Affairs (BNA), InsuranceThoughtLeaders.com, Benefits Magazine, Employee Benefit News, Texas CEO Magazine, HealthLeaders, the HCCA, ISSA, HIMSS, Modern Healthcare, Managed Healthcare, Institute of Internal Auditors, Society of CPAs, Business Insurance, Employee Benefits News, World At Work, Benefits Magazine, the Wall Street Journal, the Dallas Morning News, the Dallas Business Journal, the Houston Business Journal, and many other symposia and publications. She also has served as an Editorial Advisory Board Member for human resources, employee benefit and other management focused publications of BNA, HR.com, Employee Benefit News, InsuranceThoughtLeadership.com and many other prominent publications and speaks and conducts training for a broad range of professional organizations and for clients on the Advisory Boards of InsuranceThoughtLeadership.com, HR.com, Employee Benefit News, and many other publications.

Want to know more? See here for details about the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, e-mail her here or telephone Ms. Stamer at (469) 767-8872.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please provide your current contact information and preferences including your preferred e-mail by creating or updating your profile here.

NOTICE: These statements and materials are for general informational and purposes only. They do not establish an attorney-client relationship, are not legal advice, and do not serve as a substitute for legal advice. Readers are urged to engage competent legal counsel for consultation and representation in light of the specific facts and circumstances presented in their unique circumstance at any particular time. No comment or statement in this publication is to be construed as an admission. The author reserves the right to qualify or retract any of these statements at any time. Likewise, the content is not tailored to any particular situation and does not necessarily address all relevant issues. Because the law is rapidly evolving and rapidly evolving rules makes it highly likely that subsequent developments could impact the currency and completeness of this discussion. The presenter and the program sponsor disclaim, and have no responsibility to provide any update or otherwise notify any participant of any such change, limitation, or other condition that might affect the suitability of reliance upon these materials or information otherwise conveyed in connection with this program. Readers may not rely upon, are solely responsible for, and assume the risk and all liabilities resulting from their use of this publication.

Circular 230 Compliance. The following disclaimer is included to ensure that we comply with U.S. Treasury Department Regulations. Any statements contained herein are not intended or written by the writer to be used, and nothing contained herein can be used by you or any other person, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties that may be imposed under federal tax law, or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related transaction or matter addressed herein.

©2022 Cynthia Marcotte Stamer. Non-exclusive right to republish granted to Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ For information about republication, please contact the author directly. All other rights reserved.

Comments Off on Tight Labor Market Heightens Importance Of Protecting IP & Other Data Against Departing Employee Risks | Uncategorized | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

2/28 New Comment Deadline For NLRB Proposal To Exclude College Work Study Student Workers From NLRA Coverage

January 28, 2020

February 28, 2020 is the new deadline for employers to comment on a National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) proposal to exempt undergraduate and graduate students performing services for financial compensation in connection with their studies from the NLRB’s definition of “employee” for purposes of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and other collective bargaining and union organizing and representation laws under the NLRB’s jurisdiction.

The original notice of proposed rulemaking published here on September 23, 2019 would exempt ”every student performing teaching, research and any services for compensation, at a private college or university in connection with his or her studies from treatment as an “employee” for purposes of Section 2(3) of the NLRA. The extended deadline unofficially announced by the NLRB on January 28, 2020 is the NLRB’s second extension of the comment deadline. The official announcement from the NLRB of its extension of the comment submission window for responses to initial comments to Friday, February 28, 2020 is expected to be published in the Federal Register the week of February 3, 2020. The NLRB previously extended the comment deadline on October 17, 2019. That first extended comment deadline expired in December, 2019.

The NLRB says this proposed rulemaking t exempt students from employees covered by the NLRA “is intended to bring stability to an area of federal labor law in which the NLRB, through adjudication, has reversed its approach three times since 2000. The NLRB has stated this proposed standard on the exclusion of students from the NLRA definition of employee is consistent with the purposes and policies of the NLRA, which contemplates jurisdiction over economic relationships, not those that are primarily educational in nature.

The proposed regulation to exclude students from NLRA coverage is one of several regulatory projects that the now Trump-appointee dominated NLRB has undertaken in the past year in its effort to undue a host of pro-labor changes to NLRB policy changes initiated and enforced during the Obama Administration when President Obama appointees dominated the NLRB and its policies. Another example of these regulatory efforts include the NLRB’s current efforts to reverse a change in interpretation and enforcement of the “joint employer” rules of the NLRA and Fair Labor Standards Act that substantially expanded the imputation of liability for collective bargaining and other labor-management and wage and hour law violations by treating companies as joint employers that received the benefit of work performed even when the recipient company did not control the details of the work or the nominal employer. Aside from submitting any relevant feedback to the student rule, business leaders and organizations generally will want to carefully monitor developments to update their policies and practices as well as to provide appropriate input on these and other developments.

For More Information

We hope this update is helpful. For more information about this or other labor and employment developments, please contact the author Cynthia Marcotte Stamer via e-mail or via telephone at (214) 452 -8297.

Solutions Law Press, Inc. invites you receive future updates and join discussions about these and other human resources, health and other employee benefit and patient empowerment concerns by participating and contributing to the discussions in our Solutions Law Press HR & Benefits Update Compliance Update Group and registering for updates on our Solutions Law Press Website.

About the Author

Highly valued for her rare ability to find pragmatic client-centric solutions by combining her detailed legal and operational knowledge and experience with her talent for creative problem-solving, Ms. Stamer’s clients include employers and other workforce management organizations; employer, union, association, government and other insured and self-insured health and other employee benefit plan sponsors, benefit plans, fiduciaries, administrators, and other plan vendors; domestic and international public and private health care, education and other community service and care organizations; managed care organizations; insurers, third-party administrative services organizations and other payer organizations; and other private and government organizations and their management leaders. As part of this work, she has worked extensively on employee benefit communication and other employee benefit plan legislative and regulatory policy, design, compliance and enforcement including testifying to the EBSA Advisory Council on Employee Welfare and Pension Benefit Plans in on the effectiveness of employee benefit plan disclosures during 2017 hearings on on reducing the burdens and increasing the effectiveness of ERISA mandated disclosures.

Throughout her 30 plus year career, Ms. Stamer has continuously worked with these and other management clients to design, implement, document, administer and defend hiring, performance management, compensation, promotion, demotion, discipline, reduction in force and other workforce, employee benefit, insurance and risk management, health and safety, and other programs, products and solutions, and practices; establish and administer compliance and risk management policies; manage labor-management relations, comply with requirements, investigate and respond to government, accreditation and quality organizations, regulatory and contractual audits, private litigation and other federal and state reviews, investigations and enforcement actions; evaluate and influence legislative and regulatory reforms and other regulatory and public policy advocacy; prepare and present training and discipline; handle workforce and related change management associated with mergers, acquisitions, reductions in force, re-engineering, and other change management; and a host of other workforce related concerns. Ms. Stamer’s experience in these matters includes supporting these organizations and their leaders on both a real-time, “on demand” basis with crisis preparedness, intervention and response as well as consulting and representing clients on ongoing compliance and risk management; plan and program design; vendor and employee credentialing, selection, contracting, performance management and other dealings; strategic planning; policy, program, product and services development and innovation; mergers, acquisitions, bankruptcy and other crisis and change management; management, and other opportunities and challenges arising in the course of workforce and other operations management to improve performance while managing workforce, compensation and benefits and other legal and operational liability and performance.

A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel and Past Chair of both the ABA Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group and it’s RPTE Employee Benefits and Other Compensation Group, Ms. Stamer also has leading edge experience in health benefit, health care, health, financial and other plan, program and process design, administration, documentation, contracting, risk management, compliance and related process and systems development, policy and operations; training; legislative and regulatory affairs, and other legal and operational concerns.

A former lead consultant to the Government of Bolivia on its Pension Privatization Project with extensive domestic and international public policy concerns in pensions, healthcare, workforce, immigration, tax, education and other areas, Ms. Stamer has been extensively involved in U.S. federal, state and local health care and other legislative and regulatory reform impacting these concerns throughout her career. Her public policy and regulatory affairs experience encompasses advising and representing domestic and multinational private sector health, insurance, employee benefit, employer, staffing and other outsourced service providers, and other clients in dealings with Congress, state legislatures, and federal, state and local regulators and government entities, as well as providing advice and input to U.S. and foreign government leaders on these and other policy concerns.

Author of leading works on a multitude of labor and employment, compensation and benefits, internal controls and compliance, and risk management matters and a Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, the American Bar Foundation and the Texas Bar Foundation, Ms. Stamer also shares her thought leadership, experience and advocacy on these and other related concerns by her service in the leadership of the Solutions Law Press, Inc. Coalition for Responsible Health Policy, its PROJECT COPE: Coalition on Patient Empowerment, and a broad range of other professional and civic organizations including North Texas Healthcare Compliance Association, a founding Board Member and past President of the Alliance for Healthcare Excellence, past Board Member and Board Compliance Committee Chair for the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas; former Board President of the early childhood development intervention agency, The Richardson Development Center for Children (now Warren Center For Children); current Vice Chair of the ABA Tort & Insurance Practice Section Employee Benefits Committee, current Vice Chair of Policy for the Life Sciences Committee of the ABA International Section, Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Section, a current Defined Contribution Plan Committee Co-Chair, former Group Chair and Co-Chair of the ABA RPTE Section Employee Benefits Group, past Representative and chair of various committees of ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits; an ABA Health Law Coordinating Council representative, former Coordinator and a Vice-Chair of the Gulf Coast TEGE Council TE Division, past Chair of the Dallas Bar Association Employee Benefits & Executive Compensation Committee, a former member of the Board of Directors of the Southwest Benefits Association and others.

For more information about Ms. Stamer or her health industry and other experience and involvements, see here or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (214) 452-8297 or via e-mail here.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information including your preferred e-mail by creating your profile here. We also invite you to join the discussion of these and other human resources, health and other employee benefit and patient empowerment concerns by participating and contributing to the discussions in our Health Plan Compliance Group or COPE: Coalition On Patient Empowerment Groupon LinkedIn or Project COPE: Coalition on Patient Empowerment Facebook Page.

NOTICE: These statements and materials are for general informational and purposes only. They do not establish an attorney-client relationship, are not legal advice or an offer or commitment to provide legal advice, and do not serve as a substitute for legal advice. Readers are urged to engage competent legal counsel for consultation and representation in light of the specific facts and circumstances presented in their unique circumstance at any particular time. No comment or statement in this publication is to be construed as legal advice or an admission and its content is not tailored to any particular situation and does not necessarily address all relevant issues. Because the law is rapidly evolving and rapidly evolving rules makes it highly likely that subsequent developments could impact the currency and completeness of this discussion.otherwise notify any participant of any such change, limitation, or other condition that might affect the suitability of reliance upon these materials or information otherwise conveyed in connection with this program. Readers may not rely upon, are solely responsible for, and assume the risk and all liabilities resulting from their use of this publication.

©2019 Cynthia Marcotte Stamer. Non-exclusive right to republish granted to Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ For information about republication or the topic of this article, please contact the author directly. All other rights reserved.

Comments Off on 2/28 New Comment Deadline For NLRB Proposal To Exclude College Work Study Student Workers From NLRA Coverage | Education, Educational Privacy, employee, Employee Benefits, Employer, Employers, ERISA, Labor Management Relations, NLRA, Reporting & Disclosure, Retirement Plans, Uncategorized, Unfair Labor Practice, Union, Union certification, Union elections, Worker Classification | Tagged: Collective Bargaining, Education, Employees, higher education, NLRA, NLRB, student worker organization, Union, Worker Classification | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

SBA Hosts Employee Benefits Roundtable 11/21

November 18, 2019

The Small Business Administration (“SBA”) Advocacy Office will is host an Employee Benefits Roundtable on Thursday, Nov. 21 from 10:00 AM until 12:00 noon at the SBA Headquarters in Washington, D.C. with the following agenda:

Welcome and Introductions (10:00 am – 10:15 am)

Charles G. Jeane, Assistant Chief Counsel, SBA Office of Advocacy

Discussion of Small Business Use of Cafeteria Plans (10:15 am – 10:45 am)

Gary Kushner, President and CEO of Kushner & Company

Discussion of MEPs and Open MEPs (10:45 am – 11:15 am)

Sandra Turner, President of Retirement Plan Specialists, Inc.

Discussion of Adding Annuities as An Option for Plan Participants (11:15 am – 11:45 am)

Chantel Sheaks, Executive Director, Retirement Policy, U.S. Chamber of Commerce

Open Discussion/Other Small Business Issues (11:45 am – 12:00 pm).

The purpose of these roundtable meetings is to exchange opinions, facts, and information and to obtain the attendees’ individual views and opinions regarding small business concerns. The meetings are not intended to communicate or achieve any consensus positions of the attendees.

Roundtable meetings are open to all interested persons, except the press. Press are excluded in order to facilitate an open and frank discussion about small business-related issues.

About The Author

A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, the American Bar Foundation and the Texas Bar Foundation; Former Chair of the RPTE Employee Benefits and Compensation Committee, a current Co-Chair of the Committee, and the former Chair of its Welfare Benefit and its Defined Compensation Plan Committees and former RPTE Joint Committee on Employee Benefits Council (JCEB) Representative, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer is a Martindale-Hubble “AV-Preeminent” practicing attorney and management consultant, author, public policy advocate, author and lecturer repeatedly recognized for her 30 plus years’ of work and pragmatic thought leadership, publications and training on health, pension and other employee benefit, insurance, labor and employment, and health care fiduciary responsibility, payment, investment, contracting and other design, administration and compliance concerns as among the “Top Rated Labor & Employment Lawyers in Texas,” a “Legal Leader,” a “Top Woman Lawyer” and with other awards by LexisNexis® Martindale-Hubbell®; as among the “Best Lawyers In Dallas” for her work in the field of “Labor & Employment,” “Tax: ERISA & Employee Benefits,” “Health Care” and “Business and Commercial Law” by D Magazine, in International Who’s Who of Professionals and with numerous other awards and distinctions.

Her experience encompasses leading and supporting the development and defense of innovative new policies, programs, practices and solutions; advising and representing clients on routine plan establishment, plan documentation and contract drafting and review, administration, change and other compliance and operations; crisis prevention and response, compliance and risk management audits and investigations, enforcement actions and other dealings with the US Congress, Departments of Labor, Treasury, Health & Human Services, Federal Trade Commission, Justice, Securities and Exchange Commission, Education and other federal agencies, state legislatures, attorneys general, insurance, labor, worker’s compensation, and other agencies and regulators, and various other foreign and domestic governmental bodies and agencies.

She also provides strategic and other supports clients in defending litigation as lead strategy counsel, special counsel and as an expert witness. Alongside her extensive legal and operational experience, Ms. Stamer also is recognized for her work as a public and regulatory policy advocate and community leader with a gift for finding pragmatic solutions and helping to forge the common ground necessary to build consensus. Best known for her domestic public policy and community leadership on health care and insurance reform, Ms. Stamer’s lifelong public policy and community service involvement includes service as a lead consultant to the Government of Bolivia on its pension privatization project, as well as extensive legislative and regulatory reform, advocacy and input workforce, worker classification, employee benefit, public health and healthcare, social security and other disability and aging in place, education, migration reforms domestically and internationally throughout her adult life.

In addition to her public and regulatory policy involvement, Ms. Stamer also contributes her service and leadership to a professional and civic organizations and efforts including her involvement as the Founder and Executive Director of the Coalition on Responsible Health Policy and its PROJECT COPE; Coalition on Patient Empowerment, a founding Board Member and past President of the Alliance for Healthcare Excellence; Vice Chair of the ABA Tort & Insurance Practice Section Employee Benefits Committee; Vice Chair, Policy for the Life Sciences Committee of the ABA International Section, Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group; current Fiduciary Responsibility Committee Co-Chair and Membership Committee member of the ABA RPTE Section; former RPTE Employee Benefits and Other Compensation Group Chair, former Chair and Co-Chair of its Welfare Plans Committee, and Defined Contribution Plans Committee; former RPTE Representative to ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits Council; former RPTE Representative to the ABA Health Law Coordinating Counsel; former Coordinator and a Vice-Chair of the Gulf Coast TEGE Council TE Division, past Chair of the Dallas Bar Association Employee Benefits & Executive Compensation Committee, former Board Member, Continuing Education Chair and Treasurer of the Southwest Benefits Association; Vice President of the North Texas Healthcare Compliance Professionals Association; past Board Member and Board Compliance Committee Chair for the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas; former Board President of the early childhood development intervention agency, The Richardson Development Center for Children; past Dallas World Affairs Council Board Member, and in leadership of many other professional, civic and community organizations.

Ms. Stamer also is a highly popular public speaker, symposia chair and author, who publishes and speaks extensively on health and managed care industry, human resources, employment and other privacy, data security and other technology, regulatory and operational risk management for the American Bar Association, ALI-ABA, American Health Lawyers, Society of Human Resources Professionals, the Southwest Benefits Association, the Society of Employee Benefits Administrators, the American Law Institute, Lexis-Nexis, Atlantic Information Services, The Bureau of National Affairs (BNA), InsuranceThoughtLeaders.com, the Society of Professional Benefits Administrators, Benefits Magazine, Employee Benefit News, Texas CEO Magazine, HealthLeaders, the HCCA, ISSA, HIMSS, Modern Healthcare, Managed Healthcare, Institute of Internal Auditors, Society of CPAs, Business Insurance, Employee Benefits News, World At Work, Benefits Magazine, the Wall Street Journal, the Dallas Morning News, the Dallas Business Journal, the Houston Business Journal, and many other symposia and publications. She also has served as an Editorial Advisory Board Member for human resources, employee benefit and other management focused publications of BNA, HR.com, Employee Benefit News, InsuranceThoughtLeadership.com and many other prominent publications and speaks and conducts training for a broad range of professional organizations and for clients, serves on the faculty and planning committee of many workshops, seminars, and symposia, and on the Advisory Boards of InsuranceThoughtLeadership.com, HR.com, Employee Benefit News, and many other publications.

Beyond these involvements, Ms. Stamer also is active in the leadership of a broad range of other public policy advocacy and other professional and civic organizations and involvements. Through these and other involvements, she helps develop and build solutions, build consensus, garner funding and other resources, manage compliance and other operations, and take other actions to identify promote tangible improvements in health care and other policy and operational areas.

Before founding her current law firm, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, P.C., Ms. Stamer practiced law as a partner with several prominent national and international law firms for more than 10 years before founding Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, P.C. to practice her unique brand of “Solutions law™” and to devote more time to the pragmatic policy and system reform, community education and innovation, and other health system improvement efforts of her PROJECT COPE: the Coalition on Patient Empowerment initiative.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

©2019 Cynthia Marcotte Stamer. Non-exclusive right to republish granted to Solutions Law Press, Inc.™. For information about republication, please contact the author directly. All other rights reserved.

Comments Off on SBA Hosts Employee Benefits Roundtable 11/21 | 401(k), 4980D, 4980H, 6039D, Brokers, Cafeteria Plans, compensation, defined benefit plan, Defined Benefit Plans, defined contribution plan, Defined Contribution Plans, directors, EBSA, Employee Benefits, Employers, Employment, ERISA, Fringe Benefit, Fringe Benefits, health Care, health care transparency, health insurance, Health Plans, Human Resources, multiple employer plan (Meps), Retirement Plans, Uncategorized | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

College Pays $54,000 To Settle DOJ ADA Lawsuit For Paramedic Program’s Termination of TA With MS

November 7, 2019

Lanier Technical College, a unit of the Technical College System of Georgia, will pay $53,000 in back pay and compensatory damages and revise its policies and procedures to settle a Justice Department lawsuit alleging the College violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by terminating along-time College employee based on her multiple sclerosis filed in the Northern District Of Georgia on November 4, 2019. In addition to this disability discrimination allegation, the Justice Department complaint also alleges the removed the employee from the teaching schedule for an entire school semester, thus reducing her hours and pay to zero, due to her multiple sclerosis after the employee took three days of sick leave one summer. The lawsuit and its settlement reminds academic health care and other public and private employers about the need to use appropriate care to avoid inappropriate discrimination against individuals with disabilities in employment and other operations.

The College had employed the terminated employee as a part-time emergency medical technician (EMT) lab assistant for over three years before the events prompting the lawsuit took place. The essential functions of her job involved assisting instructors in the classroom and in the lab, and perform “check offs” to authorize and certify that the students mastered particular technical competencies (e.g., properly taking blood pressure, starting a patient’s I.V., assessing a patient’s vital signs). In addition to her employment with the College, the former employee also worked as a paramedic for an unrelated employer. She continued to work as a full-time paramedic for nearly three years after the College terminated her employment as a part-time lab assistant.

Less than a year into her employment at the College, the former employee was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis (MS) in 2010. Shortly after her diagnosis the former employee notified among others, notified the Director of the Lanier Paramedicine Technology (PMT) Department, Sam Stone, of her condition and Mr. Stone subsequently discussed her MS and treatment with her over the course of her employment with the College. According to the Justice Department complaint, the former employee did not require any reasonable accommodations for her disability, remained qualified to perform the essential functions of the part-time lab assistant job, and did so successfully until College discharged her or otherwise altered her compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment.

In 2012, the former employee assisted with classes and labs taught by Instructor Andy Booth. Instructor Booth managed the work schedule for all the part-time EMT lab assistants who assisted with his classes, including that of the former employee. This included the ability to remove lab assistants from any shifts they requested. Director Stone then completed a final review of the semester and approved the schedule and any changes to it.

During the summer of 2012, the former employee had to miss her assigned workdays on two or three occasions due to her MS and its treatment. She also was on disability leave from her paramedic job for a period during that summer, returning to work full-time in early August. Following these absences, Instructor Booth on August 30, 2012 sent an email to lab assistants, including the former employee requesting that lab assistants sign up for open shifts on the work schedule, as he was “still short on help.” The schedule with available shifts was posted for September through December 2012. The former employee signed up for seven or eight four-hour shifts over the course of the fall semester that same day and emailed Instructor Booth the evening of August 30 to inform him of this. In her email, she indicated that she was no longer on disability leave from her other job.

Two weeks later, on September 12, 2012, the College removed the former employee from the work schedule for the entire fall semester schedule on the written instructions of Instructor Booth with the approval of Director Stone. Instructor Booth’s September 12 email instructions to his assistant provided a link to the online work schedule for the lab assistants and stated: “Any day you see [the former employee], just take her off.” Director Stone was copied on this email. That same day, Director Stone replied to Instructor Booth’s email, stating that he had reviewed all of the dates up to December and approved the schedule. The College knew that, by removing the former employee from the schedule, it was terminating her employment with Lanier.

When the former employee realized that someone removed her from the schedule for the entire semester, she contacted Instructor Booth. He told the former employee, by text message, that it was Director Stone’s decision and that Director Stone wanted to give the former employee “some time to heal.” Instructor Booth also stated that Director Stone seemed upset about the former employee missing a few days in the summer due to her MS. Instructor Booth then directed the former employee to speak to Director Stone. He did not offer to reinstate her for any of the days she signed up for or for any future dates.

Thereafter, on September 26, 2012, the former employee contacted Director Stone by email. After telling Director Stone i her email that Instructor Booth said Director Stone was managing the schedule and had wanted to give her “some time to heal,” she reassured him that she appreciated his concern but that she felt she was “OK.” When Director Stone responded on September 23, he confirmed the correctness of Director Stone’s email and also confirmed that he was concerned with the former employee’s health. He offered to discuss these concerns further with her in private. He did not offer to reinstate her for any of the days she signed up for or for any future dates.

Later that day, the former employee called Director Stone. On the call, Director Stone expressed concern about legal and liability issues and whether the former employee was fit to work because of her MS. He said that he, as the Department Director, had to be concerned about her health and medical issues, because a student could challenge a grade on the basis that her MS made her unfit to evaluate students. Director Stone also referenced a couple days that the former employee missed work due to her MS during the summer, and stated that she was less reliable than other lab assistants were at that point. He did not offer to reinstate her for any of the days she signed up for or for any future dates.

Approximately six months later, College removed the former employee from the payroll and changed her payroll status to “terminated.”

On September 26, 2012, the former employee filed a timely charge of discrimination with the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), alleging that College terminated her because of her disability in violation of the ADA. The Justice Department filed the lawsuit after the EEOC referred the former employee’s complaint to it.

Title I of the ADA prohibits covered entities including the College from discriminating against a qualified individual on the basis of disability in regard to job application procedures, the hiring, advancement, or discharge of employees, employee compensation, job training, and other terms, conditions, and privileges of employment. 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a); 29 C.F.R. § 1630.4.

The Justice Department complaint against the College charged that the College violated the ADA by discriminating against her on the basis of her disability by:

Removing her from the lab assistant work schedule for a semester and reducing her work hours and compensation to zero; and
Terminating her on the basis of her disability

As a consequence of these discriminatory actions, the complaint charged the former employee suffered lost earnings, benefits and job advancement opportunities, as well as substantial emotional distress, pain and suffering and other nonpecuniary losses. The complaint asked the District Court to redress these injuries by:

Declaring the College in violation of the Title I of the ADA and its accompanying regulation;
Enjoining the College and its agents, employees, successors, and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from engaging in discriminatory employment policies and practices that violate Title I of the ADA;
Requiring the College to modify its policies, practices, and procedures as necessary to bring its employment practices into compliance with Title I of the ADA and its implementing regulation;
Ordering the College to train its supervisors and human resource staff regarding the requirements of Title I of the ADA; and
Awarding the former employee back pay with interest; the value of any lost benefits with interest; and compensatory damages, including damages for emotional distress, for injuries suffered as a result of Defendant’s failure to comply with the requirements of the ADA;

Under the settlement agreement announced November 7, 2019 by the Justice Department, the College must pay the former employee $53,000 in back pay and compensatory damages, revise its policies and training staff on the ADA to ensure compliance with the ADA, train staff on the ADA, and report to the Justice Department on implementation of the settlement agreement.

Reaching this settlement allowed the College to eliminate its exposure to potentially much greater liability. In addition to actual lost compensation and benefit damages, a loss at trial could have resulted in a jury award that also ordered the College to pay attorneys’ fees and other costs, interest and exemplary damages of up to $300,000.

For More Information

We hope this update is helpful. For more information about employment discrimination or other labor and employment, compensation, benefits or other related management and compliance concerns or developments, please contact the author Cynthia Marcotte Stamer via e-mail or via telephone at (214) 452 -8297.

About the Author

Author of numerous highly regarding publications on disability and other discrimination and other employment, employee benefit, compensation, regulatory compliance and internal controls and other management concerns affecting health care, education, insurance, housing and other operations, Ms. Stamer’s clients include health care, insurance and financial services, educational and other employer and services organizations; employer, union, association, government and other insured and self-insured health and other employee benefit plan sponsors, benefit plans, fiduciaries, administrators, and other plan vendors; domestic and international public and private health care, education and other community service and care organizations; managed care organizations; insurers, third-party administrative services organizations and other payer organizations; and other private and government organizations and their management leaders. In addition to her legal and management operations work. Ms. Stamer’s experience includes 30 plus years’ of legislative and regulatory policy advocacy and drafting, design, compliance and enforcement including testifying to the EBSA Advisory Council on Employee Welfare and Pension Benefit Plans in on the effectiveness of employee benefit plan disclosures during 2017 hearings on on reducing the burdens and increasing the effectiveness of ERISA mandated disclosures as well as advice, representation, advocacy and testimony to and before and other work with various foreign governments, Congress, state legislatures, and a multitude of federal, state and local agencies.

For more information about Ms. Stamer or her work, services, experience and involvements, see here or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (214) 452-8297 or via e-mail here.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Comments Off on College Pays $54,000 To Settle DOJ ADA Lawsuit For Paramedic Program’s Termination of TA With MS | Absenteeism, Academic Medicine, Accommodation, ADA, board of directors, compliance, Corporate Compliance, directors, Disability, Disability, Disability Discrimination, Disability Leave, Education, Educational Privacy, EEOC, EEOC, employee, Employee Benefits, Employer, Employers, Employment, Employment Agreement, Employment Policies, Employment Tax, ERISA, Excise Tax, FICA, health benefit, health Care, health insurance, Income Tax, Labor Management Relations, Management, NLRA, Payroll Tax, Reporting & Disclosure, Retirement Plans, Risk Management, Tax, Tax Fraud, Uncategorized, Unfair Labor Practice, Union, Union elections, Worker Classification | Tagged: ADA, Disability Discrimination, Education, Emergency Medicine, Employees, higher education, MS, news, Paramedic, school, Training | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Business Leaders Serve Jail Time For Employment Tax Crimes

November 5, 2019

Business owners and operators and the business’ tax, accounting and other service providers increasingly risk criminal prosecution when involved with a business caught shirking its obligations under the Internal Revenue Code (the “Code”) to report wages and withhold and pay federal income tax and employees’ share of social security and Medicare taxes (collectively known as “FICA taxes”) from employees’ wages and to pay the employer’s share of FICA taxes in addition to the substantial civil tax penalties that the business faces for these actions.

While various Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) educational and enforcement initiatives across the past decade have expanded awareness among business leaders and their accounting and tax advisors more aware of the the potentially significant civil tax penalties risks aggressive employment tax practices can create for the business, many business owners and operators, and the tax, accounting and payroll service providers often overlook or fail to take seriously their potential personal exposure to civil and increasingly, even criminal liability that can arise from management, consulting or other involvement with businesses engaged in aggressive employment tax practices under the Code. With the Justice Department now increasingly using criminal prosecution of individuals as well as businesses involved in employment tax evasion a key weapon in its effort to combat the “substantial problem” of employment tax fraud, however, business owners, operators, tax counsel, accounting, payroll, staffing and others increasingly must exercise care to avoid subjecting themselves to criminal prosecution and other personal liability when dealing with businesses engaged in aggressive employment tax practices.

Employment Tax Compliance Now High Enforcement Priority

Business noncompliance with their employment tax obligations is a widespread and persistent problem in the United States for a multitude of reasons, not the least of which is budgetary. Employment taxes on employee wages represent nearly 70% of all revenue collected by the IRS and, as of June 30, 2016, more than $59.4 billion of tax reported on Employer’s Quarterly Federal Tax Returns (Forms 941) remained unpaid. When last measured prior to the Justice Department’s kickoff of its current enforcement initiative in 2018, uncollected employment tax violations represented more than $91 billion of the gross Tax Gap and, after collection efforts, $79 billion of the net Tax Gap in the U.S. See Employment Tax Enforcement.

Aside from the budgetary concerns created by the widespread business noncompliance with employment tax responsibilities, the Justice Department considers nonpayment of employment taxes a serious crime. According to its Employment Tax Enforcement page states, “When employers willfully fail to collect, account for and deposit with the IRS employment tax due, they are stealing from their employees and ultimately, the United States Treasury. In addition, employers who willfully fail to comply with their obligations and unlawfully line their own pockets with amounts withheld are gaining an unfair advantage over their honest competitors.”

To stem employment tax violations and encourage greater business compliance with these requirements, the IRS and Justice Department are using a variety of taxpayer outreach, voluntary compliance resolution, and civil and criminal enforcement tools. Along with ongoing educational outreach, for instance, the IRS tries to encourage businesses to voluntarily clean up outstanding employment tax compliance issues by making available various voluntary resolution programs. For instance, the IRS Voluntary Closing Agreement Process – Employment Tax (VCAP – ET) program offers an administrative process businesses not currently under audit may use to “permanently and conclusively” resolve outstanding IRS employment tax liabilities not involving worker classification while its Voluntary Classification Settlement Program (VCSP) for businesses not under audit and Classification Settlement Program for businesses under examination offer options for businesses may use to resolve worker classification associated employment tax liabilities.

Employment Tax Prosecution Rising

Coupled with efforts to obtain greater voluntary compliance through these voluntary resolution programs, however, the IRS and Justice Department Tax Division increasingly partner to investigate and prosecute aggressively businesses and their owners, operators and tax and other service providers for employment tax violations. As the agency responsible for conducting the civil and criminal prosecutions necessary to enforce these rules, the Justice Department brings both civil suits and criminal prosecutions against both businesses and the owners, operators and others that participate or assist businesses to willfully violate the Code’s employment tax rules. While in the past, IRS and Justice Department employment tax enforcement generally focused on high dollar employment tax fraud cases, since making employment tax fraud enforcement a priority in May 2018, the IRS and Justice Department no longer place a dollar threshold on the amount of unpaid employment taxes that could trigger more severe enforcement action. Since this change, Justice Department civil and criminal employment tax fraud prosecutions and convictions have risen significantly, resulting in the Justice Department achieving a long and growing list of civil money judgements to recover unpaid taxes, interest and penalties, permanent injunctions and criminal convictions against businesses and individuals involved in employment tax fraud over the past year.

On the civil front, the Justice Department brings litigation on behalf of the United States to enforce the IRS’ authority to collect unpaid taxes and penalties and pursues permanent injunctions against businesses, payroll and tax advisors and others for violating the Code’s employment tax requirements.

In addition to actions to collect unpaid employment taxes and penalties, the Justice Department also pursues and obtains civil injunctions against employers and their principal officers who willfully fail to truthfully collect, account for and deposit employment which impose various requirements and prohibitions designed to enforce compliance. Injunctions as a Tool to Prevent Pyramiding of Employment Taxes. Among other things, the injunctive relief sought often orders for the businesses and their principal officers to comply with the employment tax rules, provide current notice of each deposit to the IRS, and placing restrictions on their opening or operating new businesses and transfer and dissipation of assets. If a business or individual violates these injunctions, the Justice Department pursues orders of civil or criminal contempt, including incarceration of the principal officer(s), to bring the business into compliance, as well as to recover compensation from the principal officers, the business or both for the damage caused by the contempt. See, e.g., Bailey Chiropractic and Bailey, David (W.D. Pennsylvania – August 21, 2018); Bogart Title INC; Bogart Law Firm; and Bogart, Erik (D. South Carolina – May 25, 2018); Detroit Wholistic Center, Inc and Jesse R. Brown (E.D. Michigan – January 31, 2018); Doctors Hospital 1997 LP and Mohiuddin, Syed Rizwan (S.D. Texas – August 16, 2018); Dr. Robert Lee Beck (Agreed Judgement) (W.D. Texas – May 21, 2018); Easy Method Driving School and Ryan, William (D. Maryland – August 22, 2018); Four State Emergency Equipment LLC; Price, William; Price, Michelle; and West Potomac Fire & Rescue, Inc (D. Maryland – June 15, 2018); Court Permanently Enjoins Baltimore-Area Importer of Stone From Accruing Payroll Tax Liabilities

Criminal Employment Tax Fraud Prosecutions & Convictions Show Justice Department Ready To Nail Businesses & Individuals Cheating On Employment Taxes

While these and other civil enforcement successes are powerful tools in the arsenal of the Justice Department and IRS employment tax enforcement efforts, however, it is the Justice Department’s growing prosecution and success in securing criminal convictions resulting in prison sentences against business owners and operators, tax advisors and others for employment tax fraud that most clearly demonstrates the Justice Department’s announced commitment to employment tax fraud enforcement has real teeth. Over the past year, the Justice Department as racked up an impressive and growing number of federal grand jury criminal tax fraud indictments, convictions and sentences, many of which include prison sentences ordered against business owners, operators, advisors and other individuals convicted of employment tax fraud. See e.g., North Carolina Office Manager Sentenced to Prison for Employment Tax Fraud; see also Recent Criminal Employment Enforcement News.

The criminal employment tax prosecution actions reported by the Justice Department during the just ended month of October 2019 are typical of this prosecutorial trend over the past year. Among others, during October the Justice Department Tax Division announced its employment tax enforcement efforts resulting in it securing separate federal grand jury criminal indictments against staffing business operators in New York and North Carolina.

October Criminal Employment Tax Indictments

On October 24, for instance, the Justice Department announced that a New York grand jury had issued criminal tax indictments against the owner/operator of a Long Island City, New York temporary employment staffing businesses including PTP Staffing Associates Inc. (PTP), and PPS Associates Inc. (PPS). The indictments charge that as the alleged sole owner of PTP and PPS, Heppenheimer was required to collect, account for, and pay to the IRS federal employment taxes withheld from the wages of PTP and PPS employees, but from 2013 through 2017, failed to report more than $270,000 in employment taxes to the IRS. If convicted, Heppenheimer faces a statutory maximum sentence of five years imprisonment for each count charged, plus substantial monetary penalties, supervised release, and restitution. Owner of New York City Temporary Staffing Firms Indicted for Employment Tax Fraud

Mere days later, the Justice Department also announced that a North Carolina federal grand jury had indicted Rebecca Adams and her daughter Elizabeth Wood with conspiring to defraud the United States government by withholding taxes from employees’ paychecks and failing to pay those taxes over to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). See e.g., Owners of Greensboro Temporary Staffing Firms Indicted for Employment Tax Fraud. The indictment alleges Adams and Wood created Forms W-2 for the staffing business employees but failed to file these forms with the government as required. Instead of paying the taxes withheld from employees, the indictment alleges that Adams and Wood used the funds to pay for personal expenses, such as a personal maid, personal landscaping services, and pet spa services. The staffing business allegedly changed names twice, even though it did not otherwise change its actual business operations. Adams was also charged with tax evasion based on her allegedly evading payment of more than $400,000 in previously assessed employment taxes and penalties to the IRS. If convicted, both defendants face significant punishment. If convicted on these charges both Adam and Woods can expect their punishment will include prison time. Adams and Wood each face a statutory maximum sentence of five years in prison for each charge of conspiracy, employment tax fraud, and tax evasion, plus probation and monetary penalties.

October Criminal Employment Tax Convictions

Along with securing these new criminal tax indictments, the Justice Department also was successful in obtaining new criminal tax convictions against business owners in West Virginia and Florida for employment tax violations.

On October 21, two West Virginian business owners plead guilty today to conspiring to defraud the United States regarding their employment taxes and individual income taxes in a Federal District Court in West Virginia. According to court documents, Russell and Karen Rucker, a married couple, operated Rucker, Billups and Fowler Inc. (RBF), an insurance agency located in Huntington, West Virginia. Russell Rucker was the president of RBF and since approximately late 2013, Karen Rucker served as a financial officer. Between September 2015 and September 2018, the Ruckers withheld approximately $143,226 in payroll taxes from the wages of RBF’s employees, which they did not pay over to the IRS. Instead, the Justice Department charged the Ruckers diverted portions of the withheld funds for their own personal benefit. For instance, from 2014 through 2016 the Ruckers continued to pay themselves over $500,000 in salary. The Justice Department also charges that in response to IRS collection efforts in an attempt to conceal funds from the IRS, the Ruckers deposited money into the bank account of another individual, attempted to evade IRS levies by using a series of bank accounts that they did not disclose to the IRS, and by paying their mortgage and many other bills in cash. The Justice Department also claims the Ruckers also attempted to evade payment of $114,911 of Russell Rucker’s 2001, 2002, and 2005 individual income taxes by disguising paychecks issued to Russell Rucker as non-taxable “note proceeds and failed to file their individual income tax returns and RBF’s corporate returns for 2014 through 2017. The Justice Department valued the intended tax loss caused to the IRS by their conduct is more than $250,000. Currently awaiting sentencing scheduled on January 27, 2020, the Ruckers each face a statutory maximum sentence of five years in prison as well as monetary penalties, a period of supervised release, and restitution. See West Virginian Business Owners Plead Guilty to Failing to Pay Employment Taxes and Individual Income Taxes.

Less than a week later, the Justice Department achieved another prosecutorial success when Miami, Florida business owner Ricardo Betancourt plead guilty on October 29 to causing the multiple parcel delivery businesses he owned and operated in South Florida to fail to pay over employment taxes. According to the Justice Department, Betancourt’s multiple South Florida parcel delivery businesses earned gross revenues of more than $100 million and employed hundreds of employees. Betancourt as the owner and operator of these businesses was responsible for ensuring the businesses collected and paid over to the IRS the employment taxes withheld from employees’ paychecks. The Justice Department charged that Betancourt withheld payroll taxes from his employees, but deliberately failed to pay over those withholdings and other associated taxes to the IRS. The Justice Department claimed that in 2013 and 2014, Betancourt did not pay over approximately 97 percent of the federal employment taxes he withheld from his employees. In 2015 and 2016, Betancourt did not pay over any of the federal employment taxes he withheld from his employees. For the quarter ending December 2016, Betancourt admitted that he failed to truthfully account for and pay over payroll taxes of approximately $727,478. In his sentencing currently scheduled for February 12, 2020, Betancourt faces a statutory maximum sentence of five years in prison as well as a period of supervised release, restitution, and monetary penalties. See Miami Business Owner Pleads Guilty to Employment Tax Fraud.

October Criminal Employment Tax Prison Sentencings

The prison sentences imposed during October against individuals convicted of employment tax fraud also show business owners, operators and others criminally convicted on employment tax related tax evasion and tax fraud charges should expect to serve time in prison. Take the sentencing of Gail Cooper, who was sentenced for the employment tax crimes she committed as owner of a commercial and residential glass installation company, Greenville Architectural Glass (GAG). According to the Justice Department, as the owner of GAG responsible for GAG’s finances, Cooper was legally responsible for ensuring that GAG properly withheld and paid over to the IRS federal income, Social Security and Medicare taxes on the wages GAG paid to its employees during the years 2013 through 2015. Cooper was also required to file quarterly employment tax returns with the IRS. Although Cooper caused GAG to withhold taxes from employees’ wages, the Justice Department shared she neither filed the required quarterly returns for the first quarter of 2013 through the second quarter of 2015, nor paid the withheld amounts over to the IRS. Cooper also failed to pay over to the IRS unemployment taxes. In all, Cooper caused more than $280,000 in payroll taxes not to be paid. Furthermore, the Justice Department also charged Cooper filed false individual income tax returns for 2008, 2009, and 2010, on which she understated GAG’s gross receipts and overstated its expenses. Cooper caused GAG’s bookkeeper to manipulate and delete entries in the company’s accounting records. Specifically, she directed the bookkeeper to delete invoices from the software after GAG received payment from a client to make it appear as if GAG had not received the payment. Cooper also paid personal expenses with business funds, including utility bills for her residence and rental properties, and caused these to be classified as business expenses. After filing fraudulent returns for 2008-2010, Cooper did not file any individual income tax returns for the next several years. In total, the Justice Department charged Cooper’s conduct caused a tax loss of $587,516 to the United States. As punishment for these criminal convictions, U.S. District Judge Thomas M. Rose on October 29^th ordered Cooper to serve 14 months in prison, two years of supervised release and pay restitution to the IRS in the amount of $659,262.39. Ohio Glass Company Owner Sentenced to Prison For Not Paying Employment Taxes.

That same day, Justice Department Tax Division prosecutors also obtained a 24-month prison sentence against a Tulsa, Oklahoma computer software development company owner for his criminal conviction on failing to account for and pay over employment taxes withheld from his employees’ wages. According to documents and information provided to the Court, as the owner and operator of Tulsa-based Zealcon Corporation, Earnest J. Grayson Jr. was responsible for withholding, and paying over to the IRS payroll taxes on the wages paid to Zealcon employees. For the period January 2014 through June of 2016, Justice Department prosecutors showed Grayson caused a tax loss of approximately $1 million by intentionally not paying to the IRS income and social security taxes withheld from Zealcon employees’ wages and the employer portion of social security taxes due from Zealcon on those wages. As punishment for these crimes, Grayson was sentenced to serve a 24 month prison sentence, ordered to pay restitution to the IRS in the amount of $904,091, and to serve three years of supervised release. Owner of Tulsa Software Company Sentenced to Prison for Employment Tax Fraud.

Enforcement Activity Shows Greater Employment Tax Compliance Needed

With the Justice Department promising to continue to pursue ongoing enforcement effort, businesses, individuals with ownership or management authority over the collection and payment of employment taxes, and their tax, accounting, payroll, staffing and other service providers need to use care to avoid exposing themselves to liability when advising, assisting or dealing with a business engaged in aggressively classifying workers as contractors rather than employees, or otherwise failing to properly track, account for, report and pay over income tax and employment taxes properly.

When evaluate these potential risks, businesses and business leaders responsible for income and employment tax withholding, reporting and payment and those negotiating, reviewing or engaging in transactions with them should be particularly careful when participating in arrangements that the IRS might consider employment tax fraud schemes such as:

“Pyramiding” of employment taxes, which the IRS views as a fraudulent practice where a business withholds taxes from its employees but intentionally fails to remit them to the IRS. Businesses involved in pyramiding frequently file for bankruptcy to discharge the liabilities accrued and then start a new business under a different name and begin a new scheme.
Abusive employee leasing arrangements where the business contracts with outside businesses to handle all administrative, personnel, and payroll concerns for employees where the leasing entity fails to properly report wages and withhold and payover income or employment taxes to the IRS. The IRS and other agencies often pursue tax collection and other enforcement actions against businesses that have used leasing or other staffing businesses when the leasing or staffing company fails to properly report, withhold or pay over income and employment taxes to the IRS.
Paying workers in whole or partially, in cash without properly accounting for, withholding and paying income or employment taxes due on a worker’s wages where the facts and circumstances indicated the worker qualified as a common law employee of the business; or
Filing false payroll tax returns understating the amount of wages on which taxes are owed, or failing to file employment tax returns to evade employment or other taxes.

When evaluating the adequacy of employment tax compliance, proper worker classification is a critical starting point. Business owners, operators and others in the scope of employment tax liability risk should scrutinize the defensibility of how a business classifies those performing services or other work as employees versus independent contractors, employees or contractors of another business or in some other status and document the evidence supporting these characterization and other compliance efforts.

When performing these activities, business owners and operators are encouraged to resist the urge to assume that they can rely upon the contractual or labels of workers as contractors or employed by a staffing, leasing or other service provider to avoid characterization and resulting liability for employment and income tax obligations as the employer of workers. Under the Code the defensibility of these characterizations of workers generally is determined based on whether the facts and circumstances reflect that the business in operation possessed the requisite control to qualify as a common law employer with little or no deference to how the parties have labeled the arrangement or the historical duration of the practices within the organization or its respective industry. Rather, the analysis must focus on evaluating these and other potentially suspect arrangements to realistically assess the likelihood that the IRS or Justice Department could challenge the business’ employment tax practices as willful or other violations of the Code’s employment tax requirements. Wise individuals and businesses operating or dealing with businesses involved in arrangements or practices identified as potentially suspect by the IRS and Justice Department also should pursue contractual, audit and other operational safeguards to document their efforts to require, enforce and monitor compliance and to capture and retain records and other evidence that would be helpful to defend the business’ or their own action in the event the IRS or Justice Department audits or initiates enforcement action with respect to the arrangements in the future.

Tax preparers, tax and other attorneys, accountants and others that participating in operations, preparation of returns, transactions or other activities also should be sensitive to special ethical and legal requirements and standards that can attach to advice or involvement in operations, transactions or providing advice or representation potentially involving practices that might raise employment tax fraud or other employment tax withholding and payment, wage reporting, or related employment tax concerns might arise. See, e.g., IRS Circular 230. Along side of the Justice Department’s civil and criminal employment tax enforcement, tax practitioners, tax preparers, and other third parties expose themselves to discipline for failing to properly report, pay and file employment tax or other returns or other violations of professional standards of tax practice when giving advice or other engaging in other activities adhere to professional standards and follow the law.

Additionally, tax and other professionals are reminded that tax return preparer fraud is one of the IRS’ Dirty Dozen Tax Scams. In the past decade, the Tax Division has obtained injunctions against hundreds of unscrupulous tax preparers. Information about these cases is available on the Justice Department website.

Leaders, legal and other advisors, and service providers of businesses involved in these arrangements generally should use care to critically evaluate these should react to the growing enforcement risks and acting to mitigate their own and their organization’s potential exposure to criminal or civil tax or other enforcement. These efforts should start by assessing realistically the likely defensibility of their arrangements and risks of liabily from their own or other associated businesses employment tax or worker classification practices in the event of a challenge based on a realistic assessment of the real acts and circumstances within the scope of attorney-client priviledge as well as seek contractual, audit and other operational safeguards to require and document compliance and to capture and retain records and other evidence that the business might need to defend itself against a future audit or enforcement action associated with these suspect arrangements.

Businesses leaders, advisors and service providers also should keep in mind that aggressive worker classification and employment tax practices generally also extend to a business’ other relationships with workers and service providers such as minimum wage, over time, recordkeeping and other wage and hour; I-9 eligibility to work verification, occupational heath and safety, workers’ compensation, employment discrimination and other worker associated legal obligations also currently subject to heavy worker misclassification and other enforcement. As a consequence, businesses, legal counsel, accounting and other service providers should recognize the need for a holistic review and assessment of risk and planning to manage these risks, as well as the need to use care to safeguard attorney-client privilege and avoid unprotected discussion of sensitive facts and analysis outside the scope of attorney-client privilege with other parties without prior approval of their legal counsel.

For More Information

We hope this update is helpful. For more information about worker classification and employment tax compliance and enforcement or other labor and employment developments, please contact the author Cynthia Marcotte Stamer via e-mail or via telephone at (214) 452 -8297.

About the Author

Cynthia Marcotte Stamer is a practicing attorney board certified in labor and employment law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization and management consultant, author, public policy advocate and lecturer Recognized by her peers as a Martindale-Hubble “AV-Preeminent” (Top 1%) and “Top Rated Lawyer” with special recognition LexisNexis® Martindale-Hubbell® as “LEGAL LEADER™ Texas Top Rated Lawyer” in Health Care Law and Labor and Employment Law; as among the “Best Lawyers In Dallas” for her work in the fields of “Labor & Employment,” “Tax: ERISA & Employee Benefits,” “Health Care” and “Business and Commercial Law” by D Magazine.

Author of numerous highly regarding publications on worker classification and other employment, payroll, and employee benefit tax compliance publications, Ms. Stamer’s clients include employers and other workforce management organizations; employer, union, association, government and other insured and self-insured health and other employee benefit plan sponsors, benefit plans, fiduciaries, administrators, and other plan vendors; domestic and international public and private health care, education and other community service and care organizations; managed care organizations; insurers, third-party administrative services organizations and other payer organizations; and other private and government organizations and their management leaders. As part of this work, she has worked extensively on employee benefit communication and other employee benefit plan legislative and regulatory policy, design, compliance and enforcement including testifying to the EBSA Advisory Council on Employee Welfare and Pension Benefit Plans in on the effectiveness of employee benefit plan disclosures during 2017 hearings on on reducing the burdens and increasing the effectiveness of ERISA mandated disclosures.

For more information about Ms. Stamer or herexperience and involvements, see here or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (214) 452-8297 or via e-mail here.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Comments Off on Business Leaders Serve Jail Time For Employment Tax Crimes | board of directors, compliance, Corporate Compliance, directors, Education, Educational Privacy, employee, Employee Benefits, Employer, Employers, Employment, Employment Agreement, Employment Policies, Employment Tax, ERISA, Excise Tax, FICA, Income Tax, Labor Management Relations, Management, NLRA, Payroll Tax, Reporting & Disclosure, Retirement Plans, Risk Management, Tax, Tax Fraud, Uncategorized, Unfair Labor Practice, Union, Union elections, Worker Classification | Tagged: Collective Bargaining, Education, Employees, higher education, NLRA, NLRB, student worker organization, Union, Worker Classification | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Comment on Interim Domestic Hemp Production Rules By 12/30n. L ok

October 31, 2019

On October 31, 2019, the United States Department of Agriculture’s Agricultural Marketing Service published an interim final rule with a request for comments to establish a domestic hemp production program in the United States.

The rule is set to take effect immediately and will expire on November 1, 2021 or when a final rule is issued.

The rule outlines a procedure by which states and tribes can submit hemp production plans for approval by USDA. In those territories where there is no USDA approved plan, and where hemp production is not illegal on to the state level, USDA will adminis Hi

The rule also outlines how information will be maintained, testing requirements to ensure that the products are legal, disposal requirements for non-compliant products and more.

The agency is seeking comments on the plan to help inform a permanent final rule.

Written comments on the proposed rule are due by December 30, 2019.

Read the Federal Register notice and submit your public comments here.

Comments Off on Comment on Interim Domestic Hemp Production Rules By 12/30n. L ok | Uncategorized | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

New $2.15M OCR Penalty Shows Health Plans Risks Of HIPAA Violations

October 23, 2019

Health plans and insurers and their service providers should heed as a warning of the potential perils they could face for violating the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) Security and Breach Notification Rules the just-announced $2.15 million plus civil monetary penalty that Jackson Health System (JHS) paid the Department of Health & Human Services Office of Civil Rights (OCR).

While the HIPAA-covered entity that paid the $2,154,000 civil monetary penalty, JHS, is a Florida-based nonprofit academic medical system, rather than a health plan, the $1,500,000 HIPAA resolution payment OCR previously collected from Blue Cross Blue Shield of Tennessee (BCBST) in 2012 for its breaches of HIPAA make clear that health plans and insurers risk similar penalties for HIPAA violations. Consequently, health plans, health insurers and other health care providers and their business associates should construe the JHS civil monetary penalty as evidence of the need to re-verify and remain constantly vigilant about maintaining compliance with HIPAA’s privacy, security and breach notification rules currently and on an ongoing basis.

JHS HIPAA Breaches Found By OCR

The $2.1 million plus payment was required to satisfy a civil monetary penalty assessment OCR imposed in a Notice of Proposed Determination and Notice of Final Determination made public by OCR on October 23, 2019 in response to findings from a series of investigations of HIPAA breach and compliance concerns raised between 2013 and 2016 raised by various HIPAA-mandated breach reports and media reports that raised concerns about improper access disclosure and use of patient PHI between 2013 and 2016. When JHS did not challenge the findings or determination became final. OCR reports JHS has paid the specified $2.154,000 civil monetary penalty.

JHS operates six major hospitals, a network of urgent care centers, multiple primary care and specialty care centers, long-term care nursing facilities, and corrections health services clinics, provides health services to approximately 650,000 patients annually, and employs about 12,000 individuals.

On August 22, 2013, JHS submitted a breach report to OCR stating that its Health Information Management Department lost paper records containing the protected health information (PHI) of 756 patients in January 2013. JHS’s internal investigation determined that an additional three boxes of patient records also were lost in December 2012; however, JHS did not report the additional loss or the increased number of individuals affected to 1,436, until June 7, 2016.

In July 2015, OCR initiated an investigation following a media report that disclosed the PHI of a JHS patient. A reporter had shared a photograph of a JHS operating room screen containing the patient’s medical information on social media. JHS subsequently determined that two employees had accessed this patient’s electronic medical record without a job-related purpose.

On February 19, 2016, JHS submitted a breach report to OCR reporting that an employee had been selling patient PHI. The employee had accessed inappropriately over 24,000 patients’ records since 2011.

According to OCR Director Roger Severino, “OCR’s investigation revealed a HIPAA compliance program that had been in disarray for a number of years. …This hospital system’s compliance program failed to detect and stop an employee who stole and sold thousands of patient records; lost patient files without notifying OCR as required by law; and failed to properly secure PHI that was leaked to the media.”

These and other findings led to the OCR determination in the Notice of Proposed Determination and Notice of Final Determination that JHS failed to provide timely and accurate breach notification to the Secretary of HHS, conduct enterprise-wide risk analyses, manage identified risks to a reasonable and appropriate level, regularly review information system activity records, and restrict authorization of its workforce members’ access to patient ePHI to the minimum necessary to accomplish their job duties. OCR assessed the $2.1 million civil monetary penalty based on these determinations.

The JHS civil monetary penalty is The latest in a growing series of OCR enforcement and regulatory actions that drive home the perils HIPAA-covered health care providers, health plans and insurers, healthcare clearinghouses and business associates risk by failing to responsibly and effectively manage their HIPAA compliance including the one against mega-health plan and business associate, BCBST, that resulted in its payment of a $1,500,000 resolution payment. For details of the BCBS Resolution Agreement and Settlement payment, see here.

OCR enforcement data documents a steady rise in OCR investigation and enforcement activity. OCR set all-time records for HIPAA Enforcement in 2018. Heavy enforcement activity has continued in 2019. Before its October 23, 2019 announcement of the JHS civil monetary penalties, OCR already had announced:

A $10,000 resolution agreement with a dental practice for improperly disclosing patient PHI on social media at the beginning of October;
Its first HIPAA right of access resolution agreement against a health care provider for violating HIPAA’s right of access rules on September 9, 2019 as part of its recently announced HIPAA access rule enforcement initiative;
A $100,000 resolution payment from an Indiana Medical Records Service resulting from a breach of electronic protected health information at a business associate;
The collection of a $3 million resolution payment collected from a Tennessee diagnostic medical imaging services company to settle HIPAA civil monetary penalty exposures arising from a breach that exposed the protected health information of more than 300,000 patients; and
A multitude of other audits and enforcement activities resolved through corrective action without collection of any resolution payment or civil monetary penalties.

Given these and other previously announced enforcement initiatives and actions, all HIPAA covered entities and their business associates are urged to maintain hypervigilance about their own HIPAA compliance with long standing as well as emerging HIPAA requirements taking into account old, recent, and emerging guidance and enforcement activities of OCR. Of course health plans and other covered entities also need to additionally weigh their exposure under various other state and federal law likely to arise from such breaches and the investigation, mitigation and public and customer trust consequences that almost always accompany and frequently exceed the actual HIPAA liability imposed. Considered together, these and other consequences of HIPAA vioations or other sloppy dealings with protected health inforamtion or ther sensitive health care or financial information make a clear case for investing appropriately in HIPAA and related compliance.

For More Information

About the Author

For more information about Ms. Stamer or her health industry and other experience and involvements, see here or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (214) 452-8297 or via e-mail here.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

1 Comment | Association Health Plan, Education, Educational Privacy, employee, Employee Benefits, Employer, Employers, ERISA, health benefit, Health Benefits, health Care, health insurance, health insurance marketplace, Health IT, health plan, Health Plans, HIPAA, HIPAA, Labor Management Relations, NLRA, Protected Health Information, Reporting & Disclosure, Retirement Plans, Uncategorized, Unfair Labor Practice, Union, Union certification, Union elections, Worker Classification | Tagged: Data Breach, Health Plan, HIPAA, Jackson Health System, Medical Privacy, OCR, Office of Civil Rights, PHI, Protected Health Information | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Proposed NLRB Employee Definition To Exclude College Study Workers

October 23, 2019

Monday, December 16, 2019 is the new comment deadline for providing feedback to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) ion a proposed rule that would exempt undergraduate and graduate students performing services for financial compensation in connection with their studies from the NLRB’s definition of “employee” for purposes of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and other collective bargaining and union organizing and representation laws under the NLRB’s jurisdiction. The extended comment deadline was announced here October 17, 2019.

The NLRB says this proposed rulemaking “is intended to bring stability to an area of federal labor law in which the NLRB, through adjudication, has reversed its approach three times since 2000. The NLRB has stated this proposed standard on the exclusion of students from the NLRA definition of employee is consistent with the purposes and policies of the NLRA, which contemplates jurisdiction over economic relationships, not those that are primarily educational in nature.

The proposed regulation is one of several regulatory projects that the now Trump-appointee dominated NLRB has undertaken in the past year in its effort to undue a host of pro-labor changes to NLRB policy changes initiated and enforced during the Obama Administration when President Obama appointees dominated the NLRB and its policies. Another example of these regulatory efforts include the NLRB’s current efforts to reverse a change in interpretation and enforcement of the “joint employer” rules of the NLRA and Fair Labor Standards Act that substantially expanded the imputation of liability for collective bargaining and other labor-management and wage and hour law violations by treating companies as joint employers that received the benefit of work performed even when the recipient company did not control the details of the work or the nominal employer. Employers generally will want to carefully monitor and provide appropriate input on these and other developments.

For More Information

About the Author

For more information about Ms. Stamer or her health industry and other experience and involvements, see here or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (214) 452-8297 or via e-mail here.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Comments Off on Proposed NLRB Employee Definition To Exclude College Study Workers | Education, Educational Privacy, employee, Employee Benefits, Employer, Employers, ERISA, Labor Management Relations, Labor Management Relations, NLRA, Reporting & Disclosure, Retirement Plans, Uncategorized, Unfair Labor Practice, Union, Union, Union certification, Union elections, Worker Classification | Tagged: Collective Bargaining, Education, Employees, higher education, NLRA, NLRB, student worker organization, Union, Worker Classification | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

DOL Proposing To Allow Default Website ERISA Retirement Plan Disclosures

October 22, 2019

Employer and other retirement plan sponsors, plan administrators and other service providers desiring to use website or other electronic communications to distribute retirement plan disclosures required by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”) in lieu of the much more expensive and time consuming process of sending volumes of paper documents through the mail or other ERISA-compliant means should share their recommendations and support for a proposed regulation announced by the . U.S. Department of Labor Employee Benefit Security Administration (“EBSA”) today (October 22, 2019).

Scheduled for official publication in the Federal Register on October 23, 2019, the Proposed Regulation on Default Electronic Disclosure by Employee Pension Benefit Plans under Employee Retirement Income Security Act would loosen current EBSA electronic disclosure rules by creating a“safe harbor” allowing retirement plans and their administrators greater freedom to use electronic disclosures to meet ERISA-mandated retirement plan disclosures.

ERISA requires retirement plan administrators to furnish multiple documents per year to participants and beneficiaries on a variety of topics. Currently, retirement plan disclosures generally are provided through paper documents distributed by first class mail. because existing regulations requiring plan administrators to use delivery methods “reasonably calculated to ensure actual receipt of the documents” make paper distribution safest.

Historically, the general standards for delivery of required disclosures set forth in 29 CFR 2520.104b-1 require retirement plans and their administrators to incur substantial expense to print and deliver the required disclosure communications via mail or hand delivery. Preparing and providing these disclosures in printed form is costly and time consuming. Since many plan participants never read or cannot find copies of these high dollar printed materials, plan sponsors and administrators long have questioned the appropriateness of these expensive mandates.

As internet accessibility and use have expanded, calls to modernize the general delivery rule to allow electronic delivery or access have picked up steam. Employer and other plan sponsors, plan administrators increasingly have urged EBSA to update is regulations to allow electronic delivery to reduce plan costs and administrative burdens as well as to facilitate participant access to these disclosures on demand through the internet.

In an initial effort to respond to these developments and pressures, EBSA amended the general standards for delivery of required disclosures in 2002 by establishing a regulatory safe harbor for the use of electronic media (the “2002 safe harbor”) under 29 CFR 2520.104b-1(c). Unfortunately, the conditions the 2002 safe harbor imposed on electronic distribution hindered use of electronic delivery as the default method of delivery of retirement plan documents. make n administration recently prompted EBSA to reconsider the 2002 safe harbor. In the new proposed regulation, EBSA proposes to allow retirement plans and their administrators greater latitude to use electronic media to provide ERISA required retirement disclosures under the terms set forth in the proposed regulation. EBSA says this rule change would reduce retirement plan communication costs while enhancing the accessibility of communications to plan participants by leveraging internet technology.

Under the proposed regulation’s safe harbor, retirement plans and their plan administrators still would have to provide ERISA retirement plan disclosures, but their options for distributing these disclosures would expand. In addition to distributing paper notifications by mail, hand delivery or other means “reasonably calculated to ensure delivery,” the proposed regulation would provide an option to use website posting as the default means of distribution provided the participant does not elect to continue to receive paper notification. To take advantage of the option to use website posting, however, plan administrators would have to comply with the safe harbor requirements in the proposed regulation including requirements that:

The plan post the required disclosures on a website that meets the requirements of the safe harbor rule, including system checks for invalid electronic addresses;
Retirement plan administrators would satisfy their obligation to furnish ERISA-required disclosures by making the information accessible online and by furnishing to participants and beneficiaries a notice of internet availability of these disclosures.
A notice of internet availability would be sent to the electronic address of the participant, for example to the participant’s email address.
A notice of internet availability must include, among other things, a brief description of the document being posted online, a website address where the document is posted, and instructions for requesting a free paper copy or electing paper delivery in the future.
A notice of internet availability generally must be sent each time a retirement plan disclosure is posted to the internet website.
To prevent “email overload,” the proposal allows a notice of internet availability to incorporate or combine other notices of internet availability in limited circumstances.

The framework in the proposal is similar to the approach the Securities and Exchange Commission takes for certain investor disclosures. EBSA says the proposed regulation safe harbor also is intended to align with Internal Revenue Service rules about delivering retirement plan disclosures electronically while protecting the option for those participants who prefer paper notices to elect to continue to do so.

EBSA projects the adoption of the proposed regulation would substantially reduce the administrative and financial burden of meeting the ERISA disclosure requirements. In fact, EBSA estimates that elimination or reduction of printed materials, printing and mailing costs associated with furnishing printed disclosures allowed through the expanded use of internet technology to furnish covered disclosures to workers allowed by the safe harbor would produce approximately $2.4 billion net cost savings over the next 10 years for ERISA-covered retirement plans. Meanwhile, EBSA says the requirement in the proposed regulation for plans to continue to provide disclosures in paper form to participants that prefer that option would protect the reliability of disclosures to those participants.

EBSA is inviting plan sponsors, administrators and other stakeholders to submit comments on the proposed regulation generally. In addition, the Notice of Proposed Ruling on the proposed regulation also specifically invites stakeholders to assist EBSA to evaluate whether additional changes to the disclosure requirements in the regulations in the future by inviting input on a broad range of disclosure-related questions and topics, including scope, content, design and delivery of ERISA disclosures.

For More Information

About the Author

For more information about Ms. Stamer or her health industry and other experience and involvements, see here or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (214) 452-8297 or via e-mail here.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Comments Off on DOL Proposing To Allow Default Website ERISA Retirement Plan Disclosures | Employee Benefits, Employer, Employers, ERISA, Reporting & Disclosure, Retirement Plans, Uncategorized | Tagged: Disclosures, EBSA, Employee Benefits, Employees, Heath Plans., participants, retirement, Retirement Plans | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Chrisley and Other Criminal Tax Prosecut

August 29, 2019

Chrisley and Other Criminal Tax Prosecutions Warn Of Tax Fraud Risks http://ow.ly/T2gj50vOI7s

Comments Off on Chrisley and Other Criminal Tax Prosecut | Uncategorized | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Confirm your organization is meeting fed

August 19, 2019

Confirm your organization is meeting federal & state breastfeeding and other family-related workplace mandates. http://ow.ly/EdGl50vCv5p

Comments Off on Confirm your organization is meeting fed | Uncategorized | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

http://ow.ly/JHJR50v3wAr

July 18, 2019

http://ow.ly/JHJR50v3wAr

Comments Off on http://ow.ly/JHJR50v3wAr | Uncategorized | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

PBGC Clarifies Multiemployer Plan Merger & Transfer Guidance

July 16, 2019

The Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation on July 15, 2019 corrected an example in the Preamble to its September 14, 2018,final rule on mergers of multiemployer pension plans which a significantly lowerprobability of insolvancy than originally indicated could support merger .The clarification addresses a second example in the Preamble about how a plan can demonstrate that financial assistance is necessary to mitigate the adverse effects of the merger on the merged plan’s ability to remain solvent. This example in the preamble states that, “while not a threshold, a possible demonstration may be based on stochastic modeling showing that the merged plan’s probability of insolvency within 30 years of the merger exceeds 65% without the requested financial assistance.” (See 83 FR 46642, at 46647 column 3). The new clarification states the percentage in this example should be 35% (not 65%).

The new clarification is one of a multitude of steps the PBGC has taken to adjust its rules and enforcement practices to allow PBGC to work with distressed multiemployer and other pension plans and their sponsors. For additional information about these evolving rules, contact the author or go to PBGC.gov.

About the Author

Past Chair of the ABA Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group and, a Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, the American Bar Foundation and the Texas Bar Foundation, heavily involved in health benefit, health care, health, financial and other information technology, data and related process and systems development, policy and operations throughout her career, and scribe of the ABA JCEB annual Office of Civil Rights agency meeting, Ms. Stamer also is widely recognized for her extensive work and leadership on leading edge health care and benefit policy and operational issues. She regularly helps employer and other health benefit plan sponsors and vendors, health industry, insurers, health IT, life sciences and other health and insurance industry clients design, document and enforce plans, practices, policies, systems and solutions; manage regulatory, contractual and other legal and operational compliance; vendors and suppliers; deal with Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, Medicare/Medicaid Advantage, ERISA, state insurance law and other private payer rules and requirements; contracting; licensing; terms of participation; medical billing, reimbursement, claims administration and coordination, and other provider-payer relations; reporting and disclosure, government investigations and enforcement, privacy and data security; and other compliance and enforcement; Form 990 and other nonprofit and tax-exemption; fundraising, investors, joint venture, and other business partners; quality and other performance measurement, management, discipline and reporting; physician and other workforce recruiting, performance management, peer review and other investigations and discipline, wage and hour, payroll, gain-sharing and other pay-for performance and other compensation, training, outsourcing and other human resources and workforce matters; board, medical staff and other governance; strategic planning, process and quality improvement; HIPAA administrative simplification, meaningful use, EMR, HIPAA and other technology, data security and breach and other health IT and data; STARK, antikickback, insurance, and other fraud prevention, investigation, defense and enforcement; audits, investigations, and enforcement actions; trade secrets and other intellectual property; crisis preparedness and response; internal, government and third-party licensure, credentialing, accreditation, HCQIA, HEDIS and other peer review and quality reporting, audits, investigations, enforcement and defense; patient relations and care; internal controls and regulatory compliance; payer-provider, provider-provider, vendor, patient, governmental and community relations; facilities, practice, products and other sales, mergers, acquisitions and other business and commercial transactions; government procurement and contracting; grants; tax-exemption and not-for-profit; 1557 and other Civil Rights; privacy and data security; training; risk and change management; regulatory affairs and public policy; process, product and service improvement, development and innovation, and other legal and operational compliance and risk management, government and regulatory affairs and operations concerns.

For more information about Ms. Stamer or her health industry and other experience and involvements, see here or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (214) 452-8297 or via e-mail here.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

PBGC Simplifies Coverage Determination Process

Government Contractors Must Update NLRB Posters

$3.1M HIPAA Settlements in 1 Month Shows Risk Assessments Critical, But Often Inadequately Done

Health Plans Should Prepare For Plan Fallout Of HHS Rule Requiring Manufacturers Disclose Drug Prices

Congress Moves To Enact Federal Paid Leave Rules

$3 Million OCR Touchstone Settlement Warns Health Plans of Perils of HIPAA Violations

Employer Faces 5 Years Imprisonment For Not Paying Employment & Income Tax Withholding To IRS

Health Plans Must Share PHI To Apps When Members Request, Responsible For Security On Plan-Sponsored Apps

NLRA Not Violated By Employers Termination of Union Dues Withholding In Response To Wisconsin Right To Work Law

Tell Employees, Plan Members About April 27 National Prescription Drug Take Back Day

Proposed FLSA Joint Employer Rule Would Reduce Business’ Joint Employer Wage & Hour Liability

Proposed FLSA Base Pay Rule Clarifies Overtime Treatment Of Perks

Federal Veterans Hiring Benchmark Resets 3/31 To 5.9%; Prepare For Audits & Other Enforcement

Consider Employee Recess In Your Employee Wellness Programi

Use 3/26 Diabetes Alert Day Resources To Jumpstart Your Diabetes Management & Cost Containment Efforts

Plan Ahead to Celebrate National Apprenticeship Week 11/12-18

CMS Hosts 11/6 Health Plan EDGE Server Webinar for Insurers & TPAs

Businesses Urged To Comment Positively On Proposed NLRB Joint Employment Rule By 12/13/18

Maintaining Current Enterprise Wide Security Risk Assessment Critical To Managing HIPAA Security Rule & Other Breach Risks

Record $16M Anthem HIPAA Settlement Signals Need to Tighten Your Health Plan HIPAA Compliance & Risk Management

Senate Confirms Charles Rettig As Next IRS Commissioner

House W&M Committee To Markup Retirement and Other “Tax Reform 2.0” Bills Thursday

Markup Tomorrow On Retirement & Other Republican‘s TCJA Tax Reform 2.0 Bills

Free Poster for Upcoming October National Disability Employment Awareness Month 2018 Available

Employer’s Employment Tax Fraud Indictment Warns Employers To Properly Pay Withheld Employment Taxes

Flurry of Reform Activity Sign Employers, Health Plans Should Prepare To Respond To Last Minute Health Reforms This Fall

Relationships Matter

OFCCP Extends TRICARE Affirmative Action Moratorium

Trump Blue Print To Reduce Drug Costs Announced

NOTICE: These statements and materials are for general informational and purposes only. They do not establish an attorney-client relationship, are not legal advice or an offer or commitment to provide legal advice, and do not serve as a substitute for legal advice. Readers are urged to engage competent legal counsel for consultation and representation in light of the specific facts and circumstances presented in their unique circumstance at any particular time. No comment or statement in this publication is to be construed as legal advise or an admission. The author reserves the right to qualify or retract any of these statements at any time. Likewise, the content is not tailored to any particular situation and does not necessarily address all relevant issues. Because the law is rapidly evolving and rapidly evolving rules makes it highly likely that subsequent developments could impact the currency and completeness of this discussion. The presenter and the program sponsor disclaim, and have no responsibility to provide any update or otherwise notify any participant of any such change, limitation, or other condition that might affect the suitability of reliance upon these materials or information otherwise conveyed in connection with this program. Readers may not rely upon, are solely responsible for, and assume the risk and all liabilities resulting from their use of this publication.

Comments Off on PBGC Clarifies Multiemployer Plan Merger & Transfer Guidance | Uncategorized | Tagged: ERISA, mergers, PBGC, retirement plans; multiemployer plan | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

PBGC Simplifies Coverage Determination Process

July 10, 2019

The Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation (“PBGC”) has released its new form and instructions for requesting a determination about whether a plan is covered under Title IV of ERISA. PBGC created the form to streamline and simplify the coverage determination process. The instructions explain that in limited circumstances, under a one-year pilot program, employers may also use the form to request an Opinion Letter about whether a plan in the process of being created is likely to be covered by PBGC. The form and instructions are available on PBGC’s Coverage webpage.

Additional information for practitioners is available on our Employers & Practitioners page.

We also invite you to share your own best practices ideas and resources and join the discussions about these and other human resources, health and other employee benefit and patient empowerment concerns by participating and contributing to the discussions in our Solutions Law Press HR & Benefits Update Group or COPE: Coalition On Patient Empowerment Groupon LinkedIn or Project COPE: Coalition on Patient Empowerment Facebook Page.

About the Author

Throughout her 30 plus year career, Ms. Stamer has continuously worked with these and other management clients to design, implement, document, administer and defend hiring, performance management, compensation, promotion, demotion, discipline, reduction in force and other workforce, employee benefit, insurance and risk management, health and safety, and other programs, products and solutions, and practices; establish and administer compliance and risk management policies; comply with requirements, investigate and respond to government, accreditation and quality organizations, regulatory and contractual audits, private litigation and other federal and state reviews, investigations and enforcement actions; evaluate and influence legislative and regulatory reforms and other regulatory and public policy advocacy; prepare and present training and discipline; handle workforce and related change management associated with mergers, acquisitions, reductions in force, re-engineering, and other change management; and a host of other workforce related concerns. Ms. Stamer’s experience in these matters includes supporting these organizations and their leaders on both a real-time, “on demand” basis with crisis preparedness, intervention and response as well as consulting and representing clients on ongoing compliance and risk management; plan and program design; vendor and employee credentialing, selection, contracting, performance management and other dealings; strategic planning; policy, program, product and services development and innovation; mergers, acquisitions, bankruptcy and other crisis and change management; management, and other opportunities and challenges arising in the course of workforce and other operations management to improve performance while managing workforce, compensation and benefits and other legal and operational liability and performance.

For more information about Ms. Stamer or her health industry and other experience and involvements, see here or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (214) 452-8297 or via e-mail here.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Plan Ahead to Celebrate National Apprenticeship Week 11/12-18

CMS Hosts 11/6 Health Plan EDGE Server Webinar for Insurers & TPAs

Businesses Urged To Comment Positively On Proposed NLRB Joint Employment Rule By 12/13/18

Maintaining Current Enterprise Wide Security Risk Assessment Critical To Managing HIPAA Security Rule & Other Breach Risks

Record $16M Anthem HIPAA Settlement Signals Need to Tighten Your Health Plan HIPAA Compliance & Risk Management

Senate Confirms Charles Rettig As Next IRS Commissioner

House W&M Committee To Markup Retirement and Other “Tax Reform 2.0” Bills Thursday

Markup Tomorrow On Retirement & Other Republican‘s TCJA Tax Reform 2.0 Bills

Free Poster for Upcoming October National Disability Employment Awareness Month 2018 Available

Employer’s Employment Tax Fraud Indictment Warns Employers To Properly Pay Withheld Employment Taxes

Flurry of Reform Activity Sign Employers, Health Plans Should Prepare To Respond To Last Minute Health Reforms This Fall

(no title)

Relationships Matter

OFCCP Extends TRICARE Affirmative Action Moratorium

Trump Blue Print To Reduce Drug Costs Announced

NOTICE: These statements and materials are for general informational and purposes only. They do not establish an attorney-client relationship, are not legal advice or an offer or commitment to provide legal advice, and do not serve as a substitute for legal advice. Readers are urged to engage competent legal counsel for consultation and representation in light of the specific facts and circumstances presented in their unique circumstance at any particular time. No comment or statement in this publication is to be construed as legal advise or an admission. The author reserves the right to qualify or retract any of these statements at any time. Likewise, the content is not tailored to any particular situation and does not necessarily address all relevant issues. Because the law is rapidly evolving and rapidly evolving rules makes it highly likely that subsequent developments could impact the currency and completeness of this discussion. The presenter and the program sponsor disclaim, and have no responsibility to provide any update or otherwise notify any participant of any such change, limitation, or other condition that might affect the suitability of reliance upon these materials or information otherwise conveyed in connection with this program. Readers may not rely upon, are solely responsible for, and assume the risk and all liabilities resulting from their use of this publication.

Comments Off on PBGC Simplifies Coverage Determination Process | Bankruptcy, compensation, defined benefit plan, Defined Benefit Plans, pension plan, retirement plan, Retirement Plans, Uncategorized | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Government Contractors Must Update NLRB Posters

May 29, 2019

Federal contractors and subcontractors must update the National Labor Relations Act rights notice that Executive Order 13496, “Notification of Employee Rights Under Federal Labor Law.” requires be displayed.

The U.S. Department of Labor updated the poster to reflect a new telephone number for the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), the agency responsible for enforcing the NLRA, as well as contact information for individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing. No other changes or updates were made at this time.

Federal contractors and subcontractors can obtain the updated poster at no cost by downloading it from the Department’s Office of Labor-Management Standards (OLMS) website at https://www.dol.gov/olms/regs/compliance/EO13496.htm.

We hope this update is helpful. We also invite you to share your own best practices ideas and resources and join the discussions about these and other human resources, health and other employee benefit and patient empowerment concerns by participating and contributing to the discussions in our Solutions Law Press HR & Benefits Update Group or COPE: Coalition On Patient Empowerment Groupon LinkedIn or Project COPE: Coalition on Patient Empowerment Facebook Page.

About the Author

For more information about Ms. Stamer or her health industry and other experience and involvements, see here or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (214) 452-8297 or via e-mail here.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

NOTICE: These statements and materials are for general informational and purposes only. They do not establish an attorney-client relationship, are not legal advice or an offer or commitment to provide legal advice, and do not serve as a substitute for legal advice. Readers are urged to engage competent legal counsel for consultation and representation in light of the specific facts and circumstances presented in their unique circumstance at any particular time. No comment or statement in this publication is to be construed as legal advise or an admission. The author reserves the right to qualify or retract any of these statements at any time. Likewise, the content is not tailored to any particular situation and does not necessarily address all relevant issues. Because the law is rapidly evolving and rapidly evolving rules makes it highly likely that subsequent developments could impact the currency and completeness of this discussion. The presenter and the program sponsor disclaim, and have no responsibility to provide any update or otherwise notify any participant of any such change, limitation, or other condition that might affect the suitability of reliance upon these materials or information otherwise conveyed in connection with this program. Readers may not rely upon, are solely responsible for, and assume the risk and all liabilities resulting from their use of this publication.

Comments Off on Government Contractors Must Update NLRB Posters | compliance, Construction, Corporate Compliance, Employers, Employment, Employment Policies, government employer, HR, Human Resources, Labor Management Relations, Management, OFCCP, Uncategorized, Union | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

$3.1M HIPAA Settlements in 1 Month Shows Risk Assessments Critical, But Often Inadequately Done

May 25, 2019

The $100,000 payment Medical Informatics Engineering, Inc. (MIE) has agreed to pay under a just-announced HIPAA Resolution Agreement and Corrective Action Plan (“MIE Agreement”) with an Indiana health care information technology provider sends a clear warning to health care providers, health plans and insurers, health care clearinghouses (“covered entities””) and their business associate service providers (“business associates”)(collectively (“HIPAA entities”)to ensure they can prove they properly conduct and update documented security risk assessments verifying their systems adequately meet the medical data privacy security requirements of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (“HIPAA”) or be prepared to pay when a breach happens.

Coming less than a month after the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) announced its collection of a $3 million settlement payment from a radiology provider that also allowed hackers to breach its electronic protected health information (ePHI) by failing to conduct and respond to HIPAA-required risk assessments, OCR’s announcement late yesterday of the MIE Agreement makes clear that HIPAA entities need to tighten their HIPAA risk assessment, documentation and other compliance practices.

The latest in a lengthening list of OCR enforcement actions identifying as a key violation the failure to maintain up to date risk assessments, the MIE Agreement between OCR and the Indiana based provider of software and electronic medical record services to healthcare providers resulted from an OCR investigation of MIE’s July 23, 2015 breach report that hackers had used a compromised user ID and password to access the electronic protected health information (ePHI) of approximately 3.5 million people. OCR’s investigation revealed that MIE did not conduct a comprehensive risk analysis prior to the breach. To avoid potential prosecution by OCR for the breach, MIE agrees in the MIE Agreement to pay $100,000 to OCR, as well as to conduct a complete enterprise wide HIPAA risk assessment, to periodically update that risk assessment in accordance with the HIPAA rules and take other corrective actions to avoid potential prosecution by OCR for alleged violations of HIPAA’s Privacy and Security Rules.

Coming less than a month after OCR’s collection of a $3 million HIPAA resolution penalty from medical imaging provider Touchstone Medical Imaging where failure to conduct regular risk assessments was also identified as a violation, OCR’s announcement of the MIE Agreement sends a clear warning to other HIPAA covered entities and business associates not to make the same mistake. “Entities entrusted with medical records must be on guard against hackers,” said OCR Director Roger Severino. “The failure to identify potential risks and vulnerabilities to ePHI opens the door to breaches and violates HIPAA.”

While the HIPAA Security Rules always have included and OCR’s high dollar enforcement actions consistently demonstrate the need to meet their obligation to conduct documented comprehensive enterprise risk assessments and to update those assessments on an ongoing basis in response to changes in systems, software, participants or other events creating the potential for threats to the security of ePHI and the systems that include them, most HIPAA entities fail to adequate appreciate the scope of this responsibility or the steps OCR expects them to take to fulfill this expectation. Meanwhile, litigation and enforcement records resulting from heath care and other data breaches under the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act and other federal and state privacy and data security rules also show the value and need for excellent, well-documented risk assessment and mitigation response to mitigate breach and other exposures.

While clearly necessary and valuable establishing appropriate requirements and processes for ensuring the conduct and documentation of these required assessments, managing the compliance and risks resulting from their findings, documenting this analysis and other actions needed while also balancing other operational, legal, and financial challenges is complex and challenging. The legally, operationally and politically sensitive discussions require both management of compliance and risks arising from the administration of these responsibilities themselves and the dealing with vendors, patients, other providers and payers and the community make it highly advisable that management of HIPAA Entities involve experienced legal counsel throughout the process to utilize legal advice and attorney-client privilege and other evidentiary tools to help safeguard sensitive discussions in the course of this process and manage other risks.

If have questions or need more information about the risk assessment or other HIPAA requirements or other health care regulatory developments or their implications on your organization, contact the author. You also are invited to stay abreast of these and other health care developments by participating in our Solutions Law Press, Inc. LinkedIn SLP Health Care Risk Management & Operations Group or COPE: Coalition On Patient Empowerment Group or Project COPE: Coalition on Patient Empowerment Facebook Page.

About the Author

Ms. Stamer’s legal, management, governmental affairs work and speaking and publications have focused on helping health industry, health benefit and other organizations and their management use the law, performance and risk management tools and process to manage people, performance, quality, compliance, operations and risk.

Heavily involved in health care and health information technology, data and related process and systems development, policy and operations innovation and a Scribe for ABA JCEB annual agency meeting with OCR for many years who has authored numerous highly-regarded works and training programs on HIPAA and other data security, privacy and use, Ms. Stamer also is widely recognized for her extensive work and leadership on leading edge health care and benefit policy and operational issues including meaningful use and EMR, billing and reimbursement, quality measurement and reimbursement, HIPAA, FACTA, PCI, trade secret, physician and other medical confidentiality and privacy, federal and state data security and data breach and other information privacy and data security rules and many other concerns. Her work includes both regulatory and public policy advocacy and thought leadership, as well as advising and representing a broad range of health industry and other clients about policy design, drafting, administration, business associate and other contracting, risk assessments, audits and other risk prevention and mitigation, investigation, reporting, mitigation and resolution of known or suspected violations or other incidents and responding to and defending investigations or other actions by plaintiffs, DOJ, OCR, FTC, state attorneys’ general and other federal or state agencies, other business partners, patients and others.

As a key part of this work, Ms. Stamer has worked extensively with health care providers, health plans, health care clearinghouses, their business associates, employers and other plan sponsors, banks and other financial institutions, and others on risk management and compliance with HIPAA, FACTA, trade secret and other information privacy and data security rules, including the establishment, documentation, implementation, audit and enforcement of policies, procedures, systems and safeguards, investigating and responding to known or suspected breaches, defending investigations or other actions by plaintiffs, OCR and other federal or state agencies, reporting known or suspected violations, business associate and other contracting, commenting or obtaining other clarification of guidance, training and enforcement, and a host of other related concerns. Her clients include public and private health care providers, health insurers, health plans, technology and other vendors, and others. In addition to representing and advising these organizations, she also has conducted training on Privacy & The Pandemic for the Association of State & Territorial Health Plans, as well as HIPAA, FACTA, PCI, medical confidentiality, insurance confidentiality and other privacy and data security compliance and risk management for Los Angeles County Health Department, MGMA, ISSA, HIMMS, the ABA, SHRM, schools, medical societies, government and private health care and health plan organizations, their business associates, trade associations and others.

Highly valued for her rare ability to find pragmatic client-centric solutions by combining her detailed legal and operational knowledge and experience with her talent for creative problem-solving, her involvement in assisting clients with HIPAA and other privacy and data security concerns pre-dates the enactment of HIPAA and arises from her career-long health and managed care and insurance industry work.

Ms. Stamer’s clients include public and private, domestic and international hospitals, health care systems, clinics, skilled nursing, long term care, rehabilitation and other health facilities and systems; physicians, physician practices, and other health care providers; medical staff, and other provider organizations; managed care organizations, insurers, self-insured health plans and other payers; health care and insurance accreditation, peer review and quality committees and organizations; billing, utilization management, management services, electronic medical record and other health information technology (IT) organizations; group purchasing organizations; pharmaceutical, pharmacy, and prescription benefit management providers and organizations; health and insurance industry consultants, investors; technology, billing and reimbursement and other services and product vendors and developers; products and solutions consultants and developers; investors;; and other health industry clients as well as a diverse array of other business and government entities. Ms. Stamer supports these organizations and their leaders on both a real-time, “on demand” basis as well as outsourced operations or special counsel on an interim, special project, or ongoing basis with operational compliance and risk management; strategic planning; product and services development and innovation; workforce and operations management: crisis preparedness and response; public and regulatory affairs and host of other concerns.

As part of this work, Ms. Stamer continuously advises clients about compliance and internal controls, workforce and medical staff performance, quality, governance, reimbursement, privacy and data security, and other risk management and operational matters. She helps clients to establish and administer compliance and risk management policies; comply with requirements, investigate and respond to OCR Privacy and Civil Rights, Medicare and other HHS, Board of Medicine, Health, Nursing, Pharmacy, Chiropractic, Insurance and other licensing agencies, FDA, Drug Enforcement Agency, Department of Labor, IRS, DOD, FTC, SEC, and other federal and state agencies; attorneys’ generals; JCHO and other accreditation and quality organizations; private litigation and others investigation and enforcement entities and actions. Her experience includes advising, representing and defending these and other clients about risk management and compliance, breach and other liability investigation, mitigation and defense; contracting; process and product development, assessment, implementation and audit; contracting; commenting or seeking modification of legislation and regulatory guidance, and other regulatory and public policy advocacy; training and discipline; and a host of other projects and concerns.

Ms. Stamer also helps health industry, health plans and insurers, health IT, life sciences and other health industry clients manage regulatory, contractual and other legal and operational compliance; vendors and suppliers; Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, Medicare/Medicaid Advantage, ERISA and other private payer and other terms of participation, medical billing, reimbursement, claims administration and coordination, and other provider-payer relations, contracting, compliance and enforcement; Form 990 and other nonprofit and tax-exemption; fundraising, investors, joint venture, and other business partners; quality and other performance measurement, management, discipline and reporting; physician and other workforce recruiting, performance management, peer review and other investigations and discipline, wage and hour, payroll, gain-sharing and other pay-for performance and other compensation, training, outsourcing and other human resources and workforce matters; board, medical staff and other governance; strategic planning, process and quality improvement; meaningful use, EMR, HIPAA and other technology, data security and breach and other health IT and data; STARK, ant kickback, insurance, and other fraud prevention, investigation, defense and enforcement; audits, investigations, and enforcement actions; trade secrets and other intellectual property; crisis preparedness and response; internal, government and third-party licensure, credentialing, accreditation, HCQIA and other peer review and quality reporting, audits, investigations, enforcement and defense; patient relations and care; internal controls and regulatory compliance; payer-provider, provider-provider, vendor, patient, governmental and community relations; facilities, practice, products and other sales, mergers, acquisitions and other business and commercial transactions; government procurement and contracting; grants; tax-exemption and not-for-profit; 1557 and other Civil Rights; privacy and data security; training; risk and change management; regulatory affairs and public policy; process, product and service improvement, development and innovation, and other legal and operational compliance and risk management, government and regulatory affairs and operations concerns.

Past Chair of the ABA Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group and, a Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, the American Bar Foundation and the Texas Bar Foundation, Ms. Stamer also has extensive health care reimbursement and insurance experience advising and defending health care providers, payers, and others about Medicare, Medicaid, Medicare and Medicaid Advantage, Tri-Care, self-insured group, association, individual and group and other health benefit programs and coverages including but not limited to advising public and private payers about coverage and program design and documentation, advising and defending providers, payers and systems and billing services entities about systems and process design, audits, and other processes; provider credentialing, and contracting; providers and payer billing, reimbursement, claims audits, denials and appeals, coverage coordination, reporting, direct contracting, False Claims Act, Medicare & Medicaid, ERISA, state Prompt Pay, out-of-network and other nonpar insured, and other health care claims, prepayment, post-payment and other coverage, claims denials, appeals, billing and fraud investigations and actions and other reimbursement and payment related investigation, enforcement, litigation and actions.

A former lead consultant to the Government of Bolivia on its Pension Privatization Project with extensive domestic and international public policy concerns in pensions, healthcare, workforce, immigration, tax, education and other areas, Ms. Stamer also continuously works with a diverse array of clients to monitor, shape and respond to federal and state legislative, regulatory, enforcement and other public policy and regulatory affairs concerns. This work involves a steady diet of involvement with Congress, federal regulators and state legislative, regulatory and enforcement bodies dealing with cutting edge health and insurance legislation, regulation and enforcement throughout her 30 year career.

Author of leading works on a multitude of these and other concerns, the American Bar Association (ABA) International Section Life Sciences Committee Vice Chair, a Scribe for the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits (JCEB) Annual OCR Agency Meeting, former Vice President of the North Texas Health Care Compliance Professionals Association, past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Section, past ABA JCEB Council Representative and CLE and Marketing Committee Chair, past Board President of Richardson Development Center (now Warren Center) for Children Early Childhood Intervention Agency, past North Texas United Way Long Range Planning Committee Member, and past Board Member and Compliance Chair of the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas, a Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, the American Bar Foundation and the Texas Bar Foundation, and Board Certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization in Labor and Employment Law, Ms. Stamer also shares her thought leadership, experience and advocacy on these and other related concerns by her service in the leadership of the Solutions Law Press, Inc. Coalition for Responsible Health Policy, its PROJECT COPE: Coalition on Patient Empowerment, and a broad range of other professional and civic organizations including North Texas Healthcare Compliance Association, a founding Board Member and past President of the Alliance for Healthcare Excellence, past Board Member and Board Compliance Committee Chair for the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas; former Board President of the early childhood development intervention agency, The Richardson Development Center for Children (now Warren Center For Children); current Vice Chair of the ABA Tort & Insurance Practice Section Employee Benefits Committee, current Vice Chair of Policy for the Life Sciences Committee of the ABA International Section, Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Section, a current Defined Contribution Plan Committee Co-Chair, former Group Chair and Co-Chair of the ABA RPTE Section Employee Benefits Group, past Representative and chair of various committees of ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits; a ABA Health Law Coordinating Council representative, former Coordinator and a Vice-Chair of the Gulf Coast TEGE Council TE Division, past Chair of the Dallas Bar Association Employee Benefits & Executive Compensation Committee, a former member of the Board of Directors of the Southwest Benefits Association and others.

For more information about Ms. Stamer or experience publications, speaking, public advocacy or other involvements, see here or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (214) 452-8297 or via e-mail here.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

NOTICE: These statements and materials are for general informational and purposes only. They do not establish an attorney-client relationship, are not legal advice or an offer or commitment to provide legal advice, and do not serve as a substitute for legal advice. Readers are urged to engage competent legal counsel for consultation and representation in light of the specific facts and circumstances presented in their unique circumstance at any particular time. No comment or statement in this publication is to be construed as legal advice or an admission. The author reserves the right to qualify or retract any of these statements at any time. Likewise, the content is not tailored to any particular situation and does not necessarily address all relevant issues. Because the law is rapidly evolving and rapidly evolving rules makes it highly likely that subsequent developments could impact the currency and completeness of this discussion. The presenter and the program sponsor disclaim, and have no responsibility to provide any update or otherwise notify any participant of any such change, limitation, or other condition that might affect the suitability of reliance upon these materials or information otherwise conveyed in connection with this program. Readers may not rely upon, are solely responsible for, and assume the risk and all liabilities resulting from their use of this publication.

©2019 Cynthia Marcotte Stamer. Non-exclusive right to republish granted to Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ For information about republication, please contact the author directly. All other rights reserved.

Comments Off on $3.1M HIPAA Settlements in 1 Month Shows Risk Assessments Critical, But Often Inadequately Done | Uncategorized | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Congress Moves To Enact Federal Paid Leave Rules

May 8, 2019

U.S. employers should start giving clear feedback to Congress about proposals to impose new federal paid family leave requirements on U.S. employers likely to move quickly through Congress given strong bipartisan Congressional and Presidential support. The push for enactment of federal paid leave legislation comes amid the enactment of a patchwork of state and local state paid leave laws over the past decade.

Strong bi-partisan Congressional support for expanded federal support for paid family leave was evident from statements and testimony at the House Ways and Means Committee Full Committee Hearing on Paid Family and Medical Leave: Helping Workers and Employers Succeed this morning.

In fact, Republican Representative Tom Brady, the Ranking Minority Member of the Committee, stated in his opening statement at the start of the hearing, “Today the question isn’t whether to expand paid family leave, but how best to achieve it.”

With the majority of Congress supporting federal legislation to expand the availability of paid family leave, U.S. employers should make sure to communicate their preferences about the “how” to Congress whole time remains to influence those decisions.

While both parties and the President Trump support expanded federal support for paid leave, the two Parties differ widely about the how federal legislation should promote paid family leave.

Republicans generally are urging the extension and support the “carrot” incentive approach they began in the last Congress when they led the enactment of The Paid Family and Medical Leave Tax Credit, doubling of the Child Tax Credit to its largest amount in history, increase of the Child Tac Credit refundability, and expansion of its availability to 8 million more families as part of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. The new paid leave credit reimburses qualifying businesses up to 25 percent of the cost of providing paid leave to their workers. In this first-ever pilot program, businesses can get help for offering up to 12 weeks of paid leave. Republicans now support continuation and possible expansion of these incentives.

In contrast, Democrats advocate Congress using a “stick” approach by mandating that employers provide paid family leave or government sponsored programs through a plethora of proposals including, for instance instance:

S. 840, the Healthy Families Act and H.R. 1784, the Healthy Families Act would require covered employees of 15 or more employees to provide 1 hour of paid sick leave for care of self or a family member for every 30 hours an employee works that employees could carryover to subsequent years if not used with substantial penalties imposed employers; and

H.R. 1185: FAMILY Act introduced by Democrat Representative Rosa DeLauro with 185 co-sponsors would establish government sponsored accounts to provide paid family leave.

In his comments this morning, Representative Brady noted the need to tailor paid mandates to account for differences in employer needs, stating: “As we work to expand access to paid medical leave, there are real concerns that a new one-size-fits-all Washington mandate limits family flexibility, could be extremely costly, and will lead to higher taxes on workers, reduced job benefits, or harmful cuts in education, Social Security, or Medicare to pay for the new mandate.

in addition, before the hearing the highest ranking Republicans on the Subcommittees for Select Revenue Measures, Worker and Family Support, and Social Security respectively, Representatives Kevin Brady, Adrian Smith, Jackie Walorski, and Tom Reed, sent a letter to Ways and Means Chairman Richard Neal (D-MA), urging the emphasis of incentives over “one size, fits all mandates.”

With both parties pushing to enact their preferred paid family leave approach, employers concerned about the cost and other challenges of a federal paid family leave mandate should review and provide feedback to key Congressional committees and members as soon as possible.

If you want addition information or assistance in reviewing or responding to these proposals, please contact the author directly.

About the Author

Throughout her 30 plus year career, Ms. Stamer has continuously worked with these and other management clients to design, implement, document, administer and defend hiring, performance management, compensation, promotion, demotion, discipline, reduction in force and other workforce, employee benefit, insurance and risk management, health and safety, and other programs, products and solutions, and practices; establish and administer compliance and risk management policies; comply with requirements, investigate and respond to government, accreditation and quality organizations, regulatory and contractual audits, private litigation and other federal and state reviews, investigations and enforcement actions; evaluate and influence legislative and regulatory reforms and other regulatory and public policy advocacy; prepare and present training and discipline; handle workforce and related change management associated with mergers, acquisitions, reductions in force, re-engineering, and other change management; and a host of other workforce related concerns. Ms. Stamer’s experience in these matters includes supporting these organizations and their leaders on both a real-time, “on demand” basis with crisis preparedness, intervention and response as well as consulting and representing clients on ongoing compliance and risk management; plan and program design; vendor and employee credentialing, selection, contracting, performance management and other dealings; strategic planning; policy, program, product and services development and innovation; mergers, acquisitions, bankruptcy and other crisis and change management; management, and other opportunities and challenges arising in the course of workforce and other operations management to improve performance while managing workforce, compensation and benefits and other legal and operational liability and performance.

For more information about Ms. Stamer or her health industry and other experience and involvements, see here or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (214) 452-8297 or via e-mail here.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

NOTICE: These statements and materials are for general informational and purposes only. They do not establish an attorney-client relationship, are not legal advice or an offer or commitment to provide legal advice, and do not serve as a substitute for legal advice. Readers are urged to engage competent legal counsel for consultation and representation in light of the specific facts and circumstances presented in their unique circumstance at any particular time. No comment or statement in this publication is to be construed as legal advise or an admission. The author reserves the right to qualify or retract any of these statements at any time. Likewise, the content is not tailored to any particular situation and does not necessarily address all relevant issues. Because the law is rapidly evolving and rapidly evolving rules makes it highly likely that subsequent developments could impact the currency and completeness of this discussion. The presenter and the program sponsor disclaim, and have no responsibility to provide any update or otherwise notify any participant of any such change, limitation, or other condition that might affect the suitability of reliance upon these materials or information otherwise conveyed in connection with this program. Readers may not rely upon, are solely responsible for, and assume the risk and all liabilities resulting from their use of this publication.

Comments Off on Congress Moves To Enact Federal Paid Leave Rules | compliance, Corporate Compliance, Disability Plans, Employee Benefits, Employee Handbook, Employer, Employers, Employment, Employment Discrimination, Family Leave, Fringe Benefit, Fringe Benefits, Uncategorized | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

$3 Million OCR Touchstone Settlement Warns Health Plans of Perils of HIPAA Violations

May 6, 2019

Health plans, their sponsoring employers and unions, insurers, fiduciaries, administrators, insurers and other service providers should learn from the $3 million lesson a Franklin, Tennessee-based diagnostic medical imaging services provider is learning about the heavy penalties a health plan, health care provider, health care clearinghouse or business associate (“Covered Entity”) risks if a post-data breach investigation by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) Office for Civil Rights (“OCR”) shows the Covered Entity breached the privacy, data security, business associate agreement and breach notificataion rules of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) Security and Breach Notification Rules before or after the breach.

Under a new OCR Resolution Agreement and Corrective Action Plan announced May 6, 2019, Touchstone Medical Imaging (“Touchstone”) must pay $3,000,000 to OCR and adopt a corrective action plan to settle OCR charges it violated HIPAA arising from an OCR investigation of Touchstone’s handling of a 2014 breach. Around May 9, 2014, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) and OCR notified Touchstone that one of its FTP servers allowed uncontrolled access to PHI that allowed search engines to index the PHI of more than 300,000 of Touchstone’s patients, which remained visible on the Internet even after the server was taken offline. While Touchstone initially claimed that no patient PHI was exposed, in the course of OCR’s investigation, Touchstone subsequently admitted PHI of more than 300,000 patients was exposed including, names, birth dates, social security numbers, and addresses. As a result of its delayed acknowledgement of the occurrence of the breach on May 9, 2014, Touchstone did not provide notice of the breach until October, 2014, months after OCR and FBI notified it of the breach. See here.

OCR’s investigation found Touchstone breached HIPAA before and after the breach. OCR’s investigation found before the breach, Touchstone failed to conduct an accurate and thorough risk analysis of potential risks and vulnerabilities to the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of all of its electronic PHI (ePHI), and failed to have business associate agreements in place with its vendors, including their IT support vendor and a third-party data center provider as required by HIPAA. OCR also found Touchstone did not thoroughly investigate the security incident until several months after notice of the breach from both the FBI and OCR. Consequently, Touchstone’s notification to individuals affected by the breach also was untimely.

To resolve OCR charges arising from these events, Touchstone agreed to pay OCR $3,000,000. In addition to the monetary settlement, Touchstone will undertake a robust corrective action plan that includes the adoption of business associate agreements, completion of an enterprise-wide risk analysis, and comprehensive policies and procedures to comply with the HIPAA Rules.

The Resolution Agreement illustrates the expensive price Covered Entities risk from failing to conduct risk assessments, obtain business associate agreements and fulfill other HIPAA requirements before a breach, then failing to promptly investigate, provide notification and redress a breach when discovered. Covered Entities should learn from the painful lesson learned by Touchstone by reconfirming the adequacy of their current HIPAA compliance and using care to timely and adequately investigate and provide notification if and when a breach occurs.

About the Author

Highly valued for her rare ability to find pragmatic client-centric solutions by combining her detailed legal and operational knowledge and experience with her talent for creative problem-solving, Ms. Stamer’s clients include employers and other workforce management organizations; employer, union, association, government and other insured and self-insured health and other employee benefit plan sponsors, benefit plans, fiduciaries, administrators, and other plan vendors; managed care organizations, insurers, self-insured health plans and other payers and their management; public and private, domestic and international hospitals, health care systems, clinics, skilled nursing, long term care, rehabilitation and other health care providers and facilities; medical staff, health care accreditation, peer review and quality committees and organizations; managed care organizations, insurers, third party administrative services organizations and other payer organizations; billing, utilization management, management services organizations; group purchasing organizations; pharmaceutical, pharmacy, and prescription benefit management and organizations; claims, billing and other health care and insurance technology and data service organizations; other health, employee benefit, insurance and financial services product and solutions consultants, developers and vendors; and other health, employee benefit, insurance, technology, government and other management clients.

A former lead consultant to the Government of Bolivia on its Pension Privatization Project with extensive domestic and international public policy concerns in pensions, healthcare, workforce, immigration, tax, education and other areas, Ms. Stamer has been extensively involved in U.S. federal, state and local health care and other legislative and regulatory reform impacting these concerns throughout her career. Her public policy and regulatory affairs experience encompassess advising and representing domestic and multinational private sector health, insurance, employee benefit, employer, staffing and other outsourced service providers, and other clients in dealings with Congress, state legislatures, and federal, state and local regulators and government entities, as well as providing advice and input to U.S. and foreign government leaders on these and other policy concerns.

Beyond her public policy and regulatory affairs involvement, Ms. Stamer also has extensive experience helping these and other clients to design, implement, document, administer and defend workforce, employee benefit, insurance and risk management, health and safety, and other programs, products and solutions, and practices; establish and administer compliance and risk management policies; comply with requirements, investigate and respond to government; accreditation and quality organizations; private litigation and other federal and state health care industry investigations and enforcement actions; evaluate and influence legislative and regulatory reforms and other regulatory and public policy advocacy; training and discipline; enforcement, and a host of other related concerns. Ms. Stamer’s experience in these matters includes supporting these organizations and their leaders on both a real-time, “on demand” basis with crisis preparedness, intervention and response as well as consulting and representing clients on ongoing compliance and risk management; plan and program design; vendor and employee credentialing, selection, contracting, performance management and other dealings; strategic planning; policy, program, product and services development and innovation; mergers, acquisitions, and change management; workforce and operations management, and other opportunities and challenges arising in the course of their operations.

Ms. Stamer has extensive health care reimbursement and insurance experience advising and defending plan sponsors, administrators, insurance and managed care organizations, health care providers, payers, and others about Medicare, Medicaid, Medicare and Medicaid Advantage, Tri-Care, self-insured group, association, individual and employer and association group and other health benefit programs and coverages including but not limited to advising public and private payers about coverage and program design and documentation, advising and defending providers, payers and systems and billing services entities about systems and process design, audits, and other processes; provider credentialing, and contracting; providers and payer billing, reimbursement, claims audits, denials and appeals, coverage coordination, reporting, direct contracting, False Claims Act, Medicare & Medicaid, ERISA, state Prompt Pay, out-of-network and other nonpar insured, and other health care claims, prepayment, post-payment and other coverage, claims denials, appeals, billing and fraud investigations and actions and other reimbursement and payment related investigation, enforcement, litigation and actions. Scribe for the ABA JCEB annual agency meeting with HHS OCR, she also has worked extensively on health and health benefit coding, billing and claims, meaningful use and EMR, billing and reimbursement, quality measurement and reimbursement, HIPAA, FACTA, PCI, trade secret, physician and other medical, workforce, consumer financial and other data confidentiality and privacy, federal and state data security, data breach and mitigation, and other information privacy and data security concerns.

Author of leading works on a multitude of health care, health plan and other health industry matters, the American Bar Association (ABA) International Section Life Sciences Committee Vice Chair, a Scribe for the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits (JCEB) Annual OCR Agency Meeting, former Vice President of the North Texas Health Care Compliance Professionals Association, past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Section, past ABA JCEB Council Representative and CLE and Marketing Committee Chair, past Board President of Richardson Development Center (now Warren Center) for Children Early Childhood Intervention Agency, past North Texas United Way Long Range Planning Committee Member, and past Board Member and Compliance Chair of the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas, Ms. Stamer’s health industry clients include public health organizations; public and private hospitals, healthcare systems, clinics and other health care facilities; physicians, physician practices, medical staff, and other provider organizations; skilled nursing, long term care, assisted living, home health, ambulatory surgery, dialysis, telemedicine, DME, Pharma, clinics, and other health care providers; billing, management and other administrative services organizations; insured, self-insured, association and other health plans; PPOs, HMOs and other managed care organizations, insurance, claims administration, utilization management, and other health care payers; public and private peer review, quality assurance, accreditation and licensing; technology and other outsourcing; healthcare clearinghouse and other data; research; public and private social and community organizations; real estate, technology, clinical pathways, and other developers; investors, banks and financial institutions; audit, accounting, law firm; consulting; document management and recordkeeping, business associates, vendors, and service providers and other professional and other health industry organizations; academic medicine; trade associations; legislative and other law making bodies and others.

A popular lecturer and widely published author on health industry concerns, Ms. Stamer continuously advises health industry clients about compliance and internal controls, workforce and medical staff performance, quality, governance, reimbursement, privacy and data security, and other risk management and operational matters. Ms. Stamer also publishes and speaks extensively on health and managed care industry regulatory, staffing and human resources, compensation and benefits, technology, public policy, reimbursement and other operations and risk management concerns.

A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, the American Bar Foundation and the Texas Bar Foundation, Ms. Stamer also shares her thought leadership, experience and advocacy on these and other related concerns by her service in the leadership of the Solutions Law Press, Inc. Coalition for Responsible Health Policy, its PROJECT COPE: Coalition on Patient Empowerment, and a broad range of other professional and civic organizations including North Texas Healthcare Compliance Association, a founding Board Member and past President of the Alliance for Healthcare Excellence, past Board Member and Board Compliance Committee Chair for the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas; former Board President of the early childhood development intervention agency, The Richardson Development Center for Children (now Warren Center For Children); current Vice Chair of the ABA Tort & Insurance Practice Section Employee Benefits Committee, current Vice Chair of Policy for the Life Sciences Committee of the ABA International Section, Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Section, a current Defined Contribution Plan Committee Co-Chair, former Group Chair and Co-Chair of the ABA RPTE Section Employee Benefits Group, past Representative and chair of various committees of ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits; a ABA Health Law Coordinating Council representative, former Coordinator and a Vice-Chair of the Gulf Coast TEGE Council TE Division, past Chair of the Dallas Bar Association Employee Benefits & Executive Compensation Committee, a former member of the Board of Directors of the Southwest Benefits Association and others.

For more information about Ms. Stamer or her health industry and other experience and involvements, see here or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (214) 452-8297 or via e-mail here.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

NOTICE: These statements and materials are for general informational and purposes only. They do not establish an attorney-client relationship, are not legal advice or an offer or commitment to provide legal advice, and do not serve as a substitute for legal advice. Readers are urged to engage competent legal counsel for consultation and representation in light of the specific facts and circumstances presented in their unique circumstance at any particular time. No comment or statement in this publication is to be construed as legal advise or an admission. The author reserves the right to qualify or retract any of these statements at any time. Likewise, the content is not tailored to any particular situation and does not necessarily address all relevant issues. Because the law is rapidly evolving and rapidly evolving rules makes it highly likely that subsequent developments could impact the currency and completeness of this discussion. The presenter and the program sponsor disclaim, and have no responsibility to provide any update or otherwise notify any participant of any such change, limitation, or other condition that might affect the suitability of reliance upon these materials or information otherwise conveyed in connection with this program. Readers may not rely upon, are solely responsible for, and assume the risk and all liabilities resulting from their use of this publication.

Comments Off on $3 Million OCR Touchstone Settlement Warns Health Plans of Perils of HIPAA Violations | Association Health Plan, board of directors, Cafeteria Plans, CHIP, church plan, Civil Monetary Penalties, Claims, compliance, Corporate Compliance, Cybercrime, Data Breach, Data Security, employee, Employee Benefits, Employer, Employers, health benefit, Health Benefits, health Care, health insurance, health insurance marketplace, Health IT, health plan, Health Plans, HIPAA, HIPAA, HR, HSA, Human Resources, Identity Theft, Insurance, insurers, Internal Investigations, Managed Care, Management, Medicare Part D, MEWA, multiple employer plan (Meps), Patient Empowerment, Prescription Drugs, preventive care, Risk Management, Uncategorized | Tagged: Health Plans, HIPAA, OCR, Privacy, Resolution agreement | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Employer Faces 5 Years Imprisonment For Not Paying Employment & Income Tax Withholding To IRS

May 1, 2019

The owner of a Greenville, Ohio, glass company faces sentencing to up to five years in prison and a $250,000 fine in addition to paying $500,000 plus in restitution to the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) after she plead guilty to failing to truthfully account for and pay employment taxes. The guilty plea of 64- year old Gail Cooper announced by Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Richard E. Zuckerman of the Justice Department’s Tax Division is one of a multitude of criminal tax convictions the Justice Department already has obtained in 2019.

Cooper was the sole owner of Greenville Architectural Glass LLC (GAG) during the years 2007 through 2015. GAG primarily installed glass in commercial and residential buildings for clients in Ohio. GAG paid wages to its employees during the years 2013 through 2015. As the person responsible for GAG’s finances, Cooper was required to withhold federal income taxes and Social Security and Medicare taxes from employees’ wages and pay those amounts to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). Cooper was also required to file quarterly employment tax returns with the IRS. Although Cooper caused GAG to withhold taxes from employees’ wages, she neither paid those amounts over to the IRS, nor filed the required quarterly returns for the first quarter of 2013 through the second quarter of 2015. Cooper also failed to pay over to the IRS unemployment taxes.

As part of her plea agreement, Cooper also admitted that she filed false individual income tax returns for the years 2008 – 2010 on which she understated GAG’s gross receipts and overstated its expenses.

Cooper also admitted in plea documents that she willfully failed to file income tax returns for the years 2011 through 2014, which would have reported her income from GAG and other sources. Cooper paid a professional tax return preparer to complete returns for those years, but Cooper never filed them.

U.S. District Judge Thomas M. Rose set sentencing for Aug. 2, 2019. Cooper faces up to five years in prison and a $250,000 fine. Cooper admitted that her conduct caused a loss to the government of more than $500,000, and agreed to pay restitution to the IRS.

This and other criminal tax convictions drive home the criminal exposures employers and their management leaders face for failing to properly withhold and pay employment taxes and employee income withholding as required by the Internal Revenue Code. Businesses and their leaders involved with businesses that have failed to properly withhold and pay income or employment tax withheld should seek advice of qualified legal counsel admitted to practice before the U.S. Tax Court and IRS for assistance understanding and taking corrective action to resolve or mitigate their potent civil or criminal liability exposure.

Solutions Law Press, Inc. hopes you enjoyed this article. We also invite you to share your own best practices ideas and resources and join the discussions about these and other human resources, health and other employee benefit and patient empowerment concerns by participating and contributing to the discussions in our Solutions Law Press HR & Benefits Update Group or COPE: Coalition On Patient Empowerment Groupon LinkedIn or Project COPE: Coalition on Patient Empowerment Facebook Page.

About the Author

Throughout her 30 plus year career, Ms. Stamer has continuously worked with these and other management clients to design, implement, document, administer and defend hiring, performance management, compensation, promotion, demotion, discipline, reduction in force and other workforce, employee benefit, insurance and risk management, health and safety, and other programs, products and solutions, and practices; establish and administer compliance and risk management policies; comply with requirements, investigate and respond to government, accreditation and quality organizations, regulatory and contractual audits, private litigation and other federal and state reviews, investigations and enforcement actions; evaluate and influence legislative and regulatory reforms and other regulatory and public policy advocacy; prepare and present training and discipline; handle workforce and related change management associated with mergers, acquisitions, reductions in force, re-engineering, and other change management; and a host of other workforce related concerns. Ms. Stamer’s experience in these matters includes supporting these organizations and their leaders on both a real-time, “on demand” basis with crisis preparedness, intervention and response as well as consulting and representing clients on ongoing compliance and risk management; plan and program design; vendor and employee credentialing, selection, contracting, performance management and other dealings; strategic planning; policy, program, product and services development and innovation; mergers, acquisitions, bankruptcy and other crisis and change management; management, and other opportunities and challenges arising in the course of workforce and other operations management to improve performance while managing workforce, compensation and benefits and other legal and operational liability and performance.

For more information about Ms. Stamer or her health industry and other experience and involvements, see here or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (214) 452-8297 or via e-mail here.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

NOTICE: These statements and materials are for general informational and purposes only. They do not establish an attorney-client relationship, are not legal advice or an offer or commitment to provide legal advice, and do not serve as a substitute for legal advice. Readers are urged to engage competent legal counsel for consultation and representation in light of the specific facts and circumstances presented in their unique circumstance at any particular time. No comment or statement in this publication is to be construed as legal advise or an admission. The author reserves the right to qualify or retract any of these statements at any time. Likewise, the content is not tailored to any particular situation and does not necessarily address all relevant issues. Because the law is rapidly evolving and rapidly evolving rules makes it highly likely that subsequent developments could impact the currency and completeness of this discussion. The presenter and the program sponsor disclaim, and have no responsibility to provide any update or otherwise notify any participant of any such change, limitation, or other condition that might affect the suitability of reliance upon these materials or information otherwise conveyed in connection with this program. Readers may not rely upon, are solely responsible for, and assume the risk and all liabilities resulting from their use of this publication.

Comments Off on Employer Faces 5 Years Imprisonment For Not Paying Employment & Income Tax Withholding To IRS | compensation, compliance, Construction, Corporate Compliance, corporate governance, Employers, Employment, Employment Policies, Employment Tax, enforcement, Income Tax, Pay, Payroll Tax, Tax, Uncategorized, Whistleblower | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Health Plans Must Share PHI To Apps When Members Request, Responsible For Security On Plan-Sponsored Apps

April 30, 2019

Health plans must deliver electronic protected health information (“ePHI”) to electronic applications or software (“apps”) used by plan members, and are responsible under the Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act (“HIPAA”) Privacy and Security Rules for the security of electronic protected health information (“ePHI”) on apps they sponsor or provide, according to new guidance from the Department of Health & Human Services (“HHS”) Office of Civil Rights (“OCR”).

With health plans and their sponsors and insurers increasingly offering or promoting the use of apps to plan members members to access, maintain and use their health information, health plans, health care providers, health care clearinghouses and their business associates (“covered entities”) covered by HIPAA must understand and be prepared meet their HIPAA responsibilities to provide and protect ePHI to and on these apps, but may want to rethink sponsoring or providing a particular app for that purpose.

New HIPAA FAQ guidance (the “FAQs”) from OCR that addresses the implications of HIPAA on covered entities responsibility when asked to share or for ePHI shared or stored on apps or application programming interfaces (“APIs”) systems, covered entities have a legal obligation to disclose ePHI to an app when subjects of the ePHI or their personal representatives request such disclosures. However, the FAQs also state a covered entity or its business associates won’t be responsible for the security of the data shared to the app unless it sponsors or provides it.

pends upon whether the AP or API interface provider is a business associate of the covered entity versus just a third-party provider whose involvement and receipt of the PHI is requested and arranged by the subject of the PHI.

Covered Entities Obligated To Disclose ePHI to Apps Chosen By Individuals

The FAQs make crystal clear that covered entities do not have the option of refusing to share ePHI to an app when requested to do so by the subject of the ePHI or its personal representative. The FAQs states that covered entities cannot refuse to disclose ePHI to an app chosen by an individual because of concerns about how the app will use or disclose the ePHI it receives. In this regard, the FAQs state that the HIPAA Privacy Rule generally prohibits a covered entity from refusing to disclose ePHI to a third-party app designated by the individual if the ePHI is readily producible in the form and format used by the app. See 45 CFR 164.524(a)(1), (c)(2)(ii), (c)(3)(ii).According to the FAQ, the HIPAA Rules do not impose any restrictions on how an individual or the individual’s designee, such as an app, may use the health information that has been disclosed pursuant to the individual’s right of access. For instance, a covered entity is not permitted to deny an individual’s right of access to their ePHI where the individual directs the information to a third-party app because the app will share the individual’s ePHI for research or because the app does not encrypt the individual’s data when at rest.According to the FAQs, the liability a covered entity or business associate bears for sharing ePHI to an App under the HIPAA Privacy, Security, or Breach Notification Rules (HIPAA Rules) depends on the relationship between the covered entity and the app.

Breaches of Health Information Disclosed To An App

If an app that is neither a covered entity nor a business associate of the covered entity under HIPAA receives ePHI at the request of the subject or its personal representative, the FAQ states that the shared ePHI is no longer subject to the protections of the HIPAA Rules. Thus if the individual’s app – chosen by an individual to receive the individual’s requested ePHI – was not provided by or on behalf of the covered entity (and, thus, does not create, receive, transmit, or maintain ePHI on its behalf), the covered entity would not be liable under the HIPAA Rules for any subsequent use or disclosure of the requested ePHI received by the app. For example, the covered entity would have no HIPAA responsibilities or liability if such an app that the individual designated to receive their ePHI later experiences a breach. See also, See also OCR FAQ 2039, “What is the liability of a covered entity in responding to an individual’s access request to send the individual’s PHI to a third party.In contrast, however, the FAQ states that if the app was developed for, or provided by or on behalf of the covered entity – and, thus, creates, receives, maintains, or transmits ePHI on behalf of the covered entity – the covered entity could be liable under the HIPAA Rules for a subsequent impermissible disclosure because of the business associate relationship between the covered entity and the app developer. For example, if the individual selects an app that the covered health care provider uses to provide services to individuals involving ePHI, the FAQs state that the health care provider may be subject to liability under the HIPAA Rules if the app impermissibly discloses the ePHI received.

Transmission of ePHI to App Using Unsecured Method

The FAQs also address the potential exposures of covered entities and their business associates arising from the transmission of ePHI to an App using an unsecure method. According to the FAQs, the access rights HIPAA guarantees to individuals allows an individual to request that a covered entity to direct their ePHI to a third-party app in an unsecure manner or through an unsecure channel. See 45 CFR 164.524(a)(1), (c)(2)(ii), (c)(3)(ii). For instance, an individual may request that their unencrypted ePHI be transmitted to an app as a matter of convenience. The FAQ states that a covered entity that transmits ePHI through an unsecured means under such circumstances would not be responsible for unauthorized access to the individual’s ePHI while in transmission to the app. With respect to such apps, however, the FAQs also suggest that the covered entity may want to consider informing the individual of the potential risks involved the first time that the individual makes the request.

Post Transmission Exposure of Covered Entity’s EHR Systems Developer

The FAQ also discusses the potential exposure of a covered entity’s electronic health record (EHR) system developer under HIPAA after completing the transmission on behalf of a covered entity of ePHI to an app designated by the subject of the ePHI. According to the FAQs, the exposure of the HER system developer depends on the relationship, if any, between the covered entity, the EHR system developer, and the app chosen by the individual to receive the individual’s ePHI. A business associate relationship exists if an entity creates, receives, maintains, or transmits ePHI on behalf of a covered entity (directly or through another business associate) to carry out the covered functions of the covered entity. A business associate relationship exists between an EHR system developer and a covered entity. If the EHR system developer does not own the app, or if it owns the app but does not provide the app to, through, or on behalf of, the covered entity – e.g., if it creates the app and makes it available in an app store as part of a different line of business (and not as part of its business associate relationship with any covered entity) – the EHR system developer would not be liable under the HIPAA Rules for any subsequent use or disclosure of the requested ePHI received by the app.If the EHR system developer owns the app or has a business associate relationship with the app developer, and provides the app to, through or on behalf of, the covered entity (directly or through another business associate), however, the FAQs state the EHR system developer then potentially could face HIPAA liability (as a business associate of a HIPAA covered entity) for any impermissible uses and disclosures of the health information received by the app. For example, if an EHR system developer contracts with the app developer to create the app on behalf of a covered entity and the individual later identifies that app to receive ePHI, then the EHR system developer could be subject to HIPAA liability if the app impermissibly uses or discloses the ePHI received.

Covered Entity’s Duty To Enter Into Business Associate Agreement Depends Upon Relationship

Likewise, the FAQs also state that whether HIPAA requires a a covered entity or its EHR system developer to enter into a business associate agreement with an app designated by the individual in order to transmit ePHI to the app depends upon the relationship between the app developer and the covered entity and/or its EHR system developer. A business associate is a person or entity who creates, receives, maintains or transmits PHI on behalf of (or for the benefit of) a covered entity (directly or through another business associate) to carry out covered functions of the covered entity. An app’s facilitation of access to the individual’s ePHI at the individual’s request alone does not create a business associate relationship. Such facilitation may include API terms of use agreed to by the third-party app (i.e., interoperability arrangements).HIPAA does not require a covered entity or its business associate (e.g., EHR system developer) to enter into a business associate agreement with an app developer that does not create, receive, maintain, or transmit ePHI on behalf of or for the benefit of the covered entity (whether directly or through another business associate). However if the app was developed to create, receive, maintain, or transmit ePHI on behalf of the covered entity, or was provided by or on behalf of the covered entity (directly or through its EHR system developer as the covered entity’s business associate), then a business associate agreement would be required.

Health Plan & Other Covered Entity Take Aways

The new FAQ raises several action items for health plans, their sponsoring employers or unions, fiduciaries, administrators, brokers and insurers as well as other covered entities. Among other things, health plans and other covered entities must recognize and be prepared currently to provide PHI to subjects of that information on the apps of the requesting individual’s preference within the time frames dictated by HIPAA. Health plans and other covered entities need to recognize that the FAQs reflect this is a current, not future responsibility.

Second, health plans, health care providers and others that have or are considering providing apps or other tools to health plan members or patients for use in accessing or using PHI also generally need to recognize that the health plan or health care provider generally will bear responsibility under HIPAA for the adequacy of the security of the apps provided by or on behalf of the health plan or health care provider. Given the general responsibility to provide PHI to any apps designated by a subject of PHI, many health plans and health care providers may wish to reconsider whether providing or endorsing a particular app continues to make sense taking into account the HIPAA data privacy and security responsibilities and risks attendent to maintaining the security of PHI stored and accessed using those tools. Those electing to provide apps or other tools need to take steps to ensure the current and future adequacy of the data security of the app and its associated storage and other components including any future modifications to those tools.

Furthermore, health plans and other covered entities also should consider the advisability of revising existing notices and authorizations in response to the new FAQs. For instance, health plans, health care providers and others supplying PHI to an app designated by the requesting individual may want to consider revising forms to document the direction and consent of the requestor to the electronic delivery of the PHI to the designated app to better position themselves to claim the protection against liability for breaches on these subject designate apps described in the FAQs. Meanwhile, health plans or other covered entities providing apps also may wish to weigh options for supplementing disclosures to mitigate potential risks from use or failure to upgrade apps that might be viewed as covered entity provided or sponsored.

Certainly, before sponsoring or allowing a business associate to offer or provide an app or other similar solution, health care providers and other covered entities must ensure that the business associate agreement requirements of HIPAA are met from the app developer and others providing services or the app as business associates to the covered entity. Covered entities also should take steps to ensure that the interfaces between the apps and other systems are properly secured at the point of implementation and during any subsequent upgrades keeping in mind that OCR guidance expects covered entities to reconfirm security for any system, software or app upgrades. Meeting this expectation for apps within the possession of patients or plan members can present special challenges requiring careful planning.

Have questions about the new FAQs or other health care regulatory developments or their implications on your organization, contact the author. You also are invited to stay abreast of these and other health care developments by participating in our Solutions Law Press, Inc. Linkedin HR & Benefits Update LinkedIn Group or COPE: Coalition On Patient Empowerment Group or Project COPE: Coalition on Patient Empowerment Facebook Page.

About the Author

Highly valued for her rare ability to find pragmatic client-centric solutions by combining her detailed legal and operational knowledge and experience with her talent for creative problem-solving, Ms. Stamer’s clients include employers and other workforce management organizations; employer, union, association, government and other insured and self-insured health and other employee benefit plan sponsors, benefit plans, fiduciaries, administrators, and other plan vendors; managed care organizations, insurers, self-insured health plans and other payers and their management; public and private, domestic and international hospitals, health care systems, clinics, skilled nursing, long term care, rehabilitation and other health care providers and facilities; medical staff, health care accreditation, peer review and quality committees and organizations; managed care organizations, insurers, third party administrative services organizations and other payer organizations; billing, utilization management, management services organizations; group purchasing organizations; pharmaceutical, pharmacy, and prescription benefit management and organizations; claims, billing and other health care and insurance technology and data service organizations; other health, employee benefit, insurance and financial services product and solutions consultants, developers and vendors; and other health, employee benefit, insurance, technology, government and other management clients.

A former lead consultant to the Government of Bolivia on its Pension Privatization Project with extensive domestic and international public policy concerns in pensions, healthcare, workforce, immigration, tax, education and other areas, Ms. Stamer has been extensively involved in U.S. federal, state and local health care and other legislative and regulatory reform impacting these concerns throughout her career. Her public policy and regulatory affairs experience encompassess advising and representing domestic and multinational private sector health, insurance, employee benefit, employer, staffing and other outsourced service providers, and other clients in dealings with Congress, state legislatures, and federal, state and local regulators and government entities, as well as providing advice and input to U.S. and foreign government leaders on these and other policy concerns.

A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, the American Bar Foundation and the Texas Bar Foundation, Ms. Stamer also shares her thought leadership, experience and advocacy on these and other related concerns by her service in the leadership of the Solutions Law Press, Inc. Coalition for Responsible Health Policy, its PROJECT COPE: Coalition on Patient Empowerment, and a broad range of other professional and civic organizations including North Texas Healthcare Compliance Association, a founding Board Member and past President of the Alliance for Healthcare Excellence, past Board Member and Board Compliance Committee Chair for the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas; former Board President of the early childhood development intervention agency, The Richardson Development Center for Children (now Warren Center For Children); current Vice Chair of the ABA Tort & Insurance Practice Section Employee Benefits Committee, current Vice Chair of Policy for the Life Sciences Committee of the ABA International Section, Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Section, a current Defined Contribution Plan Committee Co-Chair, former Group Chair and Co-Chair of the ABA RPTE Section Employee Benefits Group, past Representative and chair of various committees of ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits; a ABA Health Law Coordinating Council representative, former Coordinator and a Vice-Chair of the Gulf Coast TEGE Council TE Division, past Chair of the Dallas Bar Association Employee Benefits & Executive Compensation Committee, a former member of the Board of Directors of the Southwest Benefits Association and others.

For more information about Ms. Stamer or her health industry and other experience and involvements, see here or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (214) 452-8297 or via e-mail here.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

NOTICE: These statements and materials are for general informational and purposes only. They do not establish an attorney-client relationship, are not legal advice or an offer or commitment to provide legal advice, and do not serve as a substitute for legal advice. Readers are urged to engage competent legal counsel for consultation and representation in light of the specific facts and circumstances presented in their unique circumstance at any particular time. No comment or statement in this publication is to be construed as legal advise or an admission. The author reserves the right to qualify or retract any of these statements at any time. Likewise, the content is not tailored to any particular situation and does not necessarily address all relevant issues. Because the law is rapidly evolving and rapidly evolving rules makes it highly likely that subsequent developments could impact the currency and completeness of this discussion. The presenter and the program sponsor disclaim, and have no responsibility to provide any update or otherwise notify any participant of any such change, limitation, or other condition that might affect the suitability of reliance upon these materials or information otherwise conveyed in connection with this program. Readers may not rely upon, are solely responsible for, and assume the risk and all liabilities resulting from their use of this publication.

Comments Off on Health Plans Must Share PHI To Apps When Members Request, Responsible For Security On Plan-Sponsored Apps | Brokers, Cafeteria Plans, Civil Monetary Penalties, Civil Rights, Claims, COBRA, Consumer Protection, Corporate Compliance, Cybercrime, Data Breach, Data Security, Drug & Alcohol, employee, Employee Benefits, Employer, Employers, Employment, ERISA, health benefit, Health Benefits, health Care, health insurance, health insurance marketplace, Health IT, health plan, Health Plans, HIPAA, HR, Identity Theft, Insurance, Internal Investigations, Managed Care, Mental Health, Mental Health Parity, Privacy, Uncategorized | Tagged: APPs, Data Privacy, Data Security, Health Plan, HIPAA, Inc. publisher/author Cynthia Marcotte Stamer and Society of Professional Benefits Administrators Director of Public Relations & Legal Affairs Elizabeth Leight will lead a conference call discussi, Security | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

NLRA Not Violated By Employers Termination of Union Dues Withholding In Response To Wisconsin Right To Work Law

April 29, 2019

A Wisconsin employer did not violate the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”) by ceasing to deduct union dues from employees’ paychecks for remittance to their certified union in response to Wisconsin’s enactment of a right-to-work law that curtailed dues checkoff, or communicating with employees about this action according the National Labor Relations Board ruling in Metalcraft of Mayville, Inc. (April 17, 2019).

In Metalcraft of Mayville, Inc., a Board Majority made up of Board Chairman John Ring and Board member William Emmanuel ruled found that the Wisconsin based employer Metalcraft of Mayville, Inc. (“Metalcraft”) lawfully discontinued dues checkoff following the effective date of a Wisconsin right to work law that included provisions addressing permissible dues checkoff arrangements because the employer reasonably believed that its employees’ dues-checkoff authorizations did not conform to Wisconsin’s recently enacted right-to-work law. The Board Majority also found that communications that Metalcraft sent directly to workers about its cessation of dues deductions did not violate the NLRA.

The Metalcraft of Maryville, Inc. decision arose from a complaint filed against Metalcraft, a fabricator of metal and manufacturer of lawn maintenance equipment by the union certified to represent the assemblers, maintenance employees, and welders at the Metalcraft plant located in Mayville, Wisconsin.

On March 9, 2015, the Wisconsin legislature enacted a right to work law that among other things provided that “[n]o person may require, as a condition of obtaining or continuing employment, an individual to . . . [b]ecome or remain a member of a labor organization [or p]ay any dues, fees, assessments, or other charges or expenses of any kind or amount, or provide anything of value to a labor organization.” Wis. Stat. Sec. 111.04(3)(a). The Wisconsin law also provided that contract provisions that violated its dues checkoff prohibitions were void, Wis. Stat. Sec. 111.04(3)(b) and that any person violating Section 111.04(3)(a) would be guilty of a Class A misdemeanor and subject to a fine of up to $10,000 or imprisonment up to 9 months, or both. Wis. Stat. Sec. 939.51, 947.20. Additionally, the Wisconsin law prohibits dues-checkoff authorizations unless they are revocable by the employee upon 30 days’ notice. Id. Sec. 111.06(l)(i).

The Wisconsin right-to-work law first applied to the parties’ collective bargaining agreement when it renewed on June 5, 2016. See 2015 Wis. Act. 1 Sec. 13. When the law took effect, the existing collective bargaining agreement included a number of union-security and dues-checkoff provisions including a provision that required Metalcraft to deduct union dues from the employee’s “first payroll check in each month” pursuant to authorizations signed by employees before the new right to work law took effect and to remit those dues to the Union by the 15th of the month.

On June 2, 2016, the Union sent the Metalcraft a letter, acknowledging the law’s applicability to the parties’ agreement and stating the Union’s position that, “[a]s dues check-off is governed by federal law, that issue need not be addressed. Your employees have the right to opt out of the Union during the 15 day window period listed on their dues check-off authorization.” However the union apparently did not make any effort to communicate this new option to its members at the plant.

On June 3, Metalcraft notified the Union that it believed the dues check requirement and checkoff authorization form did not comply with the right-to-work law and that it would no longer enforce them after June 4. Thereafter, Metalcraft did not deduct or remit union dues in June, July, August, or September 4.

In connection with its cession to deduct union dues, Metalcraft also sent employees represented by the union various correspondence about its decision to cease deducting union dues from their pay. In a June 4 letter to employees, Metalcraft among other things, told these employees:

… [A]fter June 4, the law prohibits requiring employees to pay Union dues. To do so would be a Class A Misdemeanor or a crime under Wisconsin law. If you want to pay Union dues, it is now your decision and it’s entirely voluntary. . . . . Currently you pay $59.30 per month or $711.60 per year in Union dues. All together our employees’ payments of Union dues are about $255,000 per year. Based on the signed authorization for Union dues, we believe it is a violation of the Right-to-Work law. Therefore, effective after June 4, we will no longer deduct the $59.30 from your paycheck per month.

On June 7, Metalcraft sent union employees another letter containing several questions and answers, including the following:

Q: Look at the yearly total we pay the union, where is all that money going?

A: Much of the information about the distribution of union dues is publicly accessible. For example you can Google IAM and find answers to your questions directly from the source or other sources if you want to find out more.

Q: Why should I pay them anything after they screwed up the contract negotiations?

A: This is a personal choice that every individual has to decide on their own and how they will handle their money.

Q: Do I have to sign a new authorization card? The union has not shown me anything.

A: This is a personal choice that every individual has to decide on their own of whether they will continue to be a paying member of the union or not.

On June 24, Metalcraft sent a letter to the Union indicating that it would resume deducting and remitting dues if the Union submitted new, legally compliant checkoff authorizations signed by employees after June 5.

On June 27, Metalcraft sent employees another letter with more questions and answers, including these:

Q: Other people had told me that I should pay union dues myself with a direct deduction from my checking account. Should I do that?

A: Whether to pay union dues, and whether to give the union access to your checking account is up to each individual to decide. Such a decision is voluntary and it is your choice. The Company has been as clear as possible with the Union that we acknowledge that we have a legal obligation to collect Union dues from employees as soon as the union presents signed dues checkoff authorization forms that comply with the state law requirement that such decisions are voluntary. The Company intends to honor and follow Article 25 of the contract. The Company does not wish to break the law by collecting dues under the current authorization forms that were signed by employees prior to June 5, 2016 when they were told that such a payment was a condition of employment. The Company will not break the law. ….

Q: Do I have to pay union dues and sign a new authorization form to check-off dues to work at Metalcraft? A: No. The Law in Wisconsin changed and after June 4, 2016, the mandatory payment of union dues is illegal and you cannot be forced to pay union dues.

The Union wants you to pay $59.30 per month. You do not have to pay union dues to work at Metalcraft; that’s $711.60 per year or .34 cents for each hour you work.
The decision is yours and it’s purely voluntary!
You do not have to sign a new authorization card; it is your decision and it is purely voluntary.
By the IAM giving you a new authorization form, the union now recognizes that the old forms were signed when dues were required and mandatory. That’s changed!

On October 3, the Union gave the Respondent new “Membership Application and/or Check-Off Authorization” forms signed by employees. The first page of the new form was identical to that of the old form. However, the new forms in the record do not contain the Notice that was printed on the old forms. The Respondent promptly resumed deducting and remitting dues for employees who signed authorizations after June 4.

Based on this evidence, the Board Majority ruled that Metalcraft did not unlawfully modify the collective bargaining agreement when it stopped honoring dues-checkoff authorizations because it reasonably believed the dues-checkoff authorizations did not conform to applicable law.

The Board Majority explained that the Board ordinarily will not find a midterm contract modification if the respondent establishes that it had a sound arguable basis for its belief that the contract authorized its action. See Bath Iron Works Corp., 345 NLRB 499, 502 (2005), affd. sub nom. Bath Marine Draftsmen’s 5 156 NLRB 411 (1965), enfd. 376 F.2d 52 (2d Cir. 1967), cert. denied 389 U.S. 843 (1967). Assn. v. NLRB, 475 F.3d 14 (1st Cir. 2007). Where the dispute is solely one of contract interpretation and there is no evidence of animus, bad faith, or intent to undermine the union, the Board does not seek to determine which of two equally plausible contract interpretations is correct. Phelps Dodge Magnet Wire Corp., 346 NLRB 949, 951 (2006); NCR Corp., 271 NLRB 1212, 1213 (1984). Applying these positions to the evidence, the Board Majority took note that the Wisconsin statute expressly voided checkoff provisions inconsistent with its provisions and the collective bargaining agreement expressly provided that dues checkoff would be administered in accordance with applicable law. Accordingly, the Board Majority ruled that Metalcraft did not violate the NLRA by ceasing to withhold and transmit the dues because it had a “sound, arguable basis” for interpreting the parties’ agreement as not requiring the continuation of dues checkoff under those circumstances.

The Board Majority also ruled that Metalcraft’s communications to employees regarding its cessation to withhold dues from paychecks also were lawful and did not constitute direct dealing in violation of its duty to bargain with the Union.

An employer engages in direct dealing in violation of Section 8(a)(5) where:

The employer communicates directly with union-represented employees,
For the purpose of establishing or changing wages, hours, and terms and conditions of employment or undercutting the union’s role in bargaining, and
Such communication was made to the exclusion of the union.

See Southern California Gas Co., 316 NLRB 979 (1995).

While the Board Majority found the first and third elements met, it ruled that the employer was not seeking to establish or change a term or condition of employment or undercut the Union’s role in bargaining when making the communication but rather reminding employees that they now had the option not to authorize the dues checkoff. The Board Majority also concluded that since the communication related to a change in law the Board Majority construed as incorporated by reference into the collective bargaining agreement, the Board also concluded that Metalcraft had no duty to bargain with the Union over the validity of the authorizations before ceasing to honor them. Accordingly, the Board Majority concluded that Metalcraft did not unlawfully bypass the Union in communicating its decision to employees directly.

Based on these findings, the Board Majority overruled and reversed the prior Administrative Law Judge finding that the employer had illegally modified its collective bargaining agreement with the union by failing to deduct and remit dues to the Union from June to September 2016 in violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the NLRA and that the employer’s related communications to employees constituted direct dealing with employees prohibited by NLRA §§ 8(a)(5) and (1) that undermined the Union in violation of NLRA § 8(a)(1), its cessation of dues checkoff was lawful.

While the current Board Majority ruled Metalcraft’s cessation to withhold dues and direct communications with employees covered by the collective bargaining agreement in response to Wisconsin’s enactment of the right to work law restricting dues checkoffs did not violate the NLRA, employers should take note that the lone remaining democratic appointee on the Board, Board Member Lauren McFerran disagreed with the ruling of the Board Majority. In her dissenting opinion, Board Member McFerran argued among other things that the Taft-Hartley Act totally preempted the Wisconsin law’s dues checkoff provisions. She also argued that Metalcraft’s cessation to withhold dues and communications with employees directly inherently were in opposition to the union and conducted in bad faith and without adequate communication to the union. As a result, she proposed that the Board issue an order finding that Metalcraft’s cessation to withhold dues and direct communication with workers both violated the NLRA which would have compelled Metalcraft to take various corrective actions as set forth in her dissenting opinions. Employers should keep in mind that the views expressed in this dissenting opinions likely would become the majority view if and when the political make up of the Board is changed in the future by the appointment of a future board member during a Democratic Presidency. As a result, while enjoying the current more employer friendly attitude of the existing NLRB, employers dealing with collective bargaining concerns should continue to exercise care when handling these and other union-management relations matters.

Solutions Law Press, Inc. hopes you found this update of interest and nvites you to share your thoughts and ideas and join the discussion about these and other human resources, health and other employee benefit and patient empowerment concerns by participating and contributing to the discussions in our HR & Benefits Updates Group on LinkedIn.

About the Author

Throughout her 30 plus year career, Ms. Stamer has continuously worked with these and other management clients to design, implement, document, administer and defend hiring, performance management, compensation, promotion, demotion, discipline, reduction in force and other workforce, employee benefit, insurance and risk management, health and safety, and other programs, products and solutions, and practices; establish and administer compliance and risk management policies; comply with requirements, investigate and respond to government, accreditation and quality organizations, regulatory and contractual audits, private litigation and other federal and state reviews, investigations and enforcement actions; evaluate and influence legislative and regulatory reforms and other regulatory and public policy advocacy; prepare and present training and discipline; handle workforce and related change management associated with mergers, acquisitions, reductions in force, re-engineering, and other change management; and a host of other workforce related concerns. Ms. Stamer’s experience in these matters includes supporting these organizations and their leaders on both a real-time, “on demand” basis with crisis preparedness, intervention and response as well as consulting and representing clients on ongoing compliance and risk management; plan and program design; vendor and employee credentialing, selection, contracting, performance management and other dealings; strategic planning; policy, program, product and services development and innovation; mergers, acquisitions, bankruptcy and other crisis and change management; management, and other opportunities and challenges arising in the course of workforce and other operations management to improve performance while managing workforce, compensation and benefits and other legal and operational liability and performance.

For more information about Ms. Stamer or her health industry and other experience and involvements, see here or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (214) 452-8297 or via e-mail here.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

NOTICE: These statements and materials are for general informational and purposes only. They do not establish an attorney-client relationship, are not legal advice or an offer or commitment to provide legal advice, and do not serve as a substitute for legal advice. Readers are urged to engage competent legal counsel for consultation and representation in light of the specific facts and circumstances presented in their unique circumstance at any particular time. No comment or statement in this publication is to be construed as legal advise or an admission. The author reserves the right to qualify or retract any of these statements at any time. Likewise, the content is not tailored to any particular situation and does not necessarily address all relevant issues. Because the law is rapidly evolving and rapidly evolving rules makes it highly likely that subsequent developments could impact the currency and completeness of this discussion. The presenter and the program sponsor disclaim, and have no responsibility to provide any update or otherwise notify any participant of any such change, limitation, or other condition that might affect the suitability of reliance upon these materials or information otherwise conveyed in connection with this program. Readers may not rely upon, are solely responsible for, and assume the risk and all liabilities resulting from their use of this publication.

Comments Off on NLRA Not Violated By Employers Termination of Union Dues Withholding In Response To Wisconsin Right To Work Law | Employer, Employers, Employment, Employment Policies, HR, Human Resources, Labor Management Relations, Labor Management Relations, Uncategorized, Unfair Labor Practice, Union, Union certification, Union elections | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Tell Employees, Plan Members About April 27 National Prescription Drug Take Back Day

April 11, 2019

Employers and their health plans should encourage employees, health plan members and their families to dispose of outdated and unused medications cost effectively on the upcoming National Prescription Drug Take Back Day on April 27, 2019.

Led by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), for several years, the National Prescription Drug Take Back Day celebrations provide U.S. families an opportunity to safety dispose of unused or expired prescription pain and other medications cost effectively by dropping them off at one of 4,000 collection sites.

Expired and unused medications present a host of safety risks.

Educating employees, plan members and their family about the importance of properly disposing of unused and expired medication is important. Medications generally only should be used by the patient for whom they are prescribed and within the period before their scheduled expiration. Keeping unused or expired medication creates a host of risks for patients and others in their families and communities. Unneeded or unused painkillers, attention and anxiety medications and other prescriptions often are diverted to recreational or other use by patients other than the individual for whom they were prescribed.

Risk also can arise when a patient prescribed a medication consumes it after its originally intended consumption period. Pain, anxiety or other prescription medications used after their originally intended period of use may create safety issue due to interactions with conditions or medications not contemplated when originally ordered, may be used with good intentions for the wrong purposes, or even used by patients in an unsafe or abusive manner. Patients may delay or undermine their recovery from a new condition by self-treating a new condition by taking previously physician prescribed antibiotics or other medications ineffective or contraindicated for the new condition the patient seeks to treat.

Expired medications also create risks from loss of potency or other instability that can occur after their expiration date. As a consequence, disposing of extra or expired medication is an important part of safe medication management.

On the other hand, disposing of unused or outdated medication can be challenging. Throwing medication in unsecured trash disposal creates risks of improper access, contamination of water and other environment or both. Washing unused medications down the drain or flushing them down toilets also creates contamination concerns. However, finding a no or low-cost place to dispose of unneeded or expired medication historically has been challenging. While many pharmacies offer disposal packages, chargers to use these services generally are expensive.

National Prescription Drug Take Back Day helps educate Americans about the need for timely proper medication disposal and management while also providing a cost effective means for disposing of unused medications safely. Individuals can drop off unneeded prescription drugs at one of the 4,000 collection sites identifiable using the Site Collection Locator.

Health plans, employers, health care providers, churches, schools, parent teacher associations and other community organizations are encouraged to help spread the word and encourage participation in the April 27 observances using the free promotional materials or other related resources included in the National Prescription Drug Take Back Day Toolbox.

Tips and tools for medication management are just some of the tools and training included in the Family Health Care Toolkit Resources and Program authored by Ms. Stamer. Want to learn more? Know other challenges, issues or resources? Solutions Law Press invites you to join the discussion and learn and share more about health, disability and aging challenges, needs, resources and victories on Facebook @projectcopecoation and/or in the Project Cope LinkedIn Group. Learn and discuss about Human Resources and employee benefit practices and requirements by joining the discussion in our HR & Benefits Compliance Group.

About The Author

Recognized by LexisNexis® Martindale-Hubbell® as a “AV-Preeminent” (Top 1%/ the highest) and “Top Rated Lawyer,” with special recognition as “LEGAL LEADER™ Texas Top Rated Lawyer” in Health Care Law and Labor and Employment Law; as among the “Best Lawyers In Dallas” for her work in the fields of “Health Care,” “Labor & Employment,” “Tax: Erisa & Employee Benefits” and “Business and Commercial Law” by D Magazine, the author of this update is widely known for her 29 plus years’ of work in health care, health benefit, health policy and regulatory affairs and other health industry concerns as a practicing attorney and management consultant, thought leader, author, public policy advocate and lecturer.

Throughout her adult life and nearly 30-year legal career, Ms. Stamer’s legal, management and governmental affairs work has focused on helping health industry, health benefit and other organizations and their management use the law, performance and risk management tools and process to manage people, performance, quality, compliance, operations and risk. Highly valued for her rare ability to find pragmatic client-centric solutions by combining her detailed legal and operational knowledge and experience with her talent for creative problem-solving, Ms. Stamer supports these organizations and their leaders on both a real-time, “on demand” basis as well as outsourced operations or special counsel on an interim, special project, or ongoing basis with strategic planning and product and services development and innovation; workforce and operations management, crisis preparedness and response as well as to prevent, stabilize and cleanup legal and operational crises large and small that arise in the course of operations.

Past Chair of the ABA Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group and, a Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, the American Bar Foundation and the Texas Bar Foundation, Ms. Stamer also has extensive health care reimbursement and insurance experience advising and defending health care providers, payers, and others about Medicare, Medicaid, Medicare and Medicaid Advantage, Tri-Care, self-insured group, association, individual and group and other health benefit programs and coverages including but not limited to advising public and private payers about coverage and program design and documentation, advising and defending providers, payers and systems and billing services entities about systems and process design, audits, and other processes; provider credentialing, and contracting; providers and payer billing, reimbursement, claims audits, denials and appeals, coverage coordination, reporting, direct contracting, False Claims Act, Medicare & Medicaid, ERISA, state Prompt Pay, out-of-network and other nonpar insured, and other health care claims, prepayment, post-payment and other coverage, claims denials, appeals, billing and fraud investigations and actions and other reimbursement and payment related investigation, enforcement, litigation and actions. Heavily involved in health care and health information technology, data and related process and systems development, policy and operations innovation and a Scribe for ABA JCEB annual agency meeting with OCR for many years who has authored numerous highly-regarded works and training programs on HIPAA and other data security, privacy and use, Ms. Stamer also is widely recognized for her extensive work and leadership on leading edge health care and benefit policy and operational issues including meaningful use and EMR, billing and reimbursement, quality measurement and reimbursement, HIPAA, FACTA, PCI, trade secret, physician and other medical confidentiality and privacy, federal and state data security and data breach and other information privacy and data security rules and many other concerns.

A former lead consultant to the Government of Bolivia on its Pension Privatization Project with extensive domestic and international public policy and governmental and regulatory affairs experience, Ms. Stamer also is widely recognized for regulatory and policy work, advocacy and outreach on healthcare, education, aging, disability, savings and retirement, workforce, ethics, and other policies. Throughout her adult life and career, Ms. Stamer has provided thought leadership; policy and program design, statutory and regulatory development design and analysis; drafted legislation, proposed regulations and other guidance, position statements and briefs, comments and other critical policy documents; advised, assisted and represented health care providers, health plans and insurers, employers, professional. and trade associations, community and government leaders and others on health care, health, pension and retirement, workers’ compensation, Social Security and other benefit, insurance and financial services, tax, workforce, aging and disability, immigration, privacy and data security and a host of other international and domestic federal, state and local public policy and regulatory reforms through her involvement and participation in numerous client engagements, founder and Executive Director of the Coalition for Responsible Health Policy and its PROJECT COPE: the Coalition on Patient Empowerment, adviser to the National Physicians Congress for Healthcare Policy, leadership involvement with the US-Mexico Chamber of Commerce, the Texas Association of Business, the ABA JCEB, Health Law, RPTE, Tax, Labor, TIPS, International Life Sciences, and other Sections and Committees, SHRM Governmental Affairs Committee and a host of other involvements and activities. The American Bar Association (ABA) International Section Life Sciences Committee Vice Chair, a Scribe for the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits (JCEB) Annual OCR Agency Meeting, former Vice President of the North Texas Health Care Compliance Professionals Association, past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Section, past ABA JCEB Council Representative, past Board President of Richardson Development Center (now Warren Center) for Children Early Childhood Intervention Agency, past North Texas United Way Long Range Planning Committee Member, and past Board Member and Compliance Chair of the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas, Ms. Stamer has worked closely with a diverse range of health care providers, managed care, insurance and other health care payers, quality assurance, credentialing, technical, research, public and private social and community organizations, foreign and US federal, state and local agencies and others on health care, aging, disability, savings and other process improvement, change management; regulatory affairs and public policy and other concerns.

A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, the American Bar Foundation and the Texas Bar Foundation, Ms. Stamer also shares her thought leadership, experience and advocacy on these and other related concerns by her service in the leadership of the Solutions Law Press, Inc. Coalition for Responsible Health Policy, its PROJECT COPE: Coalition on Patient Empowerment, and a broad range of other professional and civic organizations including North Texas Healthcare Compliance Association, a founding Board Member and past President of the Alliance for Healthcare Excellence, past Board Member and Board Compliance Committee Chair for the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas; former Board President of the early childhood development intervention agency, The Richardson Development Center for Children (now Warren Center For Children); current Vice Chair of the ABA Tort & Insurance Practice Section Employee Benefits Committee, current Vice Chair of Policy for the Life Sciences Committee of the ABA International Section, Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Section, a current Defined Contribution Plan Committee Co-Chair, former Group Chair and Co-Chair of the ABA RPTE Section Employee Benefits Group, past Representative and chair of various committees of ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits; a ABA Health Law Coordinating Council representative, former Coordinator and a Vice-Chair of the Gulf Coast TEGE Council TE Division, past Chair of the Dallas Bar Association Employee Benefits & Executive Compensation Committee, a former member of the Board of Directors of the Southwest Benefits Association and others.

Recognized for her pragmatic and insightful thoughleadership, Ms. Stamer also publishes and speaks extensively on health and managed care industry regulatory, staffing and human resources, compensation and benefits, technology, public policy, reimbursement and other operations and risk management concerns for the American Bar Association, ALI-ABA, American Health Lawyers, Society of Human Resources Professionals, the Southwest Benefits Association, the Society of Employee Benefits Administrators, the American Law Institute, Lexis-Nexis, Atlantic Information Services, The Bureau of National Affairs (BNA), InsuranceThoughtLeaders.com, Benefits Magazine, Employee Benefit News, Texas CEO Magazine, HealthLeaders, the HCCA, ISSA, HIMSS, Modern Healthcare, Managed Healthcare, Institute of Internal Auditors, Society of CPAs, Business Insurance, Employee Benefits News, World At Work, Benefits Magazine, the Wall Street Journal, the Dallas Morning News, the Dallas Business Journal, the Houston Business Journal, and many other symposia and publications. She also has served as an Editorial Advisory Board Member for human resources, employee benefit and other management focused publications of BNA, HR.com, Employee Benefit News, Insurance Thought Leadership and many other prominent publications and speaks and conducts training for a broad range of professional organizations.. Health Care Compliance Association, Atlantic Information Service, and others.

For more information about Ms. Stamer or her services, credentials, publications, involvements or presentations, see here or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (214) 452-8297 or via e-mail here.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

©2019 Cynthia Marcotte Stamer. Non-exclusive right to republish granted to Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ All other rights reserved. For information about republication or other use, please contact Ms. Stamer here.

Comments Off on Tell Employees, Plan Members About April 27 National Prescription Drug Take Back Day | Consumer Protection, Drug & Alcohol, Employee Benefits, Employer, Employers, Employment, health insurance, health plan, Health Plans, Human Resources, insurers, Managment, Prescription Drugs, Uncategorized, Wellness Programs | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Proposed FLSA Joint Employer Rule Would Reduce Business’ Joint Employer Wage & Hour Liability

April 1, 2019

U.S. businesses should move quickly to express strong support for the Joint Employer Status under the Fair Labor Standards Act Rule proposed by the Department of Labor today to help reduce their exposure to liability to pay overtime or other liabilities of subcontractors or other businesses under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

The FLSA allows the Labor Department and private litigants to hold businesses jointly and severally liable with the actual employer for minimum wage or overtime back pay and penalties as joint employers when a business is a “joint employer” within the meaning of the FLSA. Many businesses have learned the hard way that they meet the definition of “joint employer” when presented with a Labor Department demand that their business pay the back pay and penalties for another business’ FLSA violations. See, e.g.,U.S. Department of Labor Recovers $3.2 Million in Back Wages, Damages, And Penalties from Portland, Oregon, Courier Servicemen.

Since the existing regulations adopted more than 58 years ago don’t expressly define “joint employment,” whether a joint appointment relationship existed mostly has been decided for a painful facts and circumstances analysis applying judicial precedent for most of the past 50 years. Traditionally the courts have applied a version of the fact intensive analysis of common control like that applied to identify joint employers for collective bargaining purposes under the National Labor Relations Act. Without any statutory or formal regulatory action, however, the Labor Department during the Obama Administration began applying a new definition of joint employment it adopted in sub-regulatory guidance without seeking public comment or following other requirements to adopt a formal regulatory change. As reinterpreted, the Labor Department began enforcing the joint employment rule to hold businesses liable based on even very limited indirect influence over wages or other employment conditions. Under these new standards, for instance, Labor Department auditors have asserted and enforced joint employment liability under the FLSA based on evidence of limited indirect influence over working conditions arising out of the alleged joint employer business operations such as restriction of schedules resulting from access to the worksite restricted by the ordinary business hours of operations of the business or the business’ requirement that the employer and its worker comply with federal government contracting requirements. The Labor Department has continued to enforce the joint employee rule using this Obama Era interpretation even after it withdrew the sub-regulatory guidance when the Administration invalidated and barred agencies from enforcing sub-regulatory guidance.

This interpretive change made it significantly more likely that a businesses could face joint employer FLSA liability for a subcontractor or other business’ minimum wage, overtime and other FLSA responsibilities. Because the finding of joint employment also results in aggregation of hours worked for the direct employer and all other joint employers, these regulations also made it significantly more likely workers would be considered entitled to overtime in contract labor, manpower and certain other situations where the primary employer’s workers worked at multiple job sites. Since the change in interpretation was adopted during the Obama Administration, the Labor Department has Use this modified joint employer interpretation to nail many unsuspecting businesses with liability for overtime due from another employer who provided services with respect to that businesses job sites Even where the worker did not work the overtime hours on that businesses job and the business had no control over deciding whether the overtime hours would be worked at all.

The Proposed Regulation would overrule the hangover Obama-Era interpretation as well as issue a new definition more consistent with judicial precedent and more friendly to business. It calls for a clear, four-factor test—based on well-established precedent—that would consider whether the potential joint employer actually exercises the power to:

hire or fire the employee;
supervise and control the employee’s work schedules or conditions of employment;
determine the employee’s rate and method of payment; and
maintain the employee’s employment records.

Since the Proposed Regulation continues to require fact specific determination, the Proposed Regulation also includes a set of examples that illustrates the application of the Proposed Regulation. While a review of the test and examples makes clear businesses still risk joint employer liability if they intertwine their operations or exercise too much control over another business’ employees, the new 4-part test would treat businesses much more fairly than the existing rules. Business is concerned about managing these risks definitely need to act to submit supportive comments during the currently running 60-day comment period. Whether the Proposed Regulation becomes final, all businesses also should evaluate their joint employer liability exposure under the FLSA and other laws from their existing business relationships. Most businesses also will want to consider tightening their existing practices to minimize the risk, regardless of which test ultimately applies going forward. Business is dealing with workers who raise a potential risk of joint employment liability also may want to tighten procedures for verification of compliance with the employers of these workers as well as explore insurance, indemnification or other contractual safeguards to mitigate the risk.

In considering the new Proposed Regulation, businesses and their leaders should keep in mind that wage and hour and worker classification issues are key liability and enforcement areas. Over the past twenty years, the rise in the use of staffing, professional employment, manpower, independent contractor and other outsourcing relationships have prompted growing enforcement and regulatory interest by both Democrat and Republic Administrations and Congress including under the FLSA and other wage and hour laws. See e.g., $1.4M FLSA Back Pay Award Demonstrates Worker Misclassification Risks. Today’s Proposed Regulation comes as key Congressional Democrats have continued to fuss about the National Labor Relations Board’s proposal last Fall of a joint employer rule substantially similar to the 4-part rule contained in the Proposed Regulation. Businesses Urged To Comment Positively On Proposed NLRB Joint Employment Rule By 12/13/18; NLRB Responds To House Democrats About Private Contractor Participation In Joint Employment Rule Comment Processing. Supporters of the Proposed Rule should prepare to ward off a backlash like the one the NLRB is experiencing to its proposed joint employer rule, even as both parties continue to support stepped up scrutiny and enforcement against overly aggressive worker classification. Employer and other business leaders also should keep in mind that the Proposed Regulation follows the the Labor Department Wage and Hour Division’s proposal last month of of an employer-friendly change to its Regular Rate Regulations and an employee friendly Salary Theshold Rule that instantly will convert more than 1 million currently salaried workers to hourly workers See, Proposed FLSA Base Pay Rule Clarifies Overtime Treatment Of Perks; Give Labor Department Feedback On Proposed $124 Per Week Increase In FLSA Salary Threshold & Other Burdensome Rules. Employers and others should submit their written comments to these proposed rules as soon as possible and within the 60-day comment period applicable to that proposed rule change.

Other Defensive Actions To Minimize FLSA Exposures

Whether or not any of these proposed rule changes takes effect, U.S. businesses will want to strengthen their existing practices for classifying and compensating workers under existing Federal and state wage and hour laws, tighten contracting and other compliance oversight in relation to outsourced services, weigh options to clean up exposure areas, review insurance coverages and consider other options to minimize their potential liability under applicable wages and hour laws. Conducting this analysis within the scope of attorney-client privilege is important because the analysis and discussions are highly sensitive both as potential evidence for wage and hour and other legal purposes. Consequently, businesses and their leaders generally will want to arrange for this work to be protected to the extent by attorney-client privilege, work product and other evidentiary protections against discovery by Department, employees or others for FLSA or other workforce enforcement actions.

As a part of this process, businesses and their leaders generally should plan to:

Review subcontractor, temporary, lease employee, independent contractor and other outsourced labor and services relationship for potential risk of worker reclassification and tighten contracting and other procedures;
Audit the position of each employee currently classified as exempt to assess its continued sustainability and to develop documentation justifying that characterization;
Audit characterization of workers obtained from staffing, employee leasing, independent contractor and other arrangements and implement contractual and other oversight arrangements to minimize risks that these relationships could create if workers are recharacterized as employed by the employer receiving these services;
Review the characterization of on-call and other time demands placed on employees to confirm that all compensable time is properly identified, tracked, documented, compensated and reported;
If the employer hires any individuals under age 18, audit and implement appropriate procedures to ensure its ability to demonstrate compliance with all applicable FLSA child labor rules;
If the employer is a government contractor or subcontractor or otherwise performs any services on projects funded with federal or state funds, evaluate the applicability and fulfillment of any special wage, fringe benefit, recordkeeping or other government contracting wage and hour requirements;
If the employer hires foreign agricultural or other workers subject to special conditions and requirements, to review compliance with those special requirements;
Review and tighten existing practices for tracking compensable hours and paying non-exempt employees for compliance with applicable regulations and to identify opportunities to minimize costs and liabilities arising out of the regulatory mandates;
If the employer uses leased, temporary, or other outsourced labor, evaluate contractual, process and other options to support the employer’s ability cost effectively to respond to an audit, investigation or enforcement action by the Labor Department or private litigants and if necessary, obtain indemnification or other recovery in the event the employer incurs liability due to the use or practices of the outsourced labor supplier;
If the audit raises questions about the appropriateness of the classification of an employee as exempt, self-initiation of proper corrective action after consultation with qualified legal counsel;
Review and document all workers classified as exempt;
Review of existing documentation and record keeping practices for hourly employees;
Evaluate potential exposures under other employment, labor, tax or related laws or contracts that might be impacted by the findings or actions taken in response to those findings;
Explore available options and alternatives for calculating required wage payments to non-exempt employees and assessing and resolving other concerns;
Identify and calculate other employee benefit, tax or other corrections and associated costs and procedures that may be required as a result of findings or corrective actions resulting from their redress;
Re-engineer work rules, policies, contracts and practices to minimize costs and liabilities as appropriate in light of the regulations and enforcement exposures;
Explore insurance, indemnification and other options for mitigating risks and associated investigation and defense costs; and
Consider self-correction within the new PAID Program or otherwise.

If you need more information or have questions, contact the author, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer. We also invite you to share your own best practices ideas and resources and join the discussions about these and other human resources, health and other employee benefit and patient empowerment concerns by participating and contributing to the discussions on LinkedIn.

About the Author

Ms. Stamer has extensive experience advising and defending businesses and their management on wage and hour and other workforce, compensation and employee benefit concerns. Throughout her career, Ms. Stamer has continuously worked with these and other management clients to design, implement, document, administer and defend hiring, performance management, compensation, promotion, demotion, discipline, reduction in force and other workforce, employee benefit, insurance and risk management, health and safety, and other programs, products and solutions, and practices; establish and administer compliance and risk management policies; comply with requirements, investigate and respond to government, accreditation and quality organizations, regulatory and contractual audits, private litigation and other federal and state reviews, investigations and enforcement actions; evaluate and influence legislative and regulatory reforms and other regulatory and public policy advocacy; prepare and present training and discipline; handle workforce and related change management associated with mergers, acquisitions, reductions in force, re-engineering, and other change management; and a host of other workforce related concerns. Ms. Stamer’s experience in these matters includes supporting these organizations and their leaders on both a real-time, “on demand” basis with crisis preparedness, intervention and response as well as consulting and representing clients on ongoing compliance and risk management; plan and program design; vendor and employee credentialing, selection, contracting, performance management and other dealings; strategic planning; policy, program, product and services development and innovation; mergers, acquisitions, bankruptcy and other crisis and change management; management, and other opportunities and challenges arising in the course of workforce and other operations management to improve performance while managing workforce, compensation and benefits and other legal and operational liability and performance.

Author of leading works on wage and hour and a multitude of labor and employment, compensation and benefits, internal controls and compliance, and risk management matters and a Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, the American Bar Foundation and the Texas Bar Foundation, Ms. Stamer also shares her thought leadership, experience and advocacy on these and other related concerns by her service in the leadership of the Solutions Law Press, Inc. Coalition for Responsible Health Policy, its PROJECT COPE: Coalition on Patient Empowerment, and a broad range of other professional and civic organizations including North Texas Healthcare Compliance Association, a founding Board Member and past President of the Alliance for Healthcare Excellence, past Board Member and Board Compliance Committee Chair for the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas; former Board President of the early childhood development intervention agency, The Richardson Development Center for Children (now Warren Center For Children); current Vice Chair of the ABA Tort & Insurance Practice Section Employee Benefits Committee, current Vice Chair of Policy for the Life Sciences Committee of the ABA International Section, Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Section, a current Defined Contribution Plan Committee Co-Chair, former Group Chair and Co-Chair of the ABA RPTE Section Employee Benefits Group, past Representative and chair of various committees of ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits; an ABA Health Law Coordinating Council representative, former Coordinator and a Vice-Chair of the Gulf Coast TEGE Council TE Division, past Chair of the Dallas Bar Association Employee Benefits & Executive Compensation Committee, a former member of the Board of Directors of the Southwest Benefits Association and others.

For more information about the matters discussed in this article, Ms. Stamer or her services, experience and involvements, see here or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (214) 452-8297 or via e-mail here.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

NOTICE: These statements and materials are for general informational and purposes only. They do not establish an attorney-client relationship, are not legal advice or an offer or commitment to provide legal advice, and do not serve as a substitute for legal advice. Readers are urged to engage competent legal counsel for consultation and representation in light of the specific facts and circumstances presented in their unique circumstance at any particular time. No comment or statement in this publication is to be construed as legal advise or an admission. The author reserves the right to qualify or retract any of these statements at any time. Likewise, the content is not tailored to any particular situation and does not necessarily address all relevant issues. Because the law is rapidly evolving and rapidly evolving rules makes it highly likely that subsequent developments could impact the currency and completeness of this discussion. The presenter and the program sponsor disclaim, and have no responsibility to provide any update or otherwise notify any participant of any such change, limitation, or other condition that might affect the suitability of reliance upon these materials or information otherwise conveyed in connection with this program. Readers may not rely upon, are solely responsible for, and assume the risk and all liabilities resulting from their use of this publication.

©2019 Cynthia Marcotte Stamer. Non-exclusive right to republish granted to Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ All other rights reserved. For information about republication or the topic of this article, please contact the author.

Comments Off on Proposed FLSA Joint Employer Rule Would Reduce Business’ Joint Employer Wage & Hour Liability | compensation, compliance, Corporate Compliance, Employee Benefits, Employer, Employers, Employment, Employment Policies, Excepted Benefits, Fair Labor Standards Act, Fringe Benefit, Fringe Benefits, Management, NLRA, Non-Exempt, Risk Management, Salaried, Uncategorized, Worker, Worker Classification | Tagged: Fair Labor Standards Act, FLSA, Joint Employer, Joint Employment, Minimum Wage, Overtime, salaried, Worker Classification | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Proposed FLSA Base Pay Rule Clarifies Overtime Treatment Of Perks

March 28, 2019

Employers frustrated with the current Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) rules defining what forms of payment employers must count as part of an employee’s “regular rate” when calculating overtime should evaluate and consider expressing support for the Department of Labor’s proposal announced today (March 28, 2019) to update its more than 50-year old regulations implementing the regular rate requirements under section 7(e) of FLSA in 29 C.F.R. Parts 548 and 778. Officially scheduled for publication in the May 28, 2019 Federal Register, employers and other interested persons may review the unofficial text of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“Proposed Rule”) released with the Labor Department’s announcement of its proposal today. The Proposed Rule also will make substantive changes to the Labor Department’s current FLSA regulations about the treatment of “call back pay” and its base pay rules.

Regular Rate For Overtime

The FLSA generally requires employers to pay non-exempt employees overtime pay of at least one and one-half times the “regular rate” of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek. Regular rate requirements define what forms of payment employers include and exclude in the “time and one-half” calculation when determining workers’ overtime rates. The existing rules define the regular rate to include both the base hourly rate of pay and certain bonus and other compensation and perks. As the Trump Administration supports these proposed changes, employers should start evaluating their implications in anticipation of the Labor Department’s adoption of a Final Rule. At the same time, businesses supporting the rule or desiring refinements to its provisions also will want to submit comments to the Labor Department no later than the May 18 comment deadline.

Ambiguities in the current more than 50-year-old Labor Department regulations implementing the regular rate requirement rules discourage employers from offering more perks to their employees because of uncertainty about whether the perks are required to be included in the regular rate of pay for purposes of calculating overtime pay. In many other cases, employers that mistakenly fail to include bonuses, benefits and other perks often experience the unfortunate surprise of getting nailed with unexpected back pay and penalties obligations through Labor Department audits or private litigation.

The Proposed Rule primarily focuses on defining when employers must count bonuses, benefits, and other perks in an employee’s regular rate of pay when calculating overtime. As proposed, the Proposed Rule would confirm that employers may exclude the following from an employee’s regular rate of pay:

the cost of providing wellness programs, onsite specialist treatment, gym access and fitness classes, and employee discounts on retail goods and services;
payments for unused paid leave, including paid sick leave;
reimbursed expenses, even if not incurred “solely” for the employer’s benefit;
reimbursed travel expenses that do not exceed the maximum travel reimbursement under the Federal Travel Regulation System and that satisfy other regulatory requirements;
discretionary bonuses, by providing additional examples and clarifying that the label given a bonus does not determine whether it is discretionary;
benefit plans, including accident, unemployment, and legal services; and
tuition programs, such as reimbursement programs or repayment of educational debt.
that employers do not need a prior formal contract or agreement with the employee(s) to exclude certain overtime premiums described in sections 7(e)(5) and (6) of the FLSA; and
that employers may exclude pay for time that would not otherwise qualify as “hours worked,” including bona fide meal periods,from an employee’s regular rate unless an agreement or established practice indicates that the parties have treated the time as hours worked.

In addition, the Proposed Rule also would make two substantive changes to the existing regulations on “call-back pay” and to its “basic rate” regulations.

Call-Back Pay

The Proposed Regulation would eliminate the current restriction in Labor Regulation §§ 778.221 and 778.222 that “call-back” pay and other payments similar to call-back pay must be “infrequent and sporadic” to be excludable from an employee’s regular rate, while maintaining that such payments must not be so regular that they are essentially prearranged.

Basic Rate

The Proposed Rule also proposes an update the Labor Department’s “basic t rate” regulations.

Under the current regulations, employers using an authorized basic rate may exclude from the overtime computation any additional payment that would not increase total overtime compensation by more than $0.50 a week on average for overtime work weeks in the period for which the employer makes the payment.

The Proposed Regulation would change the current $0.50 limit to 40 percent of the federal minimum wage (currently $2.90.” The Labor Department is inviting comments on if 40 percent is an appropriate threshold in its request for comments on the Proposed Regulations.

Comment on the Proposed Rule & Other FLSA Rule Changes

Employers commenting on the Proposed Rule also should keep in mind that its publication comes on the heals of the Labor Department’s proposal of a new Proposed Salary Threshold Rule that if adopted will increase to $679 per week the minimum salary an employee must earn to qualify for coverage by the “white collar” overtime exemption. This would effectively raise the amount an employer must pay any worker it wants to treat as exempt under the white collar overtime exemption from $23,660 annually to $35,308 annually. The adoption of this proposed Salary Threshold Rule as proposed overnight will disqualify a million plus currently salaried workers to hourly employees entitled to overtime under the FLSA.

Businesses concerned about the Proposed Rule or the Proposed Salary Threshold Rule should submit their feedback as comments to the applicable proposal during the applicable comment period. May 28 is the deadline for employers and other interested persons to submit comments of support or other input on the Proposed Rule to change the regular rate determination rules.

Other Defensive Actions To Minimize FLSA Exposures

Whether or not the either of these proposed rule changes takes effect, U.S. businesses will want to strengthen their existing practices for classifying and compensating workers under existing Federal and state wage and hour laws, tighten contracting and other compliance oversight in relation to outsourced services, weigh options to clean up exposure areas, review insurance coverages and consider other options to minimize their potential liability under applicable wages and hour laws. Conducting this analysis within the scope of attorney-client privilege is important because the analysis and discussions are highly sensitive both as potential evidence for wage and hour and other legal purposes. Consequently, businesses and their leaders generally will want to arrange for this work to be protected to the extent by attorney-client privilege, work product and other evidentiary protections against discovery by Department, employees or others for FLSA or other workforce enforcement actions.

As a part of this process, businesses and their leaders generally should plan to:

Review subcontractor, temporary, lease employee, independent contractor and other outsourced labor and services relationship for potential risk of worker reclassification and tighten contracting and other procedures;
Audit the position of each employee currently classified as exempt to assess its continued sustainability and to develop documentation justifying that characterization;
Audit characterization of workers obtained from staffing, employee leasing, independent contractor and other arrangements and implement contractual and other oversight arrangements to minimize risks that these relationships could create if workers are recharacterized as employed by the employer receiving these services;
Review the characterization of on-call and other time demands placed on employees to confirm that all compensable time is properly identified, tracked, documented, compensated and reported;
If the employer hires any individuals under age 18, audit and implement appropriate procedures to ensure its ability to demonstrate compliance with all applicable FLSA child labor rules;
If the employer is a government contractor or subcontractor or otherwise performs any services on projects funded with federal or state funds, evaluate the applicability and fulfillment of any special wage, fringe benefit, recordkeeping or other government contracting wage and hour requirements;
If the employer hires foreign agricultural or other workers subject to special conditions and requirements, to review compliance with those special requirements;
Review and tighten existing practices for tracking compensable hours and paying non-exempt employees for compliance with applicable regulations and to identify opportunities to minimize costs and liabilities arising out of the regulatory mandates;
If the employer uses leased, temporary, or other outsourced labor, evaluate contractual, process and other options to support the employer’s ability cost effectively to respond to an audit, investigation or enforcement action by the Labor Department or private litigants and if necessary, obtain indemnification or other recovery in the event the employer incurs liability due to the use or practices of the outsourced labor supplier;
If the audit raises questions about the appropriateness of the classification of an employee as exempt, self-initiation of proper corrective action after consultation with qualified legal counsel;
Review and document all workers classified as exempt;
Review of existing documentation and record keeping practices for hourly employees;
Evaluate potential exposures under other employment, labor, tax or related laws or contracts that might be impacted by the findings or actions taken in response to those findings;
Explore available options and alternatives for calculating required wage payments to non-exempt employees and assessing and resolving other concerns;
Identify and calculate other employee benefit, tax or other corrections and associated costs and procedures that may be required as a result of findings or corrective actions resulting from their redress;
Re-engineer work rules, policies, contracts and practices to minimize costs and liabilities as appropriate in light of the regulations and enforcement exposures;
Explore insurance, indemnification and other options for mitigating risks and associated investigation and defense costs; and
Consider self-correction within the new PAID Program or otherwise.

About the Author

Throughout her career, Ms. Stamer has continuously worked with these and other management clients to design, implement, document, administer and defend hiring, performance management, compensation, promotion, demotion, discipline, reduction in force and other workforce, employee benefit, insurance and risk management, health and safety, and other programs, products and solutions, and practices; establish and administer compliance and risk management policies; comply with requirements, investigate and respond to government, accreditation and quality organizations, regulatory and contractual audits, private litigation and other federal and state reviews, investigations and enforcement actions; evaluate and influence legislative and regulatory reforms and other regulatory and public policy advocacy; prepare and present training and discipline; handle workforce and related change management associated with mergers, acquisitions, reductions in force, re-engineering, and other change management; and a host of other workforce related concerns. Ms. Stamer’s experience in these matters includes supporting these organizations and their leaders on both a real-time, “on demand” basis with crisis preparedness, intervention and response as well as consulting and representing clients on ongoing compliance and risk management; plan and program design; vendor and employee credentialing, selection, contracting, performance management and other dealings; strategic planning; policy, program, product and services development and innovation; mergers, acquisitions, bankruptcy and other crisis and change management; management, and other opportunities and challenges arising in the course of workforce and other operations management to improve performance while managing workforce, compensation and benefits and other legal and operational liability and performance.

For more information about Ms. Stamer or her services, experience and involvements, see here or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (214) 452-8297 or via e-mail here.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

NOTICE: These statements and materials are for general informational and purposes only. They do not establish an attorney-client relationship, are not legal advice or an offer or commitment to provide legal advice, and do not serve as a substitute for legal advice. Readers are urged to engage competent legal counsel for consultation and representation in light of the specific facts and circumstances presented in their unique circumstance at any particular time. No comment or statement in this publication is to be construed as legal advise or an admission. The author reserves the right to qualify or retract any of these statements at any time. Likewise, the content is not tailored to any particular situation and does not necessarily address all relevant issues. Because the law is rapidly evolving and rapidly evolving rules makes it highly likely that subsequent developments could impact the currency and completeness of this discussion. The presenter and the program sponsor disclaim, and have no responsibility to provide any update or otherwise notify any participant of any such change, limitation, or other condition that might affect the suitability of reliance upon these materials or information otherwise conveyed in connection with this program. Readers may not rely upon, are solely responsible for, and assume the risk and all liabilities resulting from their use of this publication.

Comments Off on Proposed FLSA Base Pay Rule Clarifies Overtime Treatment Of Perks | Attorney-Client Privilege, board of directors, Brokers, business travel, Child Labor, compensation, compliance, Construction, Corporate Compliance, corporate governance, employee, Employee Benefits, Employee Handbook, Employer, Employers, Employment, Employment Policies, enforcement, Executive Compensation, Exempt, Fair Labor Standards Act, FLSA, HR, Human Resources, Insurance, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, Labor Management Relations, Management, Managment, officers, Overtime, Telecommuting, Uncategorized, Union, Workforce | Tagged: Employer, FLSA, wage, Wage & Hour | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Federal Veterans Hiring Benchmark Resets 3/31 To 5.9%; Prepare For Audits & Other Enforcement

March 27, 2019

The just announced March 31, 2019 update of the the Annual Vietnam Era Veterans’ Readjustment Assistance Act (VEVRAA) hiring benchmark for federal government contractors and subcontractors changes to 5.9% provides an important reminder to U.S. employers to review and tighten the compliance of their recruiting, hiring, employment, compensation and benefits, and other policies and practices to withstand growing scrutiny and enforcement risks under federal laws.

Government contractors, subcontractors and other U.S businesses should reconfirm their compliance with the new benchmark and other VEVRAA requirements for dealing with veterans in light of the Trump Administration’s continuing emphasis on enforcing it and other federal laws protecting active duty military and veteran servicemen and women. As part of these enforcement efforts the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (“OFCCP”) has announced it plans to incorporate VEVRAA Focused Reviews into the Corporate Scheduling Announcement List next fiscal year.

The Department of Labor announced the new 5.9% 2019 benchmark today (March 27, 2019). At the same time, it also updated national and state information in the VEVRAA Benchmark Database for federal contractors and subcontractors who calculate an individualized hiring benchmark using the five-factor method.

With already large active duty and veteran population set to grow as the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan and other deployments continues, the need for employers to properly honor the rights of active duty and returning service members under VEVRAA, USERRA, the expanded military related medical leave rules of the Family & Medical Leave Act and other applicable laws is more important than ever. For many businesses, active duty and veteran service members constitute valuable sources of qualified workers amid an increasingly competitive labor market. On the other hands, the special legal obligations and protections afforded these workers requires that businesses use care to meet these obligations. Failing to meet or exceed hiring benchmarks or other noncompliance with federal requirements and goals can cause federal contractors and subcontractors to incur liability for breaching federal contracts and laws. In addition, employers generally face substantial employment liability for violating VEVRRA, the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Act or other applicable federal or state laws. See, e.g. Enforcement e.g., Michael Sipos and Gary Smith v. FlightSafety Services Corporation, Co. Consent Decree (April 4, 2013); Mervin Jones v. Jerome County Sheriff’s Office, ID complaint (January 7, 2013); Service Members to Receive $39 Million for Violations of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act; Justice Department Settles Disability Discrimination Case Involving Disabled Veteran in Utah; Justice Department Reaches $12 Million Settlement to Resolve Violations of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act by Capital One; and Justice Department Files Complaint Against Forsyth County, North Carolina, Sheriff for Violating the Employment Rights of Army National Guard Soldier.

VEVRRA & USERRA Protections For Active Duty Military & Veterans

Affirmative action hiring by government contractors and subcontractors is one of the VEVRRA requirements for government contractors and subcontractors to provide assistance to and protect returning veterans from employment discrimination.

One of two key federal laws specifically prohibiting discrimination against returning veterans, VEVRRA applies only to government contractors and subcontractors. The other law, the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA), applies to virtually all U.S. employers.

Among other things, VEVRAA and its implementing regulations impose affirmative action requirements that require federal contractors and subcontractors to monitor and improve efforts to recruit and hire “protected veterans.” Protected veterans generally include veterans who are:

Disabled veterans: Those who are “entitled to compensation…under laws administered by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs” or “those who were released from active duty because of a service-connected disability;
Recently separated veterans;
Active duty wartime or campaign veterans;
Campaign badge veterans; and
Armed Forces service medal veterans.

Among other things, VEVRAA and its implementing Final Regulations generally require government contractors and subcontractors:

To set a hiring benchmark by either: (1) adopting a benchmark based on the national percentage of veterans currently in the workforce (5.9% effective March 31, 2019); or (2) creating an individualized benchmark based on their own interpretation of the best available data nationally and within their state/region.
Invite voluntary self-identification of applicants and employees as protected veterans. Pre-offer invitation to self-identify will involve asking whether the applicant believes that s/he is a protected veteran under VEVRAA without asking about the particular category of protection. Post-offer self-identification will request information regarding the specific category of protected veteran status. For Sample self-identification forms for both pre- and post-offer forms, see Appendix B Part 60-300 of the Final Regulation.
Comply with OFCCP reviews including providing on-site and off-site access to documents needed for compliance and focused reviews.
Track and report the effectiveness of veteran recruiting and hiring efforts by collecting specified data, which also must be retained for three years.
Provide access to job listings that identify the employer as a federal contractor in a format that can be used by veterans’ Employment Service Delivery Systems (ESDS).
Use mandated language in federal contracts (including subcontracts) to communicate the contractor’s obligations to employ and advance protected veterans.
Find and use appropriate outreach and positive recruitment activities like the Department of Defense Transition Assistance Program; the National Resource Directory and other sources contractorsfeel will be helpful in identifying and attracting veterans.

While VEVRRA only applies to government contractors and subcontractors, USERRA generally applies to all employers.

USERRA generally provides that an individual who leaves a job to serve in the uniformed services is generally entitled to continue medical coverage for up to 26 months while absent for a qualifying military leave, reemployment by the previous employer upon timely return from military leave and, upon reemployment, to restoration of service, promotion, benefits and other rights of employment.

As part of these reemployment rights, qualifying service members timely returning from military leave are entitled to receive credit for benefits, including employee pension plan benefits, that would have accrued but for the employee’s absence due to the military service. USERRA’s pension-related provisions generally require that pension plans treat a service member who is called to active duty as if the service member had no break in service for purpose of the administration of pension benefits when the service member timely returns to employment at the end of a military leave. In addition to these pension rights, USERRA also requires employers honor other rights to employment, promotion and other benefits and rights of employment.

Beyond these VEVRRA and USERRA employment rights, service members taking or returning from active duty often enjoy various other employment and other protections under various other federal and state laws, many of which have been expanded in recent years.

As many veterans suffer return with physical, cognitive or emotional injuries and conditions, veteran applicants and employees may qualify for the disability discrimination, accommodation, privacy and other protections of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and, in the case of government contractors and subcontractors, the Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act.

Under requirements of the Soldiers’ and Sailors’ Civil Relief Act (SSCRA), creditors including a pension plan, employer loan program or credit union generally are required to drop interest charges down to 6 percent on debt owed by those called to active duty for the period of such military service. Further, under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), the loan will not fail to be a qualified loan under ERISA solely because the interest rate is capped by SSCRA. These and other provisions of federal law often require pension and profit-sharing plans that allow plan loans to change loan terms and tailor other special treatment of participants who are on military leave.

In addition to the specific protection given to a service member, employers also need to be ready to honor certain family leave protections afforded to qualifying family members or caregivers of service members added to the Family & Medical Leave Act (FMLA) in recent years. As amended to include these military leave related protections, the FMLA may require certain employees who are the spouse, son, daughter, or parent of a military member to take to 12 weeks of FMLA leave during any 12-month period to address the most common issues that arise when a military member is deployed to a foreign country, such as attending military sponsored functions, making appropriate financial and legal arrangements, and arranging for alternative childcare. This provision applies to the families of members of both the active duty and reserve components of the Armed Forces. Meanwhile, the “Military Caregiver Leave” provisions added to the FMLA may entitle certain employees who are the spouse, son, daughter, parent or next of kin of a covered service member to up to 26 weeks of FMLA leave during a single 12-month period to care for the service member who is undergoing medical treatment, recuperation, or therapy, is otherwise in outpatient status, or is otherwise on the temporary disability retired list, for a serious injury or illness incurred or aggravated in the line of duty on active duty. These provisions apply to the families of members of both the active duty and reserve components of the Armed Forces. The expansion of these requirements, updating of regulation, and rising enforcement by private plaintiffs and the government make it advisable that businesses take all necessary steps to ensure their employment practices, employee benefit plans, fringe benefit programs and other practices are updated and administered to comply with the current requirements of VEVRRA, USERAA, SSCRA, the FMLA and other applicable federal and state laws.

Special care also generally is needed when designing and administering employment based health benefit programs to avoid violating federal eligibility rules prohibiting discrimination against service members, to properly offer continuation coverage and reinstatement during and following periods of service by employees and family members, and to avoid improper denial of coverage or coordination of benefit rules with military and veteran health benefits.

Given the potential liabilities that can result from noncompliance with these and other federal employment rules and requirements protecting active military and veteran service men and women, U.S. employer generally should reconfirm and carefully monitor and document their compliance with these laws to minimize their liability exposure. Where employers use subcontractors or otherwise outsource work, these businesses also should consider require their subcontractors and other service providers to contract to comply with these requirements, to supply data and other documentation that the employer might need to complete reports or otherwise defend its compliance, to cooperate in audits and other investigations, and to participate and cooperate with employer initiated compliance audits as well as government audits and investigations.

Need more information about veterans’ employment or other Human Resources, employee benefits, compensation or other performance and compliance management, check out the extensive training and other resources available on the author’s website or contact the author, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer.

We also invite you to share your own best practices ideas and resources and join the discussions about these and other human resources, health and other employee benefit and patient empowerment concerns by participating and contributing to the discussions in our Health Plan Compliance Group or COPE: Coalition On Patient Empowerment Groupon LinkedIn or Project COPE: Coalition on Patient Empowerment Facebook Page.

About the Author

Highly valued for her rare ability to find pragmatic client-centric solutions by combining her detailed legal and operational knowledge and experience with her talent for creative problem-solving, Ms. Stamer has advised, trained, coached and defended businesses, employee benefit plans and others, published, and problem solved on opportunities and challenges relating to employment, benefits consumer, health care, disability and other rights and needs of active duty and veteran service people and their families.

Throughout her 30 plus year career, Ms. Stamer has continuously worked with these and other management clients to design, implement, document, administer and defend hiring, performance management, compensation, promotion, demotion, discipline, reduction in force and other workforce, employee benefit, insurance and risk management, health and safety, and other programs, products and solutions, and practices; establish and administer compliance and risk management policies; comply with requirements, investigate and respond to government, accreditation and quality organizations, regulatory and contractual audits, private litigation and other federal and state reviews, investigations and enforcement actions; evaluate and influence legislative and regulatory reforms and other regulatory and public policy advocacy; prepare and present training and discipline; handle workforce and related change management associated with mergers, acquisitions, reductions in force, re-engineering, and other change management; and a host of other workforce related concerns. Ms. Stamer’s experience in these matters includes supporting these organizations and their leaders on both a real-time, “on demand” basis with crisis preparedness, intervention and response as well as consulting and representing clients on ongoing compliance and risk management; plan and program design; vendor and employee credentialing, selection, contracting, performance management and other dealings; strategic planning; policy, program, product and services development and innovation; mergers, acquisitions, bankruptcy and other crisis and change management; management, and other opportunities and challenges arising in the course of workforce and other operations management to improve performance while managing workforce, compensation and benefits and other legal and operational liability and performance.

Past Chair of the ABA Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group and, a Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, the American Bar Foundation and the Texas Bar Foundation, heavily involved in health benefit, health care, health, financial and other information technology, data and related process and systems development, policy and operations throughout her career, and scribe of the ABA JCEB annual Office of Civil Rights agency meeting, Ms. Stamer also is widely recognized for her extensive work and leadership on leading edge health care and benefit policy and operational issues. She regularly helps employer and other health benefit plan sponsors and vendors, health industry, insurers, health IT, life sciences and other health and insurance industry clients design, document and enforce plans, practices, policies, systems and solutions; manage regulatory, contractual and other legal and operational compliance; vendors and suppliers; deal with Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, Medicare/Medicaid Advantage, ERISA, state insurance law and other private payer rules and requirements; contracting; licensing; terms of participation; medical billing, reimbursement, claims administration and coordination, and other provider-payer relations; reporting and disclosure, government investigations and enforcement, privacy and data security; and other compliance and enforcement; Form 990 and other nonprofit and tax-exemption; fundraising, investors, joint venture, and other business partners; quality and other performance measurement, management, discipline and reporting; physician and other workforce recruiting, performance management, peer review and other investigations and discipline, wage and hour, payroll, gain-sharing and other pay-for performance and other compensation, training, outsourcing and other human resources and workforce matters; board, medical staff and other governance; strategic planning, process and quality improvement; HIPAA health care, financial, tax, HR and technology, privacy, data security and breach; health care, insurance, and other fraud prevention, investigation, defense and enforcement; audits, investigations, and enforcement actions; trade secrets and other intellectual property; crisis preparedness and response; internal, government and third-party licensure, credentialing, accreditation, HCQIA, HEDIS and other peer review and quality reporting, audits, investigations, enforcement and defense; patient relations and care; internal controls and regulatory compliance; payer-provider, provider-provider, vendor, patient, governmental and community relations; facilities, practice, products and other sales, mergers, acquisitions and other business and commercial transactions; government procurement and contracting; grants; tax-exemption and not-for-profit; 1557 and other Civil Rights; privacy and data security; training; risk and change management; regulatory affairs and public policy; process, product and service improvement, development and innovation, and other legal and operational compliance and risk management, government and regulatory affairs and operations concerns.

For more information about Ms. Stamer or her services, experience and involvements, see here or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (214) 452-8297 or via e-mail here.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

NOTICE: These statements and materials are for general informational and purposes only. They do not establish an attorney-client relationship, are not legal advice or an offer or commitment to provide legal advice, and do not serve as a substitute for legal advice. Readers are urged to engage competent legal counsel for consultation and representation in light of the specific facts and circumstances presented in their unique circumstance at any particular time. No comment or statement in this publication is to be construed as legal advice or an admission. The author reserves the right to qualify or retract any of these statements at any time. Likewise, the content is not tailored to any particular situation and does not necessarily address all relevant issues. Because the law is rapidly evolving and rapidly evolving rules makes it highly likely that subsequent developments could impact the currency and completeness of this discussion. The presenter and the program sponsor disclaim, and have no responsibility to provide any update or otherwise notify any participant of any such change, limitation, or other condition that might affect the suitability of reliance upon these materials or information otherwise conveyed in connection with this program. Readers may not rely upon, are solely responsible for, and assume the risk and all liabilities resulting from their use of this publication.

Comments Off on Federal Veterans Hiring Benchmark Resets 3/31 To 5.9%; Prepare For Audits & Other Enforcement | Affirmative Action, Civil Rights, Construction, Employee Benefits, Employee Handbook, Employer, Employers, Employment, Employment Discrimination, Employment Policies, enforcement, Government Contractors, HR, Human Resources, Leave, Military Leave, OFCCP, Uncategorized, USERRA, veterans, VEVRAA, VEVRRA, Wage & Hour, Worker | Tagged: Affirmative Action, Discrimination, Employee Benefits, Employer, Employment, Government Contractors, Health Insurance, Health Plans, veterans | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Consider Employee Recess In Your Employee Wellness Programi

March 27, 2019

Adding employee recess to the workday schedule could be a cost effective wellness tool based on health research recently reported by the National Institutes on Health (“NIH”).

Sedentary work and lifestyles fuel many of the heath risks and costs targeted by employer and health benefit employee wellness programs.

With most American adults now spending an average of 11 to 12 hours a day sitting, sedentary work and life styles present leading disease and health cost drivers. Research showing long periods of sitting increase the risk of heart disease and death overall make finding ways to counteract the negative health effects of sedentary lifestyles a key objective of many wellness and public health initiatives. However questions exist about the effectiveness and return on investment of many of the wellness program strategies and tools in the marketplace in producing meaningful changes in employee health or health related behavior.

Findings of research recently announced by NIH suggests giving employees movement breaks for as little as 30 minutes a day could counteract the adverse health effects of their sedentary work. See Light activity may lower harmful effects of sitting.

According to NIH, a study of nearly 8000 people aged 45 or older found as little as 30 minutes of light activity per day may reduce the risk of death incurred by sitting. Replacing sitting with just a few minutes of movement at a time provided health benefits.

NIH reports researchers found that any amount of activity was better than sitting. People who swap 30 minutes of sitting for 30 minutes of light-intensity activity per day would have a 17% lower risk of death. Light-intensity activities include walking and doing chores that require moving around.

People who swap 30 minutes of sitting for 30 minutes of moderate to vigorous physical activity per day would have a 35% lower risk of death from any cause. These types of activities can include jogging, bicycling, and playing sports.

But people didn’t have to move for a full 30 minutes in a row to benefit. Even smaller intervals to break up periods of sitting—including from just 1 to 5 minutes of activity—reduced the risk of death.

NIH also reports positive effects of movement were seen regardless of age, race, weight, smoking and drinking patterns, or existing health problems.

Small amounts of movement mainly benefitted people who didn’t already have an active lifestyle. For people who had a low activity level overall, taking modest activity breaks made a big difference in the risk of death. For people who already had a high level of activity during the day, however, no additional benefit was seen from a little extra movement.

The findings of the health benefit of movement breaks is consistent with findings of a growing series of other recent health studies showing getting adults and children moving during the day even for short periods during the day can produce major heath benefits. See, e.g. Brief Activity Breaks May Benefit Children’s Health ; Physical Activity Program Helps Maintain Mobility; Moderate Exercise May Improve Memory in Older Adults. The message is clear: Even modest increases in activity can reduce risk for many serious conditions, including heart disease, diabetes, certain kinds of cancer, and some types of depression and cognitive disorders.

The research also shows that the health benefits can come from engaging in light or moderate movement activities as little as 30 minutes a day even if these activities are broken up and not participation in traditional exercise. Healthful physical activity includes exercise as well as many everyday activities, such as doing active chores around the house, yard work, or walking the dog.

Aerobic activities that make heart and blood vessels by healthier by causing individuals to breathe harder can include brisk walking, dancing, swimming, and playing basketball. Strengthening activities, like push-ups and lifting weights, help make your muscles and bones stronger and can also improve balance.

While the benefits of movement are clear, too many employees fail to do it. Although most people know that physical activity is a good thing, most adults nationwide don’t meet even the minimum recommended amounts of physical activity of at least 30 minutes of brisk walking or other moderate activity, 5 days a week.

NIH-funded research has found that environment—where people live, work, or go to school—can have a big impact on how much individuals move and even how much they weigh. These findings suggest employers and communities can do many things to encourage their people to fit movement into their sedentary lifestyles.

To create a work or other environment that encourages employees to get moving, NIH suggests looking for opportunities to change the environment so activity is an easier choice for workers to make.

Some suggestions include:

Structuring meetings, job duties and other activities to require or encourage sedentary workers to stand up, walk and move around periodically throughout the day;

Providing access to walking sidewalks, trails and other places workers can walk and encouraging workers to use them;

Encouraging workers to walk or take public transportation to lunch or other meetings when feasible rather than drive;

Encouraging people to walk and talk rather than sitting while holding discussions;

Encouraging workers to find waking buddies to walk to lunch or share other exercise breaks or activities with in and outside the workplace;
Encouraging management and employees to incorporate stretching or other movement breaks into meetings and other gatherings; and
Encouraging people to take the stairs and walk to meet fellow employees in person rather than communicating by phone or e-mail when practical.

While each workplace presents different opportunities and challenges, the message from the research is clear: Getting your people moving can produce meaningful health and health and disability cost savings. Maybe it’s time for your company to add short movement recesses to its employees’ day to capitalize on these benefits.

Want to learn, share or discuss other human resources, benefits and compensation, or health and wellness management developments and ideas? We invite you to share your own best practices ideas and resources and join the discussions about these and other human resources, health and other employee benefit and patient empowerment concerns by participating in and contributing to the discussions in our Health Plan Compliance Group or COPE: Coalition On Patient Empowerment Groupon LinkedIn or Project COPE: Coalition on Patient Empowerment Facebook Page.

About the Author

Highly valued for her rare ability to find pragmatic client-centric solutions by combining her detailed legal and operational knowledge and experience with her talent for creative problem-solving, she is nationally recognized for her leading edge work, publications, advocacy and programs on making compliant wellness and disease management programs that work and other health and disability plans and management strategies and concerns.

Throughout her 30 plus year career, Ms. Stamer has continuously worked with these and other management clients to design, implement, document, administer and defend hiring, performance management, compensation, promotion, demotion, discipline, reduction in force and other workforce, employee benefit, insurance and risk management, health and safety, and other programs, products and solutions, and practices; establish and administer compliance and risk management policies; comply with requirements, investigate and respond to government, accreditation and quality organizations, regulatory and contractual audits, private litigation and other federal and state reviews, investigations and enforcement actions; evaluate and influence legislative and regulatory reforms and other regulatory and public policy advocacy; prepare and present training and discipline; handle workforce and related change management associated with mergers, acquisitions, reductions in force, re-engineering, and other change management; and a host of other workforce related concerns. Ms. Stamer’s experience in these matters includes supporting these organizations and their leaders on both a real-time, “on demand” basis with crisis preparedness, intervention and response as well as consulting and representing clients on ongoing compliance and risk management; plan and program design; vendor and employee credentialing, selection, contracting, performance management and other dealings; strategic planning; policy, program, product and services development and innovation; mergers, acquisitions, bankruptcy and other crisis and change management; management, and other opportunities and challenges arising in the course of workforce and other operations management to improve performance while managing workforce, compensation and benefits and other legal and operational liability and performance.

For more information about Ms. Stamer or her health industry and other experience and involvements, see here or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (214) 452-8297 or via e-mail here.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

NOTICE: These statements and materials are for general informational and purposes only. They do not establish an attorney-client relationship, are not legal advice or an offer or commitment to provide legal advice, and do not serve as a substitute for legal advice. Readers are urged to engage competent legal counsel for consultation and representation in light of the specific facts and circumstances presented in their unique circumstance at any particular time. No comment or statement in this publication is to be construed as legal advise or an admission. The author reserves the right to qualify or retract any of these statements at any time. Likewise, the content is not tailored to any particular situation and does not necessarily address all relevant issues. Because the law is rapidly evolving and rapidly evolving rules makes it highly likely that subsequent developments could impact the currency and completeness of this discussion. The presenter and the program sponsor disclaim, and have no responsibility to provide any update or otherwise notify any participant of any such change, limitation, or other condition that might affect the suitability of reliance upon these materials or information otherwise conveyed in connection with this program. Readers may not rely upon, are solely responsible for, and assume the risk and all liabilities resulting from their use of this publication.

Comments Off on Consider Employee Recess In Your Employee Wellness Programi | Absenteeism, Disability, Employee Benefits, Employer, Employers, Employment, Employment Policies, health Care, health insurance, health plan, Health Plans, Patient Empowerment, Uncategorized, Wellness, Wellness Programs, Workforce | Tagged: Employee Benefits, Employer, Employers, Employment, GINA, Health Plans, Human Resources, Recess, Risk Management, Wellness | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Employee Transportation Deduction Rules Changed

March 20, 2019

Recent tax law changes suspended itemized deductions for employee travel and relocation expenses. Meanwhile, the Internal Revenue Service just updated 2019 Standard Mileage Rates. Learn what you and your employees need to know about changes in standard mileage rates and the rule changes impacting employee mileage deductions. https://wp.me/ptsY4-1T4 http://ow.ly/i/LFVJp

Comments Off on Employee Transportation Deduction Rules Changed | Uncategorized | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Give Labor Department Feedback On Proposed $124 Per Week Increase In FLSA Salary Threshold & Other Burdensome Rules

March 19, 2019

Employers concerned about minimum wage, overtime and other liability from the Proposed Salary Threshold Rule (“Proposal”) that if adopted will increase the minimum salary for the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) “white collar” overtime exemption from $23,660 annually to $35,308 annually. If adopted as proposed, the Proposal overnight will disqualify a million plus currently salaried workers to hourly employees that their employers will be required to pay minimum wage and overtime under the FLSA. Businesses concerned about the Proposal or other burdensome minimum wage or overtime requirements under the FLSA need to tell the Labor Department about these rules burdensome effects on business.

Proposal To Raise Minimum Salary For Overtime Exemption

The Labor Department Proposal if adopted will increase to $679 per week the minimum amount that an employer must pay an employee to treat that employee as exempt from the minimum wage or overtime rules of the FLSA regardless of the role or position of the employee. This means that an additional million plus employees overnight no longer would qualify to be paid as salaried rather than hourly employees. The Proposal

Under currently enforced FLSA rules, employers generally must treat any employee earning less than $455 per week ($23,660 annually) as a non-exempt employee. This generally means that the employer must pay the employee at least minimum wage for regular time and must pay overtime to the worker for any hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week.

The Labor Department set the minimum weekly earnings level of $455 per week in 2004. The Proposal if adopted will increase the minimum required earnings an employee must earn to qualify for exemption from minimum wage and overtime rules more than $124 per week to $679 per week (equivalent to $35,308 per year).

The Department also is asking for public comment on the Proposal’s language for periodic review to update the salary threshold. An update would continue to require notice-and-comment rule making rather than calling for automatic adjustments to the salary threshold for inflation.

Speak Up About Proposal & Other FLSA Burdens On Business

Businesses concerned about Proposal to increase the salary threshold or other burdensome FLSA rules or enforcement policies should seize the opportunity to provide feedback.

To start with, businesses should submit comments about the Proposed Rule electronically at www.regulations.gov as soon as possible before the 60-day comment period runs in mid-May.

Additionally, concerned businesses also should consider participating in events like the Small Business Roundtables that the Small Business Administration (“SBA”) Office of Advocacy plans to host to discuss the Proposal to hear directly from small businesses about the impact of the proposed rule. Currently SBA plans to host three roundtables:

Thursday April 4, 2019 – 2:00 pm – 4:00 pm (EDT) at the University of South Florida Port Tampa Bay, Building 1101 Channelside Dr., Suite 210, Tampa, FL 33602;
Thursday April 11, 2019 – 2:00 pm – 4:00 pm (EDT) at the SBA Headquarters, Eisenhower Room B 409 Third Street SW, Washington, DC 20416 (Call-in option available); and
Tuesday April 30, 2019 – 9:00 am – 11:00 am (CDT) at the Mobile Area Chamber of Commerce 451 Government St., Mobile, Alabama 36602

Interested parties must RSVP to Janis.Reyes@sba.gov to participate. Note that while SBA reports that SBA has invited Labor Department staff, the Labor Department has not confirmed its acceptance of these invitations yet. Also, because comments expressed during these roundtables do not take the place of submitting written comments to the regulatory docket, concerned businesses should also still comment on the Proposal. However adverse feedback from business expressed at this meeting could help to motivate SBA to express opposition or other negative feedback on the Proposal.

Other Defensive Actions To Minimize FLSA Exposures

Whether or not the Proposal takes effect, all U.S. businesses will want to strengthen their existing practices for classifying and compensating workers under existing Federal and state wage and hour laws, tighten contracting and other compliance oversight in relation to outsourced services, weigh options to clean up exposure areas, review insurance coverages and consider other options to minimize their potential liability under applicable wages and hour laws. Conducting this analysis within the scope of attorney-client privilege is important because the analysis and discussions are highly sensitive both as potential evidence for wage and hour and other legal purposes. Consequently, businesses and their leaders generally will want to arrange for this work to be protected to the extent by attorney-client privilege, work product and other evidentiary protections against discovery by Department, employees or others for FLSA or other workforce enforcement actions.

As a part of this process, businesses and their leaders generally should plan to:

Review subcontractor, temporary, lease employee, independent contractor and other outsourced labor and services relationship for potential risk of worker reclassification and tighten contracting and other procedures;
Audit the position of each employee currently classified as exempt to assess its continued sustainability and to develop documentation justifying that characterization;
Audit characterization of workers obtained from staffing, employee leasing, independent contractor and other arrangements and implement contractual and other oversight arrangements to minimize risks that these relationships could create if workers are recharacterized as employed by the employer receiving these services;
Review the characterization of on-call and other time demands placed on employees to confirm that all compensable time is properly identified, tracked, documented, compensated and reported;
If the employer hires any individuals under age 18, audit and implement appropriate procedures to ensure its ability to demonstrate compliance with all applicable FLSA child labor rules;
If the employer is a government contractor or subcontractor or otherwise performs any services on projects funded with federal or state funds, evaluate the applicability and fulfillment of any special wage, fringe benefit, recordkeeping or other government contracting wage and hour requirements;
If the employer hires foreign agricultural or other workers subject to special conditions and requirements, to review compliance with those special requirements;
Review and tighten existing practices for tracking compensible hours and paying non-exempt employees for compliance with applicable regulations and to identify opportunities to minimize costs and liabilities arising out of the regulatory mandates;
If the employer uses leased, temporary, or other outsourced labor, evaluate contractual, process and other options to support the employer’s ability cost effectively to respond to an audit, investigation or enforcement action by the Labor Department or private litigants and if necessary, obtain indemnification or other recovery in the event the employer incurs liability due to the use or practices of the outsourced labor supplier;
If the audit raises questions about the appropriateness of the classification of an employee as exempt, self-initiation of proper corrective action after consultation with qualified legal counsel;
Review and document all workers classified as exempt;
Review of existing documentation and record keeping practices for hourly employees;
Evaluate potential exposures under other employment, labor, tax or related laws or contracts that might be impacted by the findings or actions taken in response to those findings;
Explore available options and alternatives for calculating required wage payments to non-exempt employees and assessing and resolving other concerns;
Identify and calculate other employee benefit, tax or other corrections and associated costs and procedures that may be required as a result of findings or corrective actions resulting from their redress;
Re-engineer work rules, policies, contracts and practices to minimize costs and liabilities as appropriate in light of the regulations and enforcement exposures;
Explore insurance, indemnification and other options for mitigating risks and associated investigation and defense costs; and
Consider self-correction within the new PAID Program or otherwise.

If you need more information or have questions, contact the author, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer.

About The Author

The author of the “Texas Payday Act,” and numerous other highly regarded publications on wage and hour and other human resources, employee benefits and compensation publications, Ms. Stamer is well-known for her 30 years of extensive wage and hour, compensation and other management advice and representation of restaurant and other hospitality, health, insurance, financial services, technology, energy, manufacturing, retail, governmental and other domestic and international businesses of all types and sizes.

Want to know more? See here for details about the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, e-mail her here or telephone Ms. Stamer at (469) 767-8872.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

NOTICE: These statements and materials are for general informational and purposes only. They do not establish an attorney-client relationship, are not legal advice or an offer or commitment to provide legal advice, and do not serve as a substitute for legal advice. Readers are urged to engage competent legal counsel for consultation and representation in light of the specific facts and circumstances presented in their unique circumstance at any particular time. No comment or statement in this publication is to be construed as legal advice or an admission. The author reserves the right to qualify or retract any of these statements at any time. Likewise, the content is not tailored to any particular situation and does not necessarily address all relevant issues. Because the law is rapidly evolving and rapidly evolving rules makes it highly likely that subsequent developments could impact the currency and completeness of this discussion. The presenter and the program sponsor disclaim, and have no responsibility to provide any update or otherwise notify any participant of any such change, limitation, or other condition that might affect the suitability of reliance upon these materials or information otherwise conveyed in connection with this program. Readers may not rely upon, are solely responsible for, and assume the risk and all liabilities resulting from their use of this publication.

Comments Off on Give Labor Department Feedback On Proposed $124 Per Week Increase In FLSA Salary Threshold & Other Burdensome Rules | Attorney-Client Privilege, board of directors, Brokers, business travel, Child Labor, compensation, compliance, Construction, Corporate Compliance, corporate governance, employee, Employee Benefits, Employee Handbook, Employer, Employers, Employment, Employment Policies, enforcement, Executive Compensation, Exempt, Fair Labor Standards Act, FLSA, HR, Human Resources, Insurance, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, Labor Management Relations, Management, Managment, officers, Overtime, Telecommuting, Uncategorized, Union, Workforce | Tagged: Employer, FLSA, wage, Wage & Hour | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

IRS Requires Electronic VCR Applications Beginning April 1.

March 14, 2019

Beginning April 1, 2019, applicants seeking to resolve employee benefit tax qualification issues via the Voluntary Compliance Resolution (VCR) program must submit applications electronically through Pay.gov. Any paper VCP submissions sent to the IRS with a postmark after March 31, 2019, will be returned to the applicant.

The IRS maintains a correction program that permits any size business or organization that sponsors a retirement plan (including SEP and SIMPLE IRA plans) to identify and correct problems they find. Where applicable, self correction program via the Employee Plans Compliance Resolution System (EPCRS), outlined in Revenue Procedure 2018-52 can solve manybpribkems

Under the Self-Correction Program (SCP), employer and other plan sponsors can correct many plan mistakes without contacting the IRS with many potential advantages including:

Identify and correct mistakes using the procedures in EPCRS
Do not notify the IRS
Pay no fees to the IRS
Your plan’s tax benefits are preserved

The Much more complicated Voluntary Correction Program (VCP) works for mistakes that are not eligible for self-correction or if the sponsor wants IRS assurance about how it corrected a mistake. Voluntary compliance resolution is much less flexible:

You must make a written submission and pay a compliance fee to the IRS, prior to an IRS audit;

Disclose the self-identified problems along with a proposal to fix the problem

The IRS determines if the proposal is acceptable and issues a compliance statement documenting approval

Your plan’s tax benefits are preserved.

The IRS also shares the following tips when making a VCP submission electronically through Pay.gov:

A VCP application is not considered filed with the IRS until the VCP user fee has been paid and the Pay.gov website generates a payment confirmation receipt. If you don’t have a receipt with a Pay.gov Tracking ID #, you haven’t made a VCP submission to the IRS.
Include all required VCP submission items in your PDF file that’s uploaded to the IRS. See Rev. Proc. 2018-52, section 11.04 and, if applicable, enclosure lists associated with the model VCP submission forms in the Form 14568-A through Form 14568-I series.
The completed Form 8950 is uploaded automatically, so don’t include any copy of the Form 8950 as part of the uploaded PDF file containing the VCP submission documents.
Place the VCP submission documents in the uploaded PDF in the order specified by Rev. Proc. 2018-52, section 11.11.

Prior to making a submission, review the electronic VCP submission process outlined in Revenue Procedure 2018-52. For more information, check out this IRS video and review Updated Retirement Plan Correction Procedures that discuss the VCP submission process.

About the Author

Throughout her 30 plus year career, Ms. Stamer has continuously worked with these and other management clients to design, implement, document, administer and defend hiring, performance management, compensation, promotion, demotion, discipline, reduction in force and other workforce, employee benefit, insurance and risk management, health and safety, and other programs, products and solutions, and practices; establish and administer compliance and risk management policies; comply with requirements, investigate and respond to government, accreditation and quality organizations, regulatory and contractual audits, private litigation and other federal and state reviews, investigations and enforcement actions; evaluate and influence legislative and regulatory reforms and other regulatory and public policy advocacy; prepare and present training and discipline; handle workforce and related change management associated with mergers, acquisitions, reductions in force, re-engineering, and other change management; and a host of other workforce related concerns. Ms. Stamer’s experience in these matters includes supporting these organizations and their leaders on both a real-time, “on demand” basis with crisis preparedness, intervention and response as well as consulting and representing clients on ongoing compliance and risk management; plan and program design; vendor and employee credentialing, selection, contracting, performance management and other dealings; strategic planning; policy, program, product and services development and innovation; mergers, acquisitions, bankruptcy and other crisis and change management; management, and other opportunities and challenges arising in the course of workforce and other operations management to improve performance while managing workforce, compensation and benefits and other legal and operational liability and performance.

For more information about Ms. Stamer or her health industry and other experience and involvements, see here or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (214) 452-8297 or via e-mail here.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

NOTICE: These statements and materials are for general informational and purposes only. They do not establish an attorney-client relationship, are not legal advice or an offer or commitment to provide legal advice, and do not serve as a substitute for legal advice. Readers are urged to engage competent legal counsel for consultation and representation in light of the specific facts and circumstances presented in their unique circumstance at any particular time. No comment or statement in this publication is to be construed as legal advise or an admission. The author reserves the right to qualify or retract any of these statements at any time. Likewise, the content is not tailored to any particular situation and does not necessarily address all relevant issues. Because the law is rapidly evolving and rapidly evolving rules makes it highly likely that subsequent developments could impact the currency and completeness of this discussion. The presenter and the program sponsor disclaim, and have no responsibility to provide any update or otherwise notify any participant of any such change, limitation, or other condition that might affect the suitability of reliance upon these materials or information otherwise conveyed in connection with this program. Readers may not rely upon, are solely responsible for, and assume the risk and all liabilities resulting from their use of this publication.

Comments Off on IRS Requires Electronic VCR Applications Beginning April 1. | 401(k), defined benefit plan, Defined Benefit Plans, defined contribution plan, Defined Contribution Plans, ESOP, multiple employer plan (Meps), pension plan, Retirement Plans, Uncategorized | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

IRS Updates 2019 Compensation Table

March 14, 2019

Employee benefit plan sponsors, fiduciaries, administrators and advisors should review and update their benefit and compensation plan designs and testing in response to the just released tables of covered compensation under § 401(l)(5)(E) of the Internal Revenue Code and related regulations for the 2019 plan year in new Revenue Ruling 2019-06.

The new tables are available in the advance release copy of Revenue Ruling 2019-06, scheduled for official publication in Internal Revenue Bulletin 2019-14 on April 1, 2019.

The Revenue Ruling provides tables of covered compensation under § 401(l)(5)(E) of the Internal Revenue Code and related regulations for the 2019 plan year.

For this purpose, covered compensation is average of the contribution and benefit bases in effect under section 230 of the Social Security Act for each year in the 35 year period ending with the year in which an employee attains social security retirement age.

As the change will impact plan contribution limits, discrimination testing and other plan and contribution design and administration, employer and other plan sponsors, fiduciaries, administrators and service providers should evaluate the effects of the adjustments so as to maximize their ability to anticipate and respond to the adjustments.

About the Author

Throughout her 30 plus year career, Ms. Stamer has continuously worked with these and other management clients to design, implement, document, administer and defend hiring, performance management, compensation, promotion, demotion, discipline, reduction in force and other workforce, employee benefit, insurance and risk management, health and safety, and other programs, products and solutions, and practices; establish and administer compliance and risk management policies; comply with requirements, investigate and respond to government, accreditation and quality organizations, regulatory and contractual audits, private litigation and other federal and state reviews, investigations and enforcement actions; evaluate and influence legislative and regulatory reforms and other regulatory and public policy advocacy; prepare and present training and discipline; handle workforce and related change management associated with mergers, acquisitions, reductions in force, re-engineering, and other change management; and a host of other workforce related concerns. Ms. Stamer’s experience in these matters includes supporting these organizations and their leaders on both a real-time, “on demand” basis with crisis preparedness, intervention and response as well as consulting and representing clients on ongoing compliance and risk management; plan and program design; vendor and employee credentialing, selection, contracting, performance management and other dealings; strategic planning; policy, program, product and services development and innovation; mergers, acquisitions, bankruptcy and other crisis and change management; management, and other opportunities and challenges arising in the course of workforce and other operations management to improve performance while managing workforce, compensation and benefits and other legal and operational liability and performance.

For more information about Ms. Stamer or her health industry and other experience and involvements, see here or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (214) 452-8297 or via e-mail here.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

NOTICE: These statements and materials are for general informational and purposes only. They do not establish an attorney-client relationship, are not legal advice or an offer or commitment to provide legal advice, and do not serve as a substitute for legal advice. Readers are urged to engage competent legal counsel for consultation and representation in light of the specific facts and circumstances presented in their unique circumstance at any particular time. No comment or statement in this publication is to be construed as legal advise or an admission. The author reserves the right to qualify or retract any of these statements at any time. Likewise, the content is not tailored to any particular situation and does not necessarily address all relevant issues. Because the law is rapidly evolving and rapidly evolving rules makes it highly likely that subsequent developments could impact the currency and completeness of this discussion. The presenter and the program sponsor disclaim, and have no responsibility to provide any update or otherwise notify any participant of any such change, limitation, or other condition that might affect the suitability of reliance upon these materials or information otherwise conveyed in connection with this program. Readers may not rely upon, are solely responsible for, and assume the risk and all liabilities resulting from their use of this publication.

Comments Off on IRS Updates 2019 Compensation Table | 105(h), 401(k), 4980H, ACA, board of directors, Brokers, church plan, compensation, compliance, Corporate Compliance, defined benefit plan, Defined Benefit Plans, defined contribution plan, Defined Contribution Plans, directors, Employee Benefits, Employer, Employers, Employment, Employment Policies, Employment Tax, ESOP, FICA, Health Benefits, health insurance, Health Plans, HR, Human Resources, Internal Revenue Code, IRC, multiple employer plan (Meps), pension plan, retirement plan, Retirement Plans, Retirements, Tax Qualification, Uncategorized | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Labor Department Proposes Increasing FLSA Salary Threshold To $679 Per Week

March 7, 2019

Employers concerned about managing their overtime liability should review and provide prompt feedback to the U.S. Department of Labor (Department) on a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that would make an additional million plus American workers eligible for overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) by increasing the minimum amount an employee must earn to be eligible for treatment as FLSA exempt to $679 per week.

The minimum weekly earnings level of $455 per week was set in 2004. The proposed regulation would increase the salary threshold using current wage data projected to January 1, 2020 from $455 to $679 per week (equivalent to $35,308 per year).

The Department also is asking for public comment on the NPRM’s language for periodic review to update the salary threshold. An update would continue to require notice-and-comment rulemaking.

The NPRM maintains overtime protections for police officers, fire fighters, paramedics, nurses, and laborers including: non-management production-line employees and non-management employees in maintenance, construction and similar occupations such as carpenters, electricians, mechanics, plumbers, iron workers, craftsmen, operating engineers, longshoremen, and construction workers. The proposal does not call for automatic adjustments to the salary threshold.

The proposal to change the salary threshold in the NPRM follows a prior attempt by the Department of raise the threshold in 2016. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas enjoined a 2016 final regulation that would have raised the threshold on November 22, 2016. Since November 6, 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has held in abeyance the Department’s appeal of the District Court’s ruling pending further rulemaking by the Department. In the 15 years since the District Court enjoined its 2016 final rule, the Department consistently has enforced the 2004 salary threshold level.

Employers concerned about the proposed increase in the salary threshold or other elements of the NPRM should submit comments about the proposed rule electronically at www.regulations.gov within the 60 day period following publication, in the rulemaking docket RIN 1235-AA20.

The NPRM proposing to increase the salary threshold for qualification as a FLSA-exempt employee is only one of a number of proposed rule changes that could significantly impact employer liabilities and costs.

Coupled with the Department’s continuing aggressive attacks against contract labor and other worker misclassification as well as other minimum wage, overtime and other FLSA rules, all employers should shore up the defensibility of their existing practices for classifying and compensating workers under existing Federal and state wage and hour laws, tighten contracting and other compliance oversight in relation to outsourced services, weigh options to clean up exposure areas, review insurance coverages and consider other options to minimize their potential liability under applicable wages and hour laws. Conducting this analysis within the scope of attorney-client privilege is important because the analysis and discussions are highly sensitive both as potential evidence for wage and hour and other legal purposes. Consequently, businesses and their leaders generally will want to arrange for this work to be protected to the extent by attorney-client privilege, work product and other evidentiary protections against discovery by Department, employees or others for FLSA or other workforce enforcement actions.

As a part of this process, businesses and their leaders generally should plan to:

Review subcontractor, temporary, lease employee, independent contractor and other outsourced labor and services relationship for potential risk of worker reclassification and tighten contracting and other procedures;
Audit the position of each employee currently classified as exempt to assess its continued sustainability and to develop documentation justifying that characterization;
Audit characterization of workers obtained from staffing, employee leasing, independent contractor and other arrangements and implement contractual and other oversight arrangements to minimize risks that these relationships could create if workers are recharacterized as employed by the employer receiving these services;
Review the characterization of on-call and other time demands placed on employees to confirm that all compensable time is properly identified, tracked, documented, compensated and reported;
If the employer hires any individuals under age 18, audit and implement appropriate procedures to ensure its ability to demonstrate compliance with all applicable FLSA child labor rules;
If the employer is a government contractor or subcontractor or otherwise performs any services on projects funded with federal or state funds, evaluate the applicability and fulfillment of any special wage, fringe benefit, recordkeeping or other government contracting wage and hour requirements;
If the employer hires foreign agricultural or other workers subject to special conditions and requirements, to review compliance with those special requirements;
Review and tighten existing practices for tracking compensable hours and paying non-exempt employees for compliance with applicable regulations and to identify opportunities to minimize costs and liabilities arising out of the regulatory mandates;
If the employer uses leased, temporary, or other outsourced labor, evaluate contractual, process and other options to support the employer’s ability cost effectively to respond to an audit, investigation or enforcement action by WHD or private litigants and if necessary, obtain indemnification or other recovery in the event the employer incurs liability due to the use or practices of the outsourced labor supplier;
If the audit raises questions about the appropriateness of the classification of an employee as exempt, self-initiation of proper corrective action after consultation with qualified legal counsel;
Review and document all workers classified as exempt;
Review of existing documentation and record keeping practices for hourly employees;
Evaluate potential exposures under other employment, labor, tax or related laws or contracts that might be impacted by the findings or actions taken in response to those findings;
Explore available options and alternatives for calculating required wage payments to non-exempt employees and assessing and resolving other concerns;
Identify and calculate other employee benefit, tax or other corrections and associated costs and procedures that may be required as a result of findings or corrective actions resulting from their redress;
Re-engineer work rules, policies, contracts and practices to minimize costs and liabilities as appropriate in light of the regulations and enforcement exposures;
Explore insurance, indemnification and other options for mitigating risks and associated investigation and defense costs; and
Consider self-correction within the new PAID Program or otherwise.

If you need more information or have questions, contact the author, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer.

About The Author

Want to know more? See here for details about the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, e-mail her here or telephone Ms. Stamer at (469) 767-8872.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Comments Off on Labor Department Proposes Increasing FLSA Salary Threshold To $679 Per Week | Attorney-Client Privilege, board of directors, Brokers, business travel, Child Labor, compensation, compliance, Construction, Corporate Compliance, corporate governance, employee, Employee Benefits, Employee Handbook, Employer, Employers, Employment, Employment Policies, enforcement, Executive Compensation, Exempt, Fair Labor Standards Act, FLSA, HR, Human Resources, Insurance, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, Labor Management Relations, Management, Managment, officers, Overtime, Telecommuting, Uncategorized, Union, Workforce | Tagged: Employer, FLSA, wage, Wage & Hour | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Record-Setting 2018 Enforcement Show Proactive Health Plan HIPAA Compliance & Risk Management Need

February 7, 2019

Health plans and their employer and other sponsors, fiduciaries, administrators and other service providers, as well as health care providers, health care clearinghouses and their business associates (“Covered Entities”) should reconfirm the adequacy of their Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (“HIPAA”) compliance and risk management in light the U.S Department of Health and Human Services Office of Civil Rights (“OCR”) February 7, 2019 announcement that its 2018 year-end $3 Million Resolution Agreement with California-based Cottage Health increased OCR’s already record-setting enforcement recoveries in 2018 to nearly $28.7 million in a year already distinguished by OCR’s collection of a record-setting $16 million resolution payment against health insurance giant Anthem. Along with acting to ensure their own organization’s ability to defend their HIPAA compliance, Covered Entities and their leaders also should take advantage of the opportunity to provide input to OCR on opportunities for simplifying and improving OCR’s HIPAA regulations and enforcement by submitting relevant comments by February 12, 2019 to a Request for Information published by OCR in December that invites suggestions for simplifying or making other improvements to OCR’s current HIPAA guidance as well as monitoring and responding to other new and proposed regulatory developments.

2018 Cottage Health Resolution Agreement

According to OCR’s February 7, 2019 announcement, Cottage Health agreed in OCR’s final settlement of 2017 to pay OCR $3 million and to adopt a substantial corrective action plan to settle charges of HIPAA violations resulting from OCR’s investigations into two HIPAA Breach notifications Cottage Health filed regarding breaches of unsecured electronic protected health information (ePHI) affecting over 62,500 individuals.

A December 2, 2013 breach notification that the removal of electronic security protections by a Cottage Health contractor rendered ePHI such as patient names, addresses, dates of birth, diagnoses/conditions, lab results and other treatment information of 33,349 individuals on a Cottage Health server accessible for download without a username or password from the internet to anyone outside Cottage Health. In an update to its original report filed on July 2, 2014, Cottage Health increased the number of individuals affected by this breach to 50,917. OCR’s investigation determined that security configuration settings of the Windows operating system permitted access to files containing ePHI without requiring a username and password. As a result, patient names, addresses, dates of birth, diagnoses, conditions, lab results and other treatment information were available to anyone with access to Cottage Health’s server.
A December 1, 2015, that the misconfiguration of a server following an IT response to a troubleshooting ticket, exposed unsecured ePHI including patient names, addresses, dates of birth, social security numbers, diagnoses, conditions, and other treatment information of 11,608 individuals over the internet.

Based upon its investigation into the two breach reports, OCR concluded Cottage Health violated HIPAA by failing to conduct an accurate and thorough assessment of the potential risks and vulnerabilities to the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the ePHI; failed to implement security measures sufficient to reduce risks and vulnerabilities to a reasonable and appropriate level; failed to perform periodic technical and non-technical evaluations in response to environmental or operational changes affecting the security of ePHI; and failed to obtain a written business associate agreement with a contractor that maintained ePHI on its behalf.

To resolve its exposure to potentially must greater civil monetary sanctions that OCR might seek for such potential violations under HIPAA’s civil monetary sanction rules, Cottage Health entered into December, 2018 Resolution Agreement to pay the $3 million settlement and undertake what OCR characterizes as “a robust corrective action plan to comply with the HIPAA Rules.” Among other things, the corrective action plan requires Cottage Health to:

Conduct an enterprise-wide risk analysis of the potential risks and vulnerabilities to the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of ePHI held by Cottage Health (“Risk Analysis”) that OCR views as satisfactory to meet the requirements of 45 CFR 164.308(a)(1)(ii)(A);
Develop and implement a risk management plan to address and mitigate any security risks and vulnerabilities identified in the Risk Analysis acceptable to OCR;
Implement a process for regularly evaluating environmental and operational changes that affect the security of Cottage Health’s ePHI;
Develop, maintain, and revise, as necessary, written policies and procedures to comply with the Federal standards that govern the privacy and security of individually identifiable health information under 45 C.F.R. Part 160 and Subparts A, C, and E of Part 164 (the “Privacy Rule” and “Security Rule”).
Distribute to and conduct training on the HIPAA policies and procedures from all existing and new members of the Cottage Health workforce with access to PHI. Additionally, Cottage Health require all workforce members that have access to PHI to certify their receipt of, understanding and commitment to comply with the HIPAA Policies before allowing access to PHI and must deny access to PHI to any workforce member that has not provided the required certification.
Submit to ongoing notification and reporting requirements to keep OCR informed about its compliance efforts.

2018 Record Setting HIPAA Enforcement Year

The final Resolution Agreement negotiated by OCR in 2018, the $3 million Cottage Health Resolution Agreement signed on December 11, 2018 added to an already record-setting year of HIPAA enforcement recoveries by OCR. In addition to recovering the single largest individual HIPAA settlement in history of $16 million with Anthem, Inc. OCR’s recovery of the following HIPAA settlements and fines totaling nearly $28.7 million surpassed its previous 2016 record of $23.5 million by 22 percent.

Date	Name	Amount
Jan. 2018	Filefax, Inc (settlement)	$ 100,000
Jan. 2018	Fresenius Medical Care North America (settlement)	$ 3,500,000
June 2018	MD Anderson (judgment)	$ 4,348,000
Aug. 2018	Boston Medical Center (settlement)	$ 100,000
Sep. 2018	Brigham and Women’s Hospital (settlement)	$ 384,000
Sep. 2018	Massachusetts General Hospital (settlement)	$ 515,000
Sep. 2018	Advanced Care Hospitalists (settlement)	$ 500,000
Oct. 2018	Allergy Associates of Hartford (settlement)	$ 125,000
Oct. 2018	Anthem, Inc (settlement)	$ 16,000,000
Nov. 2018	Pagosa Springs (settlement)	$ 111,400
Dec. 2018	Cottage Health (settlement)	$ 3,000,000
Total (settlements and judgment)		$ 28,683,400

Aside from the previously discussed Cottage Health Resolution Agreement OCR announced on February 7, 2019, these OCR 2018 enforcement recoveries included:

FileFax Resolution Agreement. In January 2018, OCR settled for $100,000 with Filefax, Inc., a medical records maintenance, storage, and delivery services provider. OCR’s investigation found that Filefax impermissibly disclosed protected health information (PHI) by leaving the PHI in an unlocked truck in the Filefax parking lot, or by granting permission to an unauthorized person to remove the PHI from Filefax, and leaving the PHI unsecured outside the Filefax facility.
Fresenius Medical Care North America Resolution Agreement. In January 2018, OCR also settled for $3.5 million with Fresenius Medical Care North America (FMCNA), a provider of products and services for people with chronic kidney failure. FMCNA filed five breach reports for separate incidents occurring between February 23, 2012 and July 18, 2012, implicating the electronic protected health information (ePHI) of five FMCNA owned covered entities. OCR’s investigation revealed that FMCNA failed to conduct an accurate and thorough risk analysis of potential risks and vulnerabilities to the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of all of its ePHI. Additional potential violations included failure to implement policies and procedures and failure to implement a mechanism to encrypt and decrypt ePHI, when it was reasonable and appropriate to do so under the circumstances.
MD Anderson ALJ Ruling. In June 2018, an HHS Administrative Law Judge ruled in favor of OCR and required The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center (MD Anderson), a Texas cancer center, to pay $4.3 million in civil money penalties for HIPAA violations. OCR investigated MD Anderson following three separate data breach reports in 2012 and 2013 involving the theft of an unencrypted laptop from the residence of an MD Anderson employee and the loss of two unencrypted universal serial bus (USB) thumb drives containing the unencrypted ePHI of over 33,500 individuals. OCR’s investigation found that MD Anderson had written encryption policies going back to 2006 and that MD Anderson’s own risk analyses had found that the lack of device-level encryption posed a high risk to the security of ePHI. Despite the encryption policies and high risk findings, MD Anderson did not begin to adopt an enterprise-wide solution to encrypt ePHI until 2011, and even then it failed to encrypt its inventory of electronic devices containing ePHI between March 24, 2011 and January 25, 2013. This matter is under appeal with the HHS Departmental Appeals Board.
MMC/BWH/MGH Resolution Agreements. In September 2018, OCR announced that it has reached separate settlements totaling $999,000, with Boston Medical Center (BMC), Brigham and Women’s Hospital (BWH), and Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) for compromising the privacy of patients’ PHI by inviting film crews on premises to film an ABC television network documentary series, without first obtaining authorization from patients.
ACH Resolution Agreement. In September 2018, OCR also settled with Advanced Care Hospitalists (ACH), a contractor physician group, for $500,000. ACH filed a breach report confirming that ACH patient information was viewable on a medical billing services’ website. OCR’s investigation revealed that ACH never had a business associate agreement with the individual providing medical billing services to ACH, and failed to adopt any policy requiring business associate agreements until April 2014. Although ACH had been in operation since 2005, it had not conducted a risk analysis or implemented security measures or any other written HIPAA policies or procedures before 2014.
Allergy Associates Resolution Agreement. In October 2018, OCR settled with Allergy Associates, a health care practice that specializes in treating individuals with allergies, for $125,000. In February 2015, a patient of Allergy Associates contacted a local television station to speak about a dispute that had occurred between the patient and an Allergy Associates’ doctor. OCR’s investigation found that the reporter subsequently contacted the doctor for comment and the doctor impermissibly disclosed the patient’s PHI to the reporter.
Anthem Resolution Agreement. In October 2018, Anthem, Inc. also paid $16 million to OCR and agreed to take substantial corrective action to settle potential violations of the HIPAA Rules after a series of cyberattacks led to the largest U.S. health data breach in history. Anthem filed a breach report after discovering cyber-attackers had gained access to their IT system via an undetected continuous and targeted cyberattack for the apparent purpose of extracting data, otherwise known as an advanced persistent threat attack. After filing their breach report, Anthem discovered cyber-attackers had infiltrated their system through spear phishing emails sent to an Anthem subsidiary after at least one employee responded to the malicious email and opened the door to further attacks. OCR’s investigation revealed that between December 2, 2014 and January 27, 2015, the cyber-attackers stole the ePHI of almost 79 million individuals, including names, social security numbers, medical identification numbers, addresses, dates of birth, email addresses, and employment information.
Pegosa Springs Medical Center. In November 2018, Pagosa Springs Medical Center (PSMC), a critical access hospital, paid $111,400 to OCR to resolve potential violations concerning a former PSMC employee that continued to have remote access to PSMC’s web-based scheduling calendar, which contained patients’ ePHI, after separation of employment. OCR’s investigation revealed that PSMC impermissibly disclosed the ePHI of 557 individuals to its former employee and to the web-based scheduling calendar vendor without a business associate agreement in place.

These 2018 Resolution Agreements reaffirm the growing risks that Covered Entities and their business associates run by failing to take adequate steps to prevent and respond to breaches of ePHI and otherwise to maintain their compliance with HIPAA. Covered entities and business associates and their leaders should recognize and respond to these growing risks by reevaluating and strengthening their HIPAA compliance and risk management efforts to minimize the likelihood of violations and enhance their ability to mitigate potential liability that can result from breaches of HIPAA by responding efficiently and effectively.

Other Regulatory & Enforcement Developments

In addition to reaffirming their ongoing compliance with the longstanding requirements of HIPAA and other related federal and state laws, Covered Entities also should use care to carefully monitor and respond to new regulatory and other developments that might create new responsibilities or new opportunities to simplify their HIPAA compliance. In this respect, Covered Entities should take note of the 2018 and ongoing efforts by OCR to develop and publish new rules and other guidance intended to help health care providers and other Covered Entities, patients and caregivers and others understand their rights and responsibilities when dealing with protected health information in relation to patients afflicted with substance abuse and mental illness. Undertaken as part of the Trump Administration’s broader effort to combat opiate and other substance abuse within the United States, OCR in October published a package of guidance on How HIPAA Allows Doctors To Respond To The Opioid Crisis. Covered Entities and others concerned with the management of patients afflicted with substance abuse and mental illness should evaluate this guidance to understand and tailor their practices to respond to OCR’s perspectives of how HIPAA impacts the use, access and disclosure of protected health information as part of these efforts.

Covered Entities and others concerned about HIPAA compliance and interpretation also should carefully monitor and provide appropriate and timely input on developing HIPAA guidance that could impact their operations. In this regard, Covered Entities with ideas about opportunities for improving existing HIPAA guidance are encouraged to submit comments to OCR by February 12, 2019 in response to its Request for Information on improving care coordination and reducing the regulatory burdens of the HIPAA Rules published on December 12, 2018. In that RFI, OCR invites input from the public on how the HIPAA Privacy Rule, could be modified to:

Encourage information-sharing for treatment and care coordination;
Facilitate parental involvement in care;
Address the opioid crisis and serious mental illness;
Account for disclosures of PHI for treatment, payment, and health care operations as required by the HITECH Act;
Change the current requirement for certain providers to make a good faith effort to obtain an acknowledgment of receipt of the Notice of Privacy Practices; and/or
Otherwise simplify or improve the existing HIPAA rules.

As a part of these efforts, Covered Entities and other concerned parties also should anticipate that OCR will be focusing heavily in the upcoming year on the potential HIPAA privacy and security implications of efforts by its sister agency, the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (“ONC”), to promote greater interoperability of electronic medical records discussed in ONC’s recent 2018 Report to Congress: Annual Update on the Adoption of a Nationwide System for the Electronic Use and Exchange of Health Information (“Report”).

Under the 21st Century Cures Act, Congress gave ONC authority to enhance innovation, scientific discovery, and expand the access and use of health information through provisions related to:

The development and use of upgraded health IT capabilities;
Transparent expectations for data sharing, including through open application programming interfaces (APIs); and
Improvement of the health IT end-user experience, including by reducing administrative burden.

These priorities seek to increase nationwide interoperability of health information and reduce clinician burden. The Report says increases in the adoption of health IT means most Americans receiving health care services now have their health data recorded electronically. However, this information is not always accessible across systems and by all end users—such as patients, health care providers, and payers—in the market in productive ways. While the Report states ONC intends to move forward to promote efforts to help ensure that electronic health information can be shared safely and securely where appropriate to improve the health and care of all Americans, these activities inherently will raise many HIPAA concerns and challenges. Covered Entities and others concerned with these activities will want to carefully monitor the concurrent activities of OCR and ONC as these efforts progress, both to help tailor their planning and compliance efforts to respond to the anticipated demand for greater interoperability as required by ONC and to help shape these rules by providing timely input as appropriate in response to these developments.

About the Author

Past Chair of the ABA Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group and, a Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, the American Bar Foundation and the Texas Bar Foundation, Ms. Stamer has been continuously involved the design, regulation, administration and defense of managed care and other health and employee benefit, health care, human resources and other staffing and workforce arrangements, contracts, systems, and processes. As a continuous component of this work, Ms. Stamer has worked closely with these and other clients on the design, development, administration, defense, and breach and data recovery of health care, workforce, insurance and financial services, trade secret and other information technology, data and related process and systems development, policy and operations throughout her career.

Scribe of the ABA JCEB annual Office of Civil Rights agency meeting, Ms. Stamer also is widely recognized for her extensive work and leadership on leading edge health care and benefit policy and operational issues.

Ms. Stamer’s clients include employers and other workforce management organizations; employer, union, association, government and other insured and self-insured health and other employee benefit plan sponsors, benefit plans, fiduciaries, administrators, and other plan vendors; managed care organizations, insurers, self-insured health plans and other payers and their management; public and private, domestic and international hospitals, health care systems, clinics, skilled nursing, long-term care, rehabilitation and other health care providers and facilities; medical staff, health care accreditation, peer review and quality committees and organizations; managed care organizations, insurers, third-party administrative services organizations and other payer organizations; billing, utilization management, management services organizations; group purchasing organizations; pharmaceutical, pharmacy, and prescription benefit management and organizations; claims, billing and other health care and insurance technology and data service organizations; other health, employee benefit, insurance and financial services product and solutions consultants, developers and vendors; and other health, employee benefit, insurance, technology, government and other management clients.

Ms. Stamer also has extensive health care reimbursement and insurance experience advising and defending plan sponsors, administrators, insurance and managed care organizations, health care providers, payers, and others about Medicare, Medicaid, Medicare and Medicaid Advantage, Tri-Care, self-insured group, association, individual and employer and association group and other health benefit programs and coverages including but not limited to advising public and private payers about coverage and program design and documentation, advising and defending providers, payers and systems and billing services entities about systems and process design, audits, and other processes; provider credentialing, and contracting; providers and payer billing, reimbursement, claims audits, denials and appeals, coverage coordination, reporting, direct contracting, False Claims Act, Medicare & Medicaid, ERISA, state Prompt Pay, out-of-network and other nonpar insured, and other health care claims, prepayment, post-payment and other coverage, claims denials, appeals, billing and fraud investigations and actions and other reimbursement and payment related investigation, enforcement, litigation and actions. Scribe for the ABA JCEB annual agency meeting with HHS OCR, she also has worked extensively on health and health benefit coding, billing and claims, meaningful use and EMR, billing and reimbursement, quality measurement and reimbursement, HIPAA, FACTA, PCI, trade secret, physician and other medical, workforce, consumer financial and other data confidentiality and privacy, federal and state data security, data breach and mitigation, and other information privacy and data security concerns.

Author of leading works on a multitude of health care, health plan and other health industry matters, the American Bar Association (ABA) International Section Life Sciences Committee Vice Chair, a Scribe for the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits (JCEB) Annual OCR Agency Meeting, former Vice President of the North Texas Health Care Compliance Professionals Association, past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Section, past ABA JCEB Council Representative and CLE and Marketing Committee Chair, past Board President of Richardson Development Center (now Warren Center) for Children Early Childhood Intervention Agency, past North Texas United Way Long Range Planning Committee Member, and past Board Member and Compliance Chair of the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas, Ms. Stamer’s health industry clients include public health organizations; public and private hospitals, healthcare systems, clinics and other health care facilities; physicians, physician practices, medical staff, and other provider organizations; skilled nursing, long-term care, assisted living, home health, ambulatory surgery, dialysis, telemedicine, DME, Pharma, clinics, and other health care providers; billing, management and other administrative services organizations; insured, self-insured, association and other health plans; PPOs, HMOs and other managed care organizations, insurance, claims administration, utilization management, and other health care payers; public and private peer review, quality assurance, accreditation and licensing; technology and other outsourcing; healthcare clearinghouse and other data; research; public and private social and community organizations; real estate, technology, clinical pathways, and other developers; investors, banks and financial institutions; audit, accounting, law firm; consulting; document management and recordkeeping, business associates, vendors, and service providers and other professional and other health industry organizations; academic medicine; trade associations; legislative and other law making bodies and others.

A popular lecturer and widely published author on health industry concerns, Ms. Stamer continuously advises health industry clients about contracting, credentialing and quality assurance, compliance and internal controls, workforce and medical staff performance, quality, governance, reimbursement, privacy and data security, and other risk management and operational matters. Author of works on Payer and Provider Contracting and many other managed care concerns, Ms. Stamer also publishes and speaks extensively on health and managed care industry regulatory, staffing and human resources, compensation and benefits, technology, public policy, reimbursement and other operations and risk management concerns.

A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, the American Bar Foundation and the Texas Bar Foundation, Ms. Stamer also shares her thought leadership, experience and advocacy on these and other related concerns by her service in the leadership of the Solutions Law Press, Inc. Coalition for Responsible Health Policy, its PROJECT COPE: Coalition on Patient Empowerment, and a broad range of other professional and civic organizations including North Texas Healthcare Compliance Association, a founding Board Member and past President of the Alliance for Healthcare Excellence, past Board Member and Board Compliance Committee Chair for the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas; former Board President of the early childhood development intervention agency, The Richardson Development Center for Children (now Warren Center For Children); current Vice Chair of the ABA Tort & Insurance Practice Section Employee Benefits Committee, current Vice Chair of Policy for the Life Sciences Committee of the ABA International Section, Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Section, a current Defined Contribution Plan Committee Co-Chair, former Group Chair and Co-Chair of the ABA RPTE Section Employee Benefits Group, past Representative and chair of various committees of ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits; an ABA Health Law Coordinating Council representative, former Coordinator and a Vice-Chair of the Gulf Coast TEGE Council TE Division, past Chair of the Dallas Bar Association Employee Benefits & Executive Compensation Committee, a former member of the Board of Directors of the Southwest Benefits Association and others.

For more information about Ms. Stamer or her health industry and other experience and involvements, see here or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (214) 452-8297 or via e-mail here.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

NOTICE: These statements and materials are for general informational and purposes only. They do not establish an attorney-client relationship, are not legal advice or an offer or commitment to provide legal advice, and do not serve as a substitute for legal advice. Readers are urged to engage competent legal counsel for consultation and representation in light of the specific facts and circumstances presented in their unique circumstance at any particular time. No comment or statement in this publication is to be construed as legal advise or an admission. The author reserves the right to qualify or retract any of these statements at any time. Likewise, the content is not tailored to any particular situation and does not necessarily address all relevant issues. Because the law is rapidly evolving and rapidly evolving rules makes it highly likely that subsequent developments could impact the currency and completeness of this discussion. The presenter and the program sponsor disclaim, and have no responsibility to provide any update or otherwise notify any participant of any such change, limitation, or other condition that might affect the suitability of reliance upon these materials or information otherwise conveyed in connection with this program. Readers may not rely upon, are solely responsible for, and assume the risk and all liabilities resulting from their use of this publication.

©2019. Cynthia Marcotte Stamer. Non-exclusive right to republish granted to Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ For information about republication, please contact the author directly. All other rights reserved.

Comments Off on Record-Setting 2018 Enforcement Show Proactive Health Plan HIPAA Compliance & Risk Management Need | 21st Century Cures Act, Cafeteria Plans, Civil Monetary Penalties, Civil Rights, Cybercrime, Data Breach, Data Security, Discrimination, Electronic Medical Record, employee, Employee Benefits, Employer, Employers, fiduciary duty, health benefit, Health Benefits, health Care, health insurance, health insurance marketplace, Health IT, health plan, Health Plans, HIPAA, HIPAA, HR, Human Resources, Identity Theft, Insurance, insurers, Internal Controls, Managed Care, Mental Health, Mental Health Parity, Patient Empowerment, Uncategorized | Tagged: Data Breach, Data Security, Employer, Health Plan, HIPAA, Privacy | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

ONC New Emphasis On Health IT Interoperability Promises New Demands & Opportunities

January 8, 2019

Interoperability will be a key priority for the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (“ONC”) going forward.

That’s the message in the just released 2018 Report to Congress: Annual Update on the Adoption of a Nationwide System for the Electronic Use and Exchange of Health Information (“Report”).

The planned shift to demand greater interoperability promises to create new demands for employer-sponsored health plans, health insurers and others involved in the healthcare delivery and payment processes. Health plans and their insurers and sponsors should begin preparing for these new demands, as well as to leverage the new opportunities and manage the new risks they will create.

The Report describes barriers, actions taken, and recommendations as well as ONC’s path forward to implement the 21st Century Cures Act.

Under the 21st Century Cures Act, Congress gave HHS authority to enhance innovation, scientific discovery, and expand the access and use of health information through provisions related to:

The development and use of upgraded health IT capabilities;
Transparent expectations for data sharing, including through open application programming interfaces (APIs); and
Improvement of the health IT end user experience, including by reducing administrative burden.

These priorities seek to increase nationwide interoperability of health information and reduce clinician burden..

Current Status

The Report says increases in the adoption of health IT means most Americans receiving health care services now have their health data recorded electronically. However, this information is not always accessible across systems and by all end users—such as patients, health care providers, and payers—in the market in productive ways. For example:

Despite the individual right to access health information about themselves established by the HIPAA Privacy Rule, patients often lack access to their own health information, which hinders their ability to manage their health and shop for medical care at lower prices;

Health care providers often lack access to patient data at the point of care, particularly when multiple health care providers maintain different pieces of data, own different systems, or use health IT solutions purchased from different developers; and

Payers often lack access to clinical data on groups of covered individuals to assess the value of services provided to their customers.

The Report says these limitations create several problems, including:

Patients should be able to easily and securely access their medical data through their smartphones. Currently, patients electronically access their health information through patient portals that prevent them from easily pulling from multiple sources or health care providers. Patient access to their electronic health information also requires repeated use of logins and manual data updates.

For health care providers and payers, interoperable access and exchange of health records is focused on accessing one record at a time.
Payers cannot effectively represent their members if they lack computational visibility into which health care providers offer the highest quality care at the lowest cost. Without the capability to access multiple records across a population of patients, health care providers and payers will not benefit from the value of using modern computing solutions—such as machine learning and artificial intelligence—to inform care decisions and identify trends.
Payers and employer group health plans which purchase health care have little information on health outcomes. Often, health care providers and payers negotiate contracts based on the health care provider’s reputation rather than on the quality of care that health care provider offers to patients. Health care providers should instead compete based on the entire scope of the quality and value of care they provide, not on how exclusively they can craft their networks. Outcome data will allow payers to apply machine learning and artificial intelligence to have better insight into the value of the care they purchase.

Current Barriers

According to the Report, HHS heard from stakeholders over the past year that barriers to interoperable access to health information remain, including technical, financial, trust, and business practice barriers. These barriers impede the movement of health information to where it is needed across the care continuum. In addition, burden arising from quality reporting, documentation, administrative, and billing requirements that prescribe how health IT systems are designed also hamper the innovative usability of health IT.

Current and Upcoming Actions

The Report states HHS has many efforts to help ensure that electronic health information can be shared safely and securely where appropriate to improve the health and care of all Americans.

ONC also reports Federal agencies, states, and industry have taken steps to address technical, trust, and financial challenges to interoperable health information access, exchange, and use for patients, health care providers, and payers (including insurers). HHS aims to build on these successes through the ONC Health IT Certification Program, HHS rulemaking, health IT innovation projects, and health IT coordination.

In accordance with the Cures Act, HHS is actively leading and coordinating a number of key programs and projects. These include continued work to deter and penalize poor business practices and that HHS conducted multiple outreach efforts to engage the clinical community and health IT stakeholders to better understand these barriers, challenges, and health care provider burden.

Recommendations

The Report makes the following overarching recommendations for future actions HHS plans to support through its policies and that the health IT community as a whole can take to accelerate progress:

Focus on improving interoperability and upgrading technical capabilities of health IT, so patients can securely access, aggregate, and move their health information using their smartphones (or other devices) and health care providers can easily send, receive, and analyze patient data.

Increase transparency in data sharing practices and strengthen technical capabilities of health IT so payers can access population-level clinical data to promote economic transparency and operational efficiency to lower the cost of care and administrative costs.

Prioritize improving health IT and reducing documentation burden, time inefficiencies, and hassle for health care providers, so they can focus on their patients rather than their computers.

The Report also says interoperable access underpins HHS’s efforts to pursue a health care system where data are available when and where needed.

ONC intends to particularly focus on promoting open APIs. Open APIs are technology that allow one software program to access the services provided by another software program and can improve access and exchange of health information. ONC says APIs can:

Support patients’ ability to have more access to information electronically through, for example, smartphones and mobile applications. HHS applauds the emergence of patient-facing applications that allow patients to access, aggregate, and act on their health information; and

Allow payers to receive necessary and appropriate information on a group of members without having to access one record at a time.
Increase institutional accountability, support value- based care models, and lead to competitive medical care pricing that benefits patients.

The Report claims patients, health care providers, and payers with appropriate access to health information can use modern computing solutions to generate value from the data. Improved interoperability can strengthen market competition, result in greater quality, safety, and value for the healthcare system, and enable patients, health care providers, and payers to experience the benefits of health IT.

Prepare For Enhanced Operability Requirements

ONC’s plan to achieve greater interoperability presents new business and compliance planning opportunities and challenges for health care providers, health insurers and other payers, health data and information technology (IT) providers and others. Among other things, participants in the healthcare system and their suppliers will need to prepare to comply with new expectations and mandates for interoperability. Meeting these demands will require financial expenditures as well as present technological challenges.The increased availability and access to electronica medical records and information resulting from these changes also a can be expected to drive new challenges and demands. Among other things, businesses relying on control of health information or records to influence or control patience, reimbursement, or other business value need to reevaluate and adjust their business models accordingly.

Improve accessibility and interoperability also is likely to create new expectations and demands by patients, payers, other providers and perhaps most significantly for providers and payers, regulators. Participants in the system will need to understand these applications and prepare to both defend their business performance as well as their compliance taking into account these new demands.

Amid all of this, of course, providers, pears, and their business associates can anticipate continued if not enhanced demands for enhanced data security and privacy protections and accompanying enforcement of these standards.

As ONC move forward on its plans to enhance interoperability, all concerned stakeholders will want to monitor developments and provide thoughtful and timely input. The time to get started is now. ONC and it’s sister agency, the Office of Civil Rights currently are inviting public comments about how to achieve these and other health IT and privacy improvements. Those interested in providing input should make sure their comments are submitted by the applicable deadlines next month.

ONC and it’s sister agency, the Office of Civil Rights currently are inviting public comments about how to achieve these and other health IT and privacy improvements. Read the full Report here and share your input by the specified deadlines.

About the Author

Past Chair of the ABA Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group and, a Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, the American Bar Foundation and the Texas Bar Foundation, Ms. Stamer has been continuously involved the design, regulation, administration and defense of managed care and other health and employee benefit, health care, human resources and other staffing and workforce arrangements, contracts, systems, and processes. As a continuous component of this work, Ms. Stamer has worked closely with these and other clients on the design, development, administration, defense, and breach and data recovery of health care, workforce, insurance and financial services, trade secret and other information technology, data and related process and systems development, policy and operations throughout her career.

Author of leading works on a multitude of health care, health plan and other health industry matters, the American Bar Association (ABA) International Section Life Sciences Committee Vice Chair, a Scribe for the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits (JCEB) Annual OCR Agency Meeting, former Vice President of the North Texas Health Care Compliance Professionals Association, past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Section, past ABA JCEB Council Representative and CLE and Marketing Committee Chair, past Board President of Richardson Development Center (now Warren Center) for Children Early Childhood Intervention Agency, past North Texas United Way Long Range Planning Committee Member, and past Board Member and Compliance Chair of the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas, Ms. Stamer’s health industry clients include public health organizations; public and private hospitals, healthcare systems, clinics and other health care facilities; physicians, physician practices, medical staff, and other provider organizations; skilled nursing, long-term care, assisted living, home health, ambulatory surgery, dialysis, telemedicine, DME, Pharma, clinics, and other health care providers; billing, management and other administrative services organizations; insured, self-insured, association and other health plans; PPOs, HMOs and other managed care organizations, insurance, claims administration, utilization management, and other health care payers; public and private peer review, quality assurance, accreditation and licensing; technology and other outsourcing; healthcare clearinghouse and other data; research; public and private social and community organizations; real estate, technology, clinical pathways, and other developers; investors, banks and financial institutions; audit, accounting, law firm; consulting; document management and recordkeeping, business associates, vendors, and service providers and other professional and other health industry organizations; academic medicine; trade associations; legislative and other law making bodies and others.

A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, the American Bar Foundation and the Texas Bar Foundation, Ms. Stamer also shares her thought leadership, experience and advocacy on these and other related concerns by her service in the leadership of the Solutions Law Press, Inc. Coalition for Responsible Health Policy, its PROJECT COPE: Coalition on Patient Empowerment, and a broad range of other professional and civic organizations including North Texas Healthcare Compliance Association, a founding Board Member and past President of the Alliance for Healthcare Excellence, past Board Member and Board Compliance Committee Chair for the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas; former Board President of the early childhood development intervention agency, The Richardson Development Center for Children (now Warren Center For Children); current Vice Chair of the ABA Tort & Insurance Practice Section Employee Benefits Committee, current Vice Chair of Policy for the Life Sciences Committee of the ABA International Section, Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Section, a current Defined Contribution Plan Committee Co-Chair, former Group Chair and Co-Chair of the ABA RPTE Section Employee Benefits Group, past Representative and chair of various committees of ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits; an ABA Health Law Coordinating Council representative, former Coordinator and a Vice-Chair of the Gulf Coast TEGE Council TE Division, past Chair of the Dallas Bar Association Employee Benefits & Executive Compensation Committee, a former member of the Board of Directors of the Southwest Benefits Association and others.

For more information about Ms. Stamer or her health industry and other experience and involvements, see here or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (214) 452-8297 or via e-mail here.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

NOTICE: These statements and materials are for general informational and purposes only. They do not establish an attorney-client relationship, are not legal advice or an offer or commitment to provide legal advice, and do not serve as a substitute for legal advice. Readers are urged to engage competent legal counsel for consultation and representation in light of the specific facts and circumstances presented in their unique circumstance at any particular time. No comment or statement in this publication is to be construed as legal advise or an admission. The author reserves the right to qualify or retract any of these statements at any time. Likewise, the content is not tailored to any particular situation and does not necessarily address all relevant issues. Because the law is rapidly evolving and rapidly evolving rules makes it highly likely that subsequent developments could impact the currency and completeness of this discussion. The presenter and the program sponsor disclaim, and have no responsibility to provide any update or otherwise notify any participant of any such change, limitation, or other condition that might affect the suitability of reliance upon these materials or information otherwise conveyed in connection with this program. Readers may not rely upon, are solely responsible for, and assume the risk and all liabilities resulting from their use of this publication.

Comments Off on ONC New Emphasis On Health IT Interoperability Promises New Demands & Opportunities | 21st Century Cures Act, Association Health Plan, Civil Monetary Penalties, Civil Rights, Claims Administration, compliance, Consumer Protection, Corporate Compliance, Cybercrime, Data Breach, Data Security, Electronic Medical Record, Employers, EMR, ERISA, fiduciary duty, Fiduciary Responsibility, FINRA, health benefit, Health Benefits, health Care, health insurance, health insurance marketplace, Health IT, health plan, Health Plans, HIPAA, Human Resources, Identity Theft, insurers, Managed Care, ONC, Patient Empowerment, PPO, Privacy, Protected Health Information, Provider, provider contracting, Technology, third party administrators, Trade secret, Uncategorized | Tagged: Corporate Compliance, Employee Benefits, Enron, Health Care, Health Care Reform, Health Insurance, Health IT, Health Plans, HIPAA, Insurance, medical records, ONC, Physicians | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Creative Pay & Time Keeping Requires FLSA Compliance & Risk Management

December 27, 2018

Today’s diverse business environment creates a demand for businesses to think creatively about their employment relationships, including creative scheduling and pay arrangements. While many of these arrangements produce win/win solutions for both the business and its employees, businesses need to use care properly to evaluate and manage minimum wage, overtime, and other wage and hour law responsibilities under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) and applicable state law.

A new Department of Labor Wage and Hour Division (WHD) Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) opinion letter published December 21 illustrates this point. WHD Opinion Letter FLSA 2018-28 (Dec. 21, 2018) evaluates FLSA minimum wage and overtime compliance of one employer’s innovative strategy of paying certain hourly employees one hourly rate while the employee was working with clients and a second, lower hourly rate of pay for time that the employee spent traveling between client sites throughout the day.

In WHD Opinion Letter FLSA 2018-28 (Dec. 21, 2018), the WHD expresses reservations about whether the specific practices of the requesting employer for calculating overtime for workers paid different hourly rates for different categories of work during the same work week fulfill the FLSA overtime requirements under certain circumstances, but blessed the compliance of the practice of the employer with the FLSA minimum wage rules.

While only the employer that actually requested the ruling that resulted in the Opinion actually may rely upon the Opinion, the ruling highlights both the potential opportunity for businesses to structure innovative compensation and scheduling arrangements within the requirements of the FLSA and other laws, as well as the legal exposures that employers using innovative staffing and compensation arrangement risk by failing to appropriately manage these responsibilities.

FLSA Minimum Wage & Overtime Requirements Generally

The FLSA generally requires that employers pay covered, nonexempt employees receive at least the federal minimum wage (currently $7.25 per hour) for all hours worked. See 29 U.S.C. § 206(a)(1). According to previously published WHD guidance, WHD will consider an employer to have fulfilled this requirement “if the employee’s total wages for the workweek divided by compensable hours equal or exceed the applicable minimum wage.” See WHD Opinion Letter FLSA2004-8NA (Aug. 12, 2004)(different pay rates for trucking company workers); WHD Field Operations Handbook § 30b02.

In addition to the requirement to pay at least the minimum wage, the FLSA also requires that covered, nonexempt employees receive overtime compensation of at least one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for time worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek. See 29 U.S.C. § 207(a)(1). To determine the regular rate of pay for purposes of calculating the required overtime, an employer generally divides the employee’s “remuneration for employment” (subject to the exclusions in 29 U.S.C. § 207(e)) by the total hours worked for the workweek. See 29 C.F.R. § 778.109.

WHD Opinion Letter FLSA 2018-28

In WHD Opinion Letter FLSA 2018-28 (Dec. 21, 2018), WHD addressed its views regarding a home health provider’s practice for calculating the wages due to home health aide services that traveled to home health clients’ homes, who were required to travel to different client home locations during the workday. The employer establishes different rates of pay for time spent working with clients versus time spent traveling from location to location. To calculate weekly pay, that employer multiplied an employee’s time with clients by his hourly pay rate established by the employer for time spent working with clients. The employer then divides the product by the employee’s total hours worked, which includes both the client time and the travel time. The employer guarantees that the quotient meets both federal and state minimum wage rate requirements.

According to the facts published in the WHD Opinion Letter, the home health provider represented that a typical standard rate of pay is $10.00 per hour with a client including travel time,” and that “[i]f any employee works over 40 hours (total paid hours and [travel] time) in any given workweek, the employer pays the employee time and a half for all time over 40 hours at a rate of $10.00.”

Based upon the factual representations made by the home health agency, WHD ruled the employer’s compensation plan complies with the FLSA’s minimum wage requirements but expressed concern about whether the employer’s practices for calculating overtime complied with the FLSA.

Concerning the FLSA minimum wage compliance, the WHD found that the employers practice fulfilled the FLSA minimum wage requirements because even though the employee’s average hourly pay rate varied from workweek to workweek, the employer always ensured that the average hourly pay rate exceeded the FLSA’s minimum wage requirement for all hours worked.

In contrast, however, WHD expressed concern about the compliance of the employer’s compensation plan with the FLSA’s overtime requirements under certain circumstances. WHD states in the Opinion that the employer will not pay all overtime due to employees whose actual rate of pay exceeds $10 per hour if the employer always assumes a regular rate of pay of $10 per hour when calculating overtime due. See 29 C.F.R. § 778.107.

The Opinion notes that “neither an employer nor an employee may arbitrarily choose the regular rate of pay; it is an “actual fact” based on “mathematical computation.” Walling v. Youngerman-Reynolds Hardwood Co., Inc., 325 U.S. 419, 424–25 (1945); 29 C.F.R. § 778.108.

On the other hand, the Opinion also states that the employer’s compensation plan would comply with the FLSA’s overtime requirements for all employees whose actual regular rates of pay are less than $10 per hour, as an employer may choose to pay an overtime premium in excess of the required amount. See, e.g., Molina v. First Line Solutions LLC, 566 F. Supp. 2d 770, 779 (N.D. Ill. 2007).

The cautionary lessons from FLSA Opinion 2018-28 echo those WHD previously has issued alerting businesses to the need to use care to properly understand and meet FLSA requirements when structuring and administering two-tier hourly pay or other innovative pay and scheduling arrangements.

The need to attend to the details of FLSA compliance when adopting and administering customized pay arrangements is further illustrated by WHD’s review of the FLSA compliance of a school district employer’s customized pay arrangement for its drivers in FLSA2004-8NA in 2004. While the WHD found issues with the FLSA compliance of the special arrangement as administered by the school district, guidance provided by the Opinion also makes clear the type of adjustments to the arrangement the employer would need to adopt and apply to continue using the arrangement in its modified form.

Specifically, FLSA 2004-8NA considered a school district’s contractually negotiated arrangement to pay its drivers pursuant to a contractual arrangement under which the employer agreed to pay regular drivers a specified hourly rate with a minimum guarantee of two hours driving time pay per route/additional assignment. The contract also provided that for an assigned trip of less than two hours, a driver that wanted to receive pay for hte minimum guaranteed time had to perform regular maintenance in the bus garage or other work as assigned by the School District to complete the two hours. Furthermore, the contract also specified that “Any regular driver may complete a voucher for payment for additional time if their morning or afternoon route exceeds his/her assigned time by one half hour or more” and that the employers only would pay additional wages for the actual added time worked to employees that worked at least 30 minutes or more without rounding to the next hour for calculating wages. Thus, an employee that worked an additional twenty-five minutes beyond his/her normal shiftwould not be compensated for the extra time worked. Meanwhile, a bus driver that returned fifty minutes past the scheduled time received pay for an additional 50 minutes of work.

WHD’s issue with the arrangement was that the rounding practices applied under the arrangement meant that the school district did not ensure that workers were paid at least the minimum wage per hour for all hours worked and might under some circumstances not properly pay overtime due to workers.

While acknowledging that Labor Regulation Section 785.47 allows employers to disregard ‘insubstantial or insignificant periods of time outside the scheduled working hours that cannot practically be precisely recorded as de minimis, WHD noted that the de minimis rule applies only where a few seconds or minutes of work are involved and where the failure to count such time is due to considerations justified by industrial realities. It does not allow an employer by contract or otherwise to arbitrarily fail to count as hours worked any part, however small, of the employee’s fixed or regular working time. Where an employer fails to pay an employee for any part of the employee’s fixed or regular working time, however small, this would be considered a violation of the FLSA.

Concerning the FLSA’s requirement that the employer pay hourly employees at least the minimum wage, WHD noted that in non-overtime workweeks or in workweeks in which the overtime provisions do not apply, WHD would consider the employer to have met the minimum wage requirement if the employee’s total wages for the workweek divided by compensable hours equal or exceed the applicable minimum wage. WHD added that this principle would apply even if the employer technically did not compensate the emploeye for time which is compensable under the FLSA.

Concerning the overtime requirements of the FLSA, however, WHD had greater reservations. As WHD noted in the 2004 Opinion, when a covered and non-exempt employee works overtime, a different rule applies. The FLSA overtime rule requires that an employer pay the employee for all hours worked at the agreed rate plus the overtime premium (one-half the regular rate) for all overtime hours. Therefore, before an employee can be said to be paid statutory overtime compensation due, the employee must first be paid all straight time wages due for all hours worked under any express or implied contract or under any applicable statute (see 29 CFR Part 778.315). As a result, WHD found that the FLSA overtime requirements would require the employer both to ensure that the employee actually was paid for each hour of straight time at the regular rate of pay plus time and a half of the regular rate of pay for each overtime hour worked.

WHD additionally noted in the 2004 Opinion that the employer also risked violation of Labor Regulation 516.2(a)(7)’s requirement that the employer maintain accurate recordkeeping of hours worked each workday and total hours worked each workweek for covered, nonexempt employees if the payroll records do not accurately record the number of hours worked in one or more of the workdays.

Takeaways For Other Employers About Using Variable Pay Rates & Other Innovative Scheduling & Pay Practices

While other employers actually cannot rely upon either WHD Opinion Letter FLSA 2018-28, FLSA 2004-8NA, or most other WHD Opinion Letters, WHD Opinion Letters and other publishe guidance, as well as judicial precedent and the enforcement conduct by WHD provide a wealth of valuable insights for other employers about the potential FLSA opportunities and pitfalls of using variable rates of pay or other innovative compensation, scheduling and timekeeping practices for compensating hourly employees. Employers using or contemplating using innovative compensation, scheduling or recordkeeping practices should should seek assistance from experienced legal counsel with accessing and using this guidance to help reduce the risk that a proposed innovative compensation or other practice for scheduling or paying nonexempt hourly workers will trigger unanticipated FLSA or other liabilities..

Make Wage & Hour Compliance & Risk Management Priority To Reduce Exposures

Aside from using caution to properly calculate and pay overtime for workers paid different rates for different types of work, employers also need to use care to avoid other common FLSA and other wage and hour overtime violations.

With the Trump Administration U.S. Department of Labor Wage and Hour Division (WHD) continuing its aggressive investigation and enforcement of minimum wage, overtime and other Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and other wage and hour laws it used to recover more than $1.2 billion in back pay for workers over the past five years, Agriculture, Amusement, Apparel Manufacturing, Auto Repair, Child Care Services, Construction, Food Services, Guard Services, Hair, Nail & Skin Care Services, Health Care, Hotels and Motels, Janitorial Services, Landscaping Services, Retail, and Temporary Help and other U.S. employers should evaluate their current and past potential liability exposures and consider using the new pilot WHD self-audit Payroll Audit Independent Determination (PAID) program announced by WHD on March 6 or other options to mitigate their liability for their own or temporary or other contract labor’s existing or past minimum wage and hour law violations.

U.S. employers and leaders with wage and hour management authority risk substantial liability from unresolved violations of the FLSA and other federal and state wage and hour laws.

One of the most frequently violated and litigated federal employment laws, the FLSA generally requires that U.S. employers pay nonexempt employees at least $7.25 per hour for all regular compensable hours worked, plus time and one-half their regular rates, including commissions, bonuses and incentive pay, for hours worked beyond 40 per week. In general, FLSA “hours worked” includes all time an employee must be on duty, or on the employer’s premises or at any other prescribed place of work, from the beginning of the first principal work activity to the end of the last principal activity of the workday. Similar state or local laws often also impose higher minimum wage, compensable hour, break and other requirements than federal law requires.

The FLSA and most applicable state and local wage and hour laws also mandate that employers maintain records of the hours worked by employees by non-exempt employees, documentation of the employer’s proper payment of its non-exempt employees in accordance with the minimum wage and overtime mandates of the FLSA, and certain other records and prohibit retaliation by an employer or other person again an employee or other person for asserting rights under the law or cooperating in a WHD investigation about FLSA compliance.

Beyond these FLSA minimum wage and overtime requirements, WHD regulations and court decisions provide guidance on when an employer must treat “on-call” time, travel time, meal and break times, and certain other time periods as compensable hours worked by a non-exempt employee, when “comp time” in lieu of the payment of wages is permitted, various alternative methods for calculating overtime under certain special circumstances, and various other rules applicable to various special circumstances. Other special rules also can apply to businesses employing tipped employees, home workers, child labor, certain farm workers, workers working with special visas, and other special classes or workers. Furthermore, collective bargaining agreements or other contracts or other federal, state or local laws also sometimes impose additional requirements for employers to pay higher “prevailing wages,” apply special rules for counting compensable work hours, and provide specified fringe benefits or other special compensation or protections or other wages, when the employer is a government contractor or subcontractor covered by the Service Contract Act, the Davis Bacon Act or other similar federal or state statutes.

Over the past decade, WHD and private enforcement of the FLSA and other wage and hour laws generally has skyrocketed in part driven by the Obama Administration’s prioritization on raising the minimum wage, extending federal wage and hour protections, and expanding WHD and other enforcement. WHD’s success in recovering more than $1.2 billion in back pay for workers over the past five years and other achievements in expanding its own and private oversight and enforcement and the continuation of these efforts under the Trump Administration means all employers need to view wage and hour law as a major liability risk requiring conscientious management. However, the risk of enforcement is particularly acute for businesses in the following industries, designed for heightened enforcement and other attention as “Low Wage High Violation Industries” based on their particularly high record of noncompliance: Agriculture, Amusement, Apparel Manufacturing, Auto Repair, Child Care Services, Construction, Food Services, Guard Services, Hair, Nail & Skin Care Services, Health Care, Hotels and Motels, Janitorial Services, Landscaping Services, Retail, and Temporary Help.

Scrutiny & Challenges To Contract & Outsourced Labor Relationships Rising

Beyond assessing their FLSA and other wage and hour compliance and associated exposures from the worker on their own payroll, U.S. employers and their leaders also should take care to carefully evaluate potential exposures from nontraditional services relationships and act to manage those risks.

Misclassification of workers providing services as non-employees increasingly causes U.S. businesses to incur unanticipated FLSA and other wage and hour law liability for back pay, liquidated punitive damages, civil monetary penalties and other liability, in part because of WHD’s stepped up worker education, scrutiny, investigation, and enforcement challenging employers’ treatment of workers as non-employees.

The FLSA and state and local rules generally apply to any workers that the employer who receives its services cannot prove is not its common law employee or an exempt employee within the meaning of the FLSA. The FLSA and most other wage and hour laws generally rules presume that workers rendering services are common law employees of the business in most circumstances. Businesses should evaluate their FLSA exposures from both workers they recognize as common law employees and those performing services in capacities that the business typically does not view as common law or otherwise covered by the FLSA when managing FLSA compliance and evaluating exposures, employers should exercise care not to overlook potential responsibilities and exposures associated with outsourced services provided through relationships characterized by the employer as subcontractors, independent contractors, lease employees, or other common outsourced relationships.

Court decisions and regulations provide guidance for determining when leased, contract, jointly employed, independent contractor or other non-traditionally employed workers will be treated as employees of a business, As in many other enforcement areas, The WHD and many other agencies increasingly view the misclassification of workers as something other than employees, such as independent contractors, leased employees and other common “outsourced” relationship as a serious problem for affected employees, employers and to the entire economy.

According to the Labor Department, misclassified employees are often denied access to critical benefits and protections, such as family and medical leave, overtime, minimum wage and unemployment insurance and other rights. The Labor Department also says employee misclassification also generates substantial losses to state and federal treasuries, and to the Social Security and Medicare funds, as well as to state unemployment insurance and workers compensation funds. To address these and other concerns, the Labor Department has joined other agencies like the Internal Revenue Service increasingly is challenging employers’ treatment of workers as exempt from FLSA and other legal obligations as independent contractors or otherwise.

In response to these concerns, WHD published guidance warning employers about misclassification of workers about potential violation of the FLSA by improper misclassification of workers as independent contractors or non-employed. See Department of Labor Issues Guidance of Misclassification of Workers. DOL’s key points in the guidance are that:

Most workers are employees under the broad definitions of the FLSA;
No single factor is determinative;
Employers should be wary of classifying workers as independent contractors merely because the workers control some aspects of their work; and
The ultimate question is whether a worker “is really in business for him or herself (and thus is an independent contractor) or is economically dependent on the employer (and thus is an employee).

Other guidance makes clear that WHD and other agencies concerns about misclassification extend beyond workers labeled independent contractors to include scrutiny of subcontractor, day labor, temporary, leased employee and a broad range of other outsourced services relationships. See here,

Consistent with these principles, WHD and private litigants in recent years have increasingly scrutinized and successfully challenged employers’ failure to comply with the FLSA’s minimum wage, overtime, recordkeeping and other rules with respect to these outsourced workers. See e.g., $1.4M FLSA Back Pay Award Demonstrates Worker Misclassification Risks; Employer Faces $2M FLSA Lawsuit For Alleged Worker Misclassification; $754,578 FLSA Settlement Shows Employer Risks From Worker Misclassification, Underpayment; WHD now both conducts significant worker education outreach and regularly requests and scrutinizes the characterization of and FLSA compliance of outsourced workers in connection with its FLSA investigations and audits. See e.g. Get the Facts on Misclassification Under the FLSA; Am I an Employee?: Employment Relationship Under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA); Compliance Assistance Page – Fair Labor Standards Act; Elaws: Independent Contractors; Know Your Rights Video Series: Misclassification as an Independent Contractor; WHD Press Releases about employee Misclassification as Independent Contractors. These and other developments are significantly increasing the likelihood that businesses will face WHD or private litigants challenges to its FLSA compliance relating to workers rendering services as independent contractors, subcontractors or other outsourced services providers.

Employers often face substantial challenges responding to, much less, containing their FLSA exposures when a WHD or a private litigant successfully challenges the employer’s classification of the worker as a non-employee for a variety of reasons. Beyond the likelihood of violations resulting from the employer’s failure to recognize it might owe minimum wage and overtime duties to the worker, an employer often lacks records and other data needed to fulfill recordkeeping and posting requirements and to accurately demonstrate hours worked and hourly rates to limit resulting back pay exposures because these workers are not treated as part of the employer’s workforce. Obtaining the necessary records to respond to a WHD or other investigation, lawsuit or other action often proves challenging because the independent contractor, leasing company, or other provider or of the services often becomes unavailable, is disincentivized by its own noncompliance or other interests, has failed to maintain necessary documentation or otherwise fails to cooperate in the delivery of these materials. Furthermore, as leased employee, staffing, independent contractor and other outsourced arrangements invoice services at higher rates of compensation payment than the employer might otherwise have paid a traditionally employed worker, the lack of records and elevated compensation rates tend to push up the compensation used to calculate back pay and other awards. Accordingly, employers utilizing these arrangements should use care in structuring and administering these arrangements properly to evaluate their likely FLSA and other treatment and to manage these risks.

FLSA Big Liability Risk

Under the FSLA and applicable state wage and hour laws, violations of the FLSA and other federal or state wage and hour laws expose employers to substantial back pay, interest and punitive damages, civil monetary penalties for willful or and in the case of willful or repeated violations and in the case of willful violations, criminal prosecution.

Because of the ability to recover liquidated damages and attorneys’ fees in addition to unpaid back pay, private enforcement of the FLSA is common. The FLSA generally allows employees wrongfully denied wages in violation of the FLSA to bring lawsuits to enforce their rights provided that the WHD has not or does not intervene to enforce those rights on the worker’s behalf. Workers successfully proving an employer violated their FLSA rights typically can recover back pay, plus liquidated damages, interest, attorneys’ fees and other costs of enforcement from the breaching employer. In some cases, Corporate officers such as CEOs, CFOs or COOs and other management leaders with control over the breaching employer’s financial affairs also be held personally liable for the unpaid wages See e.g., Lamonica v. Safe Hurricane Shutters, +2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 4599 (11th Cir. 2013)(ruling personal liability for FLSA violations can attach to any individual with control over an employer’s financial affairs who could potentially cause an employer to violate FLSA).

As an alternative to private litigation, the FLSA empowers the WHD to supervise or if necessary, enforce through litigation the rights of workers against a breaching employer to recover back pay plus liquidated damages in an amount equal to the wrongfully denied wages. WHD also can pursue injunctive relief against noncompliant employers.

When the employer is a repeat offender or willfully violated the FLSA, additional consequences attach. A violation is “willful” for purposes of FLSA criminal prosecution if it is deliberate, voluntary, and intentional. A fine of up to $10,000 on the first conviction

When an employer’s violation of the FLSA is repetitious or willful, the FLSA empowers WHD to impose civil money penalties (CMPs) against the noncompliant employer in addition to the recovery of back pay and liquidated damages. Intended to discourage future noncompliance by an employer guilty of violating the FLSA, CMPs for a “repeated” violation are assessable when the employer had previously violated the minimum wage or overtime requirements of the FLSA. CMPs for a “willful” violation may be assessed when it can be shown that the employer knew that its conduct was prohibited by the FLSA or showed reckless disregard for the requirements of the FLSA. CMPs ordinarily are imposed based on violations occurring within the normal two-year investigation period. Where violations are determined to be willful, the investigation will cover a three-year period.

The applicable 2018 CMP amounts, which are adjusted annually for inflation, are as follows:

Type of Violation	Statutory Citation	CFR Citation	Maximum Civil Monetary Penalty on or before 1/2/2018	Maximum Civil Monetary Penalty on or after 1/3/2018
Homeworker: Violation of recordkeeping, monetary, certificate or other statutes, regulations or employer assurances.	29 USC 211(d)	29 CFR 530.302	$1,005	$1,026
Child labor: (1) Violation of child labor standards (sec 212 or 213(c));	29 USC 216(e)(1)(A)(i)	29 CFR 570.140(b)(1) and 29 CFR 579.1(a)(1)(i)(A)	$12,278	$12,529
(2) Violation of child labor standards (sec 212 or 213(c)) that causes the serious injury or death of a minor;	29 USC 216(e)(1)(A)(ii)	29 CFR 570.140(b)(2) and 29 CFR 579.1(a)(1)(i)(B)	$55,808	$56,947
(3) Willful or repeated violation of child labor standards (sec 212 or 213(c)) that causes the serious injury or death of a minor	29 USC 216(e)(1)(A)(ii)	29 CFR 570.140(b)(2) and 29 CFR 579.1(a)(1)(i)(B)	$111,616	$113,894
(4) Repeated or willful violation of section 206 or 207.	29 USC 216(e)	29 CFR 579.1(a)(2)	$1,925	$1,964

Minimum Wage and Overtime: Repeated or willful violation of section 206 or 207.	29 USC 216(e)(2)	29 CFR 578.3(a)	$1,925	$1,964

Although typically reserved for more egregious violations, “willful” violations of the FLSA can trigger criminal prosecution by the Department of Justice. A fine of up to $10,000, or a term of imprisonment of up to six months, or both, on all convictions after the first conviction

In addition to or instead of lawsuits by the Secretary of Labor for back wages or injunctive relief, willful violation of the FLSA also can trigger criminal prosecutions against an employer by the Department of Justice. Criminal penalties for willful FLSA violations include a fine of up to $10,000, or a term of imprisonment of up to six months, or both, on all convictions after the first conviction. Since enforcement actions by the DOJ can be brought instead of or in addition to lawsuits by WHD for back wages or injunctive relief, an employer that willfully violates the FLSA can be ordered to pay liquidated damages and back-pay, as well as any court imposed criminal fine or penalty.

Always popular, WHD and private enforcement of the FLSA initially spiked upward following the highly publicized George W. Bush Administration’s implementation of updated FLSA “white collar” regulations regarding the classification of workers as exempt. The Obama Administration’s highly publicized, but unsuccessful, campaign to increase the minimum wage and aggressive FLSA educational outreach and enforcement further fueled this trend. While President Trump has opposed proposals to increase the federal minimum wage, he has expressed his commitment to protect workers’ FLSA rights through continued vigorous enforcement of the FLSA minimum wage, overtime and other rules.

As a result of its aggressive enforcement commitments, WHD takes credit for having recovered more than $1.2 billion in back wages on behalf of more than 1.3 million workers over the past five years. See here. The following WHD enforcement statistics reflect that its commitment to FLSA enforcement has continued during President Trump’s tenure in office.

		Cases with Violations	Back Wages	Employees Receiving Back Wages(duplicated 1)
FY 2011	Minimum Wage	12,450	$29,327,527	89,305
FY 2011	Overtime	11,990	$140,328,012	204,243
FY 2012	Minimum Wage	12,532	$35,270,524	107,005
FY 2012	Overtime	12,462	$148,560,700	218,137
FY 2013	Minimum Wage	12,403	$38,470,100	103,671
FY 2013	Overtime	12,108	$130,703,222	174,197
FY 2014	Minimum Wage	11,042	$36,732,407	106,184
FY 2014	Overtime	11,238	$136,239,001	174,365
FY 2015	Minimum Wage	10,642	$37,828,554	86,229
FY 2015	Overtime	10,496	$137,701,703	173,330
FY 2016	Minimum Wage	10,722	$34,964,350	81,870
FY 2016	Overtime	10,884	$171,917,225	209,819
FY 2017	Minimum Wage	10,687	$31,213,737	69,588
FY 2017	Overtime	10,823	$157,592,682	183,272

Pilot PAID Program May Offer New Option To Resolve WHD Exposures

When an audit uncovers potential violations, some employers may want to explore options to voluntarily resolve their exposures. To encourage voluntary compliance, the WHD on March 6, 2018 announced a new pilot self-audit Payroll Audit Independent Determination (PAID) program that offered employers accepted into the program after voluntarily disclosing violations to resolve their exposure WHD penalties and liquidated damages commonly assessed by WHD against employers for violating the FLSA minimum wage and overtime violations by:

Voluntarily disclosing the violations to WHD before becoming subject to investigation or enforcement and requesting admission to the program;
Paying affected workers 100 percent of the unpaid back pay due wrongfully denied by the end of the next full pay period after receiving the summary of unpaid wages from WHD confirming the back pay amount;
Working with WHD prospectively to correct noncompliant practices; and
Taking other actions to correct and prevent a recurrence of those violations.

Originally slated as a pilot program set to expire after six months, the PAID program remains an opportunity offered by WHD on its website, which also shares “testimonials” from various employers that report having participated in the PAID program.

While participation in the PAID program purpoerts to offer allows a participating employer to settle its exposure to prosecution for those violations by WHD without incurring some of themore extraordinary penalties that WHD is authorized to assess, many practitioners and employers report having achieved similar and in some cases even more favorable outcomes through negotiations conducted outside the PAID program. Furthermore, many employers may face challenges in using the program as a result of the inability to marshal the required capital to pay 100 percent of the back pay due within the required time period.

Beyond this challenge, employers evaluating whether to seek relief through the new PAID program also may need to weigh a variety of other concerns.

For instance, employers considering participation need to understand that the settlement only addresses potential liability from WHD enforcement. While WHD’s requirement that a participating employer pay affect 100 percent of any wrongfully denied back pay to the impacted employees generally would reduce the actual back pay damages recoverable by an employee in a private enforcement action, WHD says settlements reached with the WHD under the PAID program does not prevent employees wrongfully denied wages in violation of FSLA from bringing private lawsuits. Rather, WHD states that it will be purely the employee’s choice whether to accept the payment of back wages the employer agrees to pay under the PAID program settlement. If the employee chooses to not accept the payment, the employee will not release any private right of action. Additionally, if the employee chooses to accept the payment, the employee will not grant a broad release of all potential claims under the FLSA. Rather, the releases are tailored to only the identified violations and time period for which the employer is paying the back wages. The WHD also cautions that regardless of whether the employee accepts or rejects the back pay specified in the PAID program, the FLSA will prohibit employers from retaliating against the employee for his or her choice. Furthermore, while the payment of previously unpaid amounts could reduce the amount of unpaid wages for purposes of determining liability for state wage and hour law violations, the WHD settlement does not directly impact or release liability for any state wage and hour violations.

While any FLSA covered employer may use the program, interested employers should understand that acceptance into the program is not automatic and is not available for all FLSA violations. Rather, the PAID program only covers potential violations of the FLSA’s overtime and minimum wage requirements that an employer self-identifies and voluntarily discloses and resolves in accordance with its PAID program settlement with WHD. An employer cannot use the PAID program to resolve any issues for which WHD is already investigating the employer, or which the employer is already litigating in court, arbitration, or otherwise. An employer likewise may not initiate the process when an employee’s representative or counsel has already communicated an interest in litigating or settling the issue. Employers using the Paid program also must be prepared to correct the noncompliant practices that resulted in the violations settled under the PAID program. According to the WHD, WHD will not allow employers to use the program to repeatedly resolve the same violations, as this program is designed to identify and correct non-compliant practices. By allowing employers to participate in the PAID program, WHD also does not waive its right to conduct any future investigations of the employer.

Employers contemplating participation in the PAID program generally should conduct a self-audit after updating their understanding of WHD program and compliance assistance materials and other WHD guidance. Because the information, analysis and discussions conducted in this process may be legally sensitive, employers generally will want to engage qualified legal counsel before initiating these processes to advise and assist the employer about the adequacy and risks of its existing practices, recommendations for redressing known compliance issues and other risks as well as opportunities and procedures for qualifying certain of these actions and discussions for coverage under attorney-client privilege, attorney work product or other evidentiary protections.

Whether or not an employer decides based on the audit to pursue compliance resolution through the PAID program, employers generally should work with their legal counsel within the scope of attorney client privilege to organize and retain documentation of their audit, its findings of compliance and, for any potential compliance issues, corrective actions taken to redress those issues retrospectively and prospectively, and other documentation that the employer might need to pursue resolution under the PAID program or otherwise respond to and defend against a WHD or private charges brought by an employee in the future.

If the employer wishes to pursue resolution of potential violations under the PAID program based on review of the audit findings in conjunction with their legal counsel, the employer in coordination with the legal counsel within the scope of attorney client privilege should work together to prepare and assemble the records and information WHD will expect the employer to provide in the initial phases of the process including:

A list of the specific potential violations uncovered
The specific employees affected
The specific timeframes in which each employee was affected, and
The calculation of the amount of back wages the employer believes are owed to each employee.
Each of the calculations described above—accompanied by both evidence and explanation concerning how the calculations were made;
A concise explanation of the scope of the potential violations for possible inclusion in a release of liability;
A certification that the employer reviewed all of the information, terms, and compliance assistance materials;
A certification that the employer is not litigating the compensation practices at issue in court, arbitration, or otherwise, and likewise has not received any communications from an employee’s representative or counsel expressing interest in litigating or settling the same issues; and
A certification that the employer will adjust its practices to avoid the same potential violations in the future.

After preparing this information, the employer generally will want to arrange for legal counsel to make the preliminary contact to the WHD to request that the WHD admit the employer to the PAID program. During the preliminary contact, the WHD will require that a list of the specific potential violations, and the identity, specific time frame and back pay amount that employer believes it owes to each affected employee as a prerequisite to considering the request for admission to the program. If the WHD approves the employer’s request, WHD will require that the employer or its legal counsel on its behalf provide the remaining information listed above. After evaluating this information, WHD will provide notification of the next steps, including the collection of any other information necessary for WHD to assess and confirm the back wages due for the identified violations.

Current published guidance states that after WHD assesses the back wages due, it will issue a summary of unpaid wages. WHD will also issue forms describing the settlement terms for each employee, which employees may sign to receive payment. The release of claims provided in the form will match the previously agreed-upon language and, again, must be limited to only the potential violations for which the employer had paid back wages. The PAID program settlement will require the employers to pay the back pay amounts confirmed in the summary of unpaid wages promptly and in full by the end of the next payroll period after receiving the WHD summary of wages confirming the back pay amounts required.

Audit & Act To Mitigate FLSA & Other Wage & Hour Risks

Regardless of whether an employer elects to pursue using the new PAID program, all FLSA covered employers generally should consult with legal counsel within the scope of attorney-client privilege to assess the defensibility of their existing practices for classifying and compensating workers under existing Federal and state wage and hour laws, tighten contracting and other compliance oversight in relation to outsourced services, and about using the PAID program and other options to minimize their potential liability under applicable wages and hour laws. Conducting this analysis within the scope of attorney-client privilege is important because the analysis and discussions are highly sensitive both as potential evidence for wage and hour and other legal purposes. Consequently, businesses and their leaders generally will want to arrange for this work to be protected to the extent by attorney-client privilege, work product and other evidentiary protections against discovery by WHD, employees or others for FLSA or other workforce enforcement actions.

As a part of this process, businesses and their leaders generally should plan to:

Review subcontractor, temporary, lease employee, independent contractor and other outsourced labor and services relationship for potential risk of worker reclassification and tighten contracting and other procedures;
Audit the position of each employee currently classified as exempt to assess its continued sustainability and to develop documentation justifying that characterization;
Audit characterization of workers obtained from staffing, employee leasing, independent contractor and other arrangements and implement contractual and other oversight arrangements to minimize risks that these relationships could create if workers are recharacterized as employed by the employer receiving these services;
Review the characterization of on-call and other time demands placed on employees to confirm that all compensable time is properly identified, tracked, documented, compensated and reported;
If the employer hires any individuals under age 18, audit and implement appropriate procedures to ensure its ability to demonstrate compliance with all applicable FLSA child labor rules;
If the employer is a government contractor or subcontractor or otherwise performs any services on projects funded with federal or state funds, evaluate the applicability and fulfillment of any special wage, fringe benefit, recordkeeping or other government contracting wage and hour requirements;
If the employer hires foreign agricultural or other workers subject to special conditions and requirements, to review compliance with those special requirements;
Review and tighten existing practices for tracking compensable hours and paying non-exempt employees for compliance with applicable regulations and to identify opportunities to minimize costs and liabilities arising out of the regulatory mandates;
If the employer uses leased, temporary, or other outsourced labor, evaluate contractual, process and other options to support the employer’s ability cost effectively to respond to an audit, investigation or enforcement action by WHD or private litigants and if necessary, obtain indemnification or other recovery in the event the employer incurs liability due to the use or practices of the outsourced labor supplier;
If the audit raises questions about the appropriateness of the classification of an employee as exempt, self-initiation of proper corrective action after consultation with qualified legal counsel;
Review and document all workers classified as exempt;
Review of existing documentation and record keeping practices for hourly employees;
Evaluate potential exposures under other employment, labor, tax or related laws or contracts that might be impacted by the findings or actions taken in response to those findings;
Explore available options and alternatives for calculating required wage payments to non-exempt employees and assessing and resolving other concerns;
Identify and calculate other employee benefit, tax or other corrections and associated costs and procedures that may be required as a result of findings or corrective actions resulting from their redress;
Re-engineer work rules, policies, contracts and practices to minimize costs and liabilities as appropriate in light of the regulations and enforcement exposures;
Explore insurance, indemnification and other options for mitigating risks and associated investigation and defense costs .
Pursue self-correction within the new PAID Program or otherwise.

Many employers also will want to consider adopting or strengthening their use of arbitration agreements, strengthening contract compliance, audit, indemnification and other contractual safeguards in staffing and other outsourcing contracts and broadening employment practices and other liability insurance coverage to mitigate and manage these exposures.

For additional information, please contact the author or other qualified legal counsel with health industry wage and hour and other labor and employment experience.

About The Author

Ms. Stamer is nationally and internationally recognized for her work assisting businesses, governments, and other entities to develop, implement, administer and defend pragmatic strategies for dealing with employment and other workforce and related compensation, employee benefit, performance management and internal controls, insurance, health care and finance concerns to manage risk, operations and other business objectives.

Want to know more? See here for details about the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, e-mail her here or telephone Ms. Stamer at (469) 767-8872.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

©2018 Cynthia Marcotte Stamer. Non-exclusive right to republish granted to Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ For information about republication, please contact the author directly. All other rights reserved.

Comments Off on Creative Pay & Time Keeping Requires FLSA Compliance & Risk Management | Attorney-Client Privilege, board of directors, Brokers, business travel, Child Labor, compensation, compliance, Construction, Corporate Compliance, corporate governance, employee, Employee Benefits, Employee Handbook, Employer, Employers, Employment, Employment Policies, enforcement, Executive Compensation, Exempt, Fair Labor Standards Act, FLSA, HR, Human Resources, Insurance, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, Labor Management Relations, Management, Managment, officers, Overtime, Telecommuting, Uncategorized, Union, Workforce | Tagged: Employer, FLSA, wage, Wage & Hour | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Reminder To Report Moving Expense Reimbursements As Taxable Income

December 18, 2018

Businesses that reimburse employee moving expenses should review their practices in response to changes to the Internal Revenue Code rules on qualified moving expenses. The requirement to treat moving expenses as taxable is just one of many changes to the treatment of fringe benefits and compensation under the Internal Revenue Code (“IRC”) as part of the tax reforms enacted last year.

Under previous law, payment or reimbursement of an employee’s qualified moving expenses were not subject to income or employment taxes.

Under last year’s tax reform legislation, however, employers generally must include all moving expenses, in employees’ wages, subject to income and employment taxes.

Exception
Generally, members of the U.S. Armed Forces can still exclude qualified moving expense reimbursements from their income if:

They are on active duty
They move pursuant to a military order and incident to a permanent change of station
The moving expenses would qualify as a deduction if the employee didn’t get a reimbursement

Transition rule
There is a transition rule under the new law. Under this rule, certain payments or reimbursements aren’t subject to federal income or employment taxes. This includes amounts that:

An employer pays a third party in 2018 for qualified moving services provided to an employee prior to 2018.
An employer reimburses an employee in 2018 for qualified moving expenses incurred prior to 2018.

To qualify for the transition rule, the payments or reimbursements must be for qualified expenses which would have been deductible by the employee if the employee had directly paid them before Jan. 1, 2018. The employee must not have deducted them in 2017.

Corrections
Employers who have included amounts covered by the exception or the transition rule in individuals’ wages or compensation can take steps to correct taxable wages and employment taxes.

More information:

Circular E: Employer’s Tax Guide
Instructions for Form 941-X, Adjusted Employer’s Quarterly Federal Tax Return or Claim for Refund

The changes to the tax treatment of moving expense reimbursements is one of many changes passed last year. For more information or help with these or other workforce, compensation and benefits concerns, contact the author.

About the Author

Throughout her 30 plus year career, Ms. Stamer has continuously worked with these and other management clients to design, implement, document, administer and defend hiring, performance management, compensation, promotion, demotion, discipline, reduction in force and other workforce, employee benefit, insurance and risk management, health and safety, and other programs, products and solutions, and practices; establish and administer compliance and risk management policies; comply with requirements, investigate and respond to government, accreditation and quality organizations, regulatory and contractual audits, private litigation and other federal and state reviews, investigations and enforcement actions; evaluate and influence legislative and regulatory reforms and other regulatory and public policy advocacy; prepare and present training and discipline; handle workforce and related change management associated with mergers, acquisitions, reductions in force, re-engineering, and other change management; and a host of other workforce related concerns. Ms. Stamer’s experience in these matters includes supporting these organizations and their leaders on both a real-time, “on demand” basis with crisis preparedness, intervention and response as well as consulting and representing clients on ongoing compliance and risk management; plan and program design; vendor and employee credentialing, selection, contracting, performance management and other dealings; strategic planning; policy, program, product and services development and innovation; mergers, acquisitions, bankruptcy and other crisis and change management; management, and other opportunities and challenges arising in the course of workforce and other operations management to improve performance while managing workforce, compensation and benefits and other legal and operational liability and performance.

For more information about Ms. Stamer or her health industry and other experience and involvements, see here or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (214) 452-8297 or via e-mail here.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

NOTICE: These statements and materials are for general informational and purposes only. They do not establish an attorney-client relationship, are not legal advice or an offer or commitment to provide legal advice, and do not serve as a substitute for legal advice. Readers are urged to engage competent legal counsel for consultation and representation in light of the specific facts and circumstances presented in their unique circumstance at any particular time. No comment or statement in this publication is to be construed as legal advise or an admission. The author reserves the right to qualify or retract any of these statements at any time. Likewise, the content is not tailored to any particular situation and does not necessarily address all relevant issues. Because the law is rapidly evolving and rapidly evolving rules makes it highly likely that subsequent developments could impact the currency and completeness of this discussion. The presenter and the program sponsor disclaim, and have no responsibility to provide any update or otherwise notify any participant of any such change, limitation, or other condition that might affect the suitability of reliance upon these materials or information otherwise conveyed in connection with this program. Readers may not rely upon, are solely responsible for, and assume the risk and all liabilities resulting from their use of this publication.

©2018 Cynthia Marcotte Stamer. Non-exclusive right to republish granted to Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ For information about republication or the topic of this article, please contact the author directly. All other rights reserved.

Comments Off on Reminder To Report Moving Expense Reimbursements As Taxable Income | compensation, compensation transparency, compliance, employee, Employee Benefits, Employee Handbook, Employer, Employers, Executive Compensation, Fringe Benefits, HR, Human Resources, Income Tax, Internal Revenue Code, IRC, Job, Labor Management Relations, Management, Managment, Moving expense reimbursement, Payroll Tax, Public Policy, TCJA Tax Reform, Technology, Uncategorized, Wage & Hour | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Court Ruling Obamacare Unconstitutional Leaves Obamacare Future Uncertain As Annual Enrollment Period Ends

December 15, 2018

A ruling by a Federal District judge on Friday (December 14, 2018) ruled unconstitutional the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) touches off a new wave of uncertainty about the future of the massive healthcare reform law commonly known as Obamacare just as the enrollment period for 2019 health coverage ended. While Federal District Judge Reed O’Connor finds in his ruling released on Friday that amendments passed by Congress last December robbed the ACA of its original constitutionality, only time will tell if the ruling actually will end the ACA reforms or the effect of such ruling on the hotly debated ACA reforms and other statutory and regulatory reforms Congress and the Trump Administration subsequently prospectively or retrospectively. Consequently, health plans, their employer and other sponsors, insurers, administrators, and fiduciaries; health care providers, consumers and others will need to watch developments closely.

Justice O’Connor’s decision was released one day before the last day of the enrollment period for Americans to elect whether and what coverage, if any, to enroll in through the Obamacare exchanges for calendar 2019.

In Texas v. US, Texas Governor Greg Abbott and other Republican governors challenged the constitutionality of the ACA following passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 (TCJA). The plaintiffS argued the TCJA rendered the ACA unconstitutional because it repealed the individual mandate of the ACA upon which the Supreme Court previously found the ACA constitutional.

In the 2012 decision in Nat’l Fed’n of Indep. Businesses v. Sebelius (NFIB), 567 U.S. 519, 530–38 (2012) written by Chief Justice Roberts, the Supreme Court ruled that Congress could not rely upon the Commerce Clause for Constitutional authority to enact the ACA. However, the Supreme Court nevertheless found the Individual Mandate provisions of the ACA preserved the constitutionality of the ACA as a constitutional exercise of Congress’ Taxing Power.

In Texas v. US, the plaintiff governors argue that the repeal of the Individual Mandate as part of Congress’ passage of the TCJA last December robbed the ACA of its constitutionality. They say it is no longer fairly readable as an exercise of Congress’s Tax Power and continues to be unsustainable under the Interstate Commerce Clause. They further urge that if they are correct, the balance of the ACA is untenable as inseverable from the Invalid Mandate. Judge O’Connor agreed with the plaintiff’s in his ruling on Friday. Now it remains to be seen if his ruling will face and withstand the appeal and if so, what effect it will have on Obamacare overall and other subsequent statutory and regulatory reforms.

While only time will tell whether the decision stands and its effect, the path to clarity promises to be filled with more drama and uncertainty. Former US Attorney General Jeff Sessions previously had stated that the Justice Department under his leadership would not expend resources to defend the ACA. It remains to be seen how the Justice Department will not respond in light of his recent resignation. Even if the Justice Department does not step up to defend Obamacare, it is likely that states like California that have intervened in support of the ACA in the litigation will attempt to appeal the action. Assuming that an appeal proceeds, a Court of Appeals would hear the appeal before an almost certain appeal by the losing side in that appeal to the United States Supreme Court, where President Trump’s new appointee would hear the action. Along with the possibility that these Courts will uphold the trial court’s ruling, either of these appeals courts could overrule the trial court in whole or in part. Thus, subsequent appeals decisions could:

Reverse Judge O’Connor’s ruling entirely, leaving The ACA intact in its current form; or
Uphold part but not all of the decision, leaving some parts in place but not others.

pending further decisions, it remains unclear if subsidies, prohibitions against preexisting conditions, guaranteed issue, cost regulations, benefit and coverage mandates and other insurance reforms, health care billing and other reforms will survive.

Meanwhile, regardless of the outcome of the appeals, the decision and its fallout almost certainly will touch off more debate in Congress. With health care reform already a hot topic, more Congressional battles were inevitable. However the decision adds a new and significant wrinkle to the politics of the health reform fight.

In January November’s election will cause the leadership of the House of Representatives is set to transfer from Republicans to Democrats while leaving control over the Senate in the hands of Republications. With leadership of the two legislative bodies split, Democrats are unlikely to be able to use their new control of the House to enact legislation that would overrule outright an adverse decision by the courts. Consequently, Democrats will have an uphill battle if the court decision stands unless and until they can regain Senate control. Instead they are likely to be related to the role occupied by the House the past 4 years in which bills to enact the Democrat vision will pass the House only to die a quick death in the Republican controlled Senate or face veto by the Republican President.

On the other hand, Republicans also could not overcome a decision unfavorable to their agenda for the opposite reason: Despite control of the majority in the Senate and having a Republican President opposed to the ACA, Republicans can’t enact legislation without winning a majority of votes in the House.

On the other hand, either party can and almost certainly will use its veto power over the other party’s agenda. The fight likely will spill over into budget, immigration, workforce and other jet legislation that otherwise might and should enjoy bipartisan support in Congress.

As the litigation proceeds, concerned parties will want to keep a close eye of the Courts, the regulation and enforcement actions of the Trump Administration and the Congress.

Meanwhile, it is important to keep in mind that implementation of Judge O’Connor’s decision is stayed pending appeal.

About the Author

Past Chair of the ABA Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, a Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, the American Bar Foundation and the Texas Bar Foundation, Ms. Stamer is nationally recognized as a thoughtleader in health benefits and health care matters domestically and internationally. She has been continuously involved the design, regulation, administration and defense of managed care and other health and employee benefit, health care, human resources and other staffing and workforce arrangements, contracts, systems, and processes. As a continuous component of this work, Ms. Stamer has worked closely with these and other clients on the design, development, administration, defense, and breach and data recovery of health care, workforce, insurance and financial services, trade secret and other information technology, data and related process and systems development, policy and operations throughout her career.

Author of leading works on a multitude of health care, health plan and other health industry matters, the American Bar Association (ABA) International Section Life Sciences Committee Vice Chair, a Scribe for the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits (JCEB) Annual OCR Agency Meeting, former Vice President of the North Texas Health Care Compliance Professionals Association, past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Section, past ABA JCEB Council Representative and CLE and Marketing Committee Chair, past Board President of Richardson Development Center (now Warren Center) for Children Early Childhood Intervention Agency, past North Texas United Way Long Range Planning Committee Member, and past Board Member and Compliance Chair of the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas, Ms. Stamer’s health industry clients include public health organizations; public and private hospitals, healthcare systems, clinics and other health care facilities; physicians, physician practices, medical staff, and other provider organizations; skilled nursing, long-term care, assisted living, home health, ambulatory surgery, dialysis, telemedicine, DME, Pharma, clinics, and other health care providers; billing, management and other administrative services organizations; insured, self-insured, association and other health plans; PPOs, HMOs and other managed care organizations, insurance, claims administration, utilization management, and other health care payers; public and private peer review, quality assurance, accreditation and licensing; technology and other outsourcing; healthcare clearinghouse and other data; research; public and private social and community organizations; real estate, technology, clinical pathways, and other developers; investors, banks and financial institutions; audit, accounting, law firm; consulting; document management and recordkeeping, business associates, vendors, and service providers and other professional and other health industry organizations; academic medicine; trade associations; legislative and other law making bodies and others.

A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, the American Bar Foundation and the Texas Bar Foundation, Ms. Stamer also shares her thought leadership, experience and advocacy on these and other related concerns by her service in the leadership of the Solutions Law Press, Inc. Coalition for Responsible Health Policy, its PROJECT COPE: Coalition on Patient Empowerment, and a broad range of other professional and civic organizations including North Texas Healthcare Compliance Association, a founding Board Member and past President of the Alliance for Healthcare Excellence, past Board Member and Board Compliance Committee Chair for the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas; former Board President of the early childhood development intervention agency, The Richardson Development Center for Children (now Warren Center For Children); current Vice Chair of the ABA Tort & Insurance Practice Section Employee Benefits Committee, current Vice Chair of Policy for the Life Sciences Committee of the ABA International Section, Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Section, a current Defined Contribution Plan Committee Co-Chair, former Group Chair and Co-Chair of the ABA RPTE Section Employee Benefits Group, past Representative and chair of various committees of ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits; an ABA Health Law Coordinating Council representative, former Coordinator and a Vice-Chair of the Gulf Coast TEGE Council TE Division, past Chair of the Dallas Bar Association Employee Benefits & Executive Compensation Committee, a former member of the Board of Directors of the Southwest Benefits Association and others.

For more information about Ms. Stamer or her health industry and other experience and involvements, see here or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (214) 452-8297 or via e-mail here.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

NOTICE: These statements and materials are for general informational and purposes only. They do not establish an attorney-client relationship, are not legal advice or an offer or commitment to provide legal advice, and do not serve as a substitute for legal advice. Readers are urged to engage competent legal counsel for consultation and representation in light of the specific facts and circumstances presented in their unique circumstance at any particular time. No comment or statement in this publication is to be construed as legal advise or an admission. The author reserves the right to qualify or retract any of these statements at any time. Likewise, the content is not tailored to any particular situation and does not necessarily address all relevant issues. Because the law is rapidly evolving and rapidly evolving rules makes it highly likely that subsequent developments could impact the currency and completeness of this discussion. The presenter and the program sponsor disclaim, and have no responsibility to provide any update or otherwise notify any participant of any such change, limitation, or other condition that might affect the suitability of reliance upon these materials or information otherwise conveyed in connection with this program. Readers may not rely upon, are solely responsible for, and assume the risk and all liabilities resulting from their use of this publication.

Comments Off on Court Ruling Obamacare Unconstitutional Leaves Obamacare Future Uncertain As Annual Enrollment Period Ends | 4980D, 4980H, 5000, 6039D, ACA, Affordable Care Act, Association Health Plan, Claims, Claims Administration, compensation, compliance, Consumer Protection, Corporate Compliance, EBSA, Employee Benefits, Employer, Employers, EMR, ERISA, Fiduciary Responsibility, Form 5500, health benefit, Health Benefits, health Care, Health Care Reform, health insurance, health insurance marketplace, health plan, Health Plans, health reform, HIPAA, HR, HSA, Human Resources, Insurance, insurers, Managed Care, Managment, Medicare Part D, Mental Health, Mental Health Parity, MEWA, Obamacare, Patient Empowerment, Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act, Patient Protection and Affordabel Care Act, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Physician, Plan Admistrator, PPO, Premium Subsidies, Prescription Drugs, preventive care, Protected Health Information, Provider, provider contracting, Reporting & Disclosure, Risk Management, SBC, Tax, Tax Credit, Tax Qualification, TCJA Tax Reform, third party administrators, Uncategorized, Wellness Programs, Worker Classification, Workers' Compensation, Workforce, zane benefits | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Finalize 2019 Withholding Prep In Light of Notice 2018-92

December 13, 2018

Employers should invite employees to update their Form W-4 withholding and finalize other 2019 payroll and income tax withholding arrangements based on guidance for 2019 published by the IRS and Treasury Department in Notice 2018-92 on November 26, 2018.

Many U.S. employers had delayed making changes to their income and payroll tax withholding pending the anticipated release by the IRS and Treasury Department of a revised Form W-4 and related income and payroll tax guidance updated to reflect changes to the Internal Revenue Code enacted as part of the Tax Cut and Jobs Act (P.L. 115-97)(“Trump Tax”) at the end of 2017.

Following the enactment of Trump Tax, most businesses have operated in reliance upon interim guidance published by the agencies at the beginning of the year to carryout their 2018 withholding obligations.

Until recently, the IRS and Treasury Department were expected to complete for use in 2019 the major overhaul of the Form W-4 and related guidance in response to the Trump Tax amendments to Sections 3402, 3405 and other Code rules. When the revision of the Form W-4 proved more complex than anticipated, however, the IRS and Treasury Department in September, 2018 announced that release of the newly designed and updated Form W-4 would be delayed from 2019 to 2020.

In Notice 2018-92, IRS and the Treasury Department provides interim guidance to employers and their workers on income tax withholding for 2019 pending agencies issuance of regulations implementing the changes, as well as requests comments on certain withholding procedures from concerned parties. For the most part, Notice 2018-92 continues the interim guidance that IRS and Treasury previously published for 2018. Specifically, Notice 2018-92:

Announces that the 2019 Form W-4 will be similar to the 2018 Form W-4,
Addresses new TCJA “withholding allowance” terminology,
Continues until April 30, 2019 Notice 2018-14’s temporary suspension of the requirement to furnish new Forms W-4 within 10 days for changes resulting solely from the TCJA,
Provides that, for 2019, the default rule when an employee fails to furnish a Form W-4 will continue to be single with zero withholding allowances,
Allows taxpayers to take into account the qualified business income deduction under section 199A to reduce withholding under section 3402(m),
Announces that the IRS and Treasury intend to update the regulations under section 3402 to explicitly allow taxpayers to use the online withholding calculator or Publication 505, Tax Withholding and Estimated Tax, in lieu of the worksheets to Form W-4,
Requests comments on alternative withholding methods under section 3402(h),
Announces that the IRS and the Treasury Department intend to eliminate the combined income tax withholding and employee FICA tax withholding tables under Treas. Reg. § 31.3402(h)(4)-1(b),
Modifies notification requirements for the withholding compliance program, and
Provides that for 2019, withholding on annuities or similar periodic payments where no withholding certificate is in effect is based on treating the payee as a married individual claiming 3 withholding allowances under § 3405(a)(4).

The Code generally requires employees that experience a change that reduces the number of withholding exemptions that the employee qualifies to claim to notify their employer and complete a new Form W-4 within 10 days of a specified event date. Interim relief published by the IRS and Treasury Department provides relief to workers whether the change in withholding eligibility results solely due to a Code change enacted as part of Trump Tax. Otherwise, however, employees generally still remain obligated to keep their withholding up-to-date. Since employees often are unaware of or overlook this responsibility, employers generally should encourage workers to review and update their Form W-4 withholding elections in connection with annual enrollment periods and in conjunction with other life or other changes likely to affect the withholding eligibility of the worker.

About the Author

Throughout her 30 plus year career, Ms. Stamer has continuously worked with these and other management clients to design, implement, document, administer and defend hiring, performance management, compensation, promotion, demotion, discipline, reduction in force and other workforce, employee benefit, insurance and risk management, health and safety, and other programs, products and solutions, and practices; establish and administer compliance and risk management policies; comply with requirements, investigate and respond to government, accreditation and quality organizations, regulatory and contractual audits, private litigation and other federal and state reviews, investigations and enforcement actions; evaluate and influence legislative and regulatory reforms and other regulatory and public policy advocacy; prepare and present training and discipline; handle workforce and related change management associated with mergers, acquisitions, reductions in force, re-engineering, and other change management; and a host of other workforce related concerns. Ms. Stamer’s experience in these matters includes supporting these organizations and their leaders on both a real-time, “on demand” basis with crisis preparedness, intervention and response as well as consulting and representing clients on ongoing compliance and risk management; plan and program design; vendor and employee credentialing, selection, contracting, performance management and other dealings; strategic planning; policy, program, product and services development and innovation; mergers, acquisitions, bankruptcy and other crisis and change management; management, and other opportunities and challenges arising in the course of workforce and other operations management to improve performance while managing workforce, compensation and benefits and other legal and operational liability and performance.

For more information about Ms. Stamer or her health industry and other experience and involvements, see here or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (214) 452-8297 or via e-mail here.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

NOTICE: These statements and materials are for general informational and purposes only. They do not establish an attorney-client relationship, are not legal advice or an offer or commitment to provide legal advice, and do not serve as a substitute for legal advice. Readers are urged to engage competent legal counsel for consultation and representation in light of the specific facts and circumstances presented in their unique circumstance at any particular time. No comment or statement in this publication is to be construed as legal advise or an admission. The author reserves the right to qualify or retract any of these statements at any time. Likewise, the content is not tailored to any particular situation and does not necessarily address all relevant issues. Because the law is rapidly evolving and rapidly evolving rules makes it highly likely that subsequent developments could impact the currency and completeness of this discussion. The presenter and the program sponsor disclaim, and have no responsibility to provide any update or otherwise notify any participant of any such change, limitation, or other condition that might affect the suitability of reliance upon these materials or information otherwise conveyed in connection with this program. Readers may not rely upon, are solely responsible for, and assume the risk and all liabilities resulting from their use of this publication.

Comments Off on Finalize 2019 Withholding Prep In Light of Notice 2018-92 | 105(h), 401(k), 4980D, 4980H, 6039D, board of directors, Brokers, Cafeteria Plans, compensation, compliance, Corporate Compliance, corporate governance, Defined Benefit Plans, defined contribution plan, Defined Contribution Plans, directors, EBSA, employee, Employee Benefits, Employer, Employment, Employment Tax, Excise Tax, Executive Compensation, Fringe Benefit, Health Benefits, health insurance, HR, HSA, Human Resources, Income Tax, Payroll Tax, Tax Credit, Tax Qualification, TCJA Tax Reform, Uncategorized | Tagged: Tax, Withholding | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Identity Theft Scan Targets Employee Tax Records

December 7, 2018

The Internal Revenue Service is warning human resources and other business leaders about a growing wave of identity theft and W-2 scams targeting sensitive tax data employers collect on their employees. The warning highlights one of the many growing data breach exposures businesses must manage as identity thieves become ever more sophisticated.

Such data like Form W-2 data – is highly valued by identity thieves. While identity thieves use a variety of tactics to steal this information including hacking into the IRS’ own systems, the IRS this week is warning about one scheme that the IRS says has become one of the more dangerous email scams.

All employers are targets for the W-2 scam, according to the IRS.

Here’s how it works:

These emails appear to be from an executive or organization leader to a payroll or human resources employee.
The message usually starts with a simple greeting, like: “Hey, you in today?”
By the end of the email exchange, all of an organization’s Forms W-2 for their employees may be in the hands of cybercriminals.
Because payroll officials believe they are corresponding with an executive, it may take weeks for someone to realize a data theft has occurred.
Generally, the criminals are trying to quickly take advantage of their theft, sometimes filing fraudulent tax returns a day or two.

The IRS warns this scam is such a threat to taxpayers that a special IRS reporting process has been established. The IRS says employers victimized should:

Email dataloss@irs.gov to notify the IRS of a W-2 data loss and provide contact information. In the subject line, type “W2 Data Loss” so that the email can be routed properly. The business should not attach any employee personally identifiable information data.
Email the Federation of Tax Administrators at StateAlert@taxadmin.org to get information on how to report victim information to the states.
File a complaint with the FBI’s Internet Crime Complaint Center. Businesses and payroll service providers may be asked to file a report with their local law enforcement agency.
Notify employees. The employee may then take steps to protect themselves from identity theft. The Federal Trade Commission’s www.identitytheft.govprovides guidance on general steps employees should take.
Forward the scam email to phishing@irs.gov.

The IRS also recommends the following resources:

Taxes. Security. Together.

Publication 4524

Protect Your Clients; Protect Yourself

Tax Security 101

The IRS alert reminds businesses again about the growing challenges they face guarding sensitive tax, health and other employee benefit plan and other data about employees, customers, business partners and others. Aside from the disruptions businesses incur to organizations and relationships with employees, customers, business partners or others and often tremendous costs of investigation and mitigation, breaches also commonly trigger substantial legal liability under a myriad of federal and state laws and regulations, contracts, and common law tort claims. Businesses generally and Human Resources, tax and other systems and operations should take well documented steps to prevent and prepare for a potential breach.

About the Author

Highly valued for her rare ability to find pragmatic client-centric solutions by combining her detailed legal and operational knowledge and experience with her talent for creative problem-solving and author of “What To Do When Your Employee’s Personal Life Becomes Your Business@ and a multitude of other highly regarded works on data protection and breach, her work includes career-long, leading edge involvement counseling and representing human resources, employee benefit, insurance and financial, tax, healthcare and other businesses about data and other sensitive information privacy and breach.

Throughout her 30 plus year career, Ms. Stamer has continuously worked with these and other management clients to design, implement, document, administer and defend hiring, performance management, compensation, promotion, demotion, discipline, reduction in force and other workforce, employee benefit, insurance and risk management, health and safety, and other programs, products and solutions, and practices; establish and administer compliance and risk management policies; comply with requirements, investigate and respond to government, accreditation and quality organizations, regulatory and contractual audits, private litigation and other federal and state reviews, investigations and enforcement actions; evaluate and influence legislative and regulatory reforms and other regulatory and public policy advocacy; prepare and present training and discipline; handle workforce and related change management associated with mergers, acquisitions, reductions in force, re-engineering, and other change management; and a host of other workforce related concerns. Ms. Stamer’s experience in these matters includes supporting these organizations and their leaders on both a real-time, “on demand” basis with crisis preparedness, intervention and response as well as consulting and representing clients on ongoing compliance and risk management; plan and program design; vendor and employee credentialing, selection, contracting, performance management and other dealings; strategic planning; policy, program, product and services development and innovation; mergers, acquisitions, bankruptcy and other crisis and change management; management, and other opportunities and challenges arising in the course of workforce and other operations management to improve performance while managing workforce, compensation and benefits and other legal and operational liability and performance.

For more information about Ms. Stamer or her health industry and other experience and involvements, see here or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (214) 452-8297 or via e-mail here.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

NOTICE: These statements and materials are for general informational and purposes only. They do not establish an attorney-client relationship, are not legal advice or an offer or commitment to provide legal advice, and do not serve as a substitute for legal advice. Readers are urged to engage competent legal counsel for consultation and representation in light of the specific facts and circumstances presented in their unique circumstance at any particular time. No comment or statement in this publication is to be construed as legal advise or an admission. The author reserves the right to qualify or retract any of these statements at any time. Likewise, the content is not tailored to any particular situation and does not necessarily address all relevant issues. Because the law is rapidly evolving and rapidly evolving rules makes it highly likely that subsequent developments could impact the currency and completeness of this discussion. The presenter and the program sponsor disclaim, and have no responsibility to provide any update or otherwise notify any participant of any such change, limitation, or other condition that might affect the suitability of reliance upon these materials or information otherwise conveyed in connection with this program. Readers may not rely upon, are solely responsible for, and assume the risk and all liabilities resulting from their use of this publication.

Comments Off on Identity Theft Scan Targets Employee Tax Records | ADA, Attorney-Client Privilege, Civil Rights, Claims Administration, Consumer Protection, Corporate Compliance, corporate governance, Cybercrime, Data Breach, Data Security, defined benefit plan, defined contribution plan, directors, Disability, Disability Plans, Discrimination, Educational Privacy, Employee Benefits, Employer, Employers, Employment, Employment Policies, Employment Tax, ERISA, fiduciary duty, Fiduciary Responsibility, Government Contractors, Identity Theft, Insurance, insurers, Non-Compete, Non-compete, Non-Competition Agreement, Protected Health Information, Retail, Tax, third party administrators, Trade secret, Uncategorized | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

DOJ Atrium Antitrust Litigation & Proposed Settlement Signal Potential Antitrust Risks For Health Plans, Providers Involved In Managed Care Contracts Restricting Steering, Other Competition

November 18, 2018

Self-insured employer and union sponsored health plans, health insurers and other health care payers, health care providers, managed care and practice management service providers and others structuring or working with preferred provider or other managed health care contracts should weigh the potential implications on their health plan provider agreements and managed care practices of the antitrust lawsuit jointly brought by the U.S. Department of Justice and the North Carolina Attorney General against North Carolina’s largest healthcare system, The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Hospital Authority d/b/a Atrium Health (“Atrium”) which challenges steering restrictions and other contractual protections of Atrium against competition from other contracted health care providers.

Court documents filed by the Justice Department with the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina on November 15, 2018, seek Court approval of a Joint Stipulation and Final Judgment (“Consent Decree”), which if approved by the Court, will resolve a civil antitrust lawsuit challenging Atrium’s practice of requiring and enforcing “steering restrictions” in its managed care provider agreements with commercial insurers, self-insured employer and union health plans and other private payer that prohibit the payers from steering patients to, or sharing information about other potentially more cost-effective competitor hospitals, physicians or other health care providers filed by the Justice Department in June, 2016. While the emphasis by the Justice Department of the market dominance of Atrium in the factual allegations contained in its complaint raise questions about whether the Justice Department would undertake similar litigation against less market dominant providers, the charges made by the Justice Department in its complaint and the agreement by Atrium to cease the challenged conduct nevertheless raise a substantial basis for concern by other health care providers and payers about their own potential antitrust risks from negotiating to include, including or enforcing a wide range of provider steering and other contractual provisions commonly included in many preferred provider contracts between health plans, insurers and their managed care organizations and the health care providers that contract to be participating providers for their health plan narrow network or other managed care provider panels.

It should be noted that steering, and commitments to steer and not to steer patients to various providers are a longstanding and key component of the structure of most preferred provider contracts used in the managed care industry. Steering refers to practices payers historically use to offer or encourage patients and other health care consumers to access care from health care providers that the payer perceives as a more cost effective provider. Historically, insurers promised to steer patients to health care providers contracting to become “preferred providers” to health plan members in return for health care provider’s agreement to provide care a preferred rates or in accordance with other health plan rules. With most health care providers now participating in provider networks, however, payers increasingly want to steer members to lower cost providers within the provider network to maximize savings and place pressure on higher cost participating providers to reduce rates. If the higher cost providers have most favored nation or other contractual safeguards like those in Atrium’s provider contracts, however, contractual barriers obstruct these efforts by payers. The insurers in Atrium used antitrust complaints filed with the Justice Department to attack these contractual barriers.

Formerly known as Carolinas HealthCare System, the dominant health care provider in the Charlotte, North Carolina area, and one of the largest not-for-profit healthcare systems in the United States, Atrium provides healthcare services throughout the Carolinas, including in hospitals, freestanding emergency departments, urgent care centers, physician practices, outpatient surgery centers, imaging centers, nursing homes, and laboratories. Atrium’s flagship facility is Carolinas Medical Center, the largest hospital in North Carolina. Atrium also operates eight other general acute-care hospitals in the Charlotte area and owns, manages, or has strategic affiliations with more than 40 hospitals in the Carolinas.

The Justice Department complaint filed on June 9, 2016 charges that Atrium violated federal antitrust law by using its dominant market power to force commercial payers to agree to include various steering and transparency restrictions in their managed care contracts with Atrium in a manner that illegally restricts competition in violation of federal antitrust laws. The challenged provisions include a series of promises historically included in many provider agreements such as provisions requiring that the private payer:

To steer plan members to participating providers;

Not to steer plan members away from participating providers;
To include Atrium providers in any new networks or preferential treatment afforded to any other contracting provider in new or all plans, products, networks and preferred provider classifications; and
Not to exclude from and/or to provide the provider with the right to receive any new preferences or rewards for being a preferred provider.

Although provider contracts historically have included many of these same provisions, the Justice Department in its lawsuit against Atrium charged that Atrium illegally used its dominant market position to negotiate managed care contracts paying higher reimbursement rates than other less dominant contracted providers received and used the challenged contract provisions to insulate itself against competition from other network providers offer care at more cost effective rates. The Justice Department contends the challenged provisions allow Atrium to continue to charge higher prices free from effective competition from other health care providers by prohibiting the private payers from steering patients to other health care providers and guaranteeing Atrium the most preferential treatment available even if its rates are not competitive with those of other providers enjoying the same status. In its Atrium complaint, the Justice Department asserts that Atrium’s steering restrictions harm payers and consumers in violation of federal antitrust laws by obstructing the ability of insurers to design health benefit plans that give patients financial incentives to choose more cost-effective hospitals and physicians. The Justice Department contends these actions by Atrium force health insurers not to encourage consumers to choose other healthcare providers that offer better overall value and from providing consumers and employers with information regarding the cost and quality of alternative health benefit plan.

More than two years after the Justice Department commenced the lawsuit, court documents filed with the Court by the Justice Department on November 15, 2018 reflect the parties now have agreed to settle the lawsuit. The Justice Department filed an unopposed motion that asks to enter a Consent Decree implementing the terms of a settlement which would preclude Atrium from seeking to negotiate or enforce a wide range of steering and transparency restrictions in existing or future preferred provider agreements. While Atrium would not pay any damages under the proposed Consent Degree, the proposed Consent Decree would:

Prohibit Atrium from seeking to negotiate, include or enforce steering or transparency restrictions in its provider agreements with private payers or otherwise seeking contract terms or taking actions that would prohibit, prevent, or penalize payers for steering or sharing information to promote transparency in the future in any Narrow Network Benefit Plan, Tiered Network Benefit Plan, or any Benefit Plan with Reference-Based Pricing or a Center of Excellence as a component in the Charlotte area; and
Void or restrict Atrium from enforcing certain specific existing steering and transparency restrictions in Atrium’s existing preferred provider agreements with various commercial insurers identified in exhibits to the Consent Decree except with respect to certain “carve out networks.”

If approved in its current form, the Consent Decree will both void a host of existing contractual safeguards currently included in Atrium’s existing provider contracts and affirmatively prohibit Atrium from seeking seek or enforce other safeguards insulating it from competition from other lower cost health care providers by defining “penalties” broadly to include any contract term or action with the likely effect of significantly restraining steering through steered plans or transparency under the facts and circumstances considering the contract provision or action; its economic impact; and the extent to which the contract provision or action has potential or actual procompetitive effects in the Charlotte Area.

Special rules applicable to Department of Justice antitrust settlements under the Tunney Act require the Justice Department to publish the proposed settlement to be implemented by the Consent Decree and the Department’s competitive impact statement in the Federal Register and allow a public comment period of 60 days before the court can approve the Consent Decree. Any person may submit written comments concerning the proposed settlement during a 60-day comment period to Peter J. Mucchetti, Chief, Healthcare and Consumer Products Section, Antitrust Division, U.S. Department of Justice, 450 Fifth Street, N.W., Suite 4100, Washington, D.C. 20530. After the comment period closes, the Court will consider the motion taking into account the comments and other factors it determines appropriate. Barring unforeseen circumstances, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina likely will approve the proposed consent decree upon finding that it serves the public interest.

Because the contractual provisions challenged as anti-competitive in the Atrium litigation are of a nature widely used within the managed care industry, health care providers, health insurers, self-insured employer and union health plans and their sponsors and others involved in the managed care industry should weigh the potential implications of the Atrium litigation and its anticipated resolution on their own provider contracting strategies and practices as well as those of their competitors.

Contractual provisions like those challenged in the Atrium litigation are widely used throughout the managed care industry. Steerage of patients to the participating provider and associated competitive protections historically has been the primary inducements and considerations that providers receive in return for agreeing to accept payer rates and other rules for a health care provider to qualify for inclusion on the payer’s provider panel. Consequently, provider contracts between payers and participating providers commonly include steering, transparency or other restrictions similar in function if not form to those contested in the Atrium litigation. Moreover, promises regarding steering are not limited to provider agreements between payers and providers. Insurers, preferred provider organizations and other managed care organization typically require employer, union or other health plan sponsors of health plans with preferred provider or other managed care features contractually to commit to design their health plans to incorporate features that steer plan members to use preferred providers and prohibit plan members from taking advantage of potentially lower cash or other rates that a participating provider might offer to patients choosing to circumvent the provider network to access care. Since the Atrium litigation raises questions about potential challenges to the enforceability and legality of similar steering and contractual provisions insulating contracted providers from competition health care providers and payers with or negotiating preferred provider contracts that contain anti-steering or other contractual provisions like those challenged in the Atrium litigation and the self-insured group health plans that contract to access provider networks using these contracts should weigh carefully the potential risks of participating in contractors or seeking to negotiate or enforce these provisions taking into account their own specific facts and circumstances and the current guidance within qualified legal counsel within the scope of attorney-client privilege.

While some might be tempted to assume from Atrium’s market dominance that the Atrium challenge and litigation challenges apply only to provider agreements involving providers with substantial market dominance in their region, this is not necessarily the case. Broader existing antitrust precedent concerning restraints on competition arguably provide some grounds for concern that the Justice Department or private litigants might seek to leverage the antitrust challenges raised in the Atrium litigation to challenge Atrium-like steering restrictions, most favored nation status and other similar clauses in preferred provider and other managed care agreements involving health care providers or others with a much smaller market share. Likewise, it remains whether evidence showing the insurer, rather than the provider, originally proposed the questioned provision could impact the risk or render the contracts more defensible.

Despite these and other questions about the extent to which the challenges raised to the Atrium contracts will be asserted, much less successfully litigated with respect to provider protections contained in other preferred provider agreements, those negotiating or involved in preferred provider agreements containing similar provisions should consider and monitor the potential risks and weigh their options for mitigating these risks. Among other things, it is important to keep in mind that antitrust violations carry potential civil and in some cases, even criminal violations, for participating or conspiring to participate in prohibited anticompetitive arrangements. Thus both payers and providers participating or contemplating participating in contracts or negotiation to interject the challenged provisions into their own provider agreements should weigh their actions carefully. Moreover, even when only civilly prosecuted, potential civil damages and defense costs often are substantial. Accordingly, while the Justice Department prosecution of Atrium was civil, rather than criminal in nature and the agreed upon Judgement presented to the Court to end the litigation does not require Atrium to pay any monetary damages, future plaintiffs should not assume that they would similarly avoid such damages in the event their own practices are successfully challenged. Consequently, health care providers, as well as health insurers, employer and union health plans and other private sector payers, and others participating in the negotiation or administration of, or competing in market regions with preferred provider agreements containing steering restrictions or other contractual provisions similar in form or function to those challenged in the Atrium litigation should seek specific legal advice about the potential implications of antitrust challenges raised in the Atrium Judgement on their practices and market situation and options for mitigating those risks.

About the Author

Past Chair of the ABA Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group and, a Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, the American Bar Foundation and the Texas Bar Foundation, Ms. Stamer has been continuously involved the design, regulation, administration and defense of managed care and other health care and health benefit arrangements, contracts, systems, and processes throughout her career. In addition to her extensive provider and payer contracting work, Ms. Stamer also is recognized for her knowledge, experience and leadership on health benefit, health care, health, financial and other information technology, data and related process and systems development, policy and operations throughout her career, and scribe of the ABA JCEB annual Office of Civil Rights agency meeting, Ms. Stamer also is widely recognized for her extensive work and leadership on leading edge health care and benefit policy and operational issues. Highly valued for her rare ability to find pragmatic client-centric solutions by combining her detailed legal and operational knowledge and experience with her talent for creative problem-solving, Ms. Stamer’s clients include employers and other workforce management organizations; employer, union, association, government and other insured and self-insured health and other employee benefit plan sponsors, benefit plans, fiduciaries, administrators, and other plan vendors; managed care organizations, insurers, self-insured health plans and other payers and their management; public and private, domestic and international hospitals, health care systems, clinics, skilled nursing, long term care, rehabilitation and other health care providers and facilities; medical staff, health care accreditation, peer review and quality committees and organizations; managed care organizations, insurers, third party administrative services organizations and other payer organizations; billing, utilization management, management services organizations; group purchasing organizations; pharmaceutical, pharmacy, and prescription benefit management and organizations; claims, billing and other health care and insurance technology and data service organizations; other health, employee benefit, insurance and financial services product and solutions consultants, developers and vendors; and other health, employee benefit, insurance, technology, government and other management clients.

A former lead consultant to the Government of Bolivia on its Pension Privatization Project with extensive domestic and international public policy concerns in pensions, healthcare, workforce, immigration, tax, education and other areas, Ms. Stamer has been extensively involved in U.S. federal, state and local health care and other legislative and regulatory reform impacting these concerns throughout her career. Her public policy and regulatory affairs experience encompassess advising and representing domestic and multinational private sector health, insurance, employee benefit, employer, staffing and other outsourced service providers, and other clients in dealings with Congress, state legislatures, and federal, state and local regulators and government entities, as well as providing advice and input to U.S. and foreign government leaders on these and other policy concerns.

As a key part of this work, Ms. Stamer throughout her career regularly has worked with health care providers and payers, employer and other health benefit plan sponsors and vendors, health industry, insurers, health IT, life sciences and other health and insurance industry clients design, document and enforce managed care and other contracts, benefit plans and insurance arrangements, practices, policies, systems and solutions; manage regulatory, contractual and other legal and operational compliance; vendors, supplier, and patient and member relations and requirements; deal with Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, Medicare/Medicaid Advantage, ERISA, state insurance law and other private payer rules and requirements; contracting; licensing; terms of participation; medical billing, reimbursement, claims administration and coordination, and other provider-payer relations; reporting and disclosure, government investigations and enforcement, privacy and data security; and other compliance and enforcement; Form 990 and other nonprofit and tax-exemption; fundraising, investors, joint venture, and other business partners; quality and other performance measurement, management, discipline and reporting; physician and other workforce recruiting, performance management, peer review and other investigations and discipline, wage and hour, payroll, gain-sharing and other pay-for performance and other compensation, training, outsourcing and other human resources and workforce matters; board, medical staff and other governance; strategic planning, process and quality improvement; HIPAA administrative simplification, meaningful use, EMR, HIPAA and other technology, data security and breach and other health IT and data; STARK, antikickback, insurance, and other fraud prevention, investigation, defense and enforcement; audits, investigations, and enforcement actions; trade secrets and other intellectual property; crisis preparedness and response; internal, government and third-party licensure, credentialing, accreditation, HCQIA, HEDIS and other peer review and quality reporting, audits, investigations, enforcement and defense; patient relations and care; internal controls and regulatory compliance; payer-provider, provider-provider, vendor, patient, governmental and community relations; facilities, practice, products and other sales, mergers, acquisitions and other business and commercial transactions; government procurement and contracting; grants; tax-exemption and not-for-profit; 1557 and other Civil Rights; privacy and data security; training; risk and change management; regulatory affairs and public policy; process, product and service improvement, development and innovation, and other legal and operational compliance and risk management, government and regulatory affairs and operations concerns.

A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, the American Bar Foundation and the Texas Bar Foundation, Ms. Stamer also shares her thought leadership, experience and advocacy on these and other related concerns by her service in the leadership of the Solutions Law Press, Inc. Coalition for Responsible Health Policy, its PROJECT COPE: Coalition on Patient Empowerment, and a broad range of other professional and civic organizations including North Texas Healthcare Compliance Association, a founding Board Member and past President of the Alliance for Healthcare Excellence, past Board Member and Board Compliance Committee Chair for the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas; former Board President of the early childhood development intervention agency, The Richardson Development Center for Children (now Warren Center For Children); current Vice Chair of the ABA Tort & Insurance Practice Section Employee Benefits Committee, current Vice Chair of Policy for the Life Sciences Committee of the ABA International Section, Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Section, a current Defined Contribution Plan Committee Co-Chair, former Group Chair and Co-Chair of the ABA RPTE Section Employee Benefits Group, past Representative and chair of various committees of ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits; a ABA Health Law Coordinating Council representative, former Coordinator and a Vice-Chair of the Gulf Coast TEGE Council TE Division, past Chair of the Dallas Bar Association Employee Benefits & Executive Compensation Committee, a former member of the Board of Directors of the Southwest Benefits Association and others.

For more information about Ms. Stamer or her health industry and other experience and involvements, see here or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (214) 452-8297 or via e-mail here.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

NOTICE: These statements and materials are for general informational and purposes only. They do not establish an attorney-client relationship, are not legal advice or an offer or commitment to provide legal advice, and do not serve as a substitute for legal advice. Readers are urged to engage competent legal counsel for consultation and representation in light of the specific facts and circumstances presented in their unique circumstance at any particular time. No comment or statement in this publication is to be construed as legal advise or an admission. The author reserves the right to qualify or retract any of these statements at any time. Likewise, the content is not tailored to any particular situation and does not necessarily address all relevant issues. Because the law is rapidly evolving and rapidly evolving rules makes it highly likely that subsequent developments could impact the currency and completeness of this discussion. The presenter and the program sponsor disclaim, and have no responsibility to provide any update or otherwise notify any participant of any such change, limitation, or other condition that might affect the suitability of reliance upon these materials or information otherwise conveyed in connection with this program. Readers may not rely upon, are solely responsible for, and assume the risk and all liabilities resulting from their use of this publication.

Comments Off on DOJ Atrium Antitrust Litigation & Proposed Settlement Signal Potential Antitrust Risks For Health Plans, Providers Involved In Managed Care Contracts Restricting Steering, Other Competition | Antitrust, health Care, Health Plans, Managed Care, PPO, provider contracting, Uncategorized | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

ADEA Age Discrimination Ban Applies To All State & Local Government Employers

November 6, 2018

State and local political subdivisions employing fewer than 20 employees should reconfirm the defensibility of their employment policies and practices under the Age Discrimination and Employment Act (ADEA) and the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and various other laws in light of the unanimous[1] ruling issued this morning by the United State Supreme Court holding that the ADEA applies to all state and local political subdivisions regardless of size.

In its ruling in Mount Lemmon Fire District v. Guido, – U.S. -, 2018 WL 5794639 (November 6, 2018) released this morning, the United States Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the ADEA applies to all state and local subdivisions regardless of the number of employees the political subdivision employs.

The Supreme Court’s ruling arose from an ADEA lawsuit brought by John Guido and Dennis Rankin against a small Arizona fire department, the Mount Lemmon Fire District (District) challenging their layoff by the District. Faced with a budget shortfall, the District laid off Guido and Rankin, who at the time were the District’s two oldest full-time firefighters. Guido and Rankin sued the Fire District, alleging that their termination violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), 81 Stat. 602, as amended, 29 U. S. C. §621 et seq. The Fire District sought dismissal of the suit on the ground that the District was too small to qualify as an “employer” within the ADEA’s compass.

In response to Guido and Rankin’s lawsuit, the District asserted that was not covered by the ADEA because its employment of fewer than 20 employees rendered it “too small” to qualify as an “employer” as defined by 29 U. S. C. §630(b). In its ruling against the Fire District this morning, the Supreme Court rejected this numerosity defense, holding instead that the ADEA applies to all political subdivisions regardless of the size of their workforce.

In the unanimous opinion authored by Justice Ginsburg, the Supreme Court pointed out that the ADEA definition of “employer” distinguishes between private sector employers and State and local political subdivisions. The Supreme Court noted that before 1974, State and local political subdivisions were exempt from the ADEA. In 1974, however, Congress added a special definition of “employer” for States and political subdivisions to the ADEA and FLSA when it amended the ADEA and FLSA to apply to all State and local government employers regardless of their size. Thus, since 1974, the ADEA and FLSA definitions of “employer” have read as follows:

“The term ‘employer’ means a person engaged in an industry affecting commerce who has twenty or more employees . . . . The term also means (1) any agent of such a person, and (2) a State or political subdivision of a State . . . .” 29 U. S. C. §630(b); 29 U. S. C. §203(d), (x).

In construing this definition, the Supreme Court weighed whether the phrase “also means” added new categories to the definition of “employer” or merely clarified that States and their political subdivisions are a type of “person” included in §630(b)’s first sentence. While acknowledging that various Courts of Appeals previously have reached differing conclusions concerning the appropriate interpretation, the Supreme Court ruled that the phase “also means” added a new category to the definition of “employer” for purposes of the ADEA. Accordingly, the Supreme Court rejected the District’s claim that the ADEA definition of “employer” includes the requirement of employment of at least 20 employees applicable to the ADEA’s private sector definition of “employer. Accordingly, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the ADEA applies to all State and local political subdivisions.

In light of the Supreme Court’s ruling, any State or local subdivision that has operated in reliance upon the now discredited interpretations of the ADEA or FLSA definitions of “employer” as applicable only to State or local governmental entities employing at least 20 employees immediately should take all necessary corrective action to bring their policies into compliance with the ADEA and FLSA. These governmental entities also should seek the advice of qualified legal counsel about the advisability of taking any retrospective action to self-correct any potential past deficiencies in compliance, if any, for which the entity might bear potential liability to the extent that the applicable state of limitations has not run on those claims.

[1] Justice Kavanaugh did not join in the opinion as he took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.

About the Author

Throughout her 30 plus year career, Ms. Stamer has continuously worked with these and other management clients to design, implement, document, administer and defend hiring, performance management, compensation, promotion, demotion, discipline, reduction in force and other workforce, employee benefit, insurance and risk management, health and safety, and other programs, products and solutions, and practices; establish and administer compliance and risk management policies; comply with requirements, investigate and respond to government, accreditation and quality organizations, regulatory and contractual audits, private litigation and other federal and state reviews, investigations and enforcement actions; evaluate and influence legislative and regulatory reforms and other regulatory and public policy advocacy; prepare and present training and discipline; handle workforce and related change management associated with mergers, acquisitions, reductions in force, re-engineering, and other change management; and a host of other workforce related concerns. Ms. Stamer’s experience in these matters includes supporting these organizations and their leaders on both a real-time, “on demand” basis with crisis preparedness, intervention and response as well as consulting and representing clients on ongoing compliance and risk management; plan and program design; vendor and employee credentialing, selection, contracting, performance management and other dealings; strategic planning; policy, program, product and services development and innovation; mergers, acquisitions, bankruptcy and other crisis and change management; management, and other opportunities and challenges arising in the course of workforce and other operations management to improve performance while managing workforce, compensation and benefits and other legal and operational liability and performance.

For more information about Ms. Stamer or her health industry and other experience and involvements, see here or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (214) 452-8297 or via e-mail here.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

NOTICE: These statements and materials are for general informational and purposes only. They do not establish an attorney-client relationship, are not legal advice or an offer or commitment to provide legal advice, and do not serve as a substitute for legal advice. Readers are urged to engage competent legal counsel for consultation and representation in light of the specific facts and circumstances presented in their unique circumstance at any particular time. No comment or statement in this publication is to be construed as legal advise or an admission. The author reserves the right to qualify or retract any of these statements at any time. Likewise, the content is not tailored to any particular situation and does not necessarily address all relevant issues. Because the law is rapidly evolving and rapidly evolving rules makes it highly likely that subsequent developments could impact the currency and completeness of this discussion. The presenter and the program sponsor disclaim, and have no responsibility to provide any update or otherwise notify any participant of any such change, limitation, or other condition that might affect the suitability of reliance upon these materials or information otherwise conveyed in connection with this program. Readers may not rely upon, are solely responsible for, and assume the risk and all liabilities resulting from their use of this publication.

Comments Off on ADEA Age Discrimination Ban Applies To All State & Local Government Employers | adea, Age Discrimination, board of directors, compliance, Corporate Compliance, corporate governance, directors, Discrimination, EBSA, Education, EEOC, employee, Employee Benefits, Employee Handbook, Employers, Employment, Employment Discrimination, Employment Policies, Exempt, Fair Labor Standards Act, FLSA, Government Accountability, government employer, government plan, HR, Human Resources, Insurance, Labor Management Relations, Leadership, Management, Managment, officers, Overtime, Restructuring, retirement plan, Retirement Plans, Retirements, Risk Management, Schools, Supreme Court, Uncategorized | Tagged: #agediscrimination, #mountlemmon #adea, #schooldistrict #publichospital #firedepartment #publicschool #university #publichealth, Mount Lemmon | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Plan Ahead to Celebrate National Apprenticeship Week 11/12-18

November 1, 2018

The U.S. Department of Labor is encouraging employers and communities to prepare to celebrate the 4th Annual National Apprenticeship Week is coming up November 12-18, 2018 by hosting or participating in an event.

National Apprenticeship Week (NAW) is a national celebration that offers leaders in business, labor, education, and other critical partners a chance to demonstrate their support for apprenticeship. NAW also gives apprenticeship sponsors the opportunity to showcase their programs, facilities, and apprentices in their community. The week-long event highlights the benefits of apprenticeship in preparing a highly-skilled workforce to meet the talent needs of employers across diverse industries.

Comments Off on Plan Ahead to Celebrate National Apprenticeship Week 11/12-18 | Uncategorized | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

CMS Hosts 11/6 Health Plan EDGE Server Webinar for Insurers & TPAs

November 1, 2018

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Servhces (CMS) will conduct a webinar session on the EDGE Server 29.0 Maintenance Release Detail and Global Reference Data Updates on Tuesday, November 6, 2018 from 11:30 a.m. – 12:30 p.m. ET.

CMS will conduct this session using two (2)-way audio conferencing for

Health Insurance Issuers of Marketplace and Non-Marketplace Plans § Amazon and On-Premise EDGE server Issuers

Health Plan Third Party Administrators (TPAs)

Register here at least 24 hours prior to the scheduled session.

Comments Off on CMS Hosts 11/6 Health Plan EDGE Server Webinar for Insurers & TPAs | Uncategorized | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Maintaining Current Enterprise Wide Security Risk Assessment Critical To Managing HIPAA Security Rule & Other Breach Risks

October 17, 2018

Following on the heels of Monday’s announcement that Anthem, Inc. is paying a record setting $16 million to resolve charges its violations of the enterprise risk assessment and other requirements of the Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act (HIPAA) Security Rule allowed cybercriminals to breach the electronic protected health information (ePHI) of more than 79 million patients, physicians and other health care providers, health plans and health insurers, health care clearinghouses (covered entities) and their service providers acting as their business associates (business associates) (hereafter collectively “HIPAA Entities”) should reconfirm their own and their business associates’ compliance with the HIPAA Security Rule’s enterprise risk assessment and other ePHI security requirements. In addition, employer, union, association and other health plan sponsors and fiduciaries should consider incorporating enterprise risk assessments of their health plans and its vendors as well as specific contractual assurance requirements into their business associate agreements to help mitigate their health plan related liabilities and risks.

When conducting these assessments, HIPAA Entities generally will want to ensure that their new enterprise risk assessment documents their consideration of the newly updated Security Risk Assessment (SRA) Tool jointly announced yesterday (October 16, 2018) by the Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC) and OCR, lessons shared in OCR’s $16 million Anthem, Inc. resolution agreement, $5.55 million resolution agreement with Memorial Healthcare System and other OCR HIPAA resolution agreements, civil monetary penalty assessments and other Security Rule guidance, as well as other emergent internal and external data suggesting potential susceptibilities of their own systems and data to breach or loss.

HIPAA Entities are reminded that HIPAA requires that all HIPAA covered entities and business associates to conduct an accurate and thorough assessment of the potential risks and vulnerabilities to the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of electronic protected health information held by their organization. Any HIPAA Entity that hasn’t already conducted a recent, appropriately documented enterprise wide risk analysis or updated their analysis in response to changes in equipment, vendors or emerging threats and developments should do so as soon as possible.

HIPAA’s requirement that HIPAA entities conduct and maintain an appropriately comprehensive and timely updated enterprise-wide risk analysis of potential security threats to ePHI both an affirmative requirement of the HIPAA Security Rule and an indispensable process to help healthcare organizations understand their security posture to prevent, detect, respond to and mitigate potential legal, operational and reputational costs that commonly result when ePHI or other sensitive information is breached or destroyed.

The importance of HIPAA entities having and being able to produce in the event of a breach or OCR audit an up-to-date, comprehensively enterprise risk assessment and response plan cannot be overstated. Beyond OCR’s publication of extensive regulatory guidance and educational outreach discussing the responsibility to conduct and maintain documentation of appropriate enterprise risk assessments, virtually every announced HIPAA Security Rule civil monetary penalty assessment and other enforcement action identifies violation of the HIPAA Security Rule’s enterprise risk assessment requirements among the material transgressions committed and required to be corrected by HIPAA entities like Anthem, Inc. subjected to Security Rule enforcement.

The updated SRA Tool jointly released by OCR and ONC on October 16, 2018 further reinforces the importance of complying with the enterprise wide risk assessment requirement while simultaneously encouraging and facilitating compliance by small to medium sized health care practices. Particularly designed with an eye to helping health care providers that work as solo practitioners or in groups with 10 or less health care providers and their business associates identify risks and vulnerabilities to ePHI, OCR says the updated SRA Tool “provides enhanced functionality to document how such organizations can implement or plan to implement appropriate security measures to protect ePHI” and incorporates new features to make the tool “more user friendly.” New features OCR hopes will make the SRA tool more user friendly include:

Enhanced User Interface
Modular workflow with question branching logic
Custom Assessment Logic
Progress Tracker
Improved Threats & Vulnerabilities Rating
Detailed Reports
Business Associate and Asset Tracking
Overall improvement of the user experience

HIPAA Entities should take note, however, that as of its October 16, 2018 released date, the updated version of the SRA Tool currently is only available in Windows format. OCR has indicated that the OCR and ONC have not yet updated the OS iPad version of the previously published version of the SRA Tool. While the previous OS iPad version remains available at the Apple App Store exit disclaimer icon (search under “HHS SRA Tool”), HIPAA Entities that presently use or plan to use the OS iPad tool should consider comparing the prior tool against the updated Windows SRA Tool to verify the continued suitability of its continued use and any adjustments in understanding or application that might be warranted by these differences. Additionally, HIPAA Entities also should review the revised User Guide available on the SRA Tool’s website before starting the assessment.

While the SRA Tool provides valuable guidance to help HIPAA Entities to conduct their own enterprise wide risk assessment, HIPAA Entities should keep in mind that the responsibility to assess their enterprise wide risk and to update their security safeguards to respond to these risks is a continuous one. While using the SRA Tool is an excellent starting point for beginning this assessment, HIPAA Entities need to realize that OCR expects HIPAA Entities to tailor their assessments to identify and respond to the full range of risks and exposures to their ePHI and associated systems and to constantly reevaluate and adjust these assessments in response to emerging system and ePHI threats identified in the course of their operations as well as external developments suggesting previously unidentified or inadequately appreciated threats. Moreover, in addition to conducting the risk assessment, OCR regulatory guidance and guidance drawn from OCR’s civil monetary settlements resolution agreements and other enforcement and audit activities also make clear that in addition to conducting the enterprise wide risk analysis, HIPAA entities also need to be prepared to produce documentation that their organizations took appropriate and timely action to address the risks identified in the risk assessment in accordance with the HIPAA Security Rule.

In addition to mitigate their exposure to potentially substantial HIPAA civil monetary penalties for violating the HIPAA Security Rule, HIPAA Entities also should keep in mind the potential role that their conduct and maintenance of appropriately comprehensive enterprise wide security risk assessments can play in helping to mitigate other legal, financial, operational and reputational risks that commonly also arise along with the HIPAA exposures associated with a breach of HIPAA. In addition to HIPAA’s Security Rules for ePHI, HIPAA Entities typically also are subject to a hodgepodge of non-HIPAA statutory, regulatory and/or contractual obligations to safeguard patient, employee, business partners and other individual, financial, health, tax, peer review and credentialing, trade secrets and other confidential information against improper use, access, destruction or disclosure. Examples of such obligations include the privacy and data security rules of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transaction Act (FACTA), the Internal Revenue Code and other tax laws, federal and state consumer debt and information, electronic crime, data security and identity theft statutes; federal and state trade secret and intellectual property laws; and others, for which violations often equal or substantially exceed the civil monetary penalty liability that commonly arise under the HIPAA Security Rule. The experience of Anthem, Inc. illustrates this point. While the $16 million resolution payment that OCR announced Anthem, Inc. is paying to resolve its HIPAA civil monetary penalty exposures for allowing the breach of the ePHI of 79 million individuals, this payment reflects only a very small portion of the overall liability that Anthem, Inc. incurred from data breach that lead to this resolution payment. Anthem, Inc. also separately already reportedly also has paid more than $115 million to settle other statutory and contractual liabilities arising from the breach separate as well as substantial investigatory and defense costs in addition to the HIPAA liabilities settled under the resolution agreement announced Monday. Other HIPAA Entities subjected to HIPAA civil monetary penalties or paying resolution payments to OCR also typically also have incurred substantial non-HIPAA sanctions and settlements, as well as other defense, investigation, operational and reputational losses as a result of their breaches. HIPAA Entities should strive to ensure that their HIPAA enterprise wide risk assessment and compliance efforts are properly coordinated and administered to manage these overall risks and responsibilities in addition to their HIPAA-specific responsibilities and liabilities.

Beyond these generally applicable breach related risks, health plan sponsors and fiduciaries also need to be concerned about potential fiduciary responsibility obligations of fiduciaries under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, plan and employer confidentiality requirements under the Internal Revenue Code, and other legal or contractual obligations to participants or employees, indemnification obligations to vendors and operational and trust disruptions that can result from a breach of sensitive health plan data or associated systems or records. Meanwhile, third party administrators, insurers, brokers, consultants, accountants and other vendors also typically face their own unique their own unique licensure, ethics and contractual responsibilities.

Because enterprise wide risk assessments and discussions of their structuring, scope and findings are likely to produce legally sensitive evidence, HIPAA Entities are encouraged to seek the advice of qualified and suitably experienced legal counsel about the advisability of conducting all or certain aspects of an enterprise wide risk analysis and their documentation of their risk evaluation and response to take advantage of possible attorney-client privilege, work-product or other evidentiary rules before or throughout the risk assessment and response process and deliberations.

About The Author

A practicing attorney and Managing Shareholder of Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, P.C, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer’s more than 30 years’ of leading edge work as an practicing attorney, author, lecturer and industry and policy thought leader have resulted in her recognition as a “Top” attorney in employee benefits, labor and employment and health care law.

Board certified in labor and employment law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, a Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, Scribe for the American Bar Association (ABA) Joint Committee on Employee Benefits (JCEB) Annual Agency Meeting with the Office of Civil Rights and a former JCEB Council Representative; former Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group; and past Chair, former Welfare Benefit Committee Co-Chair and current Fiduciary Responsibility Committee Co-Chair of the American Bar Association (ABA) RPTE Section Employee Benefits Group, former Vice Chair of the ABA Tort & Insurance Practice Section Employee Benefits Committee, Ms. Stamer is recognized nationally and internationally for her practical and creative insights and leadership on HIPAA and other health care, managed care and insurance, and other employee benefit, human resources, and related antitrust, corporate, privacy and data security, tax and other internal controls, regulatory affairs and public policy concerns.

Ms. Stamer’s legal and management consulting work throughout her career has focused on helping organizations and their management use the law and process to manage people, process, compliance, operations and risk. Highly valued for her rare ability to find pragmatic client-centric solutions by combining her detailed legal and operational knowledge and experience with her talent for creative problem-solving, Ms. Stamer helps public and private, domestic and international health, insurance and financial security, and other businesses, governments, and other organizations and their leaders manage their employees, vendors and suppliers, and other workforce members, customers and other’ performance, compliance, compensation and benefits, operations, risks and liabilities, as well as to prevent, stabilize and cleanup legal and operational crises large and small that arise in the course of operations.

In this respect, Ms. Stamer works with businesses and their management, employee benefit plans, governments and other organizations deal with all aspects of human resources and workforce, regulatory compliance and operational and performance management. She supports her clients both on a real time, “on demand” basis and with longer term basis to deal with daily performance management and operations, emerging crises, strategic planning, process improvement and change management, investigations, defending litigation, audits, investigations or other enforcement challenges, government affairs and public policy.

Well known for her extensive work with health care, insurance and other highly regulated entities on corporate compliance, internal controls and risk management, her clients range from highly regulated entities like employers, contractors and their employee benefit plans, their sponsors, management, administrators, insurers, fiduciaries and advisors, technology and data service providers, health care, managed care and insurance, financial services, government contractors and government entities, as well as retail, manufacturing, construction, consulting and a host of other domestic and international businesses of all types and sizes.

As a key part of this work, Ms. Stamer uses her deep and highly specialized health, insurance, labor and employment and other knowledge and experience to help health industry, insurance and financial services and other employers and other employee benefit plan sponsors; health, pension and other employee benefit plans, their fiduciaries, administrators and service providers, insurers, and others design legally compliant, effective compliance and internal controls, risk management, human resources and other workforce performance, discipline, compensation, employee benefits and related programs, products and arrangements.

In the course of this work, Ms. Stamer has accumulated an impressive resume of experience advising and representing clients on HIPAA and other privacy and data security concerns. The scribe for the American Bar Association (ABA) Joint Committee on Employee Benefits annual agency meeting with the Department of Health & Human Services Office of Civil Rights for several years, Ms. Stamer has worked extensively with health plans, health care providers, health care clearinghouses, their business associates, employer and other sponsors, banks and other financial institutions, and others on risk management and compliance with HIPAA and other information privacy and data security rules, investigating and responding to known or suspected breaches, defending investigations or other actions by plaintiffs, OCR and other federal or state agencies, reporting known or suspected violations, business associate and other contracting, commenting or obtaining other clarification of guidance, training and enforcement, and a host of other related concerns. Her clients include public and private health plans, health insurers, health care providers, banking, technology and other vendors, and others. Beyond advising these and other clients on privacy and data security compliance, risk management, investigations and data breach response and remediation, Ms. Stamer also advises and represents clients on OCR and other HHS, Department of Labor, IRS, FTC, DOD and other health care industry investigation, enforcement and other compliance, public policy, regulatory, staffing, and other operations and risk management concerns. She also is the author of numerous highly acclaimed publications, workshops and tools for HIPAA or other compliance including training programs on Privacy & The Pandemic for the Association of State & Territorial Health Plans, as well as HIPAA, FACTA, PCI, medical confidentiality, insurance confidentiality and other privacy and data security compliance and risk management for Los Angeles County Health Department, ISSA, HIMMS, the ABA, SHRM, schools, medical societies, government and private health care and health plan organizations, their business associates, trade associations and others.

Ms. Stamer also is deeply involved in helping to influence the health care, workforce, insurance and financial services, employee benefit, privacy and data security and other federal, state and local laws, regulations and enforcement actions. She both helps her clients respond to and resolve emerging regulations and laws, government investigations and enforcement actions and helps them shape the rules through dealings with Congress and other legislatures, regulators and government officials domestically and internationally. A former lead consultant to the Government of Bolivia on its Social Security reform law and most recognized for her leadership on U.S. health and pension, wage and hour, tax, education and immigration policy reform, Ms. Stamer works with U.S. and foreign businesses, governments, trade associations, and others on workforce, social security and severance, health care, immigration, privacy and data security, tax, ethics and other laws and regulations. Founder and Executive Director of the Coalition for Responsible Healthcare Policy and its PROJECT COPE: the Coalition on Patient Empowerment and a Fellow in the American Bar Foundation and State Bar of Texas. She also works as a policy advisor and advocate to health, insurance and financial services, employee benefits and other business, professional and civic organizations.

Author of the thousands of publications and workshops these and other employment, employee benefits, health care, insurance, workforce and other management matters, Ms. Stamer also is a highly sought out speaker and industry thought leader known for empowering audiences and readers. Ms. Stamer’s insights on employee benefits, insurance, health care and workforce matters in Atlantic Information Services, The Bureau of National Affairs (BNA), InsuranceThoughtLeaders.com, Benefits Magazine, Employee Benefit News, Texas CEO Magazine, HealthLeaders, Modern Healthcare, Business Insurance, Employee Benefits News, World At Work, Benefits Magazine, the Wall Street Journal, the Dallas Morning News, the Dallas Business Journal, the Houston Business Journal, and many other publications. She also has served as an Editorial Advisory Board Member for human resources, employee benefit and other management focused publications of BNA, HR.com, Employee Benefit News, InsuranceThoughtLeadership.com and many other prominent publications. Ms. Stamer also regularly serves on the faculty and planning committees for symposia of LexisNexis, the American Bar Association, ALIABA, the Society of Employee Benefits Administrators, the American Law Institute, ISSA, HIMMs, and many other prominent educational and training organizations and conducts training and speaks on these and other management, compliance and public policy concerns.

Ms. Stamer also has a lifelong history of involvement with and service with a diverse range of professional, community and charitable organizations and causes including as founder and Executive Director of the Coalition for Responsible Health Care Policy and its PROJECT COPE: Coalition for Patient Empowerment; technical advisor to the National Physicians’ Council for Health Care Policy; a founding Board Member and President of the Alliance for Healthcare Excellence and its Patient Empowerment and Health Care Heroes Projects; a Board Member and Board Compliance Committee Chair for the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas; the Board President of the early childhood development intervention agency, The Richardson Development Center for Children; a member of the Dallas United Way Long Range Planning Committee; as well as leadership involvement in the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits Council, the North Texas Healthcare Compliance Professionals Association; the ABA RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Committee, the ABA Health Law Section, the ABA International Section Life Sciences Committee, and the ABA TIPS Employee Benefit Committee; TEGE Coordinator of the Gulf Coast TEGE Council TE Division; Chair of the Dallas Bar Association Employee Benefits & Executive Compensation Committee; a member of the Board of Directors of the Southwest Benefits Association; Dallas, Regional and State BACPAC Chair of the Texas Association of Business; SHRM Regional Chair and National Advisory Board Chair; WEB Network of Benefits Professionals National and Dallas Boards; as a contributing author and the Advisory Board member of the BNA EBCD CD, InsuranceThoughtLeadership.com, HR.com, Employee Benefit News, and many other publications and as chair or planning faculty of a multitude of symposia.. For additional information about Ms. Stamer, see www.cynthiastamer.com, or contact Ms. Stamer via email here or via telephone to (214) 452.8297.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Comments Off on Maintaining Current Enterprise Wide Security Risk Assessment Critical To Managing HIPAA Security Rule & Other Breach Risks | ADA, Association Health Plan, Cybercrime, Employer, Employers, health insurance, health insurance marketplace, health plan, Health Plans, HIPAA, HIPAA, Identity Theft, Uncategorized | Tagged: Data Breach, HIPAA Security | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Record $16M Anthem HIPAA Settlement Signals Need to Tighten Your Health Plan HIPAA Compliance & Risk Management

October 16, 2018

Health plans, their employer and other sponsors and fiduciaries, health insurers, health care providers, health care clearinghouses and their business associates should study and learn from the just announced, record-setting $16 million resolution agreement between health insurance giant, Anthem, Inc., to resolve Department of Health & Human Services Office of Civil Rights (OCR) charges that Anthem, Inc.’s violations of the Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act (HIPAA) Privacy and Security Rules exposed the electronic protected health information (ePHI) of almost 79 million people. In addition to reviewing the adequacy of their own HIPAA privacy and security practices, health plans, their employer and union sponsors and fiduciaries also should consider assessing the advisability of tightening their business associate and other agreements with health insurers, third party administrative services providers and other vendors in light of the resolution agreement and experiences arising out of the Anthem breach to better position themselves to assess and enforce HIPAA compliance, receive notice and respond in the event of an insurer or other vendor breach and mitigate financial costs and liabilities resulting from breaches or other compliance deficiencies.

Anthem’s Record Setting HIPAA Breach & Resolution Agreement

The settlement agreement announced October 15, 2018 by OCR requires Anthem, Inc. to pay a $16 million resolution payment to OCR and take a series of corrective actions to resolve HIPAA liabilities to OCR for allowing the largest known U.S. health data breach in history in 2015. The record $16 million resolution payment eclipses the prior record resolution payment of $5.55 million Memorial Healthcare System (MHS) paid OCR to settle HIPAA charges in 2016. Moreover, the $16 million resolution payment it’s just a small portion of the amount that Anthem has been required to shell out as a consequence of the breach. In addition to the $16 million paid under the OCR resolution agreement, anthem already has paid more than $115 million to settle lawsuits arising out of the breach under other laws.

An independent licensee of the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association and one of the nation’s largest health benefits companies, Anthem provides medical care coverage to one in eight Americans through its affiliated health plans. The breach that resulted in the settlement agreement affected ePHI Anthem maintained for its affiliated health plans including many employer or union sponsored self-insured and insured group health plans and other HIPAA-covered entity health plans.

On March 13, 2015, Anthem filed a breach report with the HHS Office for Civil Rights that disclosed that Anthem discovered on January 29, 2015 that cyber-attackers had gained access to and engaged in continuous and targeted cyberattack on Anthem’s IT system for the apparent purpose of extracting data, otherwise known as an advanced persistent threat attack. After filing its breach report, Anthem discovered cyber-attackers had infiltrated their system through spear phishing emails sent to an Anthem subsidiary after at least one employee responded to the malicious email and opened the door to further attacks. OCR’s investigation revealed that between December 2, 2014 and January 27, 2015, the cyber-attackers stole the ePHI of almost 79 million individuals, including names, social security numbers, medical identification numbers, addresses, dates of birth, email addresses, and employment information.

In addition to the impermissible disclosure of ePHI, OCR’s investigation revealed that Anthem failed to conduct an enterprise-wide risk analysis, had insufficient procedures to regularly review information system activity, failed to identify and respond to suspected or known security incidents, and failed to implement adequate minimum access controls to prevent the cyber-attackers from accessing sensitive ePHI, beginning as early as February 18, 2014.

In addition to the consequences for the millions of individuals whose ePHI was disclosed through the breach, the breach also triggered responsibilities and concerns for fiduciaries and sponsors of the employer and union-sponsored group health plans administered or insured by Anthem. Sponsors and fiduciaries of private sector employer or union sponsored plans struggled to obtain information and cooperation from Anthem necessary to evaluate and fulfill their health plans’ HIPAA obligations as well as the fiduciary responsibility requirements of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).

In addition to the $16 million settlement that Anthem is paying to resolve OCR’s HIPAA charges stemming from the breach, the OCR settlement agreement also requires Anthem to undertake a robust corrective action plan to comply with the HIPAA Rules.

Health Plans, Sponsors, Fiduciaries & Vendors Should Act To Manage Compliance & Risks

Unquestionably, other health insurers, employer, union and association sponsored group health plans, and their vendors and business associates should evaluate the adequacy and defensibility of their own health plan privacy and security practices in light of the Anthem breach and resolution agreement. In addition, employer, union or association health plan sponsors, administrative service providers and fiduciaries also should consider the advisability of strengthening their business associate agreements with insurers, third party administrators and other health plan service providers to incorporate safeguards, audit, oversight or other provisions and practices to help prudently monitor potential risks and improve their ability to receive timely notice, respond to, and preserve rights of recourse against insurers or other vendors in the event of a breach or other deficiency.

About The Author

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Comments Off on Record $16M Anthem HIPAA Settlement Signals Need to Tighten Your Health Plan HIPAA Compliance & Risk Management | Association Health Plan, Employer, Employers, health plan, Health Plans, HIPAA, Privacy, Uncategorized | Tagged: Health Insurance, Health Insurer, Health Plan, media, news, OCR, Privacy | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Senate Confirms Charles Rettig As Next IRS Commissioner

September 12, 2018

The Senate today confirmed California tax attorney Charles Rettig, as the new IRS Commissioner for a 5-year term that will begin November 13, 2017. He will replace David Kautter, assistant secretary of the Treasury, Tax Policy, who has been the acting commissioner since John Koskinen’s term ended.

Rettig earned his J.D. degree from Pepperdine University and his LL.M. in taxation from New York University. He has practiced with Hochman, Salkin, Rettig, Toscher & Perez PC, a tax law firm in Beverly Hills.

Among other things, Rettig served as chair of the IRS’s Advisory Council. He is currently a vice chair for the American Bar Association’s Tax Section and vice president of the American College of Tax Counsel. He has served for almost 20 years as a member of the Advisory Board of the California Franchise Tax Board.

About the Author

Highly valued for her rare ability to find pragmatic client-centric solutions by combining her detailed legal and operational knowledge and experience with her talent for creative problem-solving, Ms. Stamer’s clients include employers and other workforce management organizations; employer, union, association, government and other insured and self-insured health and other employee benefit plan sponsors, benefit plans, fiduciaries, administrators, and other plan vendors; managed care organizations, insurers, self-insured health plans and other payers and their management; public and private, domestic and international hospitals, health care systems, clinics, skilled nursing, long term care, rehabilitation and other health care providers and facilities; medical staff, health care accreditation, peer review and quality committees and organizations; managed care organizations, insurers, third party administrative services organizations and other payer organizations; billing, utilization management, management services organizations; group purchasing organizations; pharmaceutical, pharmacy, and prescription benefit management and organizations; claims, billing and other health care and insurance technology and data service organizations; other health, employee benefit, insurance and financial services product and solutions consultants, developers and vendors; and other health, employee benefit, insurance, technology, government and other management clients.

A former lead consultant to the Government of Bolivia on its Pension Privatization Project with extensive domestic and international public policy concerns in pensions, healthcare, workforce, immigration, tax, education and other areas, Ms. Stamer has been extensively involved in U.S. federal, state and local health care and other legislative and regulatory reform impacting these concerns throughout her career. Her public policy and regulatory affairs experience encompassess advising and representing domestic and multinational private sector health, insurance, employee benefit, employer, staffing and other outsourced service providers, and other clients in dealings with Congress, state legislatures, and federal, state and local regulators and government entities, as well as providing advice and input to U.S. and foreign government leaders on these and other policy concerns.

A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, the American Bar Foundation and the Texas Bar Foundation, Ms. Stamer also shares her thought leadership, experience and advocacy on these and other related concerns by her service in the leadership of the Solutions Law Press, Inc. Coalition for Responsible Health Policy, its PROJECT COPE: Coalition on Patient Empowerment, and a broad range of other professional and civic organizations including North Texas Healthcare Compliance Association, a founding Board Member and past President of the Alliance for Healthcare Excellence, past Board Member and Board Compliance Committee Chair for the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas; former Board President of the early childhood development intervention agency, The Richardson Development Center for Children (now Warren Center For Children); current Vice Chair of the ABA Tort & Insurance Practice Section Employee Benefits Committee, current Vice Chair of Policy for the Life Sciences Committee of the ABA International Section, Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Section, a current Defined Contribution Plan Committee Co-Chair, former Group Chair and Co-Chair of the ABA RPTE Section Employee Benefits Group, past Representative and chair of various committees of ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits; a ABA Health Law Coordinating Council representative, former Coordinator and a Vice-Chair of the Gulf Coast TEGE Council TE Division, past Chair of the Dallas Bar Association Employee Benefits & Executive Compensation Committee, a former member of the Board of Directors of the Southwest Benefits Association and others.

For more information about Ms. Stamer or her health industry and other experience and involvements, see here or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (214) 452-8297 or via e-mail here.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

NOTICE: These statements and materials are for general informational and purposes only. They do not establish an attorney-client relationship, are not legal advice or an offer or commitment to provide legal advice, and do not serve as a substitute for legal advice. Readers are urged to engage competent legal counsel for consultation and representation in light of the specific facts and circumstances presented in their unique circumstance at any particular time. No comment or statement in this publication is to be construed as legal advise or an admission. The author reserves the right to qualify or retract any of these statements at any time. Likewise, the content is not tailored to any particular situation and does not necessarily address all relevant issues. Because the law is rapidly evolving and rapidly evolving rules makes it highly likely that subsequent developments could impact the currency and completeness of this discussion. The presenter and the program sponsor disclaim, and have no responsibility to provide any update or otherwise notify any participant of any such change, limitation, or other condition that might affect the suitability of reliance upon these materials or information otherwise conveyed in connection with this program. Readers may not rely upon, are solely responsible for, and assume the risk and all liabilities resulting from their use of this publication.

Comments Off on Senate Confirms Charles Rettig As Next IRS Commissioner | Uncategorized | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

House W&M Committee To Markup Retirement and Other “Tax Reform 2.0” Bills Thursday

September 12, 2018

On Thursday, August 13, the House Ways & Means Committee will hold hearings on retirement rule reforms intended to change multiemployer plan rules to make it easier for small businesses to offer and their employees and independent contractors to participate in retirement plans and provide retirement plan relief for participants proposed in the Family Savings Act of 2018, H.R. 6757.

Part of recently 3-bill tax package dubbed “Tax Reform 2.0” introduced on Monday, September 10, H.R. 6757 would remove certain regulatory barriers restricting the types of small-business employers who are permitted to band together to offer a retirement plan through a multiple employer plan (MEP).

H.R. 6757 also includes relief for certain plan participants. Among other things, it would:

End required minimum distributions of funds from 401(k) plans and other retirement savings accounts for retirees with balances under $50,000; and
Protect the ability of participants invested in lifetime income options through an employment-based retirement plan against losing these investment guarantees when their employer changes recordkeepers.

Sponsored by Rep. Mike Kelly (R-PA), and cosponsored by Rep. Paul Mitchell (R-MI), House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Kevin Brady (R-TX), and all other Ways and Means Committee Republicans, H.R. 6757, the bill enjoys strong support among House Republicans and President Trump.

House Ways and Means Committee Chair Kevin Brady expressed strong support for its reforms, saying: “We are creating financial security. The Family Savings Act focuses on helping families save more and earlier for the future by making it easier for businesses to offer retirement savings plans while ensuring workers can easily participate in these plans. This will help give our families the financial stability they need for whatever life throws their way.”

The Ways and Means Committee will address the H.R. 6757 proposals during its scheduled Tax Reform 2.0 markup on Thursday, September 13, 2018 at 10:00 a.m. in Room 1100 of the Longworth House Office Building. Use these links to read these bills:

About The Author

Highly valued for her ability to meld her extensive legal and industry knowledge and experience with her talents as an insightful innovator and pragmatic problem solver, Ms. Stamer advises, represents and defends employer, union, multi-employer, association and other employee benefit plan sponsors, insurers and managed care organizations, fiduciaries, plan administrators, technology and other service providers, government and community leaders and others about health and other employee benefit and insurance program and policy design and innovation, funding, documentation, administration, communication, data security and use, contracting, plan, public and regulatory reforms and enforcement, and other risk management, compliance and operations matters. Her experience encompasses leading and supporting the development and defense of innovative new policies, programs, practices and solutions; advising and representing clients on routine plan establishment, plan documentation and contract drafting and review, administration, change and other compliance and operations; crisis prevention and response, compliance and risk management audits and investigations, enforcement actions and other dealings with the US Congress, Departments of Labor, Treasury, Health & Human Services, Federal Trade Commission, Justice, Securities and Exchange Commission, Education and other federal agencies, state legislatures, attorneys general, insurance, labor, worker’s compensation, and other agencies and regulators, and various other foreign and domestic governmental bodies and agencies. She also provides strategic and other supports clients in defending litigation as lead strategy counsel, special counsel and as an expert witness. Alongside her extensive legal and operational experience, Ms. Stamer also is recognized for her work as a public and regulatory policy advocate and community leader with a gift for finding pragmatic solutions and helping to forge the common ground necessary to build consensus. Best known for her domestic public policy and community leadership on health care and insurance reform, Ms. Stamer’s lifelong public policy and community service involvement includes service as a lead consultant to the Government of Bolivia on its pension privatization project, as well as extensive legislative and regulatory reform, advocacy and input workforce, worker classification, employee benefit, public health and healthcare, social security and other disability and aging in place, education, migration reforms domestically and internationally throughout her adult life. In addition to her public and regulatory policy involvement, Ms. Stamer also contributes her service and leadership to a professional and civic organizations and efforts including her involvement as the Founder and Executive Director of the Coalition on Responsible Health Policy and its PROJECT COPE; Coalition on Patient Empowerment, a founding Board Member and past President of the Alliance for Healthcare Excellence; Vice Chair of the ABA Tort & Insurance Practice Section Employee Benefits Committee; Vice Chair, Policy for the Life Sciences Committee of the ABA International Section, Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group; current Fiduciary Responsibility Committee Co-Chair and Membership Committee member of the ABA RPTE Section; former RPTE Employee Benefits and Other Compensation Group Chair, former Chair and Co-Chair of its Welfare Plans Committee, and Defined Contribution Plans Committee; former RPTE Representative to ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits Council; former RPTE Representative to the ABA Health Law Coordinating Counsel; former Coordinator and a Vice-Chair of the Gulf Coast TEGE Council TE Division, past Chair of the Dallas Bar Association Employee Benefits & Executive Compensation Committee, former Board Member, Continuing Education Chair and Treasurer of the Southwest Benefits Association; Vice President of the North Texas Healthcare Compliance Professionals Association; past Board Member and Board Compliance Committee Chair for the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas; former Board President of the early childhood development intervention agency, The Richardson Development Center for Children; past Dallas World Affairs Council Board Member, and in leadership of many other professional, civic and community organizations. Ms. Stamer also is a highly popular lecturer, symposia chair and author, who publishes and speaks extensively on health and managed care industry, human resources, employment and other privacy, data security and other technology, regulatory and operational risk management for the American Bar Association, ALI-ABA, American Health Lawyers, Society of Human Resources Professionals, the Southwest Benefits Association, the Society of Employee Benefits Administrators, the American Law Institute, Lexis-Nexis, Atlantic Information Services, The Bureau of National Affairs (BNA), InsuranceThoughtLeaders.com, the Society of Professional Benefits Administrators, Benefits Magazine, Employee Benefit News, Texas CEO Magazine, HealthLeaders, the HCCA, ISSA, HIMSS, Modern Healthcare, Managed Healthcare, Institute of Internal Auditors, Society of CPAs, Business Insurance, Employee Benefits News, World At Work, Benefits Magazine, the Wall Street Journal, the Dallas Morning News, the Dallas Business Journal, the Houston Business Journal, and many other symposia and publications. She also has served as an Editorial Advisory Board Member for human resources, employee benefit and other management focused publications of BNA, HR.com, Employee Benefit News, InsuranceThoughtLeadership.com and many other prominent publications and speaks and conducts training for a broad range of professional organizations and for clients, serves on the faculty and planning committee of many workshops, seminars, and symposia, and on the Advisory Boards of InsuranceThoughtLeadership.com, HR.com, Employee Benefit News, and many other publications.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ provides human resources and employee benefit and other business risk management, legal compliance, management effectiveness and other coaching, tools and other resources, training and education on leadership, governance, human resources, employee benefits, data security and privacy, insurance, health care and other key compliance, risk management, internal controls and operational concerns. If you find this of interest, you also be interested reviewing some of our other Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ resources at SolutionsLawPress.com such as the following

▪DOL Spending Reports Required As Taxpayer Tool Need Improvement

▪Check & Protect Health & Other Electronic Systems & Data Against New Security Threat

▪April 1 New Deadline To Update Benefit Plan Disability Determination Claims & Appeals Procesures; Hear More on 1/26

▪Arizona Proposal To Ban Sexual Harassment Confidentiality Agreements Sign Of Growing Employer Risks

▪$23M Penalty Small Part of 21st Century’s Data Breach Fallout; Offers Data Breach Lessons For Other Businesses

▪Take Care of Your Good People

▪Read Tax Cuts and Jobs Act Conference Report For Tax Reform From Source

▪Check How IRS 2018 Retirement & Saving Plan Limits and Amounts Cost Of Living Adjustments Impact Your HR & Retirement Plan Administration & Planning

▪IRS Prepares To Nail Employers Under Obamacare Mandate While Giving Some Individual Mandate Relief

▪Hiring & Retaining Workers Growing Business Challenge

Comments Off on House W&M Committee To Markup Retirement and Other “Tax Reform 2.0” Bills Thursday | 401(k), Banking, Brokers, compensation, defined benefit plan, Defined Benefit Plans, defined contribution plan, Defined Contribution Plans, employee, Employee Benefits, Employer, Employers, Employment Policies, Employment Tax, ERISA, ESOP, Fiduciary Responsibility, Human Resources, Income Tax, multiple employer plan (Meps), Retirement Plans, Retirements, Tax, Tax Qualification, TCJA Tax Reform, Uncategorized | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Markup Tomorrow On Retirement & Other Republican‘s TCJA Tax Reform 2.0 Bills

September 10, 2018

House Republicans are taking action to make permanent the individual and small business tax cuts enacted under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) by introducing the following three bills to accomplish Republicans’ Tax Reform 2.0 package:

H.R. 6760, the Protecting Family and Small Business Tax Cuts Act of 2018, sponsored by Rep. Rodney Davis (R-IL), and cosponsored by Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC), Rep. Mark Walker (R-NC), House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Kevin Brady (R-TX), and all other Ways and Means Committee Republicans.

H.R. 6757, the Family Savings Act of 2018, sponsored by Rep. Mike Kelly (R-PA), and cosponsored by Rep. Paul Mitchell (R-MI), House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Kevin Brady (R-TX), and all other Ways and Means Committee Republicans.

H.R. 6756, the American Innovation Act of 2018, sponsored by Tax Policy Subcommittee Chairman Vern Buchanan (R-FL), and cosponsored by House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Kevin Brady (R-TX) and all other Ways and Means Committee Republicans.

Republicans credit the continuing strong economic performance of the US economy to the TCJA. Ways and Means Committee Chairman Kevin Brady said when introducing the bills:

“The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act changed the trajectory of our economy for the better. Now it’s time to change the culture in Washington where we only do tax reform once a generation. This legislation is our commitment to the American worker to ensure our tax code remains the most competitive in the world.”

Read the legislation and share your feedback!

About the Author

Highly valued for her rare ability to find pragmatic client-centric solutions by combining her detailed legal and operational knowledge and experience with her talent for creative problem-solving, Ms. Stamer’s clients include employers and other workforce management organizations; employer, union, association, government and other insured and self-insured health and other employee benefit plan sponsors, benefit plans, fiduciaries, administrators, and other plan vendors; managed care organizations, insurers, self-insured health plans and other payers and their management; public and private, domestic and international hospitals, health care systems, clinics, skilled nursing, long term care, rehabilitation and other health care providers and facilities; medical staff, health care accreditation, peer review and quality committees and organizations; managed care organizations, insurers, third party administrative services organizations and other payer organizations; billing, utilization management, management services organizations; group purchasing organizations; pharmaceutical, pharmacy, and prescription benefit management and organizations; claims, billing and other health care and insurance technology and data service organizations; other health, employee benefit, insurance and financial services product and solutions consultants, developers and vendors; and other health, employee benefit, insurance, technology, government and other management clients.

A former lead consultant to the Government of Bolivia on its Pension Privatization Project with extensive domestic and international public policy concerns in pensions, healthcare, workforce, immigration, tax, education and other areas, Ms. Stamer has been extensively involved in U.S. federal, state and local health care and other legislative and regulatory reform impacting these concerns throughout her career. Her public policy and regulatory affairs experience encompassess advising and representing domestic and multinational private sector health, insurance, employee benefit, employer, staffing and other outsourced service providers, and other clients in dealings with Congress, state legislatures, and federal, state and local regulators and government entities, as well as providing advice and input to U.S. and foreign government leaders on these and other policy concerns.

A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, the American Bar Foundation and the Texas Bar Foundation, Ms. Stamer also shares her thought leadership, experience and advocacy on these and other related concerns by her service in the leadership of the Solutions Law Press, Inc. Coalition for Responsible Health Policy, its PROJECT COPE: Coalition on Patient Empowerment, and a broad range of other professional and civic organizations including North Texas Healthcare Compliance Association, a founding Board Member and past President of the Alliance for Healthcare Excellence, past Board Member and Board Compliance Committee Chair for the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas; former Board President of the early childhood development intervention agency, The Richardson Development Center for Children (now Warren Center For Children); current Vice Chair of the ABA Tort & Insurance Practice Section Employee Benefits Committee, current Vice Chair of Policy for the Life Sciences Committee of the ABA International Section, Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Section, a current Defined Contribution Plan Committee Co-Chair, former Group Chair and Co-Chair of the ABA RPTE Section Employee Benefits Group, past Representative and chair of various committees of ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits; a ABA Health Law Coordinating Council representative, former Coordinator and a Vice-Chair of the Gulf Coast TEGE Council TE Division, past Chair of the Dallas Bar Association Employee Benefits & Executive Compensation Committee, a former member of the Board of Directors of the Southwest Benefits Association and others.

For more information about Ms. Stamer or her health industry and other experience and involvements, see here or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (214) 452-8297 or via e-mail here.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

NOTICE: These statements and materials are for general informational and purposes only. They do not establish an attorney-client relationship, are not legal advice or an offer or commitment to provide legal advice, and do not serve as a substitute for legal advice. Readers are urged to engage competent legal counsel for consultation and representation in light of the specific facts and circumstances presented in their unique circumstance at any particular time. No comment or statement in this publication is to be construed as legal advise or an admission. The author reserves the right to qualify or retract any of these statements at any time. Likewise, the content is not tailored to any particular situation and does not necessarily address all relevant issues. Because the law is rapidly evolving and rapidly evolving rules makes it highly likely that subsequent developments could impact the currency and completeness of this discussion. The presenter and the program sponsor disclaim, and have no responsibility to provide any update or otherwise notify any participant of any such change, limitation, or other condition that might affect the suitability of reliance upon these materials or information otherwise conveyed in connection with this program. Readers may not rely upon, are solely responsible for, and assume the risk and all liabilities resulting from their use of this publication.

Comments Off on Markup Tomorrow On Retirement & Other Republican‘s TCJA Tax Reform 2.0 Bills | Excise Tax, Income Tax, Payroll Tax, Tax, Tax Credit, Tax Qualification, TCJA Tax Reform, Uncategorized | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Employer’s Employment Tax Fraud Indictment Warns Employers To Properly Pay Withheld Employment Taxes

July 31, 2018

Employees should heed the warning provided by a federal grand jury’s indictment today charging a Walled Lake, Michigan restaurant owner with 24 counts of failing to account for and pay over employment taxes and one count of willful failure to file an income tax return, announced Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Richard E. Zuckerman of the Justice Department’s Tax Division.

According to the indictment, Johni Semma owned Bayside Sports Bar & Grill (“Bayside”), a restaurant, and The Coliseum, an adult entertainment business. As the owner of Bayside, Semma was allegedly responsible for collecting and paying over Bayside’s employment taxes. The indictment charges that during 2008 to 2015, Bayside accrued employment tax liabilities of more than $1 million and that Semma withheld those taxes from the pay of the restaurant’s employees. Semma then allegedly failed to fully pay over the amounts he withheld to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).

The indictment further alleges that in 2012, Semma sold The Coliseum for more than $6 million with approximately $3.5 million of the purchase price paid during 2012. Despite receiving considerable income from the sale of The Coliseum and other sources, Semma allegedly did not file a 2012 income tax return.

If convicted, Semma faces a statutory maximum of five years in prison for each count of failure to pay over the employment taxes. He faces a statutory maximum of one year in prison for the one count of willful failure to file his income tax return. In addition, he faces a period of supervised release, restitution, and monetary penalties. An indictment is an accusation. A defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.

Employers should recognize the indictment as a reminder to ensure they timely collect and deposit all employment taxes withheld in accordance with applicable law.

About The Author

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

▪DOL Spending Reports Required As Taxpayer Tool Need Improvement

▪Check & Protect Health & Other Electronic Systems & Data Against New Security Threat

▪April 1 New Deadline To Update Benefit Plan Disability Determination Claims & Appeals Procesures; Hear More on 1/26

▪Arizona Proposal To Ban Sexual Harassment Confidentiality Agreements Sign Of Growing Employer Risks

▪$23M Penalty Small Part of 21st Century’s Data Breach Fallout; Offers Data Breach Lessons For Other Businesses

▪Take Care of Your Good People

▪Read Tax Cuts and Jobs Act Conference Report For Tax Reform From Source

▪Check How IRS 2018 Retirement & Saving Plan Limits and Amounts Cost Of Living Adjustments Impact Your HR & Retirement Plan Administration & Planning

▪IRS Prepares To Nail Employers Under Obamacare Mandate While Giving Some Individual Mandate Relief

▪Hiring & Retaining Workers Growing Business Challenge

Comments Off on Employer’s Employment Tax Fraud Indictment Warns Employers To Properly Pay Withheld Employment Taxes | 4980D, 4980H, 5000, 6039D, ACA, board of directors, Brokers, compensation, compliance, Corporate Compliance, corporate governance, directors, employee, Employee Benefits, Employer, Employers, Employment, Employment Tax, Executive Compensation, Uncategorized, Unemployment Benefits, Unemployment Insurance, Wage & Hour, Whistleblower | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Flurry of Reform Activity Sign Employers, Health Plans Should Prepare To Respond To Last Minute Health Reforms This Fall

July 14, 2018

A flurry of activity in the House Ways & Means Committee and other Congressional committees over the past few weeks signals the advisability of keeping a close eye on health care and health benefit reform proposals this Summer in anticipation of both the Fall health benefit enrollment and renewal season and the mid-term November Congressional elections.

Coupled with the Trump Administration’s recent rollout of its long promised association health plan, short-term coverage and other regulatory reforms and promises of more changes to come, the ongoing attention paid by the Administration and Congress to health insurance and health care reform raises a strong possibility that employer, association, and other health plan sponsors, fiduciaries and their vendors that they and their plan members should be on watch for late-breaking developments that may require or warrant last minute changes to health benefit plan designs, communications, contracts or other key decisions.

With President Trump continuing to push for a wide range of health care reforms and health care and health benefit issues recognized as key voter concerns for the upcoming mid-term elections in November, the continued emphasis of the Republican-led Congress and federal regulators talking about their health care reform legislative agenda is not surprising. What may be more surprising to many is the intensity of the ongoing efforts in Congress to try to pass reform over the summer when many members of the House and Senate face tightly contested races in November.

Certainly continued Congressional commitment to pursue reform is evident from the House Ways & Means Committee’s health care heavy agenda of hearings and votes that this week alone resulted in its voting in favor of 11 health care reform bills promising new flexibility for employers about how to design their health plans and American families more health care choices and choice about how to pay for it and what coverage to buy popular with many providers, patients and employer and other health plan sponsors. While it remains to be seen if the House and Senate can agree on any or all of these proposal, the bi-partisan sponsorship of many of these proposals and the intensity of the focus of the Committee and others in Congress reflects a strong interest in health care reform by both parties leading up to November that could impact health benefit and other health care choices for providers, employers and American families in the Fall annual enrollment season.

The legislation passed by the Ways & Means Committee this weeks include bills that would:

Provide relief for employers relief from the Obamacare’s employer mandate and delay for an additional year the effective date of the widely disliked “Cadillac Tax;”
Overrule the “Use it Or Lose It” requirement in current Internal Revenue Regulations for healthcare flexible spending arrangement plans (HFSAs) that currently forces employers sponsoring HFSAs to draft their plans to require employees to forfeit unused salary reduction contributions in their HFSA accounts at the end of the year;
Offer individuals and families eligible for Obamacare created health premium subsidies more choice about where to obtain that coverage using their subsidies; and
Expand expand the availability and usability of HSAs in a multitude of ways.

Furthermore, a review of the Committee’s schedule makes clear that it isn’t finished with health care reform. After holding hearings on health savings account reforms and passing a flurry of health care reform bills intended to give employers relief from two key Obamacare mandates, to allow Obamacare subsidy-eligible Americans the choice to use the subsidies to purchase health care coverage not offered by the Obamacare exchanges, and a host of bills that would expand availability and usability of health savings account (HSA) and health care flexible spending account (HFSA) programs this week, the House Ways and Means Committee will turn its attention to health care fraud oversight and reform next week by holding hearings Tuesday on those health concerns. Health care providers, employer and other health plan sponsors, individual Americans and their families, and others interested in health benefit and health care reform will want to keep a close eye on these and other developments as Congress continues to debate health care reform in the runup to the upcoming 2018 health benefit plan renewal and annual enrollment season and November’s mid-term elections.

Committee Approved 11 Health Care Reform Bills This Week

As a part of its health reform efforts this week, the Committee voted to advance 11 health care reform bills offering new flexibility for employers about how to design their health plans and American families more health care choices and choice about how to pay for it and what coverage to buy popular with many providers, patients and employer and other health plan sponsors.

Among the approved legislation is a bill that would provide key relief for employers from certain key Obamacare mandates that have been widely unpopular with employers. H.R. 4616, the “Employer Relief Act of 2018,” sponsored by Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA) and Rep. Mike Kelly (R-PA), which would give employers sponsoring health plans for their employees retroactive relief from Obamacare’s onerous employer mandate and delay for an additional year the effective date of another Obamacare requirement that when effective, will forces employers to pay the 40 percent tax on amounts paid for employer sponsored health care coverage that exceeds cost limits specified in the Obamacare legislation commonly known as the “Cadillac Tax.” Relief from the Cadillac Tax is widely perceived as benefiting bother employers and their employees, as its provisions penalize employers for spending more for employee health coverage than limits specified in the Obamacare law. These provisions also are particularly viewed by many as unfair because rising health plan costs since Obamacare’s passage make it likely that many employers will incur the tax penalty simply by sponsoring relatively basic health plans meeting the Obamacare mandates.

In addition to H.R. 4616, the Committee also voted to approve H.R. 6313, the “Responsible Additions and Increases to Sustain Employee Health Benefits Act of 2018,” sponsored by Rep. Steve Stivers (R-OH), which would overrule the “Use it Or Lose It” requirement in current Internal Revenue Regulations for HFSAs. Currently, this rule forces employers sponsoring HFSAs to draft their plans to require employees to forfeit unused salary reduction contributions in their HFSA accounts at the end of the year. The bill would allow employers to eliminate this forfeiture requirement so that employees could carry over any remaining unused balances in their HFSAs at the end of the year to use in a later year.

The Committee also voted to advance legislation to offer individuals and families eligible for Obamacare created health premium subsidies more choice about where to obtain that coverage. H.R. 6311, the “Increasing Access to Lower Premium Plans Act of 2018,” sponsored by Chairman Peter Roskam (R-IL) and Rep. Michael C. Burgess, M.D. (R-TX), would provide individuals receiving subsidies to help purchase health care coverage through the Obamacare-created health insurance exchange the option to use their premium tax credit to purchase health care coverage from qualified plans offered outside of the exchanges. Currently, subsidies may only be used to purchase coverage from health plans offered through the exchange, which often are much more costly and offer substantially fewer coverage options and less provider choice. In addition, the bill would expand access to the lowest-premium plans available for all individuals purchasing coverage in the individual market and allows the premium tax credit to be used to offset the cost of such plans.

Along with these reforms, the Committee also voted to pass a host of bills that would expand the availability and usability of HSAs including:

H.R. 6301, the “Promoting High-Value Health Care Through Flexibility for High Deductible Health Plans Act of 2018,” co-sponsored by Health Subcommittee Chairman Peter Roskam (R-IL) and Rep. Mike Thompson (D-CA), which seeks to expand access and enhance the utility of Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) by offering patients greater flexibility in designing their plan design while still being able to maintain their eligibility for HSA contributions.
H.R. 6305, the “Bipartisan HSA Improvement Act of 2018,” sponsored by Rep. Mike Kelly (R-PA) and Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR), which also would expand HSA access and utility by allowing spouses to also make contributions to HSAs is their spouse has an FSA and lets employers offer certain services to employees through on-site or retail clinics.
H.R. 6317, the “Primary Care Enhancement Act of 2018,” co-sponsored by Rep. Erik Paulsen (R-MN) and Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR), which seeks to protect HSA-eligible individuals who participate in a direct primary care (DPC) arrangement from losing their HSA-eligibility merely because of their participation in a DPC. In addition, it allows DPC provider fees to be covered with HSAs.
H.R. 6312, the “Personal Health Investment Today (PHIT) Act,” sponsored by Rep. Jason Smith (R-MO) and Rep. Ron Kind (D-WI), which seeks to fight obesity and promote wellness by allowing taxpayers to use tax-preferred accounts to pay costs of gym membership or exercise classes, children’s school sports programs and certain other wellness programs and activities.
H.R. 6309, the “Allowing Working Seniors to Keep Their Health Savings Accounts Act of 2018,” sponsored by Rep. Erik Paulsen (R-MN), which would expand HSA eligibility to include Medicare eligible seniors who are still in the workforce.
H.R.6199, the “Restoring Access to Medication Act of 2018,” sponsored by Rep. Lynn Jenkins (R-KS) and Rep. Grace Meng (D-NY), which would reverse Obamacare’s prohibition on using tax-favored health accounts to purchase over-the-counter medical products and would add feminine products to the list of qualified medical expenses for the purposes of these tax-favored health accounts.
H.R. 6306, the “Improve the Rules with Respect to Health Savings Accounts,” sponsored by Rep. Erik Paulsen (R-MN), which would increase the contribution limits for HSAs and further enhances flexibility in plans by allowing both spouses to contribute to make catch-up contributions to the same account and creating a new grace period for medical expenses incurred before the HSA was established.
H.R. 6314, the “Health Savings Act of 2018,” sponsored by Rep. Burgess (R-TX) and Rep. Roskam (R-IL), would expand eligibility and access to HSAs by allowing plans categorized as “catastrophic” and “bronze” in the exchanges to qualify for HSA contributions.

Committee Considers Health Care Fraud Next Week

The Committee next week will turn its attention to health care fraud by holding two hearings on Tuesday.

Tuesday morning, the Ways and Means Committee Oversight Subcommittee plans to hold a Hearing on Combating Fraud in Medicare: A Strategy for Success beginning at 10:00 AM Eastern Time; and
Tuesday afternoon, the Ways and Means Committee Subcommittee plans to hold a Hearing on Modernizing Stark Law to Ensure the Successful Transition from Volume to Value in the Medicare Program beginning at 2:00 PM.

Both hearings are scheduled to take place in Room 1100 Longworth and their proceedings will be live streamed on YouTube.

The Committee’s health care reform focus this week and next are reflective of the continued emphasis of members of Congress in both parties on health care reform legislation as they prepare for the impending mid-term elections in November. As a part of these efforts, the House and Senate already over the past several months have held a wide range of hearings in various committees and key votes on a multitude of reform proposals. Numerous other hearings and votes are planned over the next several months as Congressional leaders from both parties work to advance their health care agendas in anticipation of the upcoming elections.

Key health care and health benefit reform proposals that the Republican Majority has designated for priority consideration include:

Prescription drug costs by checking perceived negative effects of health industry and health plan consolidations involving large health insurers, pharmacy benefit management companies (PBMs), pharmacy companies and other health industry and health insurance organizations on health care costs and patient, plan sponsor and plan sponsor choice and health care quality;
Oversight and reform of existing STARK, anti-kickback and other federal health care rules and exemptions relied upon by PBMs and other health industry organizations;
Efforts to understand and address health care treatment, health care and coverage costs and related social concerns associated with mental health and opioid and other substance abuse conditions and their treatment;
Efforts promote health benefit and health care choice, affordability and coverage; improve patient and employer choice; promote broader health care access and quality; reduce counterproductive regulation; and other health insurance and care improvements through expanded availability of health savings accounts, direct primary care and other consumer directed health care options, association health plan and other program options, streamlining quality reporting and regulation, billing and coding, physician and other health care provider electronic billing and recordkeeping, and other provider, payer, employer, individual and other health insurance mandates and other federal health care and health plan rules; and
More.

Evolving Legislative & Regulatory Warrant Vigilance & Change Readiness

While the recurrent stalling of past reform efforts over the past few years calls into question whether any or all of these proposals can make it through the highly politicized and divided Congress, bi-partisian sponsorship of most of the bills reported out this week at least raises the possibility that some of these proposals enjoy sufficient bi-partisan support to potentially pass before the elections. With both parties viewing health care reform as a key issue in the upcoming elections, voter feedback on these proposals could play a big role in determining the prospects for passage this Summer.

Along with the ongoing Congressional reform efforts, the Trump Administration also continues to move forward on a series of regulatory reforms that also could impact health care and health benefit decisions and responsibilities later this year. Beyond the Administration’s implementation of its long promised and recently finalized and released association health plan, short term coverage and other health benefit rules, the Administration’s continued consideration of changes to essential health benefits and other Obamacare regulations, ongoing mental health, substance abuse, and prescription drug reform projects, and other proposed regulatory and enforcement changes are likely to require health plans, their sponsors, insurers, administrators, members and even providers to adapt to changes in federal health plan rules between now and year end.

Amid this shifting legal landscape, employer and other health plan sponsors, their insurers, vendors, providers and participants will want to remain vigilant and work to preserve the flexibility to respond to new rules or guidance likely to rollout over the next several months.

Staying on top of proposed reforms as the Summer progresses is important:

To provide timely input to Congress on proposed reforms of particular benefit or concern;
To help plan for and deal with rules changes that could impact their options and choices during the upcoming health plan renewal and enrollment season this Fall and going forward; and
To be prepared to make informed choices when voting in the upcoming mid-term Congressional elections in November.

Keeping informed about potential changes is only part of the challenge, however. Employer and other health plan sponsors, fiduciaries and service providers also generally should seek to negotiate vendor contracts that allow them the greatest possible flexibility to respond to changing rules, opportunities and requirements with minimum penalties and disruption when designing, negotiating and implementing vendor contracts, plan designs and plan enrollment and other processes and communications.

About the Author

Highly valued for her rare ability to find pragmatic client-centric solutions by combining her detailed legal and operational knowledge and experience with her talent for creative problem-solving, Ms. Stamer’s clients include employers and other workforce management organizations; employer, union, association, government and other insured and self-insured health and other employee benefit plan sponsors, benefit plans, fiduciaries, administrators, and other plan vendors; managed care organizations, insurers, self-insured health plans and other payers and their management; public and private, domestic and international hospitals, health care systems, clinics, skilled nursing, long term care, rehabilitation and other health care providers and facilities; medical staff, health care accreditation, peer review and quality committees and organizations; managed care organizations, insurers, third party administrative services organizations and other payer organizations; billing, utilization management, management services organizations; group purchasing organizations; pharmaceutical, pharmacy, and prescription benefit management and organizations; claims, billing and other health care and insurance technology and data service organizations; other health, employee benefit, insurance and financial services product and solutions consultants, developers and vendors; and other health, employee benefit, insurance, technology, government and other management clients.

A former lead consultant to the Government of Bolivia on its Pension Privatization Project with extensive domestic and international public policy concerns in pensions, healthcare, workforce, immigration, tax, education and other areas, Ms. Stamer has been extensively involved in U.S. federal, state and local health care and other legislative and regulatory reform impacting these concerns throughout her career. Her public policy and regulatory affairs experience encompassess advising and representing domestic and multinational private sector health, insurance, employee benefit, employer, staffing and other outsourced service providers, and other clients in dealings with Congress, state legislatures, and federal, state and local regulators and government entities, as well as providing advice and input to U.S. and foreign government leaders on these and other policy concerns.

A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, the American Bar Foundation and the Texas Bar Foundation, Ms. Stamer also shares her thought leadership, experience and advocacy on these and other related concerns by her service in the leadership of the Solutions Law Press, Inc. Coalition for Responsible Health Policy, its PROJECT COPE: Coalition on Patient Empowerment, and a broad range of other professional and civic organizations including North Texas Healthcare Compliance Association, a founding Board Member and past President of the Alliance for Healthcare Excellence, past Board Member and Board Compliance Committee Chair for the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas; former Board President of the early childhood development intervention agency, The Richardson Development Center for Children (now Warren Center For Children); current Vice Chair of the ABA Tort & Insurance Practice Section Employee Benefits Committee, current Vice Chair of Policy for the Life Sciences Committee of the ABA International Section, Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Section, a current Defined Contribution Plan Committee Co-Chair, former Group Chair and Co-Chair of the ABA RPTE Section Employee Benefits Group, past Representative and chair of various committees of ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits; a ABA Health Law Coordinating Council representative, former Coordinator and a Vice-Chair of the Gulf Coast TEGE Council TE Division, past Chair of the Dallas Bar Association Employee Benefits & Executive Compensation Committee, a former member of the Board of Directors of the Southwest Benefits Association and others.

For more information about Ms. Stamer or her health industry and other experience and involvements, see here or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (214) 452-8297 or via e-mail here.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

NOTICE: These statements and materials are for general informational and purposes only. They do not establish an attorney-client relationship, are not legal advice or an offer or commitment to provide legal advice, and do not serve as a substitute for legal advice. Readers are urged to engage competent legal counsel for consultation and representation in light of the specific facts and circumstances presented in their unique circumstance at any particular time. No comment or statement in this publication is to be construed as legal advise or an admission. The author reserves the right to qualify or retract any of these statements at any time. Likewise, the content is not tailored to any particular situation and does not necessarily address all relevant issues. Because the law is rapidly evolving and rapidly evolving rules makes it highly likely that subsequent developments could impact the currency and completeness of this discussion. The presenter and the program sponsor disclaim, and have no responsibility to provide any update or otherwise notify any participant of any such change, limitation, or other condition that might affect the suitability of reliance upon these materials or information otherwise conveyed in connection with this program. Readers may not rely upon, are solely responsible for, and assume the risk and all liabilities resulting from their use of this publication.

Comments Off on Flurry of Reform Activity Sign Employers, Health Plans Should Prepare To Respond To Last Minute Health Reforms This Fall | 105(h), 4980D, 4980H, 6039D, ACA, Affordable Care Act, Appeals, Association Health Plan, board of directors, Brokers, Cafeteria Plans, Claims, Claims Administration, COBRA, compensation, compliance, Contraception, Corporate Compliance, Electronic Medical Record, employee, Employee Benefits, Employer, Employers, Employment, Employment Tax, EMR, ERISA, Excise Tax, Excise Taxes, Fiduciary Responsibility, health benefit, Health Benefits, health Care, health insurance, health insurance marketplace, health plan, Health Plans, health reform, HR, Human Resources, Insurance, insurers, Internal Controls, Internal Revenue Code, Mental Health, Mental Health Parity, MEWA, Obamacare, Patient Empowerment, Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act, Pay, Payroll Tax, Plan Admistrator, Prescription Drugs, preventive care, Professional Liability, Risk Management, Technology, Uncategorized, Union, Wellness, Worker Classification | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

July 5, 2018

Construction industry and other employers of employees working in summer heat impacted environments need to take appropriate steps to prevent heat related injuries and illnesses

Every year, dozensof workers die and thousands more become ill while working in extreme heat or humid conditions. More than 40 percent of heat-related worker deaths occur in the construction industry, but workers in every field are susceptible.

Working in extreme heat without appropriate precautions creates heightened risk of a range of heat illnesses. These risks can affect anyone, regardless of age or physical condition.

Employer Responsibility to Protect Workers

Protecting workers from extreme heat generally is part of the responsibility of an employer to provide a safe workplace under the Occupational Health & Safety Act (OSHA) and state occupational health and safety statutes.

Aside from the worker’s compensation, medical and disability costs and workplace disruptions that heat related illness can create, heat related injuries or illnesses to workers also create risks of civil penalties and other liabilities under OSHA.

To minimize risks of heat related OSHA violations and other exposures, an employer of workers exposed to high temperatures should establish and document their training and administration of a complete heat illness prevention program that meets or exceeds applicable OSHA standards.

Resources

OSHA’s Occupational Exposure to Heat page explains what employers can do to keep workers safe and what workers need to know – including factors for heat illness, adapting to working in indoor and outdoor heat, protecting workers, recognizing symptoms, and first aid training. The page also includes resources for specific industries and OSHA workplace standards.

Employers can help promote compliance and reduce heat related injury risks by training and requiring workers and their management to use three common sense elements for preventing heat related injuries and deaths to workers – Water. Rest. Shade.

OSHA guidance urges employers to prevent heat-related injuries by taking the following steps:

Provide workers with water, rest and shade.
Allow new or returning workers to gradually increase workloads and take more frequent breaks as they acclimatize, or build a tolerance for working in the heat.
Plan for emergencies and train workers on prevention.
Monitor workers for signs of illness.
Take prompt action to provide appropriate intervention and medical care in response to signs of potential heat related health issues.

To ensure that they can prove these expectations are met, Most employers will want to adopt specific policies require in well-documented compliance with these requirements.

About The Author

If you need more information about or help with these or other workplace concerns, the author of this article may be able to help.

Board Certified in Labor and Employment Law, a Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, the American Bar Foundation and the Texas Bar Foundation; Former Chair of the RPTE Employee Benefits and Compensation Committee, a current Co-Chair of the Committee, and the former Chair of its Welfare Benefit and its Defined Compensation Plan Committees and former RPTE Joint Committee on Employee Benefits Council (JCEB) Representative, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer is a Martindale-Hubble “AV-Preeminent” practicing management attorney, consultant, coach, author, public policy advocate, author and lecturer repeatedly recognized for her 30 plus years’ of work and pragmatic thought leadership, publications and training on labor and employment, compensation, health, pension and other employee benefit, insurance, and health care fiduciary responsibility, payment, investment, contracting and other design, administration and compliance concerns as among the “Top Rated Labor & Employment Lawyers in Texas,” a “Legal Leader,” a “Top Woman Lawyer” and with other awards by LexisNexis® Martindale-Hubbell®; as among the “Best Lawyers In Dallas” for her work in the field of “Labor & Employment,” “Tax: ERISA & Employee Benefits,” “Health Care” and “Business and Commercial Law” by D Magazine, in International Who’s Who of Professionals and with numerous other awards and distinctions.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

▪DOL Spending Reports Required As Taxpayer Tool Need Improvement

▪Check & Protect Health & Other Electronic Systems & Data Against New Security Threat

▪April 1 New Deadline To Update Benefit Plan Disability Determination Claims & Appeals Procesures; Hear More on 1/26

▪Arizona Proposal To Ban Sexual Harassment Confidentiality Agreements Sign Of Growing Employer Risks

▪$23M Penalty Small Part of 21st Century’s Data Breach Fallout; Offers Data Breach Lessons For Other Businesses

▪Take Care of Your Good People

▪Read Tax Cuts and Jobs Act Conference Report For Tax Reform From Source

▪Check How IRS 2018 Retirement & Saving Plan Limits and Amounts Cost Of Living Adjustments Impact Your HR & Retirement Plan Administration & Planning

▪IRS Prepares To Nail Employers Under Obamacare Mandate While Giving Some Individual Mandate Relief

▪Hiring & Retaining Workers Growing Business Challenge

Comments Off on | Absenteeism, ADA, board of directors, Claims, compensation, compliance, Construction, Corporate Compliance, Disability Discrimination, Disability Plans, Disaster, Disease Management, Emergency, employee, Employee Handbook, Employer, Employers, Employment, Employment Policies, enforcement, Government Contractors, health Care, health insurance, health plan, Health Plans, HR, Human Resources, Labor Management Relations, Management, mine safety, mining, occupational safety, OSHA, Retaliation, Risk Management, Schools, Uncategorized, Wellness, Wellness Programs, Worker, Workers' Compensation | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Relationships Matter

May 27, 2018

View original post

Comments Off on Relationships Matter | Uncategorized | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

OFCCP Extends TRICARE Affirmative Action Morotorium

May 18, 2018

Today the U.S. Department of Labor issued a press release about the publication of a new OFCCP Directive extending the enforcement moratorium relating to the affirmative obligations of TRICARE providers for two years. This moratorium has been in effect for four years, and will now expire on May 7, 2021; it will also now apply to Veterans Affairs Health Benefits Program providers.

This extension will provide OFCCP time to receive feedback from stakeholders, relieve uncertainty, and give OFCCP an opportunity to evaluate and address legislation that may be enacted on this issue.

About The Author

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

▪DOL Spending Reports Required As Taxpayer Tool Need Improvement

▪Check & Protect Health & Other Electronic Systems & Data Against New Security Threat

▪April 1 New Deadline To Update Benefit Plan Disability Determination Claims & Appeals Procesures; Hear More on 1/26

▪Arizona Proposal To Ban Sexual Harassment Confidentiality Agreements Sign Of Growing Employer Risks

▪$23M Penalty Small Part of 21st Century’s Data Breach Fallout; Offers Data Breach Lessons For Other Businesses

▪Take Care of Your Good People

▪Read Tax Cuts and Jobs Act Conference Report For Tax Reform From Source

▪Check How IRS 2018 Retirement & Saving Plan Limits and Amounts Cost Of Living Adjustments Impact Your HR & Retirement Plan Administration & Planning

▪IRS Prepares To Nail Employers Under Obamacare Mandate While Giving Some Individual Mandate Relief

▪Hiring & Retaining Workers Growing Business Challenge

Comments Off on OFCCP Extends TRICARE Affirmative Action Morotorium | Affirmative Action, Civil Rights, compliance, Corporate Compliance, corporate governance, Disability, Disability Discrimination, Discrimination, EEOC, EEOC, Employee Benefits, Employer, Employers, OFCCP, Uncategorized, veterans, VEVRAA | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Trump Blue Print To Reduce Drug Costs Announced

May 11, 2018

Responding to American business and families concerns about high prescription drug costs, the Trump Administration released “American Patients First Blueprint,” the President’s blueprint to lower drug prices and reduce out-of-pocket costs today.

Health & Human Services Secretary Alex Azar announced the plan saying, “We have access to the greatest medicines in the world, but access is meaningless without affordability.”

Secretary Azar said when it comes to the cost of prescription drugs, our healthcare system faces four major challenges:

high list prices for drugs;
seniors and government programs overpaying for drugs due to lack of the latest negotiation tools;
out-of-pocket costs for consumers; and
foreign governments free-riding off of American investment in innovation.

The Secretary called the newly announced Trump blueprint “a historic plan for bringing down the high price of drugs and reducing out-of-pocket costs for the American consumer … that will bring immediate relief to American patients while also delivering long-term reforms.”

The American Patients First Blueprint rolled out today identifies four key strategies for reform:

• Improved competition

• Better negotiation

• Incentives for lower list prices

• Lowering out-of-pocket costs

HHS’s blueprint encompasses two phases:

Actions the President may direct HHS to take immediately and
Action HHS is actively considering, on which feedback is being solicited.

Read the Blue Print here.

Comments Off on Trump Blue Print To Reduce Drug Costs Announced | Uncategorized | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

2018 Family HSA Deductible Contribution Limit Restored To $6,900

May 11, 2018

The 2018 maximum deductible Health Savings Account (HSA) contribution for individuals with family coverage under a high deductible health plan (HDHP) is $6,900, rather than the lower $$6850 limitation that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and Department of Treasury originally identified as the 2018 maximum deduction amount last March.

The mid-year change in the 2018 annual limit that Internal Revenue Code § 223(b)(2)(B) sets for the maximum deductible HSA contribution for individuals with family coverage under a HDHP announced in Revenue Procedure 2018-27 on April 26 corrects a mistake in the amount of the 2018 annual limit amount that the Treasury Department and the IRS previously announced in Rev. Proc. 2018-18 on March 2, 2018. Revenue Procedure does not change any other annual limitation or any other requirement under section 223 for calendar year 2018.

Before Revenue Procedure 2018-27, the annual limitation on deductions under section 223(b)(2)(B) for an individual with family coverage under an HDHP at $6,850 for 2018 – a $50 reduction in the amount of the 2018 limit amount set in Revenue Procedure 2018-18, which reduced the originally announced 2018 limit amount of $6,900 that the Treasury Department and IRS previously had announced in May 4, 2017 in Revenue Procedure 2017-37. After publishing the original $6,900 limit in Revenue Procedure 2017-37, Congress changed the rules on inflation adjustments as part of “An Act to Provide for Reconciliation Pursuant to Titles II and V of the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 2018” (the Act), Pub. L. 115–97, 131 Stat. 2504, enacted December 22, 2017. Consequently, on March 2, 2018, the Treasury Department and the IRS released Rev. Proc. 2018-18, announcing the reduction of the 2018 limit to $6,850 to reflect the statutory amendments to the inflation adjustments under the Act. However, IRS and Treasury say that the recently announced change in the 2018 annual limitation resulted after stakeholders informed the Treasury Department and the IRS that implementing the $50 reduction to the limitation on deductions for individuals with family coverage would impose numerous unanticipated administrative and financial burdens. Specifically, stakeholders informed the Treasury Department and the IRS that the costs of modifying the various systems to reflect the reduced maximum, as well as the costs associated with distributing a $50 excess contribution (and earnings), would be significantly greater than any tax benefit associated with an unreduced HSA contribution (and in some instances may exceed $50). Some stakeholders also pointed to section 223(g)(1), which requires annual inflation adjustments for HSAs to be published by June 1 of the preceding calendar year, as another indication that a current year change would be unduly burdensome.

In response to these concerns, the Treasury Department and the IRS have determined that it is in the best interest of sound and efficient tax administration to allow taxpayers to treat the $6,900 annual limitation originally published in Rev. Proc. 2017-37 as the 2018 inflation adjusted limitation on HSA contributions for eligible individuals with family coverage under an HDHP. Accordingly, $6,900 now is the annual limitation on deductions under section 223(b)(2)(B) for an individual with family coverage under an HDHP for calendar year 2018.

Before this announced change, some individuals may have received distributions of HSA contribution amounts that were treated as in excess of the annual contribution limit amount before publication of Revenue Procedure 2018-27. Revenue Procedure 2018-27 outlines two alternatives for dealing with these distributions.

Under the first alternative, an individual who receives a distribution from an HSA of an excess contribution (with earnings) based on the $6,850 deduction limit published in Rev. Proc. 2018-18 may repay the distribution to the HSA and treat the distribution as the result of a mistake of fact due to reasonable cause under Q&A-37 of Notice 2004-50. The portion of a distribution (including earnings) that an individual repays to an HSA by April 15, 2019, is not included in the individual’s gross income under section 223(f)(2) or subject to the 20 percent additional tax under section 223(f)(4). The repayment is not subject to the excise tax on excess contributions under section 4973(a)(5). Also, mistaken distributions that are repaid to an HSA are not required to be reported on Form 1099-SA or Form 8889 and are not required to be reported as additional HSA contributions. However, in accordance with Q&A-76 of Notice 2004-50, a trustee or custodian is not required to allow individuals to repay mistaken distributions.

Alternatively, Revenue Procedure 2018-27 states that an individual who receives a distribution from an HSA of an excess contribution (with earnings) based on the $6,850 deduction limit published in Rev. Proc. 2018-18 and does not repay the distribution to the HSA may treat the distribution in accordance with section 223(f)(3), which describes the treatment of excess contributions returned before the due date of return. Thus, the excess contribution generally would not be included in gross income under section 223(f)(2) or subject to the 20 percent additional tax under section 223(f)(4), provided the distribution is received on or before the last day prescribed by law (including extensions of time) for filing the individual’s 2018 tax return. However, Revenue Procedure 2018-27 adds that the tax treatment under this alternative does not apply to distributions from an HSA that are attributable to employer contributions (pursuant to a cafeteria plan election or otherwise) if the employer does not include any portion of the contributions in the employee’s wages because the employer treats $6,900 as the annual limitation on deductions under section 223(b)(2)(B). In that case, unless the distribution from the HSA is used to pay qualified medical expenses, the distribution is includible in the employee’s gross income under section 223(f)(2) and subject to the 20 percent additional tax under section 223(f)(4).

About The Author

Want to know more? See here for details about the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, e-mail her here or telephone Ms. Stamer at (469) 767-8872.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Comments Off on 2018 Family HSA Deductible Contribution Limit Restored To $6,900 | 105(h), 401(k), 4980D, 4980H, 6039D, ACA, Cafeteria Plans, compensation, compliance, Corporate Compliance, corporate governance, employee, Employee Benefits, Employee Handbook, Employer, Employers, Employment, Employment Policies, Employment Tax, Excise Tax, Excise Taxes, Executive Compensation, health benefit, Health Benefits, health Care, health insurance, health plan, Health Plans, HR, HSA, Human Resources, Income Tax, Internal Revenue Code, Labor Management Relations, Management, Pay, Payroll Tax, Tax, Tax Qualification, Uncategorized | Tagged: High Deductible Health PLan, HSA | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Remind Employees To Update Withholding

April 18, 2018

Employers should consider inviting their workers to conduct a Paycheck Checkup to review their withholding elections to confirm they have the right amount of tax deducted from their paychecks in response to tax law changes enacted by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (Trump Tax) and other recent legislation. Helping workers properly to take into account tax relief or other changes reducing their income tax liability can help boost workers’ take home pay, helping them to see more benefit from the wages paid by the employer at payday.

The amount of withholding that an employer withholds from an employee’s pay generally depends upon two factors:

The amount the employee can earn; and
The accuracy of the personal information the employee uses to complete the Form W-4 to notify the employer of his withholding elections; and
The tax rules that decide how much tax the employee ultimately will owe when their personal income tax returns become due on April 15, 2018.

Although most employees don’t think about the potential need to re-evaluate the withholding elections on their current Form W-4 unless reminded by an employer or professional advisor, it’s generally a good idea for workers to periodically review and update their withholding elections since these often change from time to time. Encouraging workers to periodically review and update their W-4 elections can help workers maximize their take home pay while minimizing the risk of being surprised with an unexpected income tax or even under withholding penalty when they file their annual income tax return.

A number of recent events make it particularly likely that employees will benefit from re-evaluating their W-4 withholding now. For one thing, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act recently changed the way income tax is calculated for most individual taxpayers. As many of these changes were enacted to provide individual tax relief for many taxpayers, workers qualifying for this relief that do not review and update their withholding elections likely are having the employer withhold more tax than necessary from their paychecks. Beyond these tax rule changes, many workers also may need to update their withholding elections in response to changes in their income, marital or other family status or other changes in their personal situation that also can affect the income tax withholding of the individual worker.

The Internal Revenue Service recently updated the Withholding Calculator the IRS provides on its website to help individuals estimate their annual income tax for purposes of deciding the withholding they should enter on their Form W-4 in light of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act changes. Individuals can use the Withholding Calculator to estimate their 2018 and to compare their current tax withholding to help the individual decide if the individual needs to change his withholding with an employer.

More details about the Withholding Calculator and the new 2018 withholding tables can be found using the following internet links on the IRS’ Frequently Asked Question pages:

Employers should consider sending a reminder to workers to review their Form W-4 using these tools to determine if they can increase their take home pay by changing their withholding to take into account any potential income tax and withholding reductions they qualify for, if any, as a result of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act or other changes in factors that impact their withholding and income tax liability or if other changes are warranted. Because most employees just completed their annual tax returns and likely have not considered the potential need to change their elections for tax reform or other changes, employees are likely to be particularly receptive and responsive to these reminders now. Employers and benefit plan administrators also may wish to consider helping employees remember to review and update their Form W-4 withholding when sending benefit enrollment packages, processing benefit enrollment elections when announcing pay increases or bonuses, in employee handbooks or payroll stuffers, at annual enrollment times or in response to mid-year election or beneficiary change notifications and at other times when the employer or their benefit plans deal with life event or benefit election events that could impact an employee’s withholding.

About The Author

Want to know more? See here for details about the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, e-mail her here or telephone Ms. Stamer at (469) 767-8872.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Comments Off on Remind Employees To Update Withholding | 105(h), 401(k), 4980D, 4980H, 6039D, Cafeteria Plans, compensation, compliance, Corporate Compliance, corporate governance, defined benefit plan, Defined Benefit Plans, defined contribution plan, Defined Contribution Plans, Disability, employee, Employee Benefits, Employee Handbook, Employer, Employers, Employment, Employment Policies, Employment Tax, Excise Tax, Excise Taxes, Executive Compensation, health benefit, Health Benefits, health plan, Health Plans, HR, Human Resources, Income Tax, Internal Revenue Code, Labor Management Relations, Management, Pay, Payroll Tax, Tax, Tax Qualification, Uncategorized | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

High Enforcement, New Tip Pool Rules Require Restaurants Reassess & Manage FLSA Risks

April 12, 2018

Restaurant employers should audit and tighten the employee wage, timekeeping and other wage and hour practices to minimize their exposure to heightened enforcement of the Fair Labor Standards Act and other federal wage and hour laws by the U.S. Department of Labor Wage and Hour Division (WHD) allowed WHD to recover more than $189 million in back pay from restaurant employers over the past five years, while also evaluating the implications of the new WHD Field Assistance Bulletin: Amendment to FLSA Section 3(m) Included in Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018 (FAB) on their ability to legally use tip pools for their tipped employees in light of the enactment by Congress as part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018 (Act), Pub. L. No. 115-141, Div. S., Tit. XII, § 1201 (Act).

With WHD set to continue the aggressive wage and hour investigation and enforcement practices that it has used to recover more than $1.2 billion in back pay awards from employers over the past five years and having just announced the temporary availability of a pilot voluntary resolution program for employers to use to settle WHD wage and hour liability problems, prompt action is particularly important now.

Restaurants Face WHD Wage & Hour Responsibilities

Restaurant industry employers have been the subject of special wage and hour law investigatory and enforcement by the WHD for the past decade. In fiscal year 2017 alone, WHD’s enforcement statistics restaurant industry initiative targeting restaurant employers enabled it to successfully recover $42,936,552 for 44,363 from 5,446 cases brought against restaurant employers. See WHD Fiscal Year Data, Low Wage, High Violation Industries. See also, Restaurant Owners Beware!

WHD began targeting the restaurant industry for aggressive compliance education, investigation and enforcement and its workers and their representatives for educational outreach after finding widespread noncompliance with minimum wage, overtime and other wage and hour rules throughout the industry.

Federal investigated and enforced by WHD includes the following general rules as well as applicable special rules for tipped employees:

Covered non-exempt workers generally are entitled to a federal minimum wage of not less than $7.25 per hour;
The 1996 Amendments to the FLSA allow employers to pay a youth minimum wage of not less than $4.25 an hour to employees who are under 20 years of age during the first 90 consecutive calendar days after initial employment by their employer. The law contains certain protections for employees that prohibit employers from displacing any employee in order to hire someone at the youth minimum wage. Workers under 16 years of age also are subject to special restrictions on their hours of work and the nature of work. Federal law authorizes substantial additional penalties for violation of certain of these special requirements on youth employment;
Wages are due on the regular payday for the pay period covered;
Deductions made from wages for items such as cash shortages, required uniforms, or customer walk-outs are illegal if the deduction reduces the employee’s wages below the minimum wage or cuts into overtime pay;
Deductions made for items other than board, lodging, or other recognized
facilities normally cannot be made in an overtime workweek;
The employer may take credit for food which is provided at cost but cannot take credit for discounts given employees on food (menu) prices;
The employer must pay employees overtime at a rate of at least one and one-half times the employee’s regular rate of pay for each hour worked in excess of 40 hours per week;
Equal pay requirements;
Family medical leave act requirements under the Family and Medical Leave Act; and
Others.

In addition to these generally applicable requirements, the FLSA also includes a number of special rules on restaurant’s compensation of “tipped employees.” These rules which often are the subject for WHD and other challenges are the subject of the amendments made by the Act and new FAB. For purposes of these rules “tipped employees” are those who customarily and regularly receive more than $30 a month in tips. Among other things, the FLSA tipped employee rules generally provide that a restaurant employer may consider tips part of wages (“tip credit”) provided by the employer only if it meets specific requirements including:

The employer must pay the tipped employee at least $2.13 an hour in direct wages;
The employer must ensure that the additional amount of tips a tipped employee receive coupled with the employee’s direct wages equals or exceeds the minimum wage;
The employer must inform tipped employees of the provisions about FLSA section 3(m) in advance if the employer elects to use the tip credit.
Employees must retain all of their tips, except to the extent that they participate in a valid tip pooling or sharing arrangement.
In determining the regular rate for a tipped employee, all components of the employee’s wages must be considered (i.e., cash, board, lodging, facilities, and tip credit).

Act Amends Tip Credit Rules

In addition to managing their overall compliance with the FLSA and other wage and hour rules, many restaurant employers of tipped employees also now much review and update their practices in responses to new rules on tip pools enacted by Congress earlier this year. The Act amended the FLSA rules concerning tipped employees in several material respects. The amendments made by the Act focus on tip pools. Other requirements are left mostly undisturbed.

Specifically, the Act:

Prohibits employers from keeping tips received by their employees, regardless whether the employer takes a tip credit under 29 U.S.C. § 203(m);
Provides that portions of WHD’s regulations codified at 29 C.F.R. §§ 531.52, 531.54, and 531.59 that barred tip pooling when employers pay tipped employees at least the full FLSA minimum wage and do not claim a tip credit have no further force or effect pending future WHD action.
Gives WHD enforcement authority in FLSA sections 16(b) and 16(c) to, among other things, recover all tips unlawfully kept by the employer, in addition to an equal amount in liquidated damages.

Before enactment of the Act, WHD at the direction of the Trump Administration already was considering adopting a Proposed Rule published on December 5, 2017 that would have rescinded a 2011 Obama Administration-era WHD regulation barring tip-sharing arrangements in establishments where the employers pay full Federal minimum wage and do not take a tip credit against their minimum wage obligations. That 2017 Proposed Rule provided that employers paying a full minimum wage to employees could require these workers to share their tips with other employees, including employees who do not customarily receive tips including restaurant cooks, dishwashers and other traditionally lower-wage classifications.

While WHD has not yet issued final rules implementing the changes enacted by the Act, earlier this week it published a Field Assistance Bulletin: Amendment to FLSA Section 3(m) Included in Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018 (FAB) that discusses its enforcement policy regarding the Act’s amendments pending WHD’s future adoption of regulations.

The FAB states that employers who pay the full regular FLSA minimum wage (currently $7.25 per hour for regular time) to tipped employees are no longer prohibited from allowing employees who are not customarily and regularly tipped—such as cooks and dishwashers—to participate in tip pools. However, employers cannot allow managers or supervisors to participate in the tip pools as the Act equates such participation with the employer’s keeping the tips.

As an enforcement policy, the FAB states that WHD will use the duties test at 29 C.F.R. § 541.100(a)(2)-(4) to determine whether an employee is a manager or supervisor for purposes of section 3(m).

Finally, the WHD states that given the changes made by the Act, WHD will not apply WHD’s July 20, 2017 non-enforcement policy concerning retention of tips by tipped employees paid the full FLSA minimum wage to new investigations beginning on or after March 23, 2018. When an investigation covers periods before and after March 23, 2018, and the employee was paid at least the full FLSA minimum wage, however, the FAB states WHD will only cite violations of section 3(m) if they occurred after March 23, 2018.

In an April 9, 2018 press release issued in connection with its publication of the FAB, WHD states that it expects to fully address the impact of the 2018 amendments made by the Act through formal rulemaking soon. In the meantime, restaurant employers using or interested in using tip pools should ensure that their practices are tailored to respond to the FAB guidance as well as to otherwise comply with all WHD and other wage and hour rules.

Enforcement Risks Merit Heightened Restaurant Compliance

Confirming and maintaining appropriate wage and hour compliance and risk management is particularly imperative because of the WHD’s ongoing targeted enforcement efforts against industry employers.

The evidence makes clear that the restaurant industry’s high record of noncompliance makes it a continuing target for aggressive wage and hour law oversight, enforcement and compliance outreach by WHD.

To assist and encourage restaurant operators’ voluntary compliance with the FLSA and wage and hour rules, WHD offers a number of tip sheets and other resources specifically focusing on restaurant industry employers on its website as well as conducts other outreach. See e.g., Restaurants and Fast Food Establishments under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Along with these compliance efforts, however, WHD also targets restaurant employers for aggressive oversight and enforcement, as well as conducts significant outreach educate and encourage state agencies and workers to enforce employee wage and hour rights. See e.g., U.S. Department of Labor Undertakes Education and Enforcement Initiative To Improve Compliance in Green Bay-Area Restaurants (April 12, 2018);U.S. Department of Labor Sets Up Hotline for Back Wages Owed Employees at New Jersey and New York Houlihan’s Restaurants; Workers Owed Wages.

Despite WHD’s highly publicized enforcement efforts and substantial compliance outreach to the industry, WHD enforcement statistics reflect that noncompliance remains an industry wide problem. WHD reports that common violations include worker misclassification of workers, inappropriately claiming tip credit under FLSA 3(m); improperly deducting walkouts, cash register shortages, breakage, cost of uniforms, etc., improper classification of employees as exempt employees; and recordkeeping deficiencies.

WHD data also reflects that the WHD is continuing to successfully target restaurant employers aggressively under the Trump Administration. WHD credits these efforts with allowing it to recover $42 million in back pay from restaurant employers in fiscal year 2017 alone. 2018 enforcement data reflects that WHD is continuing these efforts in 2018 with great success.

For instance, in February, WHD announced that the operator of 14 restaurants in Alabama, Georgia, and Virginia, Taziki’s Restaurants LLC doing business as Taziki’s Mediterranean Café was paying $135,844 to 26 employees to resolve violations of FLSA overtime and recordkeeping provisions. According to WHD, Taziki’s violated the FLSA by failing to combine the hours that individual employees worked at multiple locations in the same workweek to determine whether overtime was due. Instead, the employer paid each employee with multiple paychecks corresponding to each location. This practice resulted in failure to pay overtime when an employee’s combined hours totaled more than 40 in a workweek. Investigators also found that Taziki’s Restaurants LLC failed to pay workers for time they spent traveling between restaurants to perform work. This exclusion of work time from the payroll created a record keeping violation, and these previously unrecorded hours also resulted in additional overtime found due.

All indications are that it subsequently still is continuing its vigorous targeting of the industry. WHD announced its establishment of a hotline for 1,471 current and former Houlihan’s employees of 17 of the restaurant chain’s New Jersey and New York locations to assist them in recovering back wages and liquidated damages. See U.S. Department of Labor Sets Up Hotline for Back Wages Owed Employees at New Jersey and New York Houlihan’s Restaurants (April 12, 2018); U.S. Department of Labor Undertakes Education and Enforcement Initiative To Improve Compliance in Green Bay-Area Restaurants (April 12, 2018); U.S. Department of Labor Investigation Results in Tennessee Restaurant Paying $48,197 to Resolve Minimum Wage and Overtime Violations (April 11, 2018).

Meanwhile, state wage and hour law enforcement and private enforcement of federal and state wage and laws also continues to rise, in part as a result of WHD’s concurrent educational outreach to industry workers , plaintiff’s attorneys and union representatives about rights and remedies and outreach, coordination and grant funding to state wage and hour enforcement agencies.

Amid these ongoing risks, WHD recently has given employer a new option for resolving FLSA and other wage and hour law violation exposures. Under the new pilot self-audit Payroll Audit Independent Determination (PAID) program WHD announced on March 6, WHD says that it will allow employers accepted into the program after voluntarily disclosing violations to resolve their exposure WHD penalties and liquidated damages commonly assessed by WHD against employers for violating the FLSA minimum wage and overtime violations by:

Voluntarily disclosing the violations to WHD before becoming subject to investigation or enforcement and requesting admission to the program;
Paying affected workers 100 percent of the unpaid back pay due wrongfully denied by the end of the next full pay period after receiving the summary of unpaid wages from WHD confirming the back pay amount;
Working with WHD prospectively to correct noncompliant practices; and
Taking other actions to correct and prevent a recurrence of those violations.

While participation in the PAID program allows a participating employer to settle its exposure to prosecution for those violations by WHD, many employers may face challenges in using the program as a result of the inability to marshal the required capital to pay 100 percent of the back pay due within the required time period. In addition, acceptance into the program is not available for certain violations and other conditions and limitations apply. See Employers Should Weigh New DOL PAID Program, Other Options To Manage Rising FLSA Minimum Wage & Overtime Risks. While employers concerned about potential existing or past violation exposures will need to weigh the new option carefully with the assistance of experienced legal counsel, the availability of this option coupled with the high risk of enforcement and resulting liability makes it important for employers to assess their potential risk and associated risk mitigation options promptly. Consequently, restaurant employers are well advised to exercise extreme care to audit within the scope of attorney-client privileged the adequacy of their practices and records and evaluate options for mitigating their wage and hour exposures with the assistance of legal counsel experienced with wage and hour and related workforce matters.

About The Author

Want to know more? See here for details about the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, e-mail her here or telephone Ms. Stamer at (469) 767-8872.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Comments Off on High Enforcement, New Tip Pool Rules Require Restaurants Reassess & Manage FLSA Risks | compensation, FLSA, Uncategorized | Tagged: Employer, PAID program, Restaurant, tip pools, tipped employee, wage and hour, Wage and Hour division | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Employers Should Weigh New DOL PAID Program, Other Options To Manage Rising FLSA Minimum Wage & Overtime Risks

April 12, 2018

About The Author

Want to know more? See here for details about the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, e-mail her here or telephone Ms. Stamer at (469) 767-8872.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Comments Off on Employers Should Weigh New DOL PAID Program, Other Options To Manage Rising FLSA Minimum Wage & Overtime Risks | Attorney-Client Privilege, board of directors, Brokers, business travel, Child Labor, compensation, compliance, Construction, Corporate Compliance, corporate governance, employee, Employee Benefits, Employee Handbook, Employer, Employers, Employment, Employment Policies, enforcement, Executive Compensation, Exempt, Fair Labor Standards Act, FLSA, HR, Human Resources, Insurance, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, Labor Management Relations, Management, Managment, officers, Overtime, Telecommuting, Uncategorized, Union, Workforce | Tagged: Employer, FLSA, wage, Wage & Hour | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

ACA Liabilities Still Require Management

March 23, 2018

Employers and health plans! Don’t let the prospects of reform dupe you into failing to manage past and current Obama care liability exposures.

Contrary to popular perception, President Trump’s health plan executive orders do not insulate employers or their health plans from all Obama care compliance or enforcement exposures. Among other things, example, the Internal Revenue Service continues to enforce Internal Revenue Code rules that require employers to self-identify and report any violations of the 40 listed federal health plan mandates on Form 8928 and pay resulting excise taxes unless and until reform passes.

Furthermore, even if reform eventually passes, reform is unlikely to insulate health plans, their fiduciaries or sponsors from costs and liabilities arising under plan terms and the laws in effect before a post reform amendment.

Employers and other health plan sponsors, there fiduciaries, insurers and reinsurers, administrative service providers and other vendors should continue to participate actively in helping to promote and shape commonsense for form administrative service providers and other vendors should continue to participate actively in helping to promote and shape common sense reforms at the statutes and regulations impacting their health plans.

In anticipation and preparation for these reforms, employer and other health plan sponsors, fiduciaries, insurers and other vendors also should begin reviewing plans to confirm continue in compliance while simultaneously evaluating and beginning to discuss processes for responding to changes and amending plans and associated contracts as quickly as possible when and if reform happens to take advantage of the changes as quickly as possible.

About The Author

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

▪DOL Spending Reports Required As Taxpayer Tool Need Improvement

▪Check & Protect Health & Other Electronic Systems & Data Against New Security Threat

▪April 1 New Deadline To Update Benefit Plan Disability Determination Claims & Appeals Procesures; Hear More on 1/26

▪Arizona Proposal To Ban Sexual Harassment Confidentiality Agreements Sign Of Growing Employer Risks

▪$23M Penalty Small Part of 21st Century’s Data Breach Fallout; Offers Data Breach Lessons For Other Businesses

▪Take Care of Your Good People

▪Read Tax Cuts and Jobs Act Conference Report For Tax Reform From Source

▪Check How IRS 2018 Retirement & Saving Plan Limits and Amounts Cost Of Living Adjustments Impact Your HR & Retirement Plan Administration & Planning

▪IRS Prepares To Nail Employers Under Obamacare Mandate While Giving Some Individual Mandate Relief

▪Hiring & Retaining Workers Growing Business Challenge

https://www.facebook.com/CynthiaMarcotteStamerPc/videos/1087964974642639/

Comments Off on ACA Liabilities Still Require Management | Uncategorized | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

3/30 Deadline To Comment On New Vet Business Preference Rules

February 21, 2018

March 30 is the deadline to comment on changes the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) and Department if Veteran Affrairs are proposing to make to regulations implementing The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (NDAA 2017).

The proposed changes will affect qualification for veterans preferences under a wide range of federal programs.

The NDAA 2017 placed the responsibility for issuing regulations relating to ownership and control for the Department of Veterans Affairs verification of Veteran-Owned (VO) and Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned (SDVO) Small Business Concern (SBC) with the SBA.

Under NDAA 2017, there will be one definition of ownership and control for that will apply for purposes of the Department of Veterans Affairs in its verification and Vets First Contracting Program procurements, and all other government acquisitions which require self-certification. The legislation also provides that in certain circumstances a firm can qualify as VO or SDVO when there is a surviving spouse or an employee stock ownership plan (ESOP).

Read the proposed rule hereand the companion rule issued by VA and additional information is here.

Comments Off on 3/30 Deadline To Comment On New Vet Business Preference Rules | Affirmative Action, board of directors, Construction, Corporate Compliance, corporate governance, directors, Employers, Government Contractors, Risk Management, Uncategorized, USERRA, veterans, VEVRAA, VEVRRA | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

OCR HIPAA Resolution Agreement Against Bankrupt Business Associate Signals Growing Exposures, Need for Tighter HIPAA Compliance By Health Plans & Business Associates

February 15, 2018

Health plans and insurers, their service providers that act as business associates within the meaning of the Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act (HIPAA) and employer and other health plan sponsors, fiduciaries, and other management leaders should heed the warnings contained in the new Resolution Agreement (FileFax Resolution Agreement) with former HIPAA business associate FileFax, Inc. announced by the Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) Office of Civil Rights (OCR) about their own need to ensure that they and their business associates comply with HIPAA’s business associate and other Privacy, Security, Breach Notification rules as well as the advisability of tightening up their risk management and oversight of business associates that handle protected health information (PHI).

Significant for business associates as what appears to be the first announced resolution agreement with a business associate directly charged by OCR with violating HIPAA and the second resolution agreement pursued and reached with a HIPAA-regulated entity in bankruptcy, the FileFax, Inc. Resolution Agreement OCR announced February 13, 2018 also contains critical lessons for Covered Entities about their dealings with their own business associates when read in conjunction with the April, 2017 resolution agreement the Center for Children’s Digestive Health (CCDH) agreed to resolve OCR charges CCDC, as a Covered Entity, violated HIPAA by allowing FileFax, Inc. to act as its business associate without adequately complying with HIPAA’s business associate requirements.

With widespread media coverage over large scale breaches of health care and other sensitive information placing further pressure upon OCR and other governmental agencies to act to protect Americans’ privacy and data fueling even greater demands for OCR and other agencies to take meaningful action to enforce HIPAA and other privacy and data security requirements, health plans, health care providers, health care clearinghouses (Covered Entities) and their business associates can expect OCR and other agencies to continue to turn up the heat on investigation and enforcement of HIPAA compliance.

In the face of these developments, Covered Entities, their business associates and those responsible for their leadership and operations need to recognize and take the necessary steps both effectively to manage their own HIPAA compliance and risk management as well as to anticipate and make provision to deal with the likelihood that they may face HIPAA responsibilities, exposures and other fallout from their own or another business partner’s breach of PHI or other sensitive data or other HIPAA violations, bankruptcy or other business distress, or other compliance or business event.

HIPAA Privacy, Security & Breach Notification Rule Responsibilities & Risks

The Privacy Rule requires that health plans, health care providers, health care clearinghouses (Covered Entities) and their vendors that qualify as “business associates” under HIPAA comply with detailed requirements concerning the protection, use, access, destruction and disclosure of protected health information. As part of these requirements, Covered Entities and their business associates must adopt, administer and enforce detailed policies and practices, assess, monitor and maintain the security of electronic protected health information (ePHI) and other protected health information, provide notices of privacy practices and breaches of “unsecured” ePHI, afford individuals that are the subject of protected health information certain rights and comply with other requirements as specified by the Privacy, Security and Breach Notification Rules. In addition, Covered Entities and business associates also must enter into a written and signed business associate agreement that contains the elements specified in Privacy Rule § 164.504(e) before the business associate creates, uses, accesses or discloses PHI of the Covered Entity. Furthermore, the Privacy Rule includes extensive documentation and keeping requirements require that Covered Entities and BAs maintain copies of these BAAs for a minimum of six years and to provide that documentation to OCR upon demand.

Violations of the Privacy Rule can carry stiff civil monetary penalties or even criminal penalties. Pursuant to amendments to HIPAA enacted as part of the HITECH Act, civil penalties typically do not apply to violations punished under the criminal penalty rules of HIPAA set forth in Social Security Act , 42 U.S.C § 1320d-6 (Section 1177).

Resolution Agreements the just announced FileFax Resolution Agreement allow Covered Entities and business associates to resolve potentially substantially larger civil monetary penalty liabilities that OCR can impose under the civil enforcement provisions of HIPAA for HIPAA violations through a negotiated settlement process. As amended by the HITECH Act, the civil enforcement provisions of HIPAA empower OCR to impose Civil Monetary Penalties on both Covered Entities and BAs for violations of any of the requirements of the Privacy or Security Rules. The penalty ranges for civil violations depends upon the circumstances associated with the violations and are subject to upward adjustment for inflation. As most recently adjusted here effective September 6, 2016, the following currently are the progressively increasing Civil Monetary Penalty tiers:

A minimum penalty of $100 and a maximum penalty of $50,000 per violation, for violations which the CE or BA “did not know, and by exercising reasonable diligence would not have known” about using “the business care and prudence expected from a person seeking to satisfy a legal requirement under similar circumstances;”
A minimum penalty of $1,000 and a maximum penalty of $50,000 per violation, for violations for “reasonable cause” which do not rise to the level of “willful neglect” where “reasonable cause” means the “circumstances that would make it unreasonable for the Covered Entity, despite the exercise of ordinary business care and prudence, to comply with the violated Privacy Rule requirement;”
A minimum penalty of $10,000 and a maximum penalty of $50,000 per violation, for violations attributed to “willful neglect,” defined as “the conscious, intentional failure or reckless indifference to the obligation to comply” with the requirement or prohibition; and
A minimum penalty of $50,000 and a maximum penalty of $1.5 million per violation, for violations attributed to “willful neglect” not remedied within 30 days of the date that the Covered Entity or BA knew or should have known of the violation.

For continuing violations such as failing to implement a required BAA, OCR can treat each day of noncompliance as a separate violation. However, sanctions under each of these tiers generally are subject to a maximum penalty of $1,500,000 for violations of identical requirements or prohibitions during a calendar year. For violations such as the failure to implement and maintain a required BAA where more than one Covered Entity bears responsibility for the violation, OCR an impose Civil Monetary Penalties against each culpable party. OCR considers a variety of mitigating and aggravating facts and circumstances when arriving at the amount of the penalty within each of these applicable tiers to impose.

In addition to these potential civil liability exposures, Covered Entities, their business associates and other individuals or organizations that wrongfully use, access or disclose electronic or other protected health information also can face civil liability under various circumstances. The criminal enforcement provisions of HIPAA authorize the Justice Department to prosecute a person who knowingly in violation of the Privacy Rule (1) uses or causes to be used a unique health identifier; (2) obtains individually identifiable health information relating to an individual; or (3) discloses individually identifiable health information to another person, punishable by the following criminal sanctions and penalties:

A fine of up to $50,000, imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both;
If the offense is committed under false pretenses, a fine of up to $100,000, imprisonment of not more than 5 years, or both; and
If the offense is committed with intent to sell, transfer, or use individually identifiable health information for commercial advantage, personal gain, or malicious harm, a fine of up to $250,000, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.

Because HIPAA Privacy Rule criminal violations are Class A Misdemeanors or felonies, Covered Entities and business associates should include HIPAA compliance in their Federal Sentencing Guideline Compliance Programs and practices and need to be concerned both about criminal exposure for their own direct violations, as well as imputed organizational liability for violations committed by their employees or agents under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, particularly where their failure to implement or administer these required compliance policies and practices or failure to properly investigate or redress potential violations enables, perpetuates or covers up the criminal breach.

FileFax, Inc. Breach & Resolution Agreement

While Congress amended the Civil Monetary Penalty provisions of HIPAA enforced by OCR to make many of the requirements and Civil Monetary Penalty sanctions of HIPAA directly enforceable by OCR against business associates as part of the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act, enacted as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, the FileFax Resolution Agreement appears to be the first HIPAA resolution agreement with a business associate announced by OCR.

Indeed, OCR’s enforcement action that resulted in the FileFax Resolution Agreement would never have occurred had FileFax, Inc. not become involved in handling medical records containing PHI in the capacity of a business associate for Covered Entities.

Before filing for bankruptcy in 2016, FileFax, Inc. advertised it provided HIPAA-compliant storage, maintenance, and delivery of medical records for HIPAA Covered Entities including Illinois based health care provider CCDC, which entered into a resolution agreement with OCR in April, 2017 to resolve OCR charges that it violated HIPAA by allowing FileFax, Inc. to handle PHI without fulfilling HIPAA’s business associate agreement requirements.

Like the CCDC Resolution Agreement, the FileFax, Inc. Resolution Agreement resulted from an investigation of FileFax, Inc. that OCR began in response to a February 10, 2015 anonymous complaint filed with OCR about FileFax, Inc. about deficiencies in its delivery of these HIPAA services in its capacity as a business associate to Covered Entities. The complaint to OCR alleged that FileFax, Inc. violated these requirements because an individual transported medical records obtained from FileFax, Inc. to a shredding and recycling facility to sell on February 6 and 9, 2015.

OCR’s investigation of the complaint against FileFax, Inc. confirmed that an individual had left medical records of approximately 2,150 patients at the shredding and recycling facility, and that these medical records contained patients’ PHI. OCR’s investigation additionally found that between January 28, 2015, and February 14, 2015, FileFax, Inc. impermissibly disclosed the PHI of 2,150 individuals by leaving the PHI in an unlocked truck in the FileFax, Inc. parking lot, or by granting permission to an unauthorized person to remove the PHI from FileFax, Inc. and leaving the PHI unsecured outside the FileFax, Inc. facility.

After OCR commenced its investigation of the complaint, FileFax, Inc. was placed into bankruptcy and a receiver was appointed to liquidate FileFax, Inc.’s assets for distribution to creditors and others in 2016. Despite the bankruptcy, OCR continued to pursue enforcement against FileFax, Inc. for the HIPAA violations it found through its investigation. On February 13, 2018, OCR announced that that the receiver on behalf of FileFax, Inc. had agreed in the FileFax Resolution Agreement to pay a $100,000 monetary settlement out of the bankruptcy estate and to arrange to properly store and dispose of remaining medical records found at FileFax, Inc.’s facility in compliance with HIPAA to resolve OCR’s HIPAA charges against FileFax, Inc.

OCR Previously Sanctioned Covered Entity For Involvement With FileFax, Inc.

Beyond affirming the exposure business associates to OCR civil monetary penalties or other enforcement for violating HIPAA, the FileFax Resolution Agreement in conjunction with OCR’s previously announced April 20, 2017 resolution agreement (CCDC Resolution Agreement) with CCDC also demonstrates the need for Covered Entities to recognize that their organizations are likely to face HIPAA investigations or enforcement from HIPAA violations by or OCR audits or investigations of the conduct of their business associates.

In fact, this is exactly what happened to CCDC. A small, Illinois based Covered Entity, CCDC used FileFax, Inc. to store and dispose of medical records. As a consequence of the FileFax, Inc. investigation, OCR conducted a compliance review of CCDC. OCR reports that its compliance review revealed that while CCDC had disclosed to and allowed FileFax, Inc. to store records containing PHI for CCDC since in 2003, neither party could produce a signed business associate agreement (BAA) prior to October 12, 2015. As a consequence, OCR charged CCDC with violating HIPAA by disclosing PHI to FileFax, Inc. in violation of HIPAA’s business associate requirements.

To resolve its exposure to potentially much greater civil monetary penalties associated with this charge, CCDC agreed under the CCDC Resolution Agreement to pay OCR a $31,000 resolution payment and take a variety of corrective actions. Beyond requiring CCDC to implement and maintain written business associate agreements before allowing business associates to possess or access PHI, the corrective action plan imposed as part of the CCDC Resolution Agreement also expressly requires CCDC to promptly investigate information of a possible violation of its HIPAA policies and procedures by a “workforce member,” which the Privacy Rule defines to include a business associate, and if the investigation reveals a violation, to report the violation and corrective action taken to OCR.

OCR Enforces HIPAA Against Covered Entities & Business Associates In Bankruptcy

OCR’s announcement of the FileFax Resolution Agreement also is significant in its reaffirmation of OCR to its commitment to HIPAA enforcement, even if the HIPAA-violating Covered Entity or business associate goes bankruptcy.

OCR’s enforcement action against FileFax, Inc. despite its bankruptcy and its successful negotiation of the FileFax Resolution Agreement within the bankruptcy should alert Covered Entities and business associates that OCR does not consider the bankruptcy of a Covered Entity or business associate as an obstacle to OCR enforcement against Covered Entities or business associates that violate HIPAA. The seriousness of OCR’s commitment to enforcement, even in the face of bankruptcy is driven home by its announcement of the FileFax Resolution Agreement on the heels of its December, 2017 announcement of its first OCR HIPAA resolution agreement secured with the formal approval of a bankruptcy court, a resolution agreement (21CO Resolution Agreement) against bankrupt health care provider, 21CO.

Secured with bankruptcy court approval, the 21CO Resolution Agreement resolved potentially much larger civil monetary penalties that the Fort Myers, Florida based provider of cancer care services and radiation oncology could have faced for alleged HIPAA breaches OCR charged it committed in connection with its failure to adequately act to prevent and respond to hacking and misappropriation of records containing sensitive electronic protected health information (ePHI) of up to 2,213597 individuals.

The OCR charges against 21CO arose from an OCR investigation commenced after the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) notified 21CO on November 13, 2015 and a second time on December 13, 2015 than unauthorized third party illegally obtained 21CO sensitive patient information and produced 21CO patient files purchased by a FBI informant. As part of its internal investigation, 21CO hired a third party forensic auditing firm in November 2015. 21CO determined that the attacker may have accessed 21CO’s network SQL database as early as October 3, 2015, through Remote Desktop Protocol from an Exchange Server within 21CO’s network. 21CO determined that it is possible that 2,213,597 individuals may have been affected by the impermissible access to their names, social security numbers, physicians’ names, diagnoses, treatment and insurance information.

Although it knew of the breaches in November and December, 2015, 21CO waited more than three months after the FBI notified it of the breaches before it sent HIPAA or other breach notifications about the data breach to patients or notified investors in March, 2016. Its March 4, 2016 Securities and Exchange Commission 8-K on Data Security Incident (Breach 8-K) states 21CO delayed notification at the request of the FBI to avoid interfering in the criminal investigation of the breach.

When announcing the breach, 21CO provided all individuals affected by the breach with a free one-year subscription to the Experian ProtectMyID fraud protection service. At that time, 21CO said it had no evidence that any patient information actually had been misused. However some victims of the breach subsequently have claimed being victimized by a variety of scams since the breach in news reports and lawsuits about the breach.

At the time of the breach and its March 4, 2016 announcement of the breach, 21CO already was working to resolve other compliance issues. On December 16, 2015, 21CO announced that a 21CO subsidiary had agreed to pay $19.75 million to the United States and $528,000 in attorneys’ fees and costs and comply with a corporate integrity agreement related to a qui tam action in which it was accused of making false claims to Medicare and other federal health programs. See 21CO 8-K Re: Entry into a Material Definitive Agreement (December 22, 2015). Among other things, the corporate integrity agreement required by that settlement required 21CO to appoint a compliance officer and take other steps to maintain compliance with federal health care laws. In addition, five days after releasing the March 4, 2017 Breach 8-K, 21CO notified investors that its subsidiary, 21st Century Oncology, Inc. (“21C”), had agreed to pay $37.4 million to settle health care fraud law charges relating to billing and other protocols of certain staff in the utilization of state-of-the-art radiation dose calculation system used by radiation oncologists called GAMMA. See 21CO 8-K Re: GAMMA Settlement March 9, 2016 ; See also United States Settles False Claims Act Allegations Against 21st Century Oncology for $34.7 Million.

Based on OCR’s subsequent investigation into these breaches, OCR found:

21CO impermissibly disclosed certain PHI of 2,213,597 of its patients in violation of 45 C.F.R. § 164.502(a);
21CO failed to conduct an accurate and thorough assessment of the potential risks and vulnerabilities to the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the electronic protected health information (ePHI) held by 21CO in violation of 45 C.F.R. § 164.308(a)(1)(ii)(A);
21CO failed to implement certain security measures sufficient to reduce risks and vulnerabilities to a reasonable and appropriate level to comply with 45 C.F.R. § 164.306(A) in violation of 45 C.F.R. § 164.308(a)(1)(ii)(B);
21CO failed to implement procedures to regularly review records of information system activity, such as audit logs, access reports, and security incident tracking reports as required by 45 C.F.R. §164.308(a)(1)(ii)(D);
21CO disclosed protected health information to a third party vendors, acting as its business associates, without obtaining satisfactory assurances in the form of a written business associate agreement in violation of HIPAA’s business associate rule requirements under 45 C.F.R. §§ 164.502(e) and 164.308(b)(3).

In return for OCR’s agreement not to further pursue charges or penalties relating to the breach investigation, the Resolution Agreement entered into with the approval of the Bankruptcy Court requires that 21CO pay OCR a $2.3 million Resolution Amount and implement to OCR’s satisfaction a corrective action plan that among other things requires that 21CO complete a detailed series of corrective actions to the satisfaction of OCR.

In addition to the OCR investigation that lead to the 21CO Resolution Agreement announced by OCR on December 28, 2017, 21CO experienced other fallout following its March 4, 2016 public disclosure of the breach. Not surprisingly, the breach notification led to a multitude of class-action civil lawsuits by breach victims and shareholders. See, e.g., 16 Data Breach Class Action Lawsuits Filed Against 21st Century Oncology Consolidated; 21st Century Oncology data breach prompts multiple lawsuits. Reports of spoofing and other misleading contacts made to 21CO patients following the breach prompted the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to issue a specific notice alerting victims about potential false breach notifications and other misleading contacts. See April 4, 2016 FTC Announcement Re: 21st Century Oncology breach exposes patients’ info.

These and other developments also had significant consequences on 21CO’s financial status and leadership. By March 31, 2015, 21CO notified the SEC and investors that it needed added time to complete its financial statements. Subsequent SEC filings document its restatement of financial statements, the departure of board members and other leaders, default on credit terms, and ultimately its filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York on May 25, 2017.

Because 21CO sought bankruptcy court protection from the fallout of its HIPAA breaches and other compliance and business issues, the 21CO Resolution Agreement required bankruptcy court approval. Funds for payment of the required $2.3 million resolution payment and other charges associated with the investigation apparently are being provided in part from breach liability insurance coverage provided under a policy issued by Beazley Insurance, as the Bankruptcy Court order directs Beazley Breach Response Policy No. W140E2150301 to make immediate payment to the OCR of the resolution amount and the payment of fees incurred by 21CO in connection with regulatory defense issues.

HIPAA & Data Breach Enforcement A Growing Health Plan Risk

Health plans and other Covered Entities, plan sponsors and plan fiduciaries, their business associates and other consultants and service providers and members of their workforce need to recognize that the FileFax, CCDC, 21CO and other resolution agreements are part of a growing trend, rather than isolated incidents of enforcement and that their exposure to investigation and enforcement is likely to continue to rise in the face of growing public and Congressional concern about privacy and data security.

While civil monetary penalty enforcement remains much more common than criminal prosecution, Covered Entities, their business associates and members of their workforce must understand that HIPAA enforcement and resulting liability is growing and that this trend is likely to continue if not increase.

While Department of Justice federal criminal prosecutions and convictions under HIPAA remain relatively rare, they occur and are growing. See e.g., Former Hospital Employee Sentenced for HIPAA Violations (Texas man sentenced to 18 months in federal prison for obtaining protected health information with the intent to use it for personal gain); Three Life Sentences Imposed On Man Following Convictions For Drug Trafficking, Kidnapping, Using Firearms and HIPAA Violations (drug king pin gets multiple 10 year consecutive prison terms for unauthorized access to private health information in violation of HIPAA; his health care worker friend sentenced for accessing electronic medical files and reporting information to him); Former Therapist Charged In HIPAA Case; Hefty Prison Sentence in ID Theft Case (former assisted living facility worker gets 37 months in prison after pleading guilty to wrongful disclosure of HIPAA protected information and other charges); Hefty Prison Sentence in ID Theft Case (former medical supply company owner sentenced to 12 years for HIPAA violations and fraud). While the harshest sentences tend to be associated with health care fraud or other criminal conduct, lighter criminal sentences are imposed against defendants in other cases as well. See e.g., Sentencing In S.C. Medicaid Breach Case (former South Carolina state employee sentenced to three years’ probation, plus community service, for sending personal information about more than 228,000 Medicaid recipients to his personal e-mail account.); HIPAA Violation Leads To Prison Term (former UCLA Healthcare System surgeon gets four months in prison after admitting he illegally read private electronic medical records of celebrities and others.)

While criminal enforcement of HIPAA remains relatively rare and OCR to date only actually has assessed HIPAA civil monetary penalties against certain Covered Entities for violating HIPAA in a couple isolated instances, the growing list of multi-million dollar resolution payments against Covered Entities and with the FileFax Resolution Agreement announcement, now also business associates for violating HIPAA make clear that HIPAA enforcement is both meaningful and growing. See e.g., Learn From Children’s New $3.2M+ HIPAA CMP For “Knowing” Violation of HIPAA Security Rules ($3.2 million Children’s Medical Center HIPAA Civil Monetary Penalty); 1st HIPAA Privacy Civil Penalty of $4.3 Million Signals CMS Serious About HIPAA Enforcement; $400K HIPAA Settlement Shows Need To Conduct Timely & Appropriate Risk Assessments; $5.5M Memorial HIPAA Resolution Agreement Shows Need To Audit. For more examples, also see here.

The experiences of FileFax, Inc., CCDC, 21CO and these other OCR HIPAA Resolution Agreements provide strong evidence that that health plans and other Covered Entities and their business associates can anticipate that OCR will continue to zealously investigate HIPAA breaches and other HIPAA violations. Aside from OCR’s recurrent affirmations of its commitment to HIPAA enforcement, Covered Entities, their business associates and their leaders must recognize that public and Congressional privacy and data security concerns fueled by the ever growing stream of massive data breaches at Alteryx, eBay, Paypal owner TIO Networks, Uber, Equifax and a long list of other previously trusted prominent businesses are creating additional pressure upon OCR and other agencies to pursue even stronger and more aggressive HIPAA oversight and enforcement. Amid this growing concern, OCR, the FTC and other federal and state agencies with regulatory or enforcement authority over HIPAA or other data security and privacy concerns face increasing scrutiny and pressure to take meaningful action to regulate and enforce HIPAA and other laws intended to protect sensitive data even as private litigants enjoy increasing success in obtaining civil judgments from damages resulting from breaches of their PHI or other sensitive personal information using an expanding arsenal of legal theories of recovery. In the face of these growing concerns about privacy and data security, OCR can be expected to continue, if not increase its HIPAA compliance enforcement and oversight by OCR.

Furthermore, the experiences of FileFax, Inc., 21CO, CCDC and other Covered Entities and business associates that already have become the subject of OCR investigation or enforcement also reflect that HIPAA resolution payments or penalties paid to OCR and other costs and expenses associated with the defense and resolution of OCR’s investigations and enforcement actions typically only a portion of the financial and other business consequences that Covered Entities or business associates might expect to incur as a consequence of a breach of PHI or other substantial HIPAA violation or charge.

Beyond their potential HIPAA enforcement exposures following a HIPAA covered data breach or other violation, health care or other Covered Entities and members of their workforce experiencing breaches of ePHI or other PHI often also face FTC or other government investigations and enforcement relating their data breaches under the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA) and other federal or state identity theft, data privacy and security, electronic crimes and other laws. They or members of their workforce may face licensing board, credentialing, accreditation, contractual or other investigations or sanctions. Victims, business partners, investors and others often bring civil litigation to address losses or other injures associated with the breach or other misconduct. In addition, losses and disruptions in patients, plan member, vendor, investor, employee, management and other business relationships, and other business disruptions also are common.

Where the breach of other HIPAA violation involves a health plan, health plans, their fiduciaries and sponsors also need to give due consideration to the implications and exposures that might arise under the fiduciary responsibility rules of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). Beyond the direct exposure of their health plan to HIPAA and other compliance liabilities, health plan fiduciaries generally will want to consider whether their fiduciary responsibility under ERISA requires that prudent or other steps be taken to safeguard health plan information and maintain and administer their health plan in accordance with HIPAA and other laws. As a consequence, fiduciaries generally will want to ensure that they take and document prudent steps to evaluate, monitor and address HIPAA and other privacy and data security safeguards to minimize not only the liability exposures of their health plans, but also to help mitigate their own potential personal liability exposures that could arise or be asserted in response to a HIPAA breach or other HIPAA violation involving their health plans.

In the face of these growing risks and liabilities, Covered Entities and their business leaders face a strong imperative to clean up and maintain their HIPAA compliance and other data security to minimize their exposure to similar consequences. In addition to reaffirming the need for Covered Entities and their business associates to take the necessary steps to maintain and effectively demonstrate the adequacy of their own HIPAA compliance, the CCDC and FileFax Resolution Agreements alert Covered Entities and business associates of the advisability of greater oversight and risk management of their dealings and relationships with the other Covered Entities and business associates with access to or involvement with their PHI or other critical functions.

In light of these rises, leaders, investors, insurers, lenders and others involved with Covered Entities and their business associates should take steps to verify that the Covered Entities and their business associates not only maintain compliance with HIPAA and its business associate and other privacy, data security and breach notification and response requirements, but also maintain appropriate practices, insurance and other safeguards to prevent, respond to and mitigate exposures in the event of a breach of protected health information or other sensitive data. The bankruptcies and other financial and business fallout of HIPAA or other data breaches experienced by FileFax, Inc. 21CO and other HIPAA-covered and non-HIPAA regulated entities also makes clear that Covered Entities and business associates should anticipate that their own fallout from a breach or other HIPAA event and resulting responsibilities and consequences could be impacted by their own or a business associate’s financial distress or bankruptcy. Beyond the risk that their own or another entity’s breach, compliance issues, or other financial or business issues could trigger breach investigation, notice or other responsibilities for their own organizations, Covered Entities, business associates and their leaders also should evaluate and revise their HIPAA risk assessments and security plans to address foreseeable threats to the availability, access, retention and security of PHI and associated records and systems.

The Bankruptcy Court’s order to 21CO’s cyber liability insurer to pay the resolution payment required under the 21CO Resolution Agreement and other costs of investigation and defense also strongly suggests that the purchase of insurance and other arrangements for funding costs of defense or settlement should be included in these evaluations.

As part of these efforts, Covered Entities and their business associates should ensure that they have conducted, and maintain and are ready to produce appropriate policies and procedures backed up by a well-documented, up-to-date industry wide risk assessment of their organization’s susceptibility to breaches or other misuse of electronic or other protected health information. The starting point of these efforts should be to adopt and enforce updated written policies, procedures, technical and physical safeguards, processes and training to prevent the improper use, access, destruction or disclosure of patient PHI. Processes also should create, retain and be designed to cost effectively track, capture, and retain both all protected health information, its use, access, protection, destruction and disclosure, and the requisite supportive documentation supporting the appropriateness of those action to position the organization cost-effectively and quickly to fulfill required accounting, reporting and other needs in the event of a data breach, audit, participant inquiry or other event.

As part of this process, Covered Entities and business associates should maintain strong and ongoing processes for assessing and monitoring the adequacy of their policies and practices. In addition to ensuring that their organization has a comprehensive risk management and compliance assessment, Covered Entities and business associates need to conduct documented periodic audits and spot HIPAA audits and assessments. In doing so, they must use care to look outside the four corners of their Privacy Policies and core operating systems to ensure that their policies, practices, oversight and training address all protected health information within their operations on an entity wide basis. This entity-wide assessment should include communications and requests for information normally addressed to the Privacy Officer as well as requests and communications that could arise in the course of media or other public relations, practice transition, workforce communication and other operations not typically under the direct oversight and management of the Privacy Officer.

In connection with these efforts, the enforcement actions make clear that Covered Entities and business associates should adopt, implement and monitor PHI privacy, and security on an entity wide basis. These efforts should include general policies, practices and procedures as well as specifically tailored policies, processes and training to protect PHI and preserve HIPAA compliance throughout their organization. Testing and analysis should be conducted on a regular basis. Documented reassessments and testing should be performed in response to software, hardware or other changes or events that could impact security or other operations. Beyond security, attention also should cover business or system interruption including losses that might occur from the bankruptcy, termination of business or other disruptions of business associates or other parties. Attention should be paid both to protecting access and use of PHI and ePHI in the course of business as well as the transmission, transport, storage and destruction of records or systems containing such information.

Careful attention should be devoted to ensuring that business associate agreements as well and other processes provide for HIPAA compliance with respect to all PHI created, used, accessed or disclosed to business associates or others not part of their direct workforce or operating outside the core boundaries of their facilities.

Covered entities and their business associates also must recognize and design their compliance efforts and documentation recognizing that HIPAA compliance is a living process, which require both constant diligence about changes in systems or other events that may require reevaluation or adjustments, whether from changes in software, systems or processes or external threats.

Because the cost of responding to and investigating breaches or other compliance concern can be quite burdensome, Covered Entities and their business associates also generally will want to pursue options to plan for and minimize potential expenses in the design and administration of their programs as well as to minimize and cover the potentially extraordinary costs of breach or other compliance investigation and results that commonly arise following a breach or other compliance event. As a part of this planning, Covered Entities and their business associates also generally will want to add consideration of changes to federal tax rules on the deductibility of compliance penalty and other related compliance expenditures.

While the Internal Revenue Code traditionally has prohibited businesses and individuals from deducting penalties, fines and other expenditures arising from violations of federal or state laws under Section 162(f) of the Internal Revenue Code, Section 13306 of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Creation Act creates a new exception for amounts (other than amounts paid or incurred any amount paid or incurred as reimbursement to the government or entity for the costs of any investigation or litigation) that a taxpayer establishes meet the following requirements:

Constitute restitution (including remediation of property) for damage or harm which was or may be caused by the violation of any law or the potential violation of any law, or
Are paid to come into compliance with any law which was violated or otherwise involved in the investigation or inquiry into a violation or potential violation of any law;
Are identified as restitution or as an amount paid to come into compliance with such law, as the case may be, in the court order or settlement agreement, and
In the case of any amount of restitution for failure to pay any tax imposed under this title in the same manner as if such amount were such tax, would have been allowed as a deduction under this chapter if it had been timely paid.

Because the true effect of these modifications will be impacted by implementing regulations and a number of other special conditions and rules may impact the deductibility of these payments and the reporting obligations attached to their payment, Covered Entities will want to consult with legal counsel about these rules and monitor their implementation to understand their potential implications on compliance expenditures and penalties.

About The Author

Repeatedly recognized by her peers as a Martindale-Hubble “AV-Preeminent” (Top 1%) and “Top Rated Lawyer” with special recognition LexisNexis® Martindale-Hubbell® as “LEGAL LEADER™ Texas Top Rated Lawyer” in Health Care Law and Labor and Employment Law; as among the “Best Lawyers In Dallas” for her work in the fields of “Labor & Employment,” “Tax: ERISA & Employee Benefits,” “Health Care” and “Business and Commercial Law” by D Magazine, a Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Council, the American Bar Foundation and the Texas Bar Foundation and board certified in labor and employment law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer is a practicing attorney, management consultant, author, public policy advocate and lecturer widely known for health and managed care, employee benefits, insurance and financial services, data and technology and other management work, public policy leadership and advocacy, coaching, teachings, and publications. Nationally recognized for her work, experience, leadership and publications on HIPAA and other medical privacy and data use and security, FACTA, GLB, trade secrets and other privacy and data security concerns, Ms. Stamer has worked extensively with clients and the government on cybersecurity, technology and processes and other issues involved in the use and management of medical, insurance and other financial, workforce, trade secrets and other sensitive data and information throughout her career. Scribe or co-scribe of the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits Agency meeting with OCR since 2011 and author of a multitude of highly regarded publications on HIPAA and other health care, insurance, financial and other privacy and data security, Ms. Stamer is widely known for her extensive and leading edge experience, advising, representing, training and coaching health care providers, health plans, healthcare clearinghouses, business associates, their information technology and other solutions providers and vendors, and others on HIPAA and other privacy, data security and cybersecurity design, documentation, administration, audit and oversight, business associate and other data and technology contracting, breach investigation and response, and other related concerns including extensive involvement representing clients in dealings with OCR and other Health & Human Services, Federal Trade Commission, Department of Labor, Department of Treasury, state health, insurance and attorneys’ general, Congress and state legislators and other federal officials.

Ms. Stamer also has an extensive contributes her leadership and insights with other professionals, industry leaders and lawmakers. Her insights on HIPAA risk management and compliance often appear in medical privacy related publications of a broad range of health care, health plan and other industry publications Among others, she has conducted privacy training for the Association of State & Territorial Health Plans (ASTHO), the Los Angeles Health Department, SHRM, HIMMS, the American Bar Association, the Health Care Compliance Association, a multitude of health plan, insurance and financial services, education, employer employee benefit and other clients, trade and professional associations and others. You can get more information about her HIPAA and other experience here. For additional information about Ms. Stamer, see here, e-mail her here or telephone Ms. Stamer at (214) 452-8297.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Comments Off on OCR HIPAA Resolution Agreement Against Bankrupt Business Associate Signals Growing Exposures, Need for Tighter HIPAA Compliance By Health Plans & Business Associates | Association Health Plan, board of directors, Brokers, church plan, Civil Monetary Penalties, Civil Rights, Claims Administration, Corporate Compliance, corporate governance, Cybercrime, Data Breach, Data Security, EBSA, employee, Employee Benefits, Employer, Employers, Employment, ERISA, FACTA, Fair Credit Reporting Act, fiduciary duty, Fiduciary Responsibility, GINA, health benefit, Health Benefits, health Care, health insurance, health insurance marketplace, health plan, Health Plans, HIPAA, HR, Human Resources, Identity Theft, Insurance, insurers, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, Technology, third party administrators, Trade secret, Uncategorized | Tagged: Health Plans, HIPAA, Technology | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

$3.5M HIPAA Settlement Highlights Need To Prioritize Health Plan HIPAA Compliance in 2018

February 2, 2018

The $3.5 million payment that Fresenius Medical Care North America (FMCNA) is paying to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office for Civil Rights (OCR) to settle potential liability for potentially much higher Civil Monetary Penalties (CMPs) to OCR for Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) Privacy and Security Rules violation charges under a voluntary resolution agreement illustrates the need for group health plans and their employer and other sponsors, fiduciaries, and vendors to make HIPAA compliance a key priority for 2018.

Widespread publicity and fallout from data breaches involving Equifax, Blue Cross, the Internal Revenue Service and many other giant organizations have ramped up public awareness and government concern about health care and other data security. The resulting pressure is adding additional fuel to the already substantial concern of OCR and other agencies about compliance with HIPAA and other data security and breach laws. Like the $2.3 million HIPAA resolution agreement OCR announced with now bankrupt radiation oncology and cancer care provider 21st Century Oncology, Inc. (21CO) earlier this year, see, e.g., $23M Penalty Small Part of 21st Century’s Data Breach Fallout; Offers Data Breach Lessons For Other Businesses, the growing list of OCR resolution agreements and other enforcement actions against FMCNA, 21CO and other covered entities and other legal and market fallout that covered entities and other organizations experience following the announcement of breaches or other security deficiencies make the case for why HIPAA-covered health care providers, health plans, health care clearinghouses and their business associates (covered entities) must prioritize HIPAA compliance and other medical and other data security protection, privacy and risk management a top priority in 2018.

When weighing the importance of HIPAA compliance and risk management for their health plans, health plans, their employer or other sponsors, fiduciaries, insurers, administrators and their business associates should resist the temptation to underestimate the exposure because providers, rather than health plans, have been the most common target of the majority of the announced OCR enforcement actions resulting in substantial civil monetary penalties or resolution payments.

Rather, they should take note of resolution agreements and other enforcement actions against health plans such as the $2.2 million settlement payment APFRE Life Insurance Company of Puerto Rico (MAPFRE) paid under a 2017 resolution agreement to resolve HIPAA violation charges OCR brought based on its investigation of a September 29, 2011 breach report MCPFRE made to OCR. The breach report indicated that a USB data storage device (described as a “pen drive”) containing ePHI was stolen from its IT department, where the device was left without safeguards overnight. According to the report, the USB data storage device included complete names, dates of birth and Social Security numbers. The report noted that the breach affected 2,209 individuals. MAPFRE informed OCR that it was able to identify the breached ePHI by reconstituting the data on the computer on which the USB data storage device was attached. OCR’s investigation revealed MAPFRE’s noncompliance with the HIPAA Rules, specifically a failure to conduct its risk analysis and implement risk management plans, contrary to its prior representations, and a failure to deploy encryption or an equivalent alternative measure on its laptops and removable storage media until September 1, 2014. MAPFRE also failed to implement or delayed implementing other corrective measures it informed OCR it would undertake.

HIPAA Privacy, Security & Breach Notification Rule Responsibilities & Risks

The Privacy Rule requires that health plans, health care providers, health care clearinghouses (covered entities) and their vendors that qualify as “business associates” under HIPAA comply with detailed requirements concerning the protection, use, access, destruction and disclosure of protected health information. As part of these requirements, covered entities and their business associates must adopt, administer and enforce detailed policies and practices, assess, monitor and maintain the security of electronic protected health information (ePHI) and other protected health information, provide notices of privacy practices and breaches of “unsecured” ePHI, afford individuals that are the subject of protected health information certain rights and comply with other requirements as specified by the Privacy, Security and Breach Notification Rules. In addition, covered entities and business associates also must enter into a written and signed business associate agreement that contains the elements specified in Privacy Rule § 164.504(e) before the business associate creates, uses, accesses or discloses PHI of the covered entity. Furthermore, the Privacy Rule includes extensive documentation and keeping requirements require that covered entities and BAs maintain copies of these BAAs for a minimum of six years and to provide that documentation to OCR upon demand.

Resolution Agreements like the $3.2 million FMCNA resolution agreement allow covered entities and business associates to resolve potentially substantially larger civil monetary penalty liabilities that OCR can impose under the civil enforcement provisions of HIPAA. As amended by the HITECH Act, the civil enforcement provisions of HIPAA empower OCR to impose Civil Monetary Penalties on both covered entities and BAs for violations of any of the requirements of the Privacy or Security Rules. The penalty ranges for civil violations depends upon the circumstances associated with the violations and are subject to upward adjustment for inflation. As most recently adjusted here effective September 6, 2016, the following currently are the progressively increasing Civil Monetary Penalty tiers:

A minimum penalty of $100 and a maximum penalty of $50,000 per violation, for violations which the CE or BA “did not know, and by exercising reasonable diligence would not have known” about using “the business care and prudence expected from a person seeking to satisfy a legal requirement under similar circumstances;”
A minimum penalty of $1,000 and a maximum penalty of $50,000 per violation, for violations for “reasonable cause” which do not rise to the level of “willful neglect” where “reasonable cause” means the “circumstances that would make it unreasonable for the covered entity, despite the exercise of ordinary business care and prudence, to comply with the violated Privacy Rule requirement;”
A minimum penalty of $10,000 and a maximum penalty of $50,000 per violation, for violations attributed to “willful neglect,” defined as “the conscious, intentional failure or reckless indifference to the obligation to comply” with the requirement or prohibition; and
A minimum penalty of $50,000 and a maximum penalty of $1.5 million per violation, for violations attributed to “willful neglect” not remedied within 30 days of the date that the covered entity or BA knew or should have known of the violation.

For continuing violations such as failing to implement a required BAA, OCR can treat each day of noncompliance as a separate violation. However, sanctions under each of these tiers generally are subject to a maximum penalty of $1,500,000 for violations of identical requirements or prohibitions during a calendar year. For violations such as the failure to implement and maintain a required BAA where more than one covered entity bears responsibility for the violation, OCR an impose Civil Monetary Penalties against each culpable party. OCR considers a variety of mitigating and aggravating facts and circumstances when arriving at the amount of the penalty within each of these applicable tiers to impose.

In addition to these potential civil liability exposures, covered entities, their business associates and other individuals or organizations that wrongfully use, access or disclose electronic or other protected health information also can face civil liability under various circumstances. The criminal enforcement provisions of HIPAA authorize the Justice Department to prosecute a person who knowingly in violation of the Privacy Rule (1) uses or causes to be used a unique health identifier; (2) obtains individually identifiable health information relating to an individual; or (3) discloses individually identifiable health information to another person, punishable by the following criminal sanctions and penalties:

A fine of up to $50,000, imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both;
If the offense is committed under false pretenses, a fine of up to $100,000, imprisonment of not more than 5 years, or both; and
If the offense is committed with intent to sell, transfer, or use individually identifiable health information for commercial advantage, personal gain, or malicious harm, a fine of up to $250,000, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.

Fresenius Breach, Charges & Settlement Agreement Illustrate Civil Exposures

The FMCNA resolution agreement is another example of a growing list of resolution agreements various HIPAA covered entities have entered into to resolve their exposure to potentially greater liability should OCR assess civil monetary penalties under HIPAA’s civil sanction scheme.

The breach reports filed on January 21, 2017 reported five separate breach incidents occurring between February 23, 2012 and July 18, 2012 implicating the electronic protected health information (ePHI) of five separate FMCNA owned covered entities (FMCNA covered entities): Bio-Medical Applications of Florida, Inc. d/b/a Fresenius Medical Care Duval Facility in Jacksonville, Florida (FMC Duval Facility); Bio-Medical Applications of Alabama, Inc. d/b/a Fresenius Medical Care Magnolia Grove in Semmes, Alabama (FMC Magnolia Grove Facility); Renal Dimensions, LLC d/b/a Fresenius Medical Care Ak-Chin in Maricopa, Arizona (FMC Ak-Chin Facility); Fresenius Vascular Care Augusta, LLC (FVC Augusta); and WSKC Dialysis Services, Inc. d/b/a Fresenius Medical Care Blue Island Dialysis (FMC Blue Island Facility).

OCR concluded its investigation showed the breaches resulted because FMCNA failed to conduct an accurate and thorough risk analysis of potential risks and vulnerabilities to the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of all of its ePHI. OCR also concluded:

The FMCNA covered entities impermissibly disclosed the ePHI of patients by providing unauthorized access for a purpose not permitted by the Privacy Rule.
FMC Ak-Chin failed to implement policies and procedures to address security incidents.
FMC Magnolia Grove failed to implement policies and procedures that govern the receipt and removal of hardware and electronic media that contain ePHI into and out of a facility; and the movement of these items within the facility.
FMC Duval and FMC Blue Island failed to implement policies and procedures to safeguard their facilities and equipment therein from unauthorized access, tampering, and theft, when it was reasonable and appropriate to do so under the circumstances.
FMC Magnolia Grove and FVC Augusta failed to implement a mechanism to encrypt and decrypt ePHI, when it was reasonable and appropriate to do so under the circumstances.

In addition to a $3.5 million monetary settlement, a corrective action plan requires the FMCNA covered entities to complete a risk analysis and risk management plan, revise policies and procedures on device and media controls as well as facility access controls, develop an encryption report, and educate its workforce on policies and procedures.

HIPAA & Data Breach Enforcement A Growing Health Plan Risk

Health plans and other covered entities, plan sponsors and plan fiduciaries, their business associates and other consultants and service providers and members of their workforce need to recognize that the FMCNA and other resolution agreements are part of a growing trend, rather than isolated incidents of enforcement.

While civil monetary penalty enforcement remains much more common than criminal prosecution, covered entities, their business associates and members of their workforce must understand that HIPAA enforcement and resulting liability is growing.

While Department of Justice federal criminal prosecutions and convictions under HIPAA remain relatively rare, they occur and are growing. See e.g., Former Hospital Employee Sentenced for HIPAA Violations (Texas man sentenced to 18 months in federal prison for obtaining protected health information with the intent to use it for personal gain); Three Life Sentences Imposed On Man Following Convictions For Drug Trafficking, Kidnapping, Using Firearms and HIPAA Violations (drug king pin gets multiple 10 year consecutive prison terms for unauthorized access to private health information in violation of HIPAA; his health care worker friend sentenced for accessing electronic medical files and reporting information to him); Former Therapist Charged In HIPAA Case; Hefty Prison Sentence in ID Theft Case (former assisted living facility worker gets 37 months in prison after pleading guilty to wrongful disclosure of HIPAA protected information and other charges); Hefty Prison Sentence in ID Theft Case (former medical supply company owner sentenced to 12 years for HIPAA violations and fraud). While the harshest sentences tend to be associated with health care fraud or other criminal conduct, lighter criminal sentences are imposed against defendants in other cases as well. See e.g., Sentencing In S.C. Medicaid Breach Case (former South Carolina state employee sentenced to three years’ probation, plus community service, for sending personal information about more than 228,000 Medicaid recipients to his personal e-mail account.); HIPAA Violation Leads To Prison Term (former UCLA Healthcare System surgeon gets four months in prison after admitting he illegally read private electronic medical records of celebrities and others.)

While criminal enforcement of HIPAA remains relatively rare and OCR to date only actually has assessed HIPAA civil monetary penalties against certain Covered Entities for violating HIPAA in a couple isolated instances, the growing list of multi-million dollar resolution payments that FMCNA and other covered entities caught violating HIPAA make clear that HIPAA enforcement is both meaningful and growing. See e.g., Learn From Children’s New $3.2M+ HIPAA CMP For “Knowing” Violation of HIPAA Security Rules ($3.2 million Children’s Medical Center HIPAA Civil Monetary Penalty); 1st HIPAA Privacy Civil Penalty of $4.3 Million Signals CMS Serious About HIPAA Enforcement; $400K HIPAA Settlement Shows Need To Conduct Timely & Appropriate Risk Assessments; $5.5M Memorial HIPAA Resolution Agreement Shows Need To Audit. For more examples, also see here.

Beyond the direct exposure of their health plan to HIPAA and other compliance liabilities, health plan fiduciaries also should note that their fiduciary responsibility under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) likely includes taking prudent steps to safeguard health plan information and maintain and administer their health plan in accordance with HIPAA. As a consequence, fiduciaries generally will want to ensure that they take and document prudent steps to evaluate, monitor and address HIPAA and other privacy and data security safeguards to minimize not only the liability exposures of their health plans, but also to help mitigate their own potential personal liability exposures that could arise or be asserted in response to a HIPAA breach or other HIPAA violation involving their health plans.

Coming on the heels of an already lengthy and growing list of OCR high dollar HIPAA enforcement actions, the FMCNA and other resolution agreements and civil monetary penalties these and other announced enforcement actions clearly reflect that OCR takes HIPAA compliance seriously and stands ready to impose substantial penalties when it finds violations in connection with breach notice investigations. Viewed in the context of these and other enforcement actions, the FMCNA Resolution Agreement and others clearly reflect the time for complacency in HIPAA compliance and leniency in HIPAA HIPAA enforcement are passed. Rather, these and other enforcement actions make clear why health care providers, health plans, healthcare clearinghouses and their business associates must make HIPAA compliance a priority now.

Covered entities and business associates also should recognize their potential responsibilities and risks for breaches or other improper conduct concerning patient or other sensitive personal financial information, trade secrets or other data under a wide range of laws beyond HIPAA and its state law equivalents. As documented by the media coverage of the legal and business woes of Alteryx, eBay, Paypal owner TIO Networks, Uber, Equifax and a long list of other previously trusted prominent businesses have and continue to incur from data breaches within their organizations, health care or other covered entities experiencing breaches often also face FTC or other government investigations and enforcement under the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA) and other federal or state identity theft, data privacy and security, electronic crimes and other rules as well as business losses and disruptions; civil litigation from breach victims, shareholders and investors, and business partners as well as OCR, FTC, and state data security regulation enforcement. Amid this growing concern, OCR has indicated that it intends to continue to diligently both seek to support and encourage voluntary compliance by covered entities and their business associates and investigate and enforce HIPAA against HIPAA covered entities and their business associates that fail to adequately safeguard PHI and ePHI in accordance with HIPAA. In the face of these growing risks and liabilities, covered entities and their business leaders face a strong imperative to clean up and maintain their HIPAA compliance and other data security to minimize their exposure to similar consequences.

In light of these rises, leaders, investors, insurers, lenders and others involved with covered entities and their business associates should take steps to verify that the covered entities and their business associates not only maintain compliance with HIPAA, but also comply with data security, privacy and other information protection requirements arising under other laws, regulations, and contracts, as well as the practical business risks that typically follow the announcement of a breach. Considering these risks, covered entities and their business associates must recognize and take meaningful, documented action to verify their existing compliance and ongoing oversight to ensure their organizations can demonstrate appropriate action to maintain appropriate practices, insurance and other safeguards to prevent, respond to and mitigate exposures in the event of a breach of protected health information or other sensitive data.

In response to these growing risks and concerns, covered entities and their business associates should ensure that they have conducted, and maintain and are ready to produce appropriate policies and procedures backed up by a well documented, up-to-date industry wide risk assessment of their organization’s susceptibility to breaches or other misuse of electronic or other protected health information. The starting point of these efforts should be to adopt and enforce updated written policies, procedures, technical and physical safeguards, processes and training to prevent the improper use, access, destruction or disclosure of patient PHI. Processes also should create, retain and be designed to cost effectively track, capture, and retain both all protected health information, its use, access, protection, destruction and disclosure, and the requisite supportive documentation supporting the appropriateness of those action to position the organization cost-effectively and quickly to fulfill required accounting, reporting and other needs in the event of a data breach, audit, participant inquiry or other event.

As part of this process, covered entities and business associates should start by reviewing and updating their policies, HIPAA audits and assessments and other documentation and processes. In doing so, they must use care to look outside the four corners of their Privacy Policies and core operating systems to ensure that their policies, practices, oversight and training address all protected health information within their operations on an entity wide basis. This entity-wide assessment should include both communications and requests for information normally addressed to the Privacy Officer as well as requests and communications that could arise in the course of media or other public relations, practice transition, workforce communication and other operations not typically under the direct oversight and management of the Privacy Officer.

Because the cost of responding to and investigating breaches or other compliance concern can be quite burdensome, covered entities and their business associates also generally will want to pursue options to plan for and minimize potential expenses in the design and administration of their programs as well as to minimize and cover the potentially extraordinary costs of breach or other compliance investigation and results that commonly arise following a breach or other compliance event. As a part of this planning, covered entities and their business associates also generally will want to add consideration of changes to federal tax rules on the deductibility of compliance penalty and other related compliance expenditures.

Constitute restitution (including remediation of property) for damage or harm which was or may be caused by the violation of any law or the potential violation of any law, or
Are paid to come into compliance with any law which was violated or otherwise involved in the investigation or inquiry into a violation or potential violation of any law;
Are identified as restitution or as an amount paid to come into compliance with such law, as the case may be, in the court order or settlement agreement, and
In the case of any amount of restitution for failure to pay any tax imposed under this title in the same manner as if such amount were such tax, would have been allowed as a deduction under this chapter if it had been timely paid.

Because the true effect of these modifications will be impacted by implementing regulations and a number of other special conditions and rules may impact the deductibility of these payments and the reporting obligations attached to their payment, covered entities will want to consult with legal counsel about these rules and monitor their implementation to understand their potential implications on compliance expenditures and penalties.

About The Author

Ms. Stamer also has an extensive contributes her leadership and insights with other professionals, industry leaders and lawmakers. Her insights on HIPAA risk management and compliance often appear in medical privacy related publications of a broad range of health care, health plan and other industry publications Among others, she has conducted privacy training for the Association of State & Territorial Health Plans (ASTHO), the Los Angeles Health Department, SHRM, HIMMS, the American Bar Association, the Health Care Compliance Association, a multitude of health plan, insurance and financial services, education, employer employee benefit and other clients, trade and professional associations and others. You can get more information about her HIPAA and other experience here. For additional information about Ms. Stamer, see here, e-mail her here or telephone Ms. Stamer at (214) 452-8297.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Comments Off on $3.5M HIPAA Settlement Highlights Need To Prioritize Health Plan HIPAA Compliance in 2018 | Association Health Plan, board of directors, Brokers, church plan, Civil Monetary Penalties, Civil Rights, Claims Administration, Corporate Compliance, corporate governance, Cybercrime, Data Breach, Data Security, EBSA, employee, Employee Benefits, Employer, Employers, Employment, ERISA, FACTA, Fair Credit Reporting Act, fiduciary duty, Fiduciary Responsibility, GINA, health benefit, Health Benefits, health Care, health insurance, health insurance marketplace, health plan, Health Plans, HIPAA, HR, Human Resources, Identity Theft, Insurance, insurers, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, Technology, third party administrators, Trade secret, Uncategorized | Tagged: Health Plans, HIPAA, Technology | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Time To Tighten Business Travel Policies

January 30, 2018

Businesses with employees that travel regularly or for the occasional training or other isolated business trip should review and update their travel related policies, practices, and procedures for evolving laws, risks and management needs.

To start with, 2017 tax reforms impact the tax treatment of various employee relocation and travel related expense. Businesses should review these changes and make appropriate updates now to avoid headaches for the business and its employees later.

While many employers mostly focus upon travel expense management, reporting and reimbursement, smart employers also understand there’s much more to consider.

First and foremost, since employees often forget that the purpose of business travel is carrying out the business of the company and not a boondoggle, business travel policies and communications should make clear to employees that their trip is about work. Policies should make clear to employees their tesponsibility for attending meetings and performing other business-related responsibilities as well as for conducting themselves at all times consistent with company policy and to promote a positive impression of the employer and the company.

Naturally all travel policies also should require compliance with all applicable laws and customs. For international travel, this includes compliance with the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, the Patriot Act, U.S. and foreign immigration and customs, and other relevant laws, rules and customs. However, domestic travelers also should be reminded if their duty to comply with local laws as well.

Amid the current “Me Too” frenzy, however, companies also should consider addressing other potentially risky behavior that tends to arise when employees travel on business. Unfortunately history proves that many employees actually do need to be told and reminded to abstain from inappropriate alcohol, sexual harassment or other behavior that could create liability or embarrassment for the company when traveling for business or engaging in other activities. Because business travel tends to blur distinctions between business and personal time, most businesses will want to establish and communicate high expectations concerning on and off-duty conduct when traveling on business to head off potential problems. Updated direction about hosting or participating in entertainment and other social activities with co-workers, customers, vendors, prospects and others also often are warranted.

Beyond communicating expectations of employees while on business travel, businesses also should confirm their company’s compensation, expense reimbursement, timekeeping and reporting, hours of work, and other policies comply with current laws and capture and retain appropriate documentation.

Businesses must recognize, for instance, that training and other work related travel typically is considered hours of work for wage an hour, safety and various other purposes. Employers should confirm their policies and practices properly capture and count all required hours of compensable work and pay hourly workers for time on the road properly in accordance with Labor Department requirements. Many employers unfortunately get nailed for overtime violations because of assumptions or misunderstandings of rules. For instance, many employers improperly fail to count air travel and certain other travel time as compensable when required to do so under Labor Department Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) rules. Likewise, improperly structured expense reimbursement policies or practices can bump up overtime pay liability by requiring the employer to include otherwise excludable expense reimbursements payments in the hourly rate of pay when calculating regular and overtime pay. Employers must ensure they understand these rules and take appropriate steps to capture, track, report and pay for time and expenses upfront to defend an audit or other challenge effectively and efficiently.

Reviewing and tightening workforce travel related policies, practices and procedures to meet current laws, business and social expectations and management needs can boost the bang businesses realize for their business travel buck while mitigating a host of legal and business risks.

About The Author

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Comments Off on Time To Tighten Business Travel Policies | Absenteeism, Affirmative Action, board of directors, Brokers, business travel, Civil Rights, compensation, compliance, conflict of interest, Corporate Compliance, corporate governance, directors, Discrimination, Drug & Alcohol, E-Verify, Education, EEOC, EEOC, employee, Employee Benefits, Employee Handbook, Employer, Employers, Employment, Employment Agreement, Employment Discrimination, Employment Policies, enforcement, Executive Compensation, Fair Labor Standards Act, FICA, FLSA, Fringe Benefit, Government Contractors, Hiring, HR, Human Resources, I-9, Immigration, Insurance, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, Internal Revenue Code, IRC, Labor Management Relations, Leadership, Management, Nonresident aliens, occupational safety, OSHA, Overtime, Pay, Payroll Tax, Risk Management, Sexual Harassment, Telecommuting, Uncategorized, visas, Wage & Hour, Whistleblower, Worker Classification, Workforce | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Check & Protect Health & Other Electronic Systems & Data Against New Security Threat

January 17, 2018

Health plans, their employer, union, insurer or other sponsors, fiduciaries, administrative or other service providers and their vendors and advisors should act immediately to investigate if any action is needed to protect electronic protected health information or other sensitive data and systems in response to the following cyber risk alert from the Department Of Health and Human Services Office of Civil Rights.

TLP: WHITE: ASPR/CIP HPH Cyber Notice: Meltdown and Spectre Vulnerability Guidance UPDATE #1

January 17, 2018

DISCLAIMER: This product is provided “as is” for informational purposes only. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) does not provide warranties of any kind regarding any information contained within. HHS does not endorse any commercial product or service referenced in this product or otherwise. Further dissemination of this product is governed by the Traffic Light Protocol (TLP) marking in the header.

TLP: WHITE information may be distributed without restriction (subject to standard copyright rules).

Healthcare and Public Health Sector partners-

The attached report is a technical update to the previously distributed HPH Cyber Notice covering chip vulnerabilities named Meltdown and Spectre. Both Meltdown and Spectre are vulnerabilities in how computer chips handle data that have the potential to expose sensitive information, such as protected health information (PHI), being processed on the chip. As this information is protected from disclosure under HIPAA, Healthcare and Public Health (HPH) entities should employ risk management processes to address these vulnerabilities and ensure the security of medical records and other PHI.

Major concerns for the HPH sector include but are not limited to:

• Challenges identifying vulnerable medical devices and accessory medical equipment and ensuring patches are validated to prevent impacts to the intended use.

• Cloud Computing: Potential PHI or Personally Identifiable Information (PII) data leakage in shared computing environments

• Web browsers: Possible PHI/PII data leakage

• Patches: Potential for service degradation and/or interruption from patches

The detailed report can be found here: Technical Report on Widespread Processor Vulnerabilities

Comments Off on Check & Protect Health & Other Electronic Systems & Data Against New Security Threat | 4980D, ADA, Association Health Plan, board of directors, Brokers, Civil Rights, compliance, Corporate Compliance, Cybercrime, Data Breach, Data Security, directors, Disease Management, Electronic Medical Record, Employee Benefits, Employer, Employers, ERISA, exchange, Fiduciary Responsibility, GINA, health benefit, Health Benefits, health Care, health insurance, health insurance marketplace, health plan, Health Plans, HIPAA, Uncategorized | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Success 2018

January 12, 2018

Comments Off on Success 2018 | Uncategorized | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

April 1 New Deadline To Update Benefit Plan Disability Determination Claims & Appeals Procesures; Hear More on 1/26

January 10, 2018

Employer and sponsors, fiduciaries, administrators and insurers of employee benefitplansof any type covered by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) making any disability based determinations now have until April 1, 2018 to bring their plans’ claims and appeals procedures for disability-based decisions and related notices and communications into compliance with substantially more complicated requirements in new Department of Labor Employee Benefit Security Administration (EBSA) regulations.

The EBSA announced on January 5, 2018 the extension of the effective date of new requirements for benefit plan processing and providing notification about claims or appeals involving disability determinations from their originally scheduled effective date of January 1, 2018 to April 1, 2018.

While the extension gives employer and other sponsors, fiduciaries, administrators and insurers of employee benefit plans making disability-based benefit determinations a few extra months to review and update their plan documents, summary plan descriptions, procedures, processes and claims and appeals notices to meet tightened new federal rules on disability-based benefit determinations applicable to all post December 31, 2017 claims under the restated Final Rule on Claims Procedure for Plans Providing Disability Benefits (“Disability Claims Rule”), the nature and scope of these new requirements will require updates to virtually all ERISA-covered benefit plans with any disability dependent provisions. These updates are likely to include changes to plan documents, summary plan descriptions, notices, contracts, processes and procedures for a broad range of plans. Consequently, employer and other plan sponsors, fiduciaries, administrators, insurers and others responsible for any benefit plan not already reviewed and updated to comply should get moving to complete the necessary review and update to meet the April 1, 2018 deadline.

Cynthia Marcotte Stamer and others will lead a free telephone study group discussion of “Claims Regulations and Other Developments Affecting Plan Fiduciaries” on January 26, 2018 beginning at 1 PM (Eastern), Noon (Central), 11 AM (Mountain), and 10 AM (Pacific). For more details about the Study Group, see here.

New Disability Claims Rule Overview

Originally published in final form by the EBSA on December 16, 2016, the Disability Claims Rule generally require all ERISA-covered employee benefit plans making any disability benefit or other determination conditioned upon a finding of disability to comply with the new Disability Claims Rule for any claim received after March 31, 2018.

Based on EBSA’s previously adopted Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“ACA”) group health plan claims and appeals rules, the new Final Disability Claims Rule will apply to all disability determinations made under any ERISA-covered plan after March 31, 2018, regardless of how the plan characterizes the benefit or whether the plan is a health or other welfare, pension, 401(k) plan or other savings plan.

The new Disability Claims Rule will apply to a broad range of plans, most of which historically have not followed the detailed claims and appeals notification, independent and impartial decision-making, rescission, deemed exhaustion, “culturally and linguistically appropriate” and other procedural protections and safeguards that the Disability Claims Rule extends from the current group health plan rules to all ERISA-covered plans making benefit determinations based on disability. Consequently covered plans making disability-based benefit or other covered determinations are likely to require updates to plan documents, insurance or administrative services contracts, summary plan descriptions and other plan communications, claims and appeals notices, and other related processes, procedures and documentation to meet these new requirements. Since certain requirements of the Disability Claims Rules like the summary plan description advance disclosure requirements are required to be provided before the claim is received, plans and their sponsors, fiduciaries, insurers and administrators risk being accused of violating these requirements by waiting to update plans, their processes and materials until after claim involving a disability based determination arises.

Ensuring that impacted plans are updated before the April 1, 2018 deadline is important because the Disability Claims Rule, like the group health plan claims and appeals rules upon which it is based, also states that noncompliance with any of its requirements empowers a participant to immediately sue the plan for enforcement if his rights without further complying the the plan’s administrative procedures. Moreover, failing to comply with summary plan disclosure or claims or appeal adverse benefit determination notification requirements also may subject the plan administrator to administrative penalties under ERISA section 514(c); fiduciaries to ERISA fiduciary liability, and compromise the ability to defend otherwise defensible decisions. Consequently, employers and other plan sponsors, fiduciaries, administrators and insurers will want to act quickly to ensure that their plans, their summary plan descriptions and other communications, notices, processes, contracts and procedures are updated appropriately before April 1, 218.

About The Author

Before founding her current law firm, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, P.C., Ms. Stamer practiced law as a partner with several prominent national and international law firms for more than 10 years before founding Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, P.C. to practice her unique brand of “Solutions law™” and to devote more time to the pragmatic policy and system reform, community education and innovation, and other health system improvement efforts of her PROJECT COPE: the Coalition on Patient Empowerment initiative.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Comments Off on April 1 New Deadline To Update Benefit Plan Disability Determination Claims & Appeals Procesures; Hear More on 1/26 | 401(k), ACA, Accommodation, Civil Rights, Claims Administration, COBRA, compensation, compliance, Corporate Compliance, defined benefit plan, Defined Benefit Plans, defined contribution plan, Defined Contribution Plans, Disability, Disability Plans, Disease Management, Drug & Alcohol, EBSA, Employee Benefits, Employer, Employers, Employment, Employment Policies, ERISA, Executive Compensation, family leave, fiduciary duty, Fiduciary Responsibility, Health Benefits, health insurance, health plan, Health Plans, HR, Human Resources, Insurance, insurers, Internal Controls, Labor Management Relations, medical leave, Mental Health, Patient Empowerment, pension plan, Prescription Drugs, Reporting & Disclosure, Retirement Plans, Retirements, Uncategorized, Union, Wellness Programs | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Arizona Proposal To Ban Sexual Harassment Confidentiality Agreements Sign Of Growing Employer Risks

January 7, 2018

Arizona legislators are considering adopting legislation banning and rendering unenforceable agreements by employers or others to keep confidential or otherwise restrict the disclosure of allegations or other information about sexual harassment or sexual assault. If enacted as proposed, the proposed legislation could significantly impact employers, sexual harassment and sexual assault victims and witnesses, persons accused of sexual assault or harassment and others’ ability to negotiate, enforce or comply with provisions in new or preexisting employment policies, and settlement, severance and other agreements requiring confidentiality of or restricting disclosure of information about findings or allegations of sexual harassment or assault and related factual information.

As currently proposed, Arizona House Bill 2020 (HB 2020) would amend Section 1. Title 12, chapter 6, article 12, Arizona Revised Statutes, to include add a new section 12-720 that would read as follows

12-720. Confidentiality agreements; disclosure of information relating to sexual assault or sexual harassment; applicability

A. A CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT THAT RESTRICTS THE DISCLOSURE OF FACTUAL INFORMATION THAT IS RELATED TO A SEXUAL ASSAULT OR SEXUAL HARASSMENT, INCLUDING FACTUAL INFORMATION THAT IS RELATED TO AN ALLEGATION OF OR ATTEMPTED SEXUAL ASSAULT OR SEXUAL HARASSMENT, IS AGAINST THIS STATE’S PUBLIC SAFETY AND POLICY AND IS VOID AND UNENFORCEABLE.

B. A PERSON MAY NOT ENTER INTO A CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT THAT RESTRICTS THE DISCLOSURE OF FACTUAL INFORMATION THAT IS RELATED TO AN ALLEGATION OF OR ATTEMPTED SEXUAL ASSAULT OR SEXUAL HARASSMENT BY AN ELECTED OFFICIAL.

C. THIS SECTION DOES NOT APPLY TO THE DISCLOSURE OF A MINOR CRIME VICTIM’S MEDICAL OR PERSONAL IDENTIFYING INFORMATION OR TO OTHER INFORMATION THAT IS SPECIFICALLY PROTECTED FROM DISCLOSURE BY LAW.

Based on this currently proposed language, enactment of HB 2020’s sexual harassment and assault confidentiality restrictions almost certainly will dramatically impact both the financial, reputation and legal liability exposures of individuals accused of sexual harassment or assault and their employers or others potentially responsible for the investigation, management or liability for the alleged harasser’s behavior, behavior, as well as the privacy, retaliation and other concerns of sexual harassment or assault victims and witnesses. Certainly, HB 2020 would preclude or limit the ability of executives or other individuals accused of sexual harassment or assault from hiding their isolated or recurrent actual or alleged misconduct behind confidentiality or nondisclosure provisions in settlement or other contracts, handbooks, investigation, compliance or other policies. Likewise, HB 2020’s prohibitions against agreements requiring the maintenance of confidentiality of information about alleged or actual sexual harassment or assaults also can be expected to make it more difficult for employers to defend or mitigate their exposure to liability for alleged sexual harassment or assaults by making it much easier for alleged victims, their attorneys and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and other government agencies to investigate and obtain evidence about the conduct of the accused and the actions of his or her employer to other events or charges of sexual harassment or assault. Among other things, more free availability of this information is likely to make it easier for sexual harassment or assault victims, their plaintiff’s lawyers and the EEOC or other agencies and advocates to uncover, pursue enforcement and recover damages from employers through individual, class action or serial sexual harassment investigations and lawsuits as well as to rebut efforts of employers and those accused to mitigate damages and other liability.

While many might celebrate these expected effects of HB 2020 in helping to hold harassers and their employers more accountable for misconduct and to safeguard others from becoming future victims, HB 2020 also carries the risk of a number of potentially undesirable side effects for sexual harassment and assault victims and witnesses, employer and other investigators and those wrongfully accused. Because victims and witnesses to sexual harassment often fear embarrassment, retaliation or other adverse consequences from their report or involvement in a charge or investigation, sexual harassment and other policies and the employers and others responsible for administering and enforcing sexual harassment policies typically offer assurances of confidentiality and other nondisclosure to encourage and reassure victims and witnesses to report concerning behavior and to help prevent retaliation against victims and witnesses reporting or cooperating in sexual harassment and assault investigations. While HB 2020 includes a provision that appears intended to preserve the confidentiality of the identity and medical information of victims, the technical concealment of names and medical information as a practical matter generally provides an inadequate shield for victims or witnesses when other information otherwise remains discoverable. Consequently, confidentiality restrictions like those proposed in HB 2020 could backfire against these victims and witnesses and employers legitimately working to protect them by enhancing victim and witness reluctance to report or cooperate in sexual harassment investigations as well as inflict substantial and irreversible injury upon the personal and professional reputations of individuals wrongfully accused. The confidentiality prohibitions of HB 2020 are likely to undermine the ability of employers, victims and witnesses to use confidentiality requirements legitimately to prevent unjustified retaliation, loss of privacy and other adverse consequences to victims, witnesses and those wrongfully accused. Likewise, restrictions on confidentiality also can be expected to undermine the ability of victims to secure compensation from guilty parties and their employers without litigation as accused parties and their employer as the inability to enforce confidentiality will undermine the settlement value of questionable charges by enhancing the potential need to dispute and defend such charges to avoid becoming targeted by other accusations concurrently or in the future.

Obviously, these and other potential implications of HB 2020 make it highly advisable that businesses, management, individuals, insurers and others potentially subject to HB 2020 will want to carefully assess the implications of HB 2020 and provide input to the Arizona legislature. Given the wave of recent publicity triggered over the past year from widespread reporting of sexual harassment and related charges and resulting resignations and lawsuits and settlements involving sexual harassment charges levied against high profile entertainers, business leaders and others, employers, management and business leaders, victims, witnesses, insurers and other operating outside the jurisdiction of Arizona law can anticipate that they also may face similar legislative, regulatory or other challenges to confidentiality and nondisclosure policies and agreements concerning sexual harassment and assault allegations, investigations and settlements. Because of these and other concerns, employers, victims, witnesses, investigators, insurers and others with responsibility for or involvement with sexual harassment and assault concerns across the nation should both carefully monitor these developments as well as the reliability and effectiveness of their past and existing sexual harassment, investigations, anti-retaliation, confidentiality and other related policies, confidentiality and nondisclosure provisions in settlement agreements, and other potentially impacted agreements, policies and practices. Employers and other individuals or organizations in the scope of potential liability for sexual harassment or assault charges also may wish to consider strengthening existing anti-harassment policies, investigation practices, insurance coverage and other prevention and risk management arrangements to mitigate their sexual harassment risks.

About The Author

Ms. Stamer also is a widely published author, highly popular lecturer, and serial symposia chair, who publishes and speaks extensively on sexual harassment and other human resources, labor and employment, employee benefits, compensation, occupational safety and health, and other leadership, performance, regulatory and operational risk management, public policy and community service concerns, who has received high praise for workshops and training programs she conducts on “What To Do When Your Employee’s Personal Life Becomes Your Business,” “Sex, Drugs & Rock ‘N Role in the Workplace,” and other sexual harassment, investigations, privacy and related programs for SHRM, the American Bar Association, ALI-ABA, American Health Lawyers, Society of Human Resources Professionals, the Southwest Benefits Association, the Society of Employee Benefits Administrators, the American Law Institute, Lexis-Nexis, Atlantic Information Services, The Bureau of National Affairs (BNA), InsuranceThoughtLeaders.com, Benefits Magazine, Employee Benefit News, Texas CEO Magazine, HealthLeaders, the HCCA, ISSA, HIMSS, Modern Healthcare, Managed Healthcare, Institute of Internal Auditors, Society of CPAs, Business Insurance, Employee Benefits News, World At Work, Benefits Magazine, the Wall Street Journal, the Dallas Morning News, the Dallas Business Journal, the Houston Business Journal, and many other symposia and publications. She also has served as an Editorial Advisory Board Member for human resources, employee benefit and other management focused publications of BNA, HR.com, Employee Benefit News, InsuranceThoughtLeadership.com and many other prominent publications and speaks and conducts training for a broad range of professional organizations and for clients on the Advisory Boards of InsuranceThoughtLeadership.com, HR.com, Employee Benefit News, and many other publications.

Want to know more? See here for details about the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, e-mail her here or telephone Ms. Stamer at (469) 767-8872.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

©2018 Cynthia Marcotte Stamer. Non-exclusive right to republish granted to Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ For information about republication, please contact the author. directly. All other rights reserved

Comments Off on Arizona Proposal To Ban Sexual Harassment Confidentiality Agreements Sign Of Growing Employer Risks | directors, EEOC, Employee Handbook, Employer, Employers, Employment, Employment Agreement, Employment Discrimination, Employment Policies, ERISA, Excise Taxes, Executive Compensation, Exempt, Human Resources, OFCCP, Rehabilitation Act, Retaliation, Safety, Sexual Harassment, Uncategorized | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

$23M Penalty Small Part of 21st Century’s Data Breach Fallout; Offers Data Breach Lessons For Other Businesses

January 5, 2018

Continuing Fallout of 2015 Data Breach Provides Many Lessons For Other Businesses & Their Health Plans

Read the rest of this entry »

Comments Off on $23M Penalty Small Part of 21st Century’s Data Breach Fallout; Offers Data Breach Lessons For Other Businesses | ADA, Association Health Plan, Banking, Bankruptcy, board of directors, Brokers, Cafeteria Plans, Civil Monetary Penalties, Claims Administration, compensation, compliance, Consumer Protection, Corporate Compliance, corporate governance, Cybercrime, Data Breach, Data Security, defined benefit plan, Defined Benefit Plans, defined contribution plan, Defined Contribution Plans, Disability, EBSA, employee, Employee Benefits, Employer, Employers, Employment, Employment Policies, ERISA, Excise Taxes, FACTA, Fiduciary Responsibility, Form 5500, health benefit, Health Benefits, health Care, health insurance, health insurance marketplace, health plan, Health Plans, HIPAA, HR, Human Resources, Identity Theft, Internal Revenue Code, IRC, Labor Management Relations, Management, Mental Health, Pay, pension plan, Reporting & Disclosure, retirement plan, Retirement Plans, Retirements, Salaried, Tax, Uncategorized | Tagged: Cyber Security, Cybercrime, Data Breach, HIPAA, Identity Theft, Privacy, Technology | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Take Care of Your Good People

December 20, 2017

Comments Off on Take Care of Your Good People | Uncategorized | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Read Tax Cuts and Jobs Act Conference Report For Tax Reform From Source

December 18, 2017

Want to know what tax changes are included in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (H.R. 1) (Act”) and expected to pass Congress tomorrow (December 20, 2017)? Check out the House Conference Committee Report, H. Rept. 115-466 (the “Conference Report”) released on Friday, December 15, 2017.

The House Conference Committee Report details the negotiated reconciliation of House Bill (H.R. 1) as passed by the House of Representatives on November 16, 2017 and the provisions of H.R. 1 with amendments passed by the Senate on December 2, 2017. Over the past few weeks, a joint committee made up of key representatives from the House and Senate have engaged in highly publicized negotiations to reconcile differences in the House and Senate versions of the Act. The House Conference Committee Report signed off by the Conference Committee and filed in the House of Representatives of December 15, 2017 documents the agreements reached by House and Senate Conferees reconciling the House and Senate versions of H.R. 1, which Congress will vote upon this week. Solutions Law Press, Inc. will publish analysis of various provisions of these reforms over the next few days. In the meantime, taxpayers interested in learning about the Act may use the links in this article to begin familiarizing themselves with its provisions.

About The Author

Well-known for her extensive work with health, insurance, financial services, technology, energy, manufacturing, retail, hospitality, governmental and other highly regulated employers, her nearly 30 years’ of experience encompasses work with domestic and international businesses of all types and sizes as well as extensive work with Congress and U.S. federal and state regulatory agencies on workforce, compensation and benefits, and performance and operational compliance challenges. A primary drafter of the Bolivian Pension Privitization law who also has worked on workforce, tax, employee benefits, health care, insurance, safety, immigration, privacy and data security and other federal and state legal reforms domestically and internationally throughout her adult life, Ms. Stamer also has been extensively involved in various aspects of Congressional considerations of the current Act and other legislation considered by the current Congress.

Want to know more? See here for details about the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, e-mail her here or telephone Ms. Stamer at (469) 767-8872.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Comments Off on Read Tax Cuts and Jobs Act Conference Report For Tax Reform From Source | 105(h), 401(k), 5000, Cafeteria Plans, church plan, compensation, compliance, defined benefit plan, Defined Benefit Plans, defined contribution plan, Defined Contribution Plans, EBSA, employee, Employee Benefits, Employer, Employers, Employment, Employment Agreement, Employment Tax, ESOP, Excise Tax, Excise Taxes, Executive Compensation, Exempt, Form 5500, health benefit, Health Benefits, health Care, health insurance, health insurance marketplace, health plan, Health Plans, HR, Human Resources, Income Tax, Insurance, insurers, IRC, Management, Obamacare, Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act, Patient Protection and Affordabel Care Act, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Pay, Payroll Tax, pension plan, Premium Subsidies, retirement plan, Retirement Plans, Risk Management, Social Security, Tax, Tax Credit, Tax Qualification, Uncategorized | Tagged: tax reform, Taxes | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Check How IRS 2018 Retirement & Saving Plan Limits and Amounts Cost Of Living Adjustments Impact Your HR & Retirement Plan Administration & Planning

December 18, 2017

Employers, employee benefit plan sponsors and administrators, vendors and their advisors and service providers should re-evaluate their existing payroll and other settings and elections, planning, testing and related strategies and assumptions in light of the 2018 annual cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs) to the dollar limitations applicable to the Internal Revenue Code Section 415 qualified retirement plans benefit and contribution limits announced by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) in Notice 2017-64, IRB 2017-45 on November 6, 2017.

H.R. 1, Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (Tax Refirm Bill) reported out of the Conference Committee last week and scheduled for a vote before Congress tomorrow leaves these limits substantially unchanged.

Notice 2017-64 adjusts the dollar limitations applicable to the Internal Revenue Code Section 415 qualified retirement plans benefit and contribution limits. The Section 415 limitations COLAs are made and published annually to comply with Section 415(d)’s requirement that the Treasury Security annually adjust these limits for cost-of-living increases. Other limitations applicable to deferred compensation plans are also affected by these adjustments under § 415. Under § 415(d), the adjustments are to be made under adjustment procedures similar to those used to adjust benefit amounts under § 215(i)(2)(A) of the Social Security Act.

In addition to impacting contribution limits permitted to defined benefit, 401(k) and other defined contribution and other plans, the changes can impact the definition of highly compensated employees, discrimination testing, plan funding and a broad range of employee benefit, compensation, tax, payroll, union or other contracting and other concerns for employers, employee benefit plan sponsors, fiduciaries, administrators, payroll, plan and other vendors, participants and beneficiaries and others.

The following is a chart of the adjusted limits compared to the currently applicable 2017 limitations. (Download chart)

2018 IRC Retirement Plan COLAs chart only

Employers, employee benefit plan sponsors, fiduciaries, administrators and other vendors, participants and beneficiaries and others working with employee benefit plans or compensation contributed to these arrangements should review these new 2018 COLA limitations to assess their potential impact and make appropriate adjustments to avoid compliance challenges or other unfortunate surprises in 2018. If they already have not already done so, reviewing the 2018 Social Security Act COLAs also would be wise. See 2018 Social Security COLAs Set.

About The Author

Want to know more? See here for details about the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, e-mail her here or telephone Ms. Stamer at (469) 767-8872.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Comments Off on Check How IRS 2018 Retirement & Saving Plan Limits and Amounts Cost Of Living Adjustments Impact Your HR & Retirement Plan Administration & Planning | 401(k), Association Health Plan, Brokers, compensation, compliance, defined benefit plan, Defined Benefit Plans, defined contribution plan, Defined Contribution Plans, Disability, Disability Plans, employee, Employee Benefits, Employer, Employers, Employment, Employment Policies, Employment Tax, ERISA, ESOP, Excise Taxes, Form 5500, Health Plans, HR, Human Resources, Internal Revenue Code, IRC, Labor Management Relations, Management, Pay, pension plan, Reporting & Disclosure, retirement plan, Retirement Plans, Retirements, Salaried, Tax, Uncategorized | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Confirm Your Benefit Plans Ready For New Disability Determination Rules on 1/1/18

December 14, 2017

Employer and other sponsors, fiduciaries, administrators and insurers of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)-covered employee benefit plans making disability-based benefit determinations should confirm that their plan documents, summary plan descriptions, procedures and claims and appeals notices are updated and ready to meet tightened new federal rules on disability-based benefit determinations applicable to all post December 31, 2017 claims under the restated Final Rule on Claims Procedure for Plans Providing Disability Benefits (“Disability Claims Rule”). Given the nature and scope of these new requirements, most covered plans will require specific action be taken before the new rules take effect to update plan documents, summary plan descriptions, notices, contracts, processes and procedures to meet the January 1, 2018 deadline.

The Disability Claims Rule published by the Department of Labor Employee Benefit Security Administration (“EBSA”) on December 19, 2016 generally require all ERISA-covered employee benefit plans making any disability benefit or other determination conditioned upon a finding of disability to comply with the new Disability Claims Rule for any claim received after December 31, 2017.

The new Final Disability Claims Rule will apply to all disability determinations made under any ERISA-covered plan after December 31, 2017, regardless of how the plan characterizes the benefit or whether the plan is a health or other welfare, pension, 401(k) plan or other savings plan.

Significant affirmative action is likely required to prepare covered plans to meet these requirements since most plans historically have not followed the detailed claims and appeals notification, independent and impartial decision-making, rescission, deemed exhaustion, “culturally and linguistically appropriate” and other procedural protections and safeguards based on EBSA’s previously adopted Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“ACA”) group health plan claims and appeals rules, which the Disability Claims Rules extend and make applicable to all ERISA-covered plans making benefit determinations based on disability. Covered plans making disability-based benefit or other covered determinations are likely to require updates to plan documents, insurance or administrative services contracts, summary plan descriptions and other plan communications, claims and appeals notices, and other related processes, procedures and documentation to meet these new requirements. Since certain requirements of the Disability Claims Rules like the summary plan description advance disclosure requirements are required to be provided before the claim is received, plans and their sponsors risk being accused of violating these requirements by waiting to update plans, their processes and materials until after claim involving a disability based determination arises.

Ensuring that impacted plans are updated before the January 1, 2018 deadline is important because the Disability Claims Rule, like the group health plan claims and appeals rules upon which it is based, also states that noncompliance with any of its requirements empowers a participant to immediately sue the plan for enforcement if his rights without further complying the the plan’s administrative procedures. Moreover, failing to comply with summary plan disclosure or claims or appeal adverse benefit determination notification requirements also may subject the plan administrator to administrative penalties under ERISA section 514(c). Consequently, employers and other plan sponsors, fiduciaries, administrators and insurers will want to act quickly to ensure that their plans, their summary plan descriptions and other communications, notices, processes, contracts and procedures are updated appropriately before January 1, 2018.

About The Author

A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, the American Bar Foundation and the Texas Bar Foundation, Ms. Stamer also shares her thought leadership, experience and advocacy on these and other concerns by her service as a management consultant, business coach and consultant and policy strategist as well through her leadership participation in professional and civic organizations such her involvement as the Vice Chair of the North Texas Healthcare Compliance Association; Executive Director of the Coalition on Responsible Health Policy and its PROJECT COPE: Coalition on Patient Empowerment; former Board President of the early childhood development intervention agency, The Richardson Development Center for Children; former Gulf Coast TEGE Council Exempt Organization Coordinator; a founding Board Member and past President of the Alliance for Healthcare Excellence; former board member and Vice President of the Managed Care Association; past Board Member and Board Compliance Committee Chair for the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas; a member and policy adviser to the National Physicians’ Council for Healthcare Policy; current Vice Chair of the ABA Tort & Insurance Practice Section Employee Benefits Committee; current Vice Chair of Policy for the Life Sciences Committee of the ABA International Section; Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Section; ABA Real Property Probate and Trust (RPTE) Section former Employee Benefits Group Chair, immediatepast RPTE Representative to ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits Council Representative, and Defined Contribution Committee Co-Chair, past Welfare Benefit Committee Chair and current Employee Benefits Group Fiduciary Responsibility Committee Co-Chair, Substantive and Group Committee member, Membership Committee member and RPTE Representative to the ABA Health Law Coordinating Council; past Chair of the Dallas Bar Association Employee Benefits & Executive Compensation Committee; a former member of the Board of Directors, Treasurer, Member and Continuing Education Chair of the Southwest Benefits Association and others.

Ms. Stamer also is a widely published author, highly popular lecturer, and serial symposia chair, who publishes and speaks extensively on human resources, labor and employment, employee benefits, compensation, occupational safety and health, and other leadership, performance, regulatory and operational risk management, public policy and community service concerns for the American Bar Association, ALI-ABA, American Health Lawyers, Society of Human Resources Professionals, the Southwest Benefits Association, the Society of Employee Benefits Administrators, the American Law Institute, Lexis-Nexis, Atlantic Information Services, The Bureau of National Affairs (BNA), InsuranceThoughtLeaders.com, Benefits Magazine, Employee Benefit News, Texas CEO Magazine, HealthLeaders, the HCCA, ISSA, HIMSS, Modern Healthcare, Managed Healthcare, Institute of Internal Auditors, Society of CPAs, Business Insurance, Employee Benefits News, World At Work, BenefitsMagazine, the Wall Street Journal, the Dallas Morning News, the Dallas Business Journal, the Houston Business Journal, and many other symposia and publications. She also has served as an Editorial Advisory Board Member for human resources, employee benefit and other management focused publications of BNA, HR.com, Employee Benefit News, InsuranceThoughtLeadership.com and many other prominent publications and speaks and conducts training for a broad range of professional organizations and for clients on the Advisory Boards of InsuranceThoughtLeadership.com, HR.com, Employee Benefit News, and many other publications.

Want to know more? See here for details about the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, e-mail her here or telephone Ms. Stamer at (469) 767-8872.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Comments Off on Confirm Your Benefit Plans Ready For New Disability Determination Rules on 1/1/18 | 401(k), ACA, ADA, Affordable Care Act, Appeals, board of directors, Brokers, Cafeteria Plans, Claims, Claims Administration, compensation, compliance, Construction, Corporate Compliance, defined benefit plan, Defined Benefit Plans, defined contribution plan, Defined Contribution Plans, directors, Disability, Disability, Disability Plans, Drug & Alcohol, EBSA, employee, Employee Benefits, Employee Handbook, Employer, Employers, Employment, Employment Policies, ERISA, Executive Compensation, family leave, Fiduciary Responsibility, health benefit, Health Benefits, health insurance, Leave, Management, medical leave, Mental Health, Mental Health Parity, Obamacare, Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act, Pay, pension plan, Plan Admistrator, Professional Liability, third party administrators, Uncategorized, Union, Worker | Tagged: Appeals, Claims, defined benefit plan, Disability, Disability Insurance, Disability Plan, EBSA, Employee Retirement Income Security act, ERISA, Fiduciary Responsibility, pension plan | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Individual Accountability For Performance Matters

December 13, 2017

Teamwork is a valuable and necessary to organizational performance in most workplaces. However management undermines team performance and effectiveness by giving participation trophies to team members that don’t give their best when working on teams.

Managements goal at all-time should be to maximize the effectiveness of the team by encouraging and require each individual team member to contribute their best on the team.

Overemphasizing team work at the expense of individual performance accountability, however, undermines team performance by disincentivizing optimal performance by every team member. Optimal management and performance rewards ensure that each individual member of the team remains accountable for optimizing his or her individual performance while encouraging effective participation on the team. To maintain individual performance within the team, ensure your expectations and performance measures track not only team performance but also individual performance on the team. Measure and award teamwork by individual members of the team as one of the performance measures rather than making teamwork itself at the expense of the performance goals the basis of the reward.

Check out this coach’s perspective for more food for thought.

About The Author

Want to know more? See here for details about the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, e-mail her here or telephone Ms. Stamer at (469) 767-8872.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

▪DOL Proposes Changing FLSA Tipped Employee Pay Rules

▪Consider Internal Investigation & Defense Costs When Administering Compliance Programs

▪Recruiting Qualified Workers Biggest Challenge US Manufacturers See In Otherwise Optimistic 3rd Quarter 2017

▪Government Retirees Get New Thrift Plan Distributing Choices

▪Jennifer A. Abruzzo Named NLRB Acting General Counsel

▪Bill Mandating E-Verify, Raising Employer I-9 Penalties Approved By House Judiciary Committee

▪Address Workplace Harassment During October Stop Bullying Month

▪NIOSH Proposed Updated Occupational Safety Chemical Monitoring Rules

▪2018 Social Security COLAs Set

▪IRS Updates Defined Benefit Plan Guidance

▪Read Trump Health Care Executive Order

▪Dealing With HR, Benefits & Other Headaches From Equifax and Other Data Breach

▪Employers Should Manage Potential Unfair Labor Practice Risks From Recording, Acceptable Use, Fighting, Integrity & Other Employment Policies

Comments Off on Individual Accountability For Performance Matters | compensation, compliance, Corporate Compliance, corporate governance, employee, Employee Benefits, Employee Handbook, Employer, Employers, Employment, Employment Policies, Executive Compensation, Hiring, HR, Human Resources, Internal Controls, Management, Pay, Uncategorized | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Give NLRB Your Input On Union Representation Election Regulations

December 13, 2017

The National Labor Relations Board is inviting employers to another interested person’s to provide input to the NLRB about it’s union representation election rules By responding by February 12, 2018 to a Request for Information the NLRB will publish in the Federal Register today (12:13/17).

The Request for Information in will ask for public input regarding three questions about the Board’s 2014 Election Rule, which modified the Board’s representation-election procedures published at at 29 CFR parts 101 and 102:

1. Should the 2014 Election Rule be retained without change?

2. Should the 2014 Election Rule be retained with modifications? If so, what should be modified?

3. Should the 2014 Election Rule be rescinded? If so, should the Board revert to the Representation Election Regulations that were in effect prior to the 2014 Election Rule’s adoption, or should the Board make changes to the prior Representation Election Regulations? If the Board should make changes to the prior Representation Election Regulations, what should be changed?

The Request for Information was approved by Board Chairman Philip A. Miscimarra and Board Members Marvin E. Kaplan and William J. Emanuel. Board Members Mark Gaston Pearce and Lauren McFerran dissented.

The election rules published during the Obama administration highly controversial to most employers. The Obama Administration’s publication of the prounion rules was part of a broader series of legislative and regulatory actions by that administration that sought to expand union organizing and other powers. While courts overruled many of these regulatory efforts, the fast track election rules adopted during the Obama Administration have not been struck down and therefore remain in force. Many employers view these rules as giving union organizers unfair advantage in union organizing elections.

Tomorrow’s invitation for public input on the Obama Administration election rule comes after President Trump filled vacancies on the NLRB after he took office. Many NLRB watchers expect these Trump appointees will cause the NLRB to modify or reverse the Obama Administration election and other rules .

The official Request for Information as approved by the Board, including the dissenting views, may be found here.

Responses to these questions will be accepted from Wednesday, December 13, 2017 to Monday, February 12, 2018 (within 60 days after publication in the Federal Register). Employers and others interested in seeking changes to the election rule should submit comments with this period.

About The Author

Want to know more? See here for details about the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, e-mail her here or telephone Ms. Stamer at (469) 767-8872.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Comments Off on Give NLRB Your Input On Union Representation Election Regulations | board of directors, Corporate Compliance, corporate governance, Employment, HR, Human Resources, Internal Controls, Labor Management Relations, Leadership, Management, NLRA, Risk Management, Uncategorized, Unfair Labor Practice, Union, Union certification, Union elections, Worker Classification | Tagged: Employer, Labor, Union, union election | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

1/18 Deadline To Comment on OCC Child Care Plan Preprint

December 13, 2017

January 8, 2018 is the deadline to comment on the Office of Child Care (OCC) FY 2019–2021 Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) Plan Preprint including plans to grant waivers for childcare background checks.

The Preprint introduces the process and criteria for requesting additional time to complete background check requirements for interstate check components and for addressing the backlog of completing background checks for existing providers.

According to the Request for Comments, OCC is committed to granting additional waivers of up to 2 years, in 1-year increments (i.e., potentially through September 30, 2020), for background check requirements only in recognition of the significant challenges to implementing the CCDF background check requirements, . To receive these time-limited waivers, states and territories will have to meet milestones to ensure that they have requirements in place for a particular portion of the components and that they are conducting checks for new staff on those components (i.e., FBI fingerprint checks and the three in-state checks). The details on the milestone prerequisite and how to apply for the waiver are included in section 5.4 of the FY 2019–2021 CCDF Plan.

OCC has requested that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) grant approval under procedures for emergency processing of the FY 2019–2021 CCDF State/Territory Plan Preprint to ensure that states and territories have sufficient time to complete the OMB-approved Plan Preprint by July 1, 2018. The emergency clearance provides for a single 30-day comment period. Both the Federal Register announcement and a copy of the draft FY 2019–2021 CCDF Plan Preprint are posted on the OCC website. Accordingly, Comments are due no later than January 8, 2018,

About The Author

Want to know more? See here for details about the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, e-mail her here or telephone Ms. Stamer at (469) 767-8872.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

▪DOL Proposes Changing FLSA Tipped Employee Pay Rules

▪Consider Internal Investigation & Defense Costs When Administering Compliance Programs

▪Recruiting Qualified Workers Biggest Challenge US Manufacturers See In Otherwise Optimistic 3rd Quarter 2017

▪Government Retirees Get New Thrift Plan Distributing Choices

▪Jennifer A. Abruzzo Named NLRB Acting General Counsel

▪Bill Mandating E-Verify, Raising Employer I-9 Penalties Approved By House Judiciary Committee

▪Address Workplace Harassment During October Stop Bullying Month

▪NIOSH Proposed Updated Occupational Safety Chemical Monitoring Rules

▪2018 Social Security COLAs Set

▪IRS Updates Defined Benefit Plan Guidance

▪Read Trump Health Care Executive Order

▪Dealing With HR, Benefits & Other Headaches From Equifax and Other Data Breach

▪Employers Should Manage Potential Unfair Labor Practice Risks From Recording, Acceptable Use, Fighting, Integrity & Other Employment Policies

Comments Off on 1/18 Deadline To Comment on OCC Child Care Plan Preprint | Consumer Protection, Corporate Compliance, corporate governance, Data Security, Uncategorized | Tagged: Background Checks, childcare, Corporate Compliance, Employee Benefits, Employer | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

IRS Prepares To Nail Employers Under Obamacare Mandate While Giving Some Individual Mandate Relief

December 12, 2017

The Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) is acting to help Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“Obamacare”) health subsidy-eligible individuals living in regions where exchange insurers do not offer bronze (lowest cost) coverage even as it moves ahead to nail employers failing to comply with Obamacare’s employer shared responsibility rules (commonly referred to as the “employer mandate”). The move comes as House and Senate Conferees are preparing to conference to work out differences in the tax bill which could repeal the Obamacare individual mandate penalty for failing to maintain coverage while leaving intact penalties against employers violating the employer mandate by failing to offer affordable minimum essential coverage as well as other Obamacare penalties on plans and their employers.

IRS New Individual Obamacare Relief

Notice 2017-74 will provide that Individuals who are not eligible for coverage under an eligible employer-sponsored plan and who lack access to affordable coverage should not be denied the use of the affordability exemption under § 5000A(e)(1) of the Code and § 1.5000A-3(e) of the Regulations merely because they reside in an area served by a Marketplace that does not offer a bronze-level plan. Consequently, for purposes of the affordability exemption under § 5000A(e)(1) and § 1.5000A-3(e), if an individual resides in a rating area served by a Marketplace that does not offer a bronze plan, the individual generally should use as his or her applicable plan the lowest cost metal-level plan available in the Marketplace serving the rating area in which the individual resides.

Notice 2017-74 will be in IRB 2017-51, dated December 18, 2017.

Employer’s Still Face Obamacare Penalties

While the IRS has issued limited relief for individuals from the ACA’s individual mandate penalties, so far it has remained steadfast in its refusal to grant employers corresponding relief from the ACA employer shared responsibility penalties or other ACA penalties. Instead, IRS officials continue to make clear that the IRS intends to enforce the ACA employer shared responsibility rules against employers with 50 or more full-time employees (including full-time equivalent employees) (“covered employers”).

Under the Obamacare employer mandate rules, covered employers face significant Federal tax penalties for (1) failing to offer minimal essential coverage to substantially all full-time employees and their dependents (the “A Penalty”), or (2) offering coverage that is either “unaffordable” or does not provide “minimum value” (the “B Penalty”) (referred to collectively as the “ACA Penalties”) if a full-time employee enrolls in the Health Insurance Marketplace (the “Exchange”) and receives a Premium Tax Credit.

While many employers assumed President Trump’s January 20, 2017 Executive Order Executive Order Minimizing the Economic Burden of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act Pending Repeal would insulate them against enforcement of the employer mandate and other Obamacare penalties, the IRS doesn’t see the Executive Order as barring its enforcement of Obamacare against sponsoring employers or their group health plans. An April 14, 2017 IRS Chief Counsel letter, for instance, the IRS announced it does not interpret its discretionary authority under Obamacare to allow waiver of the employer mandate tax imposed under Internal Revenue Code Section 4980H against covered employers that fail to provide the affordable minimum essential coverage required by the employer mandate. In keeping with this interpretation, the IRS has announced that it will begin enforcement of the employer mandate tax liability for plan years after 2015 against covered employers that failed to meet the employer mandate.

Of course, the employer mandate is not the only Obama care provision that employers and their health plans need to worry about. In addition to the employer mandate, Obamacare imposed a host of patient protection and other federal mandates upon employer-sponsored plans, most of which apply to plans covering two or more employees. In addition to any benefit and other administrative penalties that otherwise arise under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act and/or the Social Security Act for violating these mandates, employers sponsoring plans that violate any of 40 listed mandates imposed by Obamacare or certain other federal laws also become liable under Internal Revenue Code Section 6039D to self-identify, self-assess, report on Form 8928 and pay an excise tax equal to $100 per person per uncorrected violation. The IRS, Department Of Labor and Department Of Health and Human Services have taken the position the January 20 Executive Order also does not bar enforcement of those Obamacare penalties. Accordingly, employers and their group health plans continue to face potentially substantial liability if their group health plan does not comply with Obamacare.

In the face of these exposures, employers and their group health plan administrators, fiduciaries and advisors should carefully review their plans and their administration for compliance before the end of the plan year so as to be able to take appropriate and timely corrective action before penalties attach and while stop loss or other insurance is available to help mitigate the cost of these corrections. Employers preparing for upcoming health plan renewals also should review their group contracts and conduct due diligence to verify their group health plan terms and operations meet the mandates as they initiate new plan years. Employers also generally will want to review their compliance and take action to address any deficiencies against any vendors or advisers who may have culpability in the defective health plan design or administration. Prompt action against vendors who may be culpable for the design or administration defects is necessary to preserve potential claims for contractual, deceptive trade practices or other causes of action that an employer might have under state contract, tort or other law. Employers and health plan fiduciaries should consider engaging experienced legal counsel to conduct this review on behalf of the employer other plan sponsor within the scope of attorney-client privilege so as to assess and address these potential risks on a timely basis and explore options within the scope of privilege. Brokers, advisors, consultants and insurers whose employer clients also may want to assess compliance risks and/or urge their clients to do so to help minimize their exposure to malfeasance or other claims from clients angry about penalties and other unexpected costs of noncompliance.

About The Author

A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, the American Bar Foundation and the Texas Bar Foundation, Ms. Stamer also shares her thought leadership, experience and advocacy on these and other concerns by her service as a management consultant, business coach and consultant and policy strategist as well through her leadership participation in professional and civic organizations such her involvement as the Vice Chair of the North Texas Healthcare Compliance Association; Executive Director of the Coalition on Responsible Health Policy and its PROJECT COPE: Coalition on Patient Empowerment; former Board President of the early childhood development intervention agency, The Richardson Development Center for Children; former Gulf Coast TEGE Council Exempt Organization Coordinator; a founding Board Member and past President of the Alliance for Healthcare Excellence; former board member and Vice President of the Managed Care Association; past Board Member and Board Compliance Committee Chair for the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas; a member and policy adviser to the National Physicians’ Council for Healthcare Policy; current Vice Chair of the ABA Tort & Insurance Practice Section Employee Benefits Committee; current Vice Chair of Policy for the Life Sciences Committee of the ABA International Section; Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Section; ABA Real Property Probate and Trust (RPTE) Section former Employee Benefits Group Chair, immediatepast RPTE Representative to ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits Council Representative, and Defined Contribution Committee Co-Chair, past Welfare Benefit Committee Chair and current Employee Benefits Group Fiduciary Responsibility Committee Co-Chair, Substantive and Group Committee member, Membership Committee member and RPTE Representative to the ABA Health Law Coordinating Council; past Chair of the Dallas Bar Association Employee Benefits & Executive Compensation Committee; a former member of the Board of Directors, Treasurer, Member and Continuing Education Chair of the Southwest Benefits Association and others.

Ms. Stamer also is a widely published author, highly popular lecturer, and serial symposia chair, who publishes and speaks extensively on human resources, labor and employment, employee benefits, compensation, occupational safety and health, and other leadership, performance, regulatory and operational risk management, public policy and community service concerns for the American Bar Association, ALI-ABA, American Health Lawyers, Society of Human Resources Professionals, the Southwest Benefits Association, the Society of Employee Benefits Administrators, the American Law Institute, Lexis-Nexis, Atlantic Information Services, The Bureau of National Affairs (BNA), InsuranceThoughtLeaders.com, Benefits Magazine, Employee Benefit News, Texas CEO Magazine, HealthLeaders, the HCCA, ISSA, HIMSS, Modern Healthcare, Managed Healthcare, Institute of Internal Auditors, Society of CPAs, Business Insurance, Employee Benefits News, World At Work, BenefitsMagazine, the Wall Street Journal, the Dallas Morning News, the Dallas Business Journal, the Houston Business Journal, and many other symposia and publications. She also has served as an Editorial Advisory Board Member for human resources, employee benefit and other management focused publications of BNA, HR.com, Employee Benefit News, InsuranceThoughtLeadership.com and many other prominent publications and speaks and conducts training for a broad range of professional organizations and for clients on the Advisory Boards of InsuranceThoughtLeadership.com, HR.com, Employee Benefit News, and many other publications.

Want to know more? See here for details about the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, e-mail her here or telephone Ms. Stamer at (469) 767-8872.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Comments Off on IRS Prepares To Nail Employers Under Obamacare Mandate While Giving Some Individual Mandate Relief | 105(h), 5000, ACA, compliance, Employee Benefits, Employer, Employers, Employment, Employment Policies, Employment Tax, ERISA, Excise Taxes, health benefit, Health Benefits, health Care, health insurance, health insurance marketplace, health plan, Health Plans, health reform, Human Resources, Premium Subsidies, Uncategorized | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Hiring & Retaining Workers Growing Business Challenge

December 12, 2017

Recruitment and retention of sufficient workers presents a growing challenge for many U.S. businesses in manufacturing, construction and many other segments of the economy.

Competition for workers continues to grow as the improving economy drives down unemployment and applies pressure upon employers to increase wages.

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics November employment statistics released this morning show employment continued to trend up in professional and business services, manufacturing, and health care. Nonfarm payroll employment increased by 228,000 in November. The manufacturing sector has added an average of 15,545 employees on net per month so far in 2017, a turnaround from the loss of 16,000 workers in 2016 as a whole.

While most businesses welcome the uptick in businessness opportunities, short pause in labor supply and pressure tp increase wages threaten The ability of many of these businesses to take full advantage of these new opportunities. While welcoming the strengthened manufacturing economic performance, the National Association Of Manufacturers says manufacturers continue to say that the inability to attract and retain a quality workforce is one of their top concerns. Employers in the healthcare and services industry increasingly are reporting similar challenges.

With tightening immigration standards Making it more difficult to feel beast gaps with foreign labor, savvy businesses are taking the initiative to respond to this changing labor environment by reevaluating their recruitment, retention and compensation practices. In addition to looking to recruit new workers from the ranks of the under and unemployed, many businesses increasingly are looking to recruit employed workers from other employers by offering sweeter compensation, work-life balance, promotion or other sweetened employment opportunities. Businesses competing for the same workers will want to review their existing employment and compensation packages to help promote their ability to recruit new workers and to retain existing workers.

In recognition other businesses may target their best workers, businesses reliant upon labor competitive workforces should shore up their compensation and retention practices as strengthen their non competition, trade secret and other critical workplace knowledge to guard against disruptions from loss of key personnel. When conducting these activities, businesses should not rely on past legal experience. Federal and state law has evolved significantly regarding noncompetition, trade secret and other business intelligence safeguards. Businesses that have not done so in the past year should consider engaging experience counsel to review their existing policies and practices for possible witnesses and opportunities for enhanced strength. Businesses also may want to discuss opportunities for Bonus or other golden handcuffs compensation packages to incentivize key workers to stay with the organization. Employers also should recognize that departing employees may take advantage of opportunities to air resentments from past perceive Mistys drink more constructive time. Employer should be sensitive to the possibility of wage an hour, safety, or other whistleblower a private charges or litigation From departing workers with new opportunities freeing them to express past dissatisfaction. In the face of these risks, employers will want to ensure that their existing wage and hour, harassment,safety and other workforce policies and practices are currently compliant as well as be prepared to respond to any allegations of past misconduct. Employers should carefully conduct exit interviews and investigate any alleged misconduct or other negative feedback to mitigate potential risks and liabilities. Employers also should consult with experienced employment and employee benefits counsel about appropriate design, administration and documentation of these policies, practices,i arrangements and activities.

About The Author

Want to know more? See here for details about the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, e-mail her here or telephone Ms. Stamer at (469) 767-8872.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Comments Off on Hiring & Retaining Workers Growing Business Challenge | Uncategorized | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

DOL Proposes Changing FLSA Tipped Employee Pay Rules

December 6, 2017

January 4, 2018 is the deadline to share comments on a Department of Labor Wage and Hour Division of the (DOL) Proposed Rule to rescind the parts of its Fait Labor Standards Act tip regulation that bars tip-sharing arrangements in establishments where the employers pay full Federal minimum wage and do not take a tip credit against their minimum wage obligations published on December 5, 2017.

The proposed change would reverse a 2011 DOL regulation that created this restriction. Under the proposed rule, employers paying a full minimum wage to employees could require these workers to share their tips with other employees, including employees who do not customarily receive tips including restaurant cooks, dishwashers and other traditionally lower-wage classifications.

Employers with tipped employees should evaluate the proposed change and provide any favorable or other feedback as soon as possible in accordance with the instructions in the notice of proposed rule making.

About The Author

Want to know more? See here for details about the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, e-mail her here or telephone Ms. Stamer at (469) 767-8872.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

▪ RAISE Act Immigration Reforms Touted As “Giving Americans A Raise”

▪ Health Clinic At Houston Convention Center, Other HHS Help For Hurricane Harvey Victims

▪ IRS Updates Amounts Used To Calculate 2017 Obamacare Individual Individual Shares Responsibility Tax Penalties

▪ DB Plan Sponsors Check Out New Bifurcated Distribution Model Amendmentsy

▪ U.S. News Names 2017-2018 “Best” Hospitals; Patient Usefulness Starts With Metholodogy Understanding

▪ Use Lessons Of Past Mistakes or Injustice To Build Better Future

▪ Prepare For Turnover, Other Challenges From Rising Workforce Competition

▪ Employers, Health Plans Should Brace For Tightened Federal Mental Health Coverage Mandate Disclosure And Enforcement

▪ Withholding Calculator Tool Helps Workers Figure Withholding

▪ Better Preparing U.S. Workers To Fill Your Jobs

▪ SCOTUS Ruling Bars Many State Arbitration Agreement Restrictions

▪ $2.4M HIPAA Settlement Message Warns Health Plans & Providers Against Sharing Medical Info With Media, Others

Comments Off on DOL Proposes Changing FLSA Tipped Employee Pay Rules | employee, Employer, Employers, Employment Policies, Fair Labor Standards Act, FLSA, Uncategorized | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Consider Internal Investigation & Defense Costs When Administering Compliance Programs

December 5, 2017

The Justice Department’s report Tuesday that the Justice Department spent $3.2 million on Special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia probe its first four-and-a-half months highlights the importance for leaders accountable for their organizations’s Federal Sentencing Guideline, sexual harassment and other corporate compliance programs to appropriately plan and budget for potential investigation and defense costs as part of their compliance and risk management planning.

Conducting an internal investigation or defending a government or other allegation of wrongdoing often proves surprisingly expensive. While how much an internal investigation costs can vary widely depending on the issue, its potential civil and criminal liability and public relations implications on the organization and its management, it’s timing, the adequacy of the pre-event compliance management and record keeping relating to the issue, and a host of other concerns, investigation and defense costs often become largely irrelevant when an organization is required to investigate or defend against charges of legal or other business misconduct that expose the organization or its leadership to potentially devastating legal or business consequences. When these events happen, organizations and their leaders often see little option to spend whatever is necessary to defend their organization and its reputation.

Compared to the reported internal investigation and defense expenditures of private sector organizations that have faced these these make or break investigations, the Justice Department’s reported expenditures to date on the Russian probe look small.

For instance, Twenty-First Century Fox in March, 2017 Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filings disclosed spending $45 million tied to litigation related to harassment allegations in the 9 first three quarters of 2017 and $10 million “related to settlements of pending and potential litigations” during its fiscal third quarter as well as having received investigative inquiries and stockholder demands to inspect the books and records of the company which could lead to future litigation in the aftermath of sexual harassment allegations at Fox News.

In contrast, Avon Products spent nearly $500 million conducting its internal investigation before paying a $135m fine to the US government to settle charges it violated the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act by giving Chinese authorities $8 million in gifts and cash while it sought to obtain the first “direct sell” license in China.

These and other publicly disclosed expenditures make clear that corporate officers and directors need to reassess their investment in compliance both to strengthen the effectiveness of their efforts and to plan to deal with the financial, legal, operational and other costs of investigating and defending potential charges.

Aboaut The Author

Want to know more? See here for details about the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, e-mail her here or telephone Ms. Stamer at (469) 767-8872.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

DOL Announces $40M in Hurricane Unemployment Help

Employers Should Manage Potential Unfair Labor Practice Risks From Recording, Acceptable Use, Fighting, Integrity & Other Employment Policies.

Comments Off on Consider Internal Investigation & Defense Costs When Administering Compliance Programs | ADA, Affirmative Action, board of directors, Brokers, Child Labor, Civil Monetary Penalties, Civil Rights, Claims Administration, compliance, conflict of interest, Corporate Compliance, corporate governance, Data Breach, Data Security, directors, E-Verify, EEOC, Employers, Employment, Employment Discrimination, Employment Policies, Employment Tax, English As A Second Language, ERISA, Executive Compensation, Fair Credit Reporting Act, Fair Labor Standards Act, FICA, fiduciary duty, Fiduciary Responsibility, Financial Security, FINRA, FLSA, GINA, Government Contractors, h-2A Visa, health benefit, health plan, HIPAA, Human Resources, I-9, Identity Theft, Insurance, insurers, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, Labor Management Relations, Leadership, LEP, LGBT, Management, Managment, Military Leave, Non-Compete, Nonresident aliens, occupational safety, OFCCP, officers, OSHA, Overtime, Pay, Plan Admistrator, Privacy, Professional Liability, Rehabilitation Act, Retaliation, Safety, Uncategorized, USERRA, VEVRRA, visas, Wage & Hour, Whistleblower, Worker Classification | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Recruiting Qualified Workers Biggest Challenge US Manufacturers See In Otherwise Optimistic 3rd Quarter 2017

November 20, 2017

Hiring enough qualified workers to fill demand is the key challenges US manufacturing companies face amid an increasingly healthy manufacturing outlook.

The National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) reports that United States manufacturers generally report feeling optimistic about their own business opportunities as well as the US economy generally heading into the fourth quarter of 2017 and 2018

The chart below summarizes the highlights of the most recent survey responses.

Learn more about the survey here.

The upbeat third-quarter survey results coincide with the release of a number of upbeat economic indicators for the third quarter. Among other things, NAM reports manufacturing production has risen by 2.5 percent over the past 12 months, the best year-over-year rate since August 2014. In October:

Manufacturing production expanded robustly in October, up 1.3 percent, its fastest monthly pace of growth since April;
Durable goods production rose by 0.4 percent;
Nondurable goods production rose by 2.3 percent, rebounding from significant declines in activity in August and September in the chemicals and petroleum and coal products segments due to Hurricanes Harvey and Irma;
Manufacturing capacity utilized soared from 75.5 percent in September to 76.4 percent in October, a reading not seen since May 2008; and
Housing starts and consumer spending continue to rise.

While NAM reports manufacturers are optimistic about their business performance and opportunities over the next 12-months, manufacturers also are increasingly concerned about hiring the workers needed to meet demand. The uptick in the economy following the long economic downturn continues to fuel a shortage in qualified, experienced workers as well as competition among employers for experienced and inexperienced workers. Manufacturing and other businesses need to re-evaluate and update their existing hiring, compensation, training and other workforce recruitment and retention practices to recruit additional workers as well as to retain key employees likely to receive overtures to consider changing employment from other employers within and outside the employer’s industry. Business leaders also should re-assess the adequacy of existing noncompete, trade secret and other policies and practices for safeguarding trade secrets and other sensitive systems and data to minimize risks of lost or compromised intellectual property if workers leave as well as maximize the strength of protections for data and systems shared with new recruits.

About The Author

Want to know more? See here for details about the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, e-mail her here or telephone Ms. Stamer at (469) 767-8872.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Comments Off on Recruiting Qualified Workers Biggest Challenge US Manufacturers See In Otherwise Optimistic 3rd Quarter 2017 | Corporate Compliance, corporate governance, Economy, employee, Employer, Employers, Employment, HR, Human Resources, Labor Management Relations, Non-Compete, Trade secret, Uncategorized | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Celebrate National Apprenticeship Week November 13-19, 2017

November 14, 2017

Happy National Apprenticeship Week!

The U.S. Department of Labor’s designation of November 13-19, 2017 for the celebration of the third annual National Apprenticeship Week seeks to high light the value of apprenticeships.

According to the Department of Labor, apprenticeships provide demand-driven education, allowing apprentices to earn while they learn – helping to close the skills gap between the skills job creators seek and job seekers need.

National Apprenticeship Week (NAW) is a National Celebration that offers leaders in business, labor, education, and other critical partners a chance to express their support for Apprenticeship. NAW also gives apprenticeship sponsors the opportunity to showcase their programs, facilities and apprentices in their community. The weekly events highlight the benefits of Apprenticeship in preparing a highly-skilled workforce to meet the talent needs of employers across diverse industries. State and local businesses are invited to participate and showcase their support for apprenticeship programs by hosting Apprentice Graduations, Business Open Houses, High School Career Fairs, Apprenticeship Signing Days, Skills Competitions, Industry Roundtable Events and other events.

To list your organization’s Apprenticeship Week event or check out others in your area, see here

About The Author

Want to know more? See here for details about the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, e-mail her here or telephone Ms. Stamer at (469) 767-8872.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Comments Off on Celebrate National Apprenticeship Week November 13-19, 2017 | Uncategorized | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Government Retirees Get New Thrift Plan Distributing Choices

November 9, 2017

Former federal government and congressional employees will enjoy more options for how their retirement benefits are distributed when the President signs the TSP Modernization Act of 2017 passed by Congress on Tuesday.

The TSP Modernization Act of 2017 modifies the rules relating to withdrawals from the Thrift Saving Plan (TSP) accounts of former federal employees and Members of Congress. Under current law, such employees and Members may make only one partial withdrawal upon reaching age 59-1/2 while employed or one withdrawal after retirement. The bill permits an unlimited number of such withdrawals.

The bill also eliminates: (1) the automatic annuity as a default option if the plan participant does not make an election to establish an annuity, and (2) the limitation on age-based in-service withdrawals.

About The Author

Want to know more? See here for details about the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, e-mail her here or telephone Ms. Stamer at (469) 767-8872.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Comments Off on Government Retirees Get New Thrift Plan Distributing Choices | Retirement Plans, Uncategorized | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Jennifer A. Abruzzo Named NLRB Acting General Counsel

November 1, 2017

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) announced today the appointment of Jennifer A. Abruzzo to serve as NLRB’s Acting General Counsel.

Although Ms. Abruzzo original began her legal career as a civil litigation attorney in the medical malpractice division of a South Florida firm, she has spent almost twenty-three years working for the NLRB in various capacities, including as Field Attorney, Supervisory Field Attorney and Deputy Regional Attorney in the Miami, Florida office, as well as Deputy Assistant General Counsel in the Division of Operations-Management in Washington, DC, where she oversaw Regional operations in the Northeast and Midwest.

Prior to becoming Deputy General Counsel, Ms. Abruzzo served as the Executive Assistant to Acting General Counsel Lafe E. Solomon, and detailed in that role for General Counsel Ronald E. Meisburg. In 2011 her involvement at the NLRB drew public attention when an e-mail sent to her by then NLRB Deputy Assistant General Counsel Joseph Baniszewski forwarding a political cartoon mocking the state of South Carolina with regard to Boeing Corporation’s decision to locate its manufacturing facility to South Carolina was made public.

During her career with NLRB, she has participated in the litigation of numerous high profile cases.

About The Author

Want to know more? See here for details about the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, e-mail her here or telephone Ms. Stamer at (469) 767-8872.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

1 Comment | board of directors, compliance, directors, employee, Employee Handbook, Employer, Employers, Employment, Employment Agreement, Employment Policies, ERISA, health plan, Human Resources, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, Loyalty, Management, Managment, NLRA, Non-Compete, Non-Competition Agreement, Uncategorized, Unfair Labor Practice, Union, Workforce | Tagged: Economy, Employer, Hiring, HR, Job Growth, Labor, Labor Management Relations, Labor Pool, Labor Statistics, Management, Recruiting, Workforce | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Bill Mandating E-Verify, Raising Employer I-9 Penalties Approved By House Judiciary Committee

October 28, 2017

Employers will face heightened employment-related immigration responsibilities and fines for hiring undocumented aliens if Congress passes a bill that would mandate that all employers use the E-Verify process to check the Work eligibility of all new hires approved October 25 by the House Judiciary Committee.

One of two Immigration bills that passed the Committee on October 25, the Legal Workforce Act (LWA), H.R. 3711 Introduced by Representatives Lamar Smith (R-TX) and Ken Calvert (R-CA), along with House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), among other things, would:

Replace the current paper-based I-9 system with a completely electronic work-eligibility check under which employers would attest through the electronic verification system that they had examined the new hire’s employment and identification documents to ensure authenticity. Under the bill, employers have the choice to continue do the attestation on paper as well.
Phase-in mandatory E-Verify participation for new hires for employers with more than 10,000 employees, within 6 months of enactment and remaining employers over stage periods of not longer than 24 months.
Allow employers to seek a one-time six-month extension of the initial phase-in from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
Require employers to perform an E-Verify check on employees who perform “agricultural labor or services within 18 months after enactment.”
Grant employers a safe harbor from prosecution if they use the E-Verify program in good faith and, through no fault of their own, receive an incorrect eligibility confirmation.
Raise penalties on employers that knowingly hire illegal immigrants and create a penalty for individuals (employees or employers) who knowingly submit false information to the E-Verify system.
Require DHS to implement pilot programs to help prevent against identity theft within the system.
Pre-empt state law on employer fines for immigration-related issues or require employers to verify work status or identity for work authorization purposes but continue to allow States to award business licenses on the basis of compliance with the federal system.

One of two Immigration Reform bills the Committee passed October 25, the legislation is one of many immigration reform proposals Congress is considering. Employers should read the bill, provide feedback and watch for developments.

About The Author

Want to know more? See here for details about the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, e-mail her here or telephone Ms. Stamer at (469) 767-8872.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

▪ RAISE Act Immigration Reforms Touted As “Giving Americans A Raise” to Congress about the legislation as well as monitor developments..To read further about the proposal, check out the House Judiciary Committee’s summary of the bill.

Comments Off on Bill Mandating E-Verify, Raising Employer I-9 Penalties Approved By House Judiciary Committee | Corporate Compliance, corporate governance, E-Verify, EEOC, Employee Handbook, Employer, Employers, Employment, Employment Policies, I-9, Uncategorized | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

2018 Social Security COLAs Set

October 14, 2017

Monthly Social Security and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits for more than 66 million Americans will increase 2.0 percent in 2018.

The Social Security Administration announced the 2.0 cost of living adjustment (COLA) Friday announced a 2% increase in benefits for 2018.

The largest COLA increase since 2012 will increase the benefits payable to more than 61 million Social Security beneficiaries in January 2018. Increased payments to more than 8 million SSI beneficiaries will begin on December 29, 2017. The Social Security Administration deducts $1 from benefits for each $3 earned over $45,360 until the month the worker turns age 66.)

There is no limit on earnings for workers who are “full” retirement age or older for the entire year.

The slight increase in benefits also may result in a corresponding decrease in disability benefits under plans that integrate or otherwise offset plan benefits with Social Security.

Information about Medicare COLAs for 2018, when announced, will be available at www.Medicare.gov.

About The Author

Want to know more? See here for details about the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, e-mail her here or telephone Ms. Stamer at (469) 767-8872.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

▪ RAISE Act Immigration Reforms Touted As “Giving Americans A Raise”

▪ Health Clinic At Houston Convention Center, Other HHS Help For Hurricane Harvey Victims

▪ IRS Updates Amounts Used To Calculate 2017 Obamacare Individual Individual Shares Responsibility Tax Penalties

▪ DB Plan Sponsors Check Out New Bifurcated Distribution Model Amendmentsy

▪ U.S. News Names 2017-2018 “Best” Hospitals; Patient Usefulness Starts With Metholodogy Understanding

▪ Use Lessons Of Past Mistakes or Injustice To Build Better Future

▪ Prepare For Turnover, Other Challenges From Rising Workforce Competition

▪ Employers, Health Plans Should Brace For Tightened Federal Mental Health Coverage Mandate Disclosure And Enforcement

▪ Withholding Calculator Tool Helps Workers Figure Withholding

▪ Better Preparing U.S. Workers To Fill Your Jobs

▪ SCOTUS Ruling Bars Many State Arbitration Agreement Restrictions

▪ $2.4M HIPAA Settlement Message Warns Health Plans & Providers Against Sharing Medical Info With Media, Others

Comments Off on 2018 Social Security COLAs Set | Claims Administration, defined benefit plan, Defined Benefit Plans, Disability, Disability Plans, Employee Benefits, Employer, Employers, Employment, ERISA, HR, Human Resources, pension plan, retirement plan, Retirement Plans, Retirements, Social Security, Uncategorized | Tagged: Social Security, SSI | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

IRS Updates Defined Benefit Plan Guidance

October 13, 2017

Qualified profit-sharing and pension plan sponsors, fiduciaries, administrators and service providers should check of this recent guidance on various qualified pension and profit sharing plan qualification:

Procedures for automatic approval for certain changes in funding method – For single-employer defined benefit plans subject to the minimum funding requirements of Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Section 430 (Revenue Procedure 2017-56).
Updated procedures for obtaining IRS approval for a change in funding method – Guidance includes procedures for defined benefit plan sponsors to revoke certain interest rate elections (Rev. Proc. 2017-57).
Final regulations – mortality tables for determining present value – Provide mortality tables that single-employer defined benefit plan sponsors must use to determine minimum required contribution and guidance about construction of substitute mortality tables (T.D. 9826).
New procedures to request to use plan-specific substitute mortality tables – Certain defined benefit plans must follow these procedures for plan years beginning on or after Jan. 1, 2018 (Rev. Proc. 2017-55).

Organizations and service providers involved in defined benefit plans should review their programs and make adjustments as warranted.

About The Author

A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, the American Bar Foundation and the Texas Bar Foundation, Ms. Stamer also shares her thought leadership, experience and advocacy on these and other concerns by her service as a management consultant, business coach and consultant and policy strategist as well through her leadership participation in professional and civic organizations such her involvement as the Vice Chair of the North Texas Healthcare Compliance Association; Executive Director of the Coalition on Responsible Health Policy and its PROJECT COPE: Coalition on Patient Empowerment;a member and policy technical adviser to the National Physicians’ Council for Healthcare Policy; current Vice Chair of the ABA Tort & Insurance Practice Section Employee Benefits Committee; current Vice Chair of Policy for the Life Sciences Committee of the ABA International Section; former Board President of the early childhood development intervention agency, The Richardson Development Center for Children; former Gulf Coast TEGE Council Exempt Organization Coordinator; a founding Board Member and past President of the Alliance for Healthcare Excellence; former board member and Vice President of the Managed Care Association; past Board Member and Board Compliance Committee Chair for the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas; Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Section; ABA Real Property Probate and Trust (RPTE) Section former Employee Benefits Group Chair, immediate past RPTE Representative to ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits Council Representative, and Defined Contribution Committee Co-Chair, past Welfare Benefit Committee Chair and current Employee Benefits Group Fiduciary Responsibility Committee Co-Chair, Substantive and Group Committee member, Membership Committee member and RPTE Representative to the ABA Health Law Coordinating Council; past Chair of the Dallas Bar Association Employee Benefits & Executive Compensation Committee; a former member of the Board of Directors, Treasurer, Member and Continuing Education Chair of the Southwest Benefits Association and others.

Ms. Stamer also is a widely published author, highly popular lecturer, and serial symposia chair, who publishes and speaks extensively on human resources, labor and employment, employee benefits, compensation, occupational safety and health, and other leadership, performance, regulatory and operational risk management, public policy and community service concerns for the American Bar Association, ALI-ABA, American Health Lawyers, Society of Human Resources Professionals, the Southwest Benefits Association, the Society of Employee Benefits Administrators, the American Law Institute, Lexis-Nexis, Atlantic Information Services, The Bureau of National Affairs (BNA), InsuranceThoughtLeaders.com, Benefits Magazine, Employee Benefit News, Texas CEO Magazine, HealthLeaders, the HCCA, ISSA, HIMSS, Modern Healthcare, Managed Healthcare, Institute of Internal Auditors, Society of CPAs, Business Insurance, Employee Benefits News, World At Work, Benefits Magazine, the Wall Street Journal, the Dallas Morning News, the Dallas Business Journal, the Houston Business Journal, and many other symposia and publications. She also has served as an Editorial Advisory Board Member for human resources, employee benefit and other management focused publications of BNA, HR.com, Employee Benefit News, Insurance Thought Leaders, and many other prominent publications and speaks and conducts training for a broad range of professional organizations and for clients on the Advisory Boards of InsuranceThoughtLeadership.com, HR.com, Employee Benefit News, and many other publications.

Want to know more? See here for details about the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, e-mail her here or telephone Ms. Stamer at (469) 767-8872.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

NOTICE: These statements and materials are for general informational and purposes only. They do not establish an attorney-client relationship, are not legal advice, and do not serve as a substitute for legal advice. Readers are urged to engage competent legal counsel for consultation and representation in light of the specific facts and circumstances presented in their unique circumstance at any particular time. No comment or statement in this publication is to be construed as an admission. The author reserves the right to qualify or retract any of these statements at any time. Likewise, the content is not tailored to any particular situation and does not necessarily address all relevant issues. Because the law is rapidly evolving and rapidly evolving rules makes it highly likely that subsequent developments could impact the currency and completeness of this discussion. The presenter and the program sponsor disclaim, and uhave no responsibility to provide any update or otherwise notify any participant of any such change, limitation, or other condition that might affect the suitability of reliance upon these materials or information otherwise conveyed in connection with this program. Readers may not rely upon, are solely responsible for, and assume the risk and all liabilities resulting from their use of this publication.

Comments Off on IRS Updates Defined Benefit Plan Guidance | Bankruptcy, board of directors, Brokers, Corporate Compliance, corporate governance, defined benefit plan, Defined Benefit Plans, directors, employee, Employee Benefits, Employer, Employers, Employment Policies, Employment Tax, ERISA, Excise Tax, Form 5500, Government Contractors, government plan, HR, Human Resources, Insurance, Internal Revenue Code, IRC, Labor Management Relations, Management, retirement plan, Retirement Plans, Retirements, Tax, Tax Qualification, Uncategorized, Worker Classification | Tagged: defined benefit plan, Retirement Plans, tax qualification | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Read Trump Health Care Executive Order

October 12, 2017

President Trump today (October 12, 2017) issued the following that he promised to be the first in a series of executive orders and other administrative actions that his administration will roll out to provide Obamacare relief for consumers, employers and others by promoting healthcare choice and competition given the continued difficulty by the Republican-led Congress to pass legislation repealing or replacing the health care law.

What actually will result remains to be seen. Like the January 20, 2017 Executive Order Minimizing the Economic Burden of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act Pending Repeal that President Trump signed as his first executive order, the new Executive Order doesn’t actually change anything; it merely directs the agencies to review and propose for implementation changes to regulations and other guidance allowed by law.

On the heels of his announcement of the Executive Order, President Trump moved forward on his promise to take other action on Obamacare by announcing that the Administration will not continue funding for individual subsidies that currently are continued under an Obama Administration action in the absence of Congressional action funding those subsidies.

Concerned parties should monitor and inform themselves about proposed changes in the Executive Order and other actions as they are proposed and develop, and provide timely comments and other input to help influence the shape and content of any changes proposed or adopted in response to the Executive Order. Solutions Law Press, Inc. will be monitoring developments. Stay tuned for updates.

Language of Executive Order

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. Policy.

(a) It shall be the policy of the executive branch, to the extent consistent with law, to facilitate the purchase of insurance across State lines and the development and operation of a healthcare system that provides high-quality care at affordable prices for the American people. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), however, has severely limited the choice of healthcare options available to many Americans and has produced large premium increases in many State individual markets for health insurance. The average exchange premium in the 39 States that are using http://www.healthcare.gov in 2017 is more than double the average overall individual market premium recorded in 2013. The PPACA has also largely failed to provide meaningful choice or competition between insurers, resulting in one-third of America’s counties having only one insurer offering coverage on their applicable government-run exchange in 2017.

(b) Among the myriad areas where current regulations limit choice and competition, my Administration will prioritize three areas for improvement in the near term: association health plans (AHPs), short-term, limited-duration insurance (STLDI), and health reimbursement arrangements (HRAs).

(i) Large employers often are able to obtain better terms on health insurance for their employees than small employers because of their larger pools of insurable individuals across which they can spread risk and administrative costs. Expanding access to AHPs can help small businesses overcome this competitive disadvantage by allowing them to group together to self-insure or purchase large group health insurance. Expanding access to AHPs will also allow more small businesses to avoid many of the PPACA’s costly requirements. Expanding access to AHPs would provide more affordable health insurance options to many Americans, including hourly wage earners, farmers, and the employees of small businesses and entrepreneurs that fuel economic growth.

(ii) STLDI is exempt from the onerous and expensive insurance mandates and regulations included in title I of the PPACA. This can make it an appealing and affordable alternative to government-run exchanges for many people without coverage available to them through their workplaces. The previous administration took steps to restrict access to this market by reducing the allowable coverage period from less than 12 months to less than 3 months and by preventing any extensions selected by the policyholder beyond 3 months of total coverage.

(iii) HRAs are tax-advantaged, account-based arrangements that employers can establish for employees to give employees more flexibility and choices regarding their healthcare. Expanding the flexibility and use of HRAs would provide many Americans, including employees who work at small businesses, with more options for financing their healthcare.

(c) My Administration will also continue to focus on promoting competition in healthcare markets and limiting excessive consolidation throughout the healthcare system. To the extent consistent with law, government rules and guidelines affecting the United States healthcare system should:

(i) expand the availability of and access to alternatives to expensive, mandate-laden PPACA insurance, including AHPs, STLDI, and HRAs;

(ii) re-inject competition into healthcare markets by lowering barriers to entry, limiting excessive consolidation, and preventing abuses of market power; and

(iii) improve access to and the quality of information that Americans need to make informed healthcare decisions, including data about healthcare prices and outcomes, while minimizing reporting burdens on affected plans, providers, or payers.

Sec. 2. Expanded Access to Association Health Plans.

Within 60 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Labor shall consider proposing regulations or revising guidance, consistent with law, to expand access to health coverage by allowing more employers to form AHPs. To the extent permitted by law and supported by sound policy, the Secretary should consider expanding the conditions that satisfy the commonality‑of-interest requirements under current Department of Labor advisory opinions interpreting the definition of an “employer” under section 3(5) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. The Secretary of Labor should also consider ways to promote AHP formation on the basis of common geography or industry.

Sec. 3. Expanded Availability of Short-Term, Limited‑Duration Insurance.

Within 60 days of the date of this order, the Secretaries of the Treasury, Labor, and Health and Human Services shall consider proposing regulations or revising guidance, consistent with law, to expand the availability of STLDI. To the extent permitted by law and supported by sound policy, the Secretaries should consider allowing such insurance to cover longer periods and be renewed by the consumer.

Sec. 4. Expanded Availability and Permitted Use of Health Reimbursement Arrangements.

Within 120 days of the date of this order, the Secretaries of the Treasury, Labor, and Health and Human Services shall consider proposing regulations or revising guidance, to the extent permitted by law and supported by sound policy, to increase the usability of HRAs, to expand employers’ ability to offer HRAs to their employees, and to allow HRAs to be used in conjunction with nongroup coverage.

Sec. 5. Public Comment.

The Secretaries shall consider and evaluate public comments on any regulations proposed under sections 2 through 4 of this order.

Within 180 days of the date of this order, and every 2 years thereafter, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, in consultation with the Secretaries of the Treasury and Labor and the Federal Trade Commission, shall provide a report to the President that:

(a) details the extent to which existing State and Federal laws, regulations, guidance, requirements, and policies fail to conform to the policies set forth in section 1 of this order; and

(b) identifies actions that States or the Federal Government could take in furtherance of the policies set forth in section 1 of this order.

Sec. 7. General Provisions.

(a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

DONALD J. TRUMP

THE WHITE HOUSE,

October 12, 2017

Implications & Actions

The impact of this and other Executive Orders and other Presidential actions depend upon what actions, if any, the agencies determine they are allowed by law to take and how those changes are implemented. Concerned persons and organizations should begin preparing input to the agencies and monitoring and commenting on proposals and other guidance to help shape the outcome.

Solutions Law Press, Inc. is preparing initial analysis of this Executive Order and will be closely monitoring and updating this analysis. Follow up to learn more and stay abreast of new developments.

About The Author

Want to know more? See here for details about the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, e-mail her here or telephone Ms. Stamer at (469) 767-8872.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Comments Off on Read Trump Health Care Executive Order | 105(h), ACA, Affordable Care Act, Association Health Plan, Brokers, Civil Rights, Claims Administration, Corporate Compliance, EBSA, employee, Employee Benefits, Employer, Employers, ERISA, Excise Tax, Excise Taxes, Fiduciary Responsibility, FLSA, Form 5500, health benefit, Health Benefits, health Care, Health Care Reform, health insurance, health insurance marketplace, health plan, Health Plans, health reform, HR, Human Resources, Insurance, insurers, Internal Controls, Internal Revenue Code, IRC, MEWA, Payroll Tax, Premium Subsidies, Reporting & Disclosure, Tax Credit, Uncategorized, Union, Wellness, Wellness Programs, Worker Classification, Workforce, zane benefits | Tagged: ACA, Affordable Care Act, Corporate Compliance, Employee Benefits, Employer, Employers, Employment, employment law, ERISA, executive, Health Care, Health Care Reform, Health Insurance, Health Plan, Health Plans, Human Resources, Insurance, Labor, Labor Department, Managed Care, Medical Coverage, Overtime, Tax, wage and hour, Worker Classification | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

DOL Announces $40M in Hurricane Unemployment Help

September 15, 2017

The U.S. Department of Labor has initially committed up to $40 million in Disaster Dislocated Worker Grant funding to Florida, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands to assist in disaster response efforts after Hurricane Irma.

Check the hurricane recovery page for updates on how to apply for disaster unemployment assistance

Comments Off on DOL Announces $40M in Hurricane Unemployment Help | Disaster, Emergency, Hurricane Harvey, Uncategorized | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Employers Should Manage Potential Unfair Labor Practice Risks From Recording, Acceptable Use, Fighting, Integrity & Other Employment Policies

September 13, 2017

Employers beware of potential National Labor Relations Act unfair labor practices risks that may arise from their adoption or enforcement of overly broad or restrictive workplace recording, acceptable use, workplace conduct, commitment-to-integrity or other policies that might be construed to prohibit or deter employees from exercising protected organization or other collective bargaining rights under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) in light of the Fifth Circuit’s July 25, 2017 T-Mobile United States, Inc. v. Nat’l Labor Relations Bd. decision.

In T-Mobile v. NLRB, the Fifth Circuit upheld and ordered the enforcement of a National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) ruling that telecommunications industry employers T-Mobile and MetroPCS (T-Mobile) engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8 of the NLRA by maintaining a policy that prohibited all photography and audio or video recording in its workplace without the employer’s prior permission (“Recording Policy”).

The Fifth Circuit’s ruling arose from an appeal filed by T-Mobile with the Fifth Circuit, challenging a NLRB ruling that the Recording Policy, a workplace conduct policy, a commitment-to-integrity policy and an Acceptable Use Policy included in the T-Mobile employee handbook violated the NLRA because “employees would reasonably construe the language to prohibit Section 7 activity and therefore constituted unfair labor practices prohibited under Section 8 of the NLRA. (Note: T-Mobile did not appeal the NLRB’s findings that 7 other policies also violated the NLRA).

While the Fifth Circuit’s decision only upheld the unfair labor practice determination based on the Recording policy, the decision makes clear that its findings concerning each of the four employment policies subject to the appeal as well as other employment policies could come out differently in other cases based on the contextual evidence reflected in the factual record concerning the particular employment policy and the context in which it is implemented and enforced. Employers maintaining or administering similar workplace rules will want to scrutinize carefully their own policies to assess their potential for exposing the employer to unfair labor practice charges and take appropriate action to minimize these risks.

Policies Chilling Organizational Rights Protected By NLRA § 7 Create Unfair Labor Practice Exposures

Section 7 of the NLRA protects workers’ right “to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection.” 29 U.S.C. § 157. NLRA § 8(a)(1) makes it an “unfair labor practice” for an employer to “interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights” protected by NLRA § 7.

According to existing Fifth Circuit precedent, a workplace rule violates Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA if the rule either:

“Explicitly restricts activities protected by Section 7″ or
Employees would reasonably construe the language to prohibit Section 7 activity even if the rule does not explicitly prohibit or has not been enforced to prohibit or restrict Section 7 protected activity.

A careful analysis of the Fifth Circuit’s decision makes clear that its decision about each of the four challenged policies covered by T-Mobile’s appeal turned upon the Court’s careful analysis of the surrounding context under which the applicable policy was implemented and administered reflected in the factual record. While the Fifth Circuit overruled as erroneous the NLRB’s findings that three other challenged policies violated the NLRA under this analysis, it agreed with and ordered enforced the NLRB’s ruling that T-Mobile’s Recording Policy violated the NLRA by impermissibly chilling worker’s exercise of their Section 7 rights. Construing the Acceptable Use Policy as prohibiting all recording in the workplace without the employer’s consent, the Fifth Circuit concluded that the policy would “discourage” a reasonable employee from engaging in protected activity” because a reasonable employee would construe the Policy as prohibiting employee unionizing or other concerted activity protected by the NLRA.

Context Protected Workplace Conduct, Commitment-To-Integrity, No Arguing or Fighting & Acceptable Use Policy

Based upon its review of the contextual facts shown in the record, the Fifth Circuit overruled the NLRB’s unfair labor practice orders with respect to T-Mobile’s workplace conduct, commitment-to- integrity, no argument or fighting and Acceptable Use policies. Employers should note, however, that the Fifth Circuit’s ruling does not give blanket enforcement to the defensibility of these policies in all circumstances. Rather, noting that “context matters” when determining whether a work rule violates the NLRA, the court found the policies read in the context of the workplace established common sense civility guidelines that a reasonable employee would not read as chilling or discouraging organization activities protected under Section 7. Accordingly, the Fifth Circuit declined to enforce the NLRB’s unfair labor practice orders against T-Mobile with respect to those policies in this instance. Employers considering the implications on this decision on their own policies should keep in mind, however, that the Fifth Circuit based its decision on the context reflected by the facts in the record. Accordingly, there remains a risk that these or other policies could be found to violate the NLRB if adopted or administered under circumstances that could chill reasonable workers from exercising their Section 7 organizational rights.

Context Invalidated Recording Policy

The critical significance of the factual context in determining the defensibility of each of these policies under Sections 7 and 8(a) of the NLRA is driven home by the Fifth Circuit’s explanation in the opinion of its decision to enforce the NLRB’s order with respect to the following Recording Policy as well as its explanation of its distinguishability from the Acceptable Use Policy that the Fifth Court found permitted.:

To prevent harassment, maintain individual privacy, encourage open communication, and protect confidential information employees are prohibited from recording people or confidential information using cameras, camera phones/devices, or recording devices (audio or video) in the workplace. Apart from customer calls that are recorded for quality purposes, employees may not tape or otherwise make sound recordings of work-related or workplace discussions. Exceptions may be granted when participating in an authorized [T-Mobile] activity or with permission from an employee’s Manager, HR Business Partner, or the Legal Department. If an exception is granted, employees may not take a picture, audiotape, or videotape others in the workplace without the prior notification of all participants.

In determining this Recording Policy impermissibly deterred employees from exercising their Section 7 rights in violation of the NLRA, the Fifth Circuit’s opinion makes clear that “the broad reach of the recording ban” strongly influenced this determination, stating:

The ban, by its plain language, encompasses any and all photography or recording on corporate premises at any time without permission from a supervisor. This ban is, by its own terms alone, stated so broadly that a reasonable employee, generally aware of employee rights, would interpret it to discourage protected concerted activity, such as even an off-duty employee photographing a wage schedule posted on a corporate bulletin board. …

Unlike the “workplace conduct” policy and the “commitment-to-integrity” policy, the recording policy forbids certain forms of clearly protected activity. We have earlier held that held those two policies would not be interpreted by a reasonable T-Mobile employee as forbidding protected activity. By contrast, a reasonable T-Mobile employee, aware of his legal rights, would read the language of the recording policy as plainly forbidding a means of engaging in protected activity.

In the face of this possibility, the Court similarly considered the factual record before rejecting T-Mobile’s argument that the Policy was defensible to promote its legitimate business interests “[t]o prevent harassment, maintain individual privacy, encourage open communication, and protect confidential information” on the grounds that “merely reciting such justifications does not alter the fact that the operative language of the rule on its face prohibits protected Section 7 activity, including Section 7 activity wholly unrelated to those stated interests.”

In reaching this determination, the Fifth Circuit distinguished these findings from its findings with regard to the Acceptable Use policy. In explaining its finding the Acceptable Use Policy valid, the Fifth Circuit’s opinion explains that the NLRB’s decision concerning the Acceptable Use Policy disregarded the context in which the acceptable use policy is to be read and understood, stating:

The “Scope” section of the acceptable use policy explicitly states that the policy “applies to all non-public T-Mobile information.” Thus the policy only prohibits employees from sharing non-public information.

Where a company policy prohibits the disclosure of non-public information, courts presume that a reasonable employee would not construe the policy to prohibit the disclosure of information that may be properly used in protected activity, such as wage and benefit information, so long as the policy does not explicitly state that it encompasses such information. … Here… the policy does not define “non-public T-Mobile information” in a way that would lead a reasonable worker to believe that it includes protected wage and benefit information. Instead, the policy only applies to the sort of proprietary business information that an employer may properly restrict its employees from sharing outside of the company. …

Thus the NLRB’s finding that a reasonable worker would construe the acceptable use policy to discourage protected activity is unreasonable, and we deny enforcement as to that part of its order.

Accordingly, the Fifth Circuit upheld enforcement of the NLRB’s order striking down the Recording Policy but denied enforcement and overruled the NLRB’s unfair labor practice finding with regard to the other three policies.

Contextual Basis of Decision Requires Employer Tread Carefully, Manage Risks

While the Fifth Circuit only enforced the NLRB’s unfair labor practice finding with respect to T-Mobile’s Recording Policy in T-Mobile, the opinion makes clear that similar or identical policies could be treated differently depending upon whether the contextual evidence reflects that the policy could be reasonably construed by employees as prohibiting or restricting conduct protected by Section 7 of the NLRA. Employers maintaining or administering similar workplace rules will want to scrutinize carefully their own policies to assess their potential for exposing the employer to unfair labor practice charges and take appropriate action to minimize these risks.

About The Author

Want to know more? See here for details about the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, e-mail her here or telephone Ms. Stamer at (469) 767-8872.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Comments Off on Employers Should Manage Potential Unfair Labor Practice Risks From Recording, Acceptable Use, Fighting, Integrity & Other Employment Policies | board of directors, compliance, directors, employee, Employee Handbook, Employer, Employers, Employment, Employment Agreement, Employment Policies, ERISA, health plan, Human Resources, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, Loyalty, Management, Managment, NLRA, Non-Compete, Non-Competition Agreement, Uncategorized, Unfair Labor Practice, Union, Workforce | Tagged: Economy, Employer, Hiring, HR, Job Growth, Labor, Labor Management Relations, Labor Pool, Labor Statistics, Management, Recruiting, Workforce | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Health Clinic At Houston Convention Center, Other HHS Help For Hurricane Harvey Victims

August 29, 2017

Thousands of Texans sheltering at the George R. Brown Convention Center in Houston will have access to on-site medical care at a 250-bed Federal Medical Station established by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)

scheduled to be operational Wednesday.

According to Secretary of Health and Human Services Tom Price, M.D., the Federal Medical Station will provide vital care to Texans affected by Hurricane Harvey. The Federal Medical Station at the convention center will be staffed by members of HHS’ National Disaster Medical System and U.S. Public Health Service Commissioned Corps.

HHS has more than 500 personnel on the ground to assist those affected by Hurricane Harvey and 1,300 more on standby.

Beyond the team deploying to mean the Houston Convention Center, HHS has additional Federal Medical Stations available for patient care in Texas, and has positioned two 250-bed Federal Medical Stations in Baton Rouge ready to be deployed in Louisiana should state officials determine they are needed.

HHS also has activated its Disaster Distress Helpline, a toll-free call center, that is available at 1-800-985-5990 to aid people in coping with the behavioral health effects of the storm and help people in impacted areas connect with local behavioral health professionals.

HHS is opening the Federal Medical Stations are part of HHS disaster relief efforts initiated in connection with Secretary Price’s declaration of public health emergency in Texas on Saturday and in Louisiana yesterday in response to Hurricane Harvey. See

The HHS Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ (CMS) beneficiaries and their health care providers greater flexibility to provide Medicare-covered health care to meet emergency health needs under his authority in the Public Health Service Act and Social Security Act.

Many Medicare beneficiaries have been evacuated to neighboring communities where receiving hospitals and nursing homes may have no health care records, information on current health status or even verification of the person’s status as a Medicare beneficiary. Due to the emergency declaration and other actions taken by HHS, CMS is able to waive certain documentation requirements to help ensure facilities can deliver care.

These actions and flexibilities will become effective at 12:00 P.M. Eastern Standard Time on August 28, 2017, but will have retroactive effect to August 25, 2017.

Additional public health and safety information for Hurricane Harvey can be found here.

Comments Off on Health Clinic At Houston Convention Center, Other HHS Help For Hurricane Harvey Victims | Disaster, Emergency, Hurricane Harvey, Uncategorized | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

IRS Updates Amounts Used To Calculate 2017 Obamacare Individual Individual Shares Responsibility Tax Penalties

August 21, 2017

Individual Americans that don’t maintain their and their dependents’ enrollment in at least minimum essential coverage in a health program meeting the requirements of the Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act commonly referred to as “Obama Care” still generally should expect to pay individual shared responsibility tax penalties imposed by Obamacare.

Despite campaign promises to quickly repeal or reform Obamacare, the Republican controlled Congress has been unable to pass legislation repealing the individual tax penalty or other Obamacare coverage mandate related rules. Moreover, contrary to the impression widely held by many Americans that President Trump’s January 20 Executive Order protects uncovered individuals from the tax imposed under Internal Revenue Code Section 5001A, the Internal Revenue Service still plans to enforce and collect the tax. See here. Consequently, Internal Revenue Code Section 5001A still generally requires uncovered taxpayers to pay the individual shared responsibility payment.

This means that taxpayers not enrolled in minimum essential coverage or otherwise exempt from the individual responsibility payment need to be prepared to pay the tax.

In anticipation of enforcement of the individual shared responsibility tax, the Internal Revenue Service just set the monthly national average premium for qualified health plans that have a bronze level of coverage offered through Exchanges at $272 per individual and the maximum monthly national average premium for qualified health plans with a bronze level of coverage offered through Exchanges at $1,360 for a shared responsibility family with five or more members. The Internal Revenue Service intends that these amounts will be used to calculate individual shared responsibility tax penalties for 2017. The updated amounts are published in Rev. Proc. 2017-48

In general, the individual responsibility tax equals the lesser of (1) the sum of the monthly penalty amounts, or (2) the sum of the monthly national average bronze plan premiums for the shared responsibility family. See § 1.5000A-4(a). The monthly national average bronze plan premium means, for a month for which a shared responsibility payment is imposed, 1/12 of the annual national average premium for qualified health plans that (1) have a bronze level of coverage, (2) would provide coverage for the taxpayer’s shared responsibility family members, and (3) are offered through Exchanges for plan years beginning in a calendar year with or within which the taxable year ends. §§ 5000A(c)(1)(B) and 1.5000A-4(c). For this purpose, “shared responsibility family” means, for a month in a taxable year, all nonexempt individuals for whom the taxpayer and the taxpayer’s spouse, if the taxpayer is married and files a joint return with the spouse, are liable for the shared responsibility payment under § 5000A for that taxable year. See § 1.5000A-1(d)(17).

Taxpayers who are not enrolled in the necessary health coverage to meet the Obamacare health coverage mandate should evaluate their shared responsibility tax penalty exposure and weigh whether it makes more sense to enroll in qualifying health coverage or prepare to pay the tax.

About The Author

Recognized as “Legal Leader™ Texas Top Rated Lawyer” in both Health Care Law and Labor and Employment Law, a “Texas Top Lawyer,” and an “AV-Preeminent” and “Top Rated Lawyer” by Martindale-Hubble, singled out as among the “Best Lawyers In Dallas” in employee benefits by D Magazine; Cynthia Marcotte Stamer is a practicing attorney and management consultant, author, public policy advocate and lecturer widely recognized for her nearly 30 years’ of work and pragmatic thought leadership, publications and training on health coverage and health care, health plan and employee benefits, workforce and related regulatory and other compliance, performance management, risk management, product and process development, public policy, operations and other concerns.

Throughout her legal and consulting career, Ms. Stamer has drawn recognition for combining extensive knowledge and experience with her talents as an insightful innovator and problem solver when advising, representing and defending employer and other plan sponsors, insurers, fiduciaries, insurers, electronic and other technology, plan administrators and other service providers, governments and others about health coverage, benefit program design, funding, documentation, administration, data security and use, contracting, plan, public and regulatory reforms and enforcement, and other risk management and operations matters as well as for her work and thought leadership on a broad range of other health, employee benefits, human resources and other workforce, insurance, tax, compliance and other matters. Her experience encompasses leading and supporting the development and defense of innovative new programs, practices and solutions; advising and representing clients on routine plan establishment, plan documentation and contract drafting and review, administration, change and other compliance and operations crisis prevention and response, compliance and risk management audits and investigations, enforcement actions and other dealings with the US Congress, Departments of Labor, Treasury, Health & Human Services, Federal Trade Commission, Justice, state legislatures, attorneys general, insurance, labor, worker’s compensation, and other agencies and regulators, She also provides strategic and other supports clients in defending litigation as lead strategy counsel, special counsel and as an expert witness.

A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, the American Bar Foundation and the Texas Bar Foundation, Ms. Stamer also shares shared her thought leadership, experience and advocacy on these and other concerns by her service in the leadership of a broad range of other professional and civic organization including her involvement as Executive Director of the Coalition on Responsible Health Policy and its PROJECT COPE; Coalition on Patient Empowerment, a founding Board Member and past President of the Alliance for Healthcare Excellence, past Board Member and Board Compliance Committee Chair for the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas; former Board President of the early childhood development intervention agency, The Richardson Development Center for Children; current Vice Chair of the ABA Tort & Insurance Practice Section Employee Benefits Committee, current Vice Chair of Policy for the Life Sciences Committee of the ABA International Section, Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Section, Past Group Chair, current Defined Contribution Plan Committee Co-Chair, former Welfare Committee Chair and Co-Chair of the ABA RPTE Section Employee Benefits Group, immediate past RPTE Representative to ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits Council Representative and current RPTE Representative to the ABA Health Law Coordinating Counsel, former Coordinator and a Vice-Chair of the Gulf Coast TEGE Council TE Division, past Chair of the Dallas Bar Association Employee Benefits & Executive Compensation Committee, former member of the Board of Directors of the Southwest Benefits Association and others.

Ms. Stamer also is a highly popular lecturer, symposia chair and author, who publishes and speaks extensively on health and managed care industry, human resources, employment and other privacy, data security and other technology, regulatory and operational risk management for the American Bar Association, ALI-ABA, American Health Lawyers, Society of Human Resources Professionals, the Southwest Benefits Association, the Society of Employee Benefits Administrators, the American Law Institute, Lexis-Nexis, Atlantic Information Services, The Bureau of National Affairs (BNA), InsuranceThoughtLeaders.com, the Society of Professional Benefits Administrators, Benefits Magazine, Employee Benefit News, Texas CEO Magazine, HealthLeaders, the HCCA, ISSA, HIMSS, Modern Healthcare, Managed Healthcare, Institute of Internal Auditors, Society of CPAs, Business Insurance, Employee Benefits News, World At Work, Benefits Magazine, the Wall Street Journal, the Dallas Morning News, the Dallas Business Journal, the Houston Business Journal, and many other symposia and publications. She also has served as an Editorial Advisory Board Member for human resources, employee benefit and other management focused publications of BNA, HR.com, Employee Benefit News, InsuranceThoughtLeadership.com and many other prominent publications and speaks and conducts training for a broad range of professional organizations and for clients, serves on the faculty and planning committee of many workshops, seminars, and symposia, and on the Advisory Boards of InsuranceThoughtLeadership.com, HR.com, Employee Benefit News, and many other publications. For additional information about Ms. Stamer, see CynthiaStamer.com or contact Ms. Stamer via email to here or via telephone to (469) 767-8872.

About Solutions Law Press

If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates and notices about other upcoming Solutions Law Press™ events, please be sure that we have your current contact information – including your preferred e-mail by creating or updating your profile here. For important information concerning this communication, see here.

NOTICE: Any party accessing or using any content obtained from or through Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ acknowledges and agrees that any and all programs, publications, statements and materials presented or published by Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ and any statements or other contents made or contained therein are for general informational and educational purposes only. They are generic in nature and not tailored or intended to be relied upon by any person, business, entity or other party for purposes for determining the legal, financial or other appropriateness, defensibility, suitability, outcome or consequences of any strategy, action, course of action, or any other facts, circumstances, event or conduct. Users of these resources are responsible at all times for independently evluating the suitability of any content, materials, tools or other materials or information accessed from or through Solutions Law Press, Inc. directly or indirectly.

Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ and its authors and contributors do not represent or warrant in any form or manner, and expressly disclaim and deny the appropriateness of the use or reliance of any person or entity on any content, tools or resources accessed or obtained from or through Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ for any general or particular use or purpose by any party under any circumstances.

Likewise, they do not establish an attorney-client relationship or other fiduciary, contractual or other relationship between Solutions Law Press, Inc. and/or any of its authors or contributors and any other party. They are not, and do not serve as a substitute for legal, accounting, tax or other advice. They don’t create or otherwise give rise to any duty, obligation, responsibility on behalf of Solutions Law Press, Inc™ or any provider or offeree of content, tools or services to any party.

Parties accessing or using any of Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ competent legal counsel for consultation and representation in light of the specific facts and circumstances presented in their unique circumstance at any particular time. No comment or statement in this publication is to be construed as an admission. The author reserves the right to qualify or retract any of these statements at any time. Likewise, the content is not tailored to any particular situation and does not necessarily address all relevant issues. Because the law is rapidly evolving and rapidly evolving rules makes it highly likely that subsequent developments could impact the currency and completeness of this discussion. The publisher and the author expressly disclaim all liability for this content and any responsibility to provide any update or otherwise notify anyone of any such change, limitation, or other condition that might affect the suitability of reliance upon these materials or information otherwise conveyed in connection with this program. Readers may not rely upon, are solely responsible for, and assume the risk and all liabilities resulting from their use of this publication.

Comments Off on IRS Updates Amounts Used To Calculate 2017 Obamacare Individual Individual Shares Responsibility Tax Penalties | 4980D, 4980H, 6039D, ACA, Affordable Care Act, Employee Benefits, Employer, Employers, Excise Tax, health benefit, Health Benefits, health Care, Health Care Reform, health insurance, health insurance marketplace, health plan, Health Plans, health reform, HR, Human Resources, Insurance, insurers, Internal Revenue Code, IRC, Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act, Premium Subsidies, Tax, Uncategorized | Tagged: ACA, Health Insurance, Health Plans, individual shared responsibility tax, Obamacare | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

U.S. News Names 2017-2018 “Best” Hospitals; Patient Usefulness Starts With Metholodogy Understanding

August 17, 2017

For the 28th year, U.S. News & World Report has published its annual ranking of U.S. hospitals across the country. The 2017-18 Best Hospitals list (List) reports results of U.S. News & World Report’s rating and comparisons of more than 4,500 medical centers across the nation in 25 specialties, procedures and conditions based on the methodology developed and refined annually by U.S. News & World Report and its project partner, RTI International. While U.S. News & World Report touts its lists and findings as a valuable tool for guiding patient care choices, patients and others contemplating using the reported data to help evaluate hospital facilities or make care decisions will want to evaluate carefully the methodology used to derive the lists to assess the relevance of the reported rankings to their needs and purposes.

Based on the methodology specially developed by U.S. News & World Report along with RTI International for purposes of determining the ranking for a particular year, the Report separately evaluates and publishes the lists separately ranking the evaluated facilities based on the following criteria:

2017-18 Best Hospitals Specialty Rankings list
2017-18 Best Hospitals Procedure and Condition Ratings
2017-18 Best Hospitals Honor Roll
2017-18 Best Regional Hospitals
2017-18 Best Children’s Hospitals

The “Best Hospitals Honor Roll” that recognizes 20 hospitals that U.S. News & World Report concluded showed “ unusual competence across a range of adult specialties, procedures and conditions … tak[ing]” into account the full range of adult inpatient care – both performance in the Best Hospitals specialty rankings and in the Best Hospitals procedures and conditions based upon the combined points earned by the ranked hospital using a complicated methodology summarized here. Using this methodology, U.S. News & World Report named the following 20 hospitals to its list of the 2017-18 Best Hospitals Honor Roll:

Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.
Cleveland Clinic
Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore
Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston
UCSF Medical Center, San Francisco
University of Michigan Hospitals and Health Centers, Ann Arbor
Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center, Los Angeles
New York-Presbyterian Hospital, N.Y.
Stanford Health Care-Stanford Hospital, Stanford, Calif.
Hospitals of the University of Pennsylvania-Penn Presbyterian, Philadelphia
Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles
Barnes-Jewish Hospital, St. Louis
Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago
UPMC Presbyterian Shadyside, Pittsburgh
University of Colorado Hospital, Aurora
Thomas Jefferson University Hospitals, Philadelphia
Duke University Hospital, Durham, N.C.
Mount Sinai Hospital, New York
NYU Langone Medical Center, New York
Mayo Clinic Phoenix

While no Texas hospitals were named among top 20 hospitals listed on the Best Hospitals Honor Role, U.S. Word & Report ranked the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center as the No. 1 cancer treatment center in the nation.

Within the Texas Region, U.S. News & World Report ranked Houston Methodist Hospital as the “No. 1 hospital in the state of Texas;” UT Southwestern” as the “best hospital in Dallas-Fort Worth,” and “the No. 2 hospital in the state of Texas;” followed by Baylor University Medical Center, Dallas No.3, Baylor St. Luke’s Medical Center
Houston, No.4 Memorial Hermann-Texas Medical Center, No.5 and Medical City Dallas Hospital No. 6 on its list of the best hospitals in the state of Texas.

While U.S. News and World Report touts the lists as providing “rich data that patients can use to help them make informed decisions about where to receive surgical or medical care,” patients and others must read and evaluate carefully the explanation of the explanation of methodology used by U.S. News & World Report and RTI International set forth in the 2017-18 Best Hospitals Methodology Report to understand the basis and meanings of the rankings to understand the rankings and their implications. The findings and resulting lists reported are determined both by the data relied upon and the methodology developed and used to derive its findings. For instance, because the report relies heavily upon Medicare data to conduct the analysis, the analysis does not reflect the experience of typical patients under 65. Also, the findings of the report also are impacted by a broad range of other decisions made in the course of deriving the methodology for a particular year and are not necessarily consistent with ranking methodologies used by other ranking or credentialing organizations or even fully consistent with the methodology used by U.S. News & World Report to determine rankings reported for previous years. Accordingly, even U.S. News & World Report acknowledges that the top ranking of a hospital on the list does not necessarily mean that the listed hospital is the best hospital choice for a particular patient or condition as well as acknowledges other rating organization using different criteria and methodologies might reach different ranking results. Accordingly, the publishers state that they view the list as just a “starting point” to help patients decide where to seek care. “Patients still have to do their own research and talk with their doctors” to take into account other patient specific factors including the care needs of the patient, stress and expense of travel and lodging in another city and their insurer’s willingness to pay for care if a hospital is out of network.

Do the reported rankings agree with your experience and expectations? How valuable do you view the U.S. News & World Report list and findings? How do you expect your family or your health plan to use this or other rankings for purposes of guiding or deciding patient care choices? Join the discussion on the Solutions Law Press, Inc. PROJECT COPE: Coalition on Patient Empowerment Facebook page @ProjectCOPECoalition or on LinkedIn in our COPE: Coalition On Patient Empowerment Group .

About The Author

About Solutions Law Press

Comments Off on U.S. News Names 2017-2018 “Best” Hospitals; Patient Usefulness Starts With Metholodogy Understanding | ACA, exchange, health insurance, health insurance marketplace, health plan, Health Plans, Obamacare, Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Uncategorized | Tagged: ACA, Affordable Care Act, Broker Training, exchange, Health Care Reform, health coverage, Health Insurance, Health Insurance Exchange, health insurance marketplace, Health Plans, Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Training | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Use Lessons Of Past Mistakes or Injustice To Build Better Future

August 17, 2017

Source: Use Lessons Of Past Mistakes or Injustice To Build Better Future

Comments Off on Use Lessons Of Past Mistakes or Injustice To Build Better Future | Uncategorized | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Prepare For Turnover, Other Challenges From Rising Workforce Competition

August 8, 2017

U.S. employers recruiting or employing workers with high demand skills or experience in the U.S. labor market should reevaluate existing employee retention and recruiting packages and policies and intellectual property safeguards to deal with the increasingly competitive job market reflected in June, 2017 employment data and trends reflected in U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) data released today (August 8, 2017). Employers relying on workers within these industries should re-evaluate and update as necessary their existing budgeting, hiring, recruitment and retention, trade secret, noncompetition and other policies and practices to proactively position their companies to effectively compete to ensure they retain and recruit the necessary workers to operate effectively.

The BLS statistics offer employers and others key insights into various workforce and employment trend, not the least of which are signs of growing competition among employers for high demand workers arising from the continued growth in job openings reported in the BLS statistics. See, e.g. Table A. Job openings, hires, and total separations by industry, seasonally adjusted and Job Openings and Labor Turnover Technical Note; Table 1. Job openings levels and rates by industry and region, seasonally adjusted; Table 2. Hires levels and rates by industry and region, seasonally adjusted; Table 3. Total separations levels and rates by industry and region, seasonally adjusted.

BLS statistics showing new hires lagging behind the continued growth in job openings signal that employers in impacted industries and regions should prepare to face growing competition for qualified workers.

According to BLS, the U.S. job openings level increased by 461,000 to 6.2 million openings as of the last day of June. Among these 461,000 new openings, the overwhelming majority – 417,000 openings were for private sector positions, with the largest increases occurring in professional and business services (+179,000), health care and social assistance (+125,000) and construction (+62,000) while job openings decreased for other services by 62,000.

Meanwhile, BLS statistics showing that hires and total separations did not keep up with the growth in job openings sends a strong message that employers employing workers from increasingly competitive talent pools should focus as much on their ability to retain existing workers as to recruit new workers to fill new positions or replace workers. Aside from the gap between job openings and hires generally, quit rate statistics reported by BLS merit special consideration. As quits are voluntary separations initiated by the employee, the quit rate can serve as a measure of workers’ willingness or ability to leave an existing position for a new opportunity. BLS statistics showing continued stability in the quit rate and number of quits during June suggests that as of the end of June, reflected that many employed workers in high growth industries had not yet decided to make the leap to a new position. See Table 4. Quits levels and rates by industry and region, seasonally adjusted. Table 10. Quits levels and rates by industry and region, not seasonally adjusted.

Amid growing competition for workers, however, it is foreseeable that employers seeking to fill open positions will turn their attention to employers already employed. Accordingly, in addition to evaluating their ability to recruit qualified workers away from other employers, employers should anticipate and prepare for the likelihood that other employers increasingly will target their workers for recruitment.

Adequate analysis and preparation now could help position their businesses both to retain valuable workers and recruit new or replacement workers to fulfill their staffing leads. Beyond considering the adequacy of current recruitment, compensation, benefits, work rules and culture to compete effectively amid the evolving labor market, business leaders also generally will want to evaluate the adequacy and enforceability of trade secret, noncompetition and solicitation, and other legal and operational controls to protect their organization’s workforce and intellectual property from turnover related threats and dilution both as they relate to new hires and potential departing employees.

About The Author

Want to know more? See here for details about the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, e-mail her here or telephone Ms. Stamer at (469) 767-8872.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Comments Off on Prepare For Turnover, Other Challenges From Rising Workforce Competition | 401(k), directors, employee, Employee Benefits, Employer, Employers, Employment, Employment Agreement, ERISA, Executive Compensation, health plan, Management, Managment, Non-Compete, Non-Competition Agreement, Uncategorized | Tagged: Economy, Employer, Hiring, HR, Job Growth, Labor, Labor Management Relations, Labor Pool, Labor Statistics, Management, Recruiting, Workforce | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

RAISE Act Immigration Reforms Touted As “Giving Americans A Raise”

August 2, 2017

Employers operating in the United States (U.S.) should evaluate potential workforce and implications of immigration law reforms proposed in the revised The Reforming American Immigration for a Strong Economy Act (RAISE Act) reintroduced in the Senate by co-sponsors Senators Tom Cotton and David Perdue with the announced backing of President Donald Trump earlier today (August 2, 2017).

Applauding the RAISE ACT as his preferred vehicle for implementing the “merit based” Green Card system he promised would be implemented during his Presidential campaign, President Trump said the RAISE Act reforms will “give Americans a raise” by creating a “skills-based immigration system that seeks to make America more competitive, raise wages for American workers, and create jobs” while also ensuring that “newcomers to our wonderful country will be assimilated, will succeed, and will achieve the American Dream.”

In pursuit of these goals, the RAISE Act would radically restructure U.S. rules to radically change the foreign workers and others eligible to qualify for work or other visas to enter the U.S., the procedures for their selection and other visa rules.

The centerpiece of these reforms are the RAISE Act’s proposal to replace the current permanent employment visa and lottery visa programs used to determine what foreign workers receive Green Cards to work in the U.S. with a “merit based system” under which a newly created “skills-based point system” would determine the workers eligible for selection to receive a work visa to work in the U.S. based upon listed “predictors of immigrant success and economic contribution.” Under the skills-based point system created by the RAISE Act, selection for inclusion in the pool of workers eligible to work in the U.S. would rank foreign workers seeking visas based on a merit-based point system created under the legislation.

Beyond these specific reforms to the worker visa programs, other proposed reforms that tighten the eligibility rules and requirements for granting visas to noncitizen family members of U.S. citizens and foreign workers also can be expected to impact the recruitment and employment of foreign workers. For this reason, employers and workers concerned with the recruitment of foreign labor to work in the United States generally will want to carefully evaluate all of these proposed reforms.

Proposed Direct Reforms To Work Visa Programs

The RAISE Act’s strategy for reforming the worker visa program focuses on the replacement of the current permanent employment visa and lottery programs with a newly created “skills-based points system” for granting work-eligible visas similar to systems used by Canada and Australia. Concurrent with the deployment of the new skills-based point system, the RAISE Act provides for the elimination of the existing diversity visa lottery program, pursuant to which the U.S. currently grants via lottery selection 50,000 visas annually in a lottery to applicants from countries with low rates of immigration to the United States, with no regard to the applicants’ skills.

As proposed under RAISE Act §5, the U.S. would issue up to 140,000 employment-based visas annually to applicants selected by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services twice a year to receive an invitation to file full applications and undergo security vetting from the pool of applicants scoring the highest points the new skills-based points system created under the RAISE Act.

Under the RAISE Act reforms, a new skills-based points system would be used to prioritize applicants for visa eligibility based on the following “predictors of immigrant success and economic contribution:”

Education,
English-language ability,
High-paying job offers,
Age,
Record of extraordinary achievement, and
Entrepreneurial initiative.

The RAISE Act would require that an applicant score at least 30-points to eligible to qualify for inclusion in the pool of applicants eligible to be considered for possible selection to receive an employment-based visa or “Green Card.” Subject to this floor, applicants would be selected for invitation to complete the application process and undergo a security check based on their score relative to other applicants.

Immigrant households arriving through the points system are not eligible for federal means tested benefits for a period of 5 years.

Section 5(e) of the RAISE Act requires an annual statistical report on the skills-based points system while Section 5(f) requires a quadrennial report to Congress recommending updates to the points system with the aim of improving the economy and enhancing working Americans’ wages.

Section 6 conditions naturalization on the sponsors of an immigrant fulfilling their obligation to reimburse the federal government for benefits used by the immigrant, as required under current law.

Proposed Changes To Immigration Preferences for Family Members of U.S. Citizens & Residents

Beyond the direct reforms to the worker visa systems, the RAISE Act’s proposed changes to the preferences for granting visas to family members of U.S. citizens and residents also are likely to impact the recruitment and retention of foreign workers to fill positions in the United States by both narrowing to spouses and children the list of family members eligible to qualify as “family-sponsored immigrants” and tightening the requirements for parents of citizens and residents to qualify for visitors visa.

As proposed, the RAISE Act would keep, but narrow the availability of visas for “family-sponsored immigrants.” RAISE Act §4 would continue to allow preferences for spouses and minor children of U.S. residents but eliminate visa preferences for extended family and grown adult family members of U.S. residents. Along with narrowing the individuals that can qualify for visa preferences as family-sponsored immigrants, the RAISE Act also caps the allowable number of “family-sponsored immigrants” eligible for admission per fiscal year to 88,000 reduced by the number of certain previously admitted family-sponsored immigrants not obtaining alien lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence status within a specified period remaining in the United States.

Along with this narrowing of the applicability of preferences for family-sponsored immigrants, the RAISE Act also proposes to create a temporary visa under which elderly parents of U.S. residents could come to the United States for a limited period of time conditional upon the fulfillment by the resident of certain conditions. This newly created nonimmigrant classification for alien parents of adult United States Citizens would be conditional upon the sponsoring nonimmigrant child being at least 21 years old, legally resident in the U.S., responsible for the nonimmigrant parent’s support and for providing satisfactory proof that the sponsoring child maintains health insurance coverage for the parent at no cost to the parent. Furthermore, the parent receiving the visitor’s visa would not be authorized to be employed in the United States or eligible for any Federal, State, or local public benefit.

Proposed Cap on Offers Of Permanent Residency To Refugees

RAISE Act § 3 would caps the number of refugees granted permanent visas to the United States at 50,000 per year, in line with a 13-year average. It also requires the President to report the annual number of refugees admitted to the United States.

President, Sponsors Say Reforms Give U.S. Citizens “A Raise”

Joined by RAISE Act co-sponsors Senator Cotton and Senator Perdue for his Rose Garden announcement of support for enactment of the RAISE Act this morning, President Trump reaffirmed his campaign commitment to create “a merit-based immigration system that protects U.S. workers and taxpayers” that “demonstrates our compassion for struggling American families who deserve an immigration system that puts their needs first and that puts America first” while helping “ensure that newcomers to our wonderful country will be assimilated, will succeed, and will achieve the American Dream.

According to President Trump, “The RAISE Act — R-A-I-S-E — the RAISE Act will reduce poverty, increase wages, and save taxpayers billions and billions of dollars … by changing the way the United States issues Green Cards to nationals from other countries” to protect low skilled U.S. workers from unfair foreign immigrant competition by replacing a “low-skilled system” with a new points-based system for receiving a Green Card “that favors applicants who can speak English, financially support themselves and their families, and demonstrate skills that will contribute to our economy.”

President Trump also touted provisions of the RAISE Act for preventing new migrants and new immigrants from collecting welfare and other benefits upon entry to the country as protecting U.S. taxpayers.

Implications For Employers

The reforms proposed by the RAISE Act, if enacted as proposed are likely to impact U.S. based employers in a multitude of ways including, but not limited to the obvious changes in the selection and availability of foreign workers for employment in the United States.

Obviously, the proposed changes to the processes for selection and qualification of non-citizens will impact both the nature of the workers eligible for employment, and the procedures and timing of their availability. The emphasis on granting visas to higher skilled workers over those with lower skills likely will raise concerns for employers reliant upon lower skilled foreign labor. While the new point system is touted as preferring the recruitment of higher skilled workers, it remains to be seen whether the system actually will meet the workforce needs already expressed by a host of hi-tech and other U.S. businesses concerned about immigration reform. Meanwhile, employers recruiting foreign workers with family members also should anticipate that foreign workers may request or require assistance from their U.S. employer to fulfill newly imposed requirements that the worker provide health care coverage as a condition to his sponsorship of a parental visa or to address new government benefit eligibility exclusions included in the RAISE Act.

Beyond impacting the actual availability of foreign workers and their skill sets, it also is likely that the English-speaking and other preferences incorporated into the skills based point system proposed by the REACH Act also inevitably will necessitate some reconsideration if not actual reform of federal or state laws or regulations concerning nondiscrimination based on national origin, race or other civil rights laws that have been the basis of challenges to English language only workforce or other business rules. It remains to be seen how Congress and the Administration contemplates the new priority system will integrate with the employment and other federal and state laws that commonly are relied upon to protect foreign and English as a Second Language individuals against employment and other discrimination.

About The Author

Well-known for her extensive work with health, insurance, financial services, technology, energy, manufacturing, retail, hospitality, governmental and other highly regulated employers, her nearly 30 years’ of experience encompasses domestic and international businesses of all types and sizes. A former lead consultant to the Government of Bolivia on its Pension Reform project, Vice Chair of Policy of the American Bar Association International Section Life Sciences Committee and an active in a host of migration reform and other cross-border workforce, pandemic and other healthcare, education, ethics, cyber crime policy reforms within and outside the United States throughout her career, Ms. Stamer also has extensive experience working with domestic and foreign businesses on a host of immigration, workforce, compensation, benefits, privacy, and other compliance and management challenges arising in connection with the management and use of ex-pat and other global workforces by U.S. and foreign businesses.

Want to know more? See here for details about the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, e-mail her here or telephone Ms. Stamer at (469) 767-8872.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Comments Off on RAISE Act Immigration Reforms Touted As “Giving Americans A Raise” | Discrimination, E-Verify, EEOC, EEOC, employee, Employee Benefits, Employer, Employers, English As A Second Language, h-2A Visa, health benefit, Health Benefits, health Care, health insurance, health plan, Health Plans, Hiring, HR, I-9, Immigration, Internal Controls, RAISE Act, Uncategorized, visas, Worker | Tagged: EEOC, ESL, Immigration, International, Migration, RAISE Act | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Withholding Calculator Tool Helps Workers Figure Withholding

August 1, 2017

Employers and employee benefit plan fiduciaries and administrators should consider sharing the free IRS Withholding Calculator resource offered in English, Spanish, and ASL formats with workers in annual employee benefit enrollment packages, new hire paperwork, bonus announcement and other wage related materials and other employee communications to help workers better understand and manage the tax and other effects of their annual employee benefit elections on their take-home pay. Including reminders to re-evaluate withholding and if necessary, change their W-4 withholding elections also helps employees and their families ensure that withholding elections that workers complete as part of new hire documentation are updated in response to changing taxable income and other relevant events.

Communicating the availability of these free government-resource tools to workers during the annual employee benefit plan enrollment period, year-end, raise or bonus time or other strategic times throughout the year could help employees better appreciate the tax-preferred benefit offerings provided by the employer as well as provide significant financial education benefits many workers need for little or no employer cost.

While enrollment packages typically tout the potential “tax savings” that employees can enjoy from participating in tax-favored, employer-sponsored health, group term life, qualified pension or profit-sharing, and other tax-preferred employee benefit or fringe benefit programs offered by their employers, few employees truly understand how to determine properly their necessary wage withholding on taxable wages, much less the specific effects of their employee benefit elections on their income or employment tax liability or withholding.

A better understanding of the relative tax benefits and savings of enrollment in tax-preferred benefits offered by an employer and their potential implications on the income tax withholding elected by the workers can benefit both employees and their employer. Aside from illustrating in real, meaningful terms specific to the worker the tax benefits of his election of employer-offered, tax preferred benefits, proper tax withholding helps employees avoid unnecessary over withholding that can reduce employees’ take-home pay as well as helps protect employees from unexpectedly higher year-end tax bills that often surprise workers when an employee sets his withholding too low.

While few employers or plans want to incur the potential financial costs or liability of estimating savings for individual workers, sharing information about free government-provided resources like the IRS calculator or using vendor-provided solutions that incorporate tools in employee enrollment and other communications can help employees appreciate the benefits of tax-preferred employee benefits and make more informed choices about their benefits and their withholding.

Educating employees about the availability of these free resources also is a low-cost way of providing valuable information to workers whether or not the employer or plan has a vendor offered solution that includes the same or similar tool. However, educating workers about the availability of the withholding calculator and other tools can be a particularly attractive option for an employer when the employer doesn’t have a vendor-provided option that includes that information or can only access the tool for added charges.

While many vendors offer similar tools and materials sold to employers and employee benefit plans, employers or benefit plan fiduciaries generally must pay fees, share promotional materials or meet at the requirements to deliver those resources as part of a vendor-supplied package. Utilizing these vendor supplied resources without fulfilling these preconditions could expose the employer or plan to potential copyright, trademark or other contractual or intellectual property claims from the vendor. In contrast, IRS withholding calculator and many other government tools can be used or shared freely without these concerns. Moreover, employers and plans are less likely to face challenges for sharing an unfiltered government resource than a similar tool packaged within a vendor communication package promoting other options.

Of course, regardless of whether these or other tools or information are shared as a free-standing tool or as part of a broader communication package, employers, plans and others sharing these government tools and other similar resources generally will want to ensure that the materials are distributed along with and subject to general tax advice and other disclaimers of reliance as well as statements encouraging users to consult with their own qualified tax or other qualified professionals about the users’ specific circumstance.

About The Author

Want to know more? See here for details about the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, e-mail her here or telephone Ms. Stamer at (469) 767-8872.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Comments Off on Withholding Calculator Tool Helps Workers Figure Withholding | 105(h), 401(k), Affordable Care Act, Brokers, Cafeteria Plans, compensation, compliance, Corporate Compliance, Default enrollment, defined benefit plan, Defined Benefit Plans, Defined Contribution Plans, Disability, Disability Plans, EBSA, employee, Employee Benefits, Employer, Employers, Employment, Employment Tax, Executive Compensation, FICA, fiduciary duty, Form 5500, HR, Human Resources, Income Tax, Insurance, Managment, Tax, Tax Qualification, Uncategorized, Worker, Workforce | Tagged: Employee Benefits, employee communications, Health Insurance, Human Resources, Income Tax, onboarding, Tax, Withholding, Workforce | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Better Preparing U.S. Workers To Fill Your Jobs

July 24, 2017

A Facebook Post touting “Not Everyone Is A Doctor or Lawyer” prompts me to ask U.S. business leaders and families for their opinion about how well the U.S. education system works to provide the education and training necessary to provide workers ready to join and succeed in the current and future economy and the workers businesses need. How do you thing our education system is doing? What are your thoughts on what steps you believe US needs to take to better prepare our young people and train or retrain our underemployed adults to gain self-supporting employment and meet the needs of business?

DFW and many other US communities are struggling to find enough skilled tradespeople, programmers, call center workers and other key positions. While businesses continue to insist that shortage of suitably skilled and trained workers in these and other key positions make the continued availability of foreign workers essential and create other challenges, many college-educated U.S. workers remain unemployed or underemployed. Meanwhile, the U.S. education system continues to focus on churning out an unending stream of one-size-fits-all, college bound, lemming not leader graduates, too many of which struggle to find employment at a pay rate that justifies the cost of their college degrees in the new marketplace.

While the importation of foreign workers often helps to ease some of the operational challenges that arise from a scarcity of qualified workers, the importation of foreign labor in lieu of developing qualified workers residing in the U.S. leaves U.S. businesses burdened by the tax burdens of supporting the public relief and other supports imposed by government to provide unemployment and other relief for the surplus of unqualified U.S. workers left under or unemployed.

The US, its businesses, families and communities need and deserve better to produce and maintain a sustainable economy that provides meaningful earning opportunities for our citizens and residents. To accomplish this, U.S. business leaders need to take the lead in helping to define the skills and abilities their businesses need today and will need in the future, and helping to reshape the education and training systems to better produce U.S. workers qualified to fill the needs of businesses operating in the U.S.

Does your business experience challenges finding qualified workers resident in the U.S.? What types of positions are you having trouble filling? What skills and qualifications are U.S. candidate lacking? What changes in training or education are needed to address these challenges? How would you fix the system?

About The Author

Cynthia Marcotte Stamer is a practicing attorney board certified in labor and employment law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization and management consultant, author, public policy advocate and lecturer widely known for management advice, coaching, teachings, publications, policy advocacy and other leadership.

Recognized as a Martindale-Hubble “AV-Preeminent” (Top 1%) and “Top Rated Lawyer” with special recognition LexisNexis® Martindale-Hubbell® as “LEGAL LEADER™ Texas Top Rated Lawyer” in Health Care Law and Labor and Employment Law; as among the “Best Lawyers In Dallas” for her work in the fields of “Labor & Employment,” “Tax: Erisa & Employee Benefits,” “Health Care” and “Business and Commercial Law” by D Magazine, Ms. Stamer works with businesses and their management, employee benefit plans, governments and other organizations deal with all aspects of business operations, leadership and governance, human resources and workforce, internal controls and regulatory compliance, change management and other performance and operations management and compliance. Her day-to-day work encompasses both general corporate and business legal, contractual, and operational issues, as well their labor and employment, independent contractor, outsourcing, employee leasing, management services and other nontraditional service relationships and other workforce, employee benefits, compensation, contracting, performance management and related issues.

Ms. Stamer supports her clients both on a real-time, “on demand” basis and with longer term basis to deal with general corporate, business, contracting and other business; as well as all aspects of human resources and workforce management, including, recruitment, hiring, firing, compensation and benefits, promotion, discipline, compliance, trade secret and confidentiality, noncompetition, privacy and data security, safety, daily performance and operations management, emerging crises, strategic planning, process improvement and change management, investigations, defending litigation, audits, investigations or other enforcement challenges, government affairs and public policy.

Well-known for her extensive work with health, insurance, financial services, technology, energy, manufacturing, retail, hospitality and governmental employers, her nearly 30 years’ of experience encompasses domestic and international businesses of all types and sizes.

A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, the American Bar Foundation and the Texas Bar Foundation, Ms. Stamer also shares her thought leadership, experience and advocacy on these and other concerns by her service in the leadership of a broad range of other professional and civic organization including her involvement as the Vice Chair of the North Texas Healthcare Compliance Association; Executive Director of the Coalition on Responsible Health Policy and its PROJECT COPE: Coalition on Patient Empowerment; former Board President of the early childhood development intervention agency, The Richardson Development Center for Children; former Gulf Coast TEGE Council Exempt Organization Coordinator; a founding Board Member and past President of the Alliance for Healthcare Excellence; former board member and Vice President of the Managed Care Association; past Board Member and Board Compliance Committee Chair for the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas; a member and advisor to the National Physicians’ Council for Healthcare Policy; current Vice Chair of the ABA Tort & Insurance Practice Section Employee Benefits Committee; current Vice Chair of Policy for the Life Sciences Committee of the ABA International Section; Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Section; a current Defined Contribution Plan Committee Co-Chair, former Group Chair and Co-Chair of the ABA RPTE Section Employee Benefits Group; immediate past RPTE Representative to ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits Council Representative and current RPTE Representative to the ABA Health Law Coordinating Council; past Chair of the Dallas Bar Association Employee Benefits & Executive Compensation Committee; a former member of the Board of Directors, Treasurer, Member and Continuing Education Chair of the Southwest Benefits Association and others.

Ms. Stamer also is a highly popular lecturer, symposia chair and author, who coaches management, publishes and speaks extensively on leadership, human resources, labor and employment, employee benefits, compensation, occupational safety and health, and other regulatory and operational risk management. She is the author of thousands of other publications, programs and workshops on these and other concerns for the American Bar Association, ALI-ABA, American Health Lawyers, Society of Human Resources Professionals, the Southwest Benefits Association, the Society of Employee Benefits Administrators, the American Law Institute, Lexis-Nexis, Atlantic Information Services, The Bureau of National Affairs (BNA), InsuranceThoughtLeaders.com, Benefits Magazine, Employee Benefit News, Texas CEO Magazine, HealthLeaders, the HCCA, ISSA, HIMSS, Modern Healthcare, Managed Healthcare, Institute of Internal Auditors, Society of CPAs, Business Insurance, Employee Benefits News, World At Work, Benefits Magazine, the Wall Street Journal, the Dallas Morning News, the Dallas Business Journal, the Houston Business Journal, and many other symposia and publications. She also has served as an Editorial Advisory Board Member for human resources, employee benefit and other management focused publications of BNA, HR.com, Employee Benefit News, InsuranceThoughtLeadership.com and many other prominent publications and speaks and conducts training for a broad range of professional organizations and for clients on the Advisory Boards of InsuranceThoughtLeadership.com, HR.com, Employee Benefit News, and many other publications.

Want to know more? See here for details about the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, e-mail her here or telephone Ms. Stamer at (469) 767-8872.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Comments Off on Better Preparing U.S. Workers To Fill Your Jobs | HR, Uncategorized, Workforce | Tagged: Education, Hiring, onboarding, recruting, skills, Training, Workforce | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

CMS Offers PY 2018 Marketplace Brokers, Agents Training 7/20, 21, 26 & 27

July 20, 2017

Agents and brokers planning to market health insurance coverage sold through the health care marketplaces established under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) should register and participate in one of the upcoming “Plan Year 2018 Registration & Training Overview For Agents and Brokers” sessions offered by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) to:

Provide Registration and training information for Plan Year (PY) 2018; and
Answer participant questions.

CMS is offering separate training for brokers and agents who previously completed PY 2017 registration and training (Returning Brokers) from the training for agents and brokers who did not complete the PY 2017 registration and training (New Brokers).

New Broker training sessions presently are scheduled on July 20, 2017 and July 26, 2017 from 1:00 p.m.- 2:30 p.m. Eastern Time. Returning Broker training sessions are scheduled for July 21, 2017 and July 27, 2017 from 1:00-2:00 p.m. Eastern Time.

To register or for more information, see the REGTAP website here.

About The Author

About Solutions Law Press

Comments Off on CMS Offers PY 2018 Marketplace Brokers, Agents Training 7/20, 21, 26 & 27 | ACA, exchange, health insurance, health insurance marketplace, health plan, Health Plans, Obamacare, Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Uncategorized | Tagged: ACA, Affordable Care Act, Broker Training, exchange, Health Care Reform, health coverage, Health Insurance, Health Insurance Exchange, health insurance marketplace, Health Plans, Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Training | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

8/28 Comment Deadline For Proposed Changes To OSHA OSHA Beryllium Standards

July 7, 2017

August 28 is the deadline for employers and others to comment on an Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) proposed rule that would modify the agency’s recent beryllium standards for the construction and shipyard sectors.
Specifically, the proposed rule would maintain the permissible exposure limits (permissible exposure limit of 0.2 μg/m3 and short-term exposure limit of 2.0 μg/m3) for construction and shipyards, but would eliminate ancillary provisions such as housekeeping and personal protective equipment that were included in the January 9, 2017 final rule adopted in the final days of the Obama Administration.

The specific areas that OSHA seeks comment on, among other things, include whether existing standards covering abrasive blasting in construction, abrasive blasting in shipyards, and welding in shipyards provide adequate protection for workers engaged in these operations.

The comment period closes on August 28, 2017. Employers or others wishing to share input on the proposed rules should submit their comments by this deadline in the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal here.

About The Author

A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, the American Bar Foundation and the Texas Bar Foundation, Ms. Stamer also shares her thought leadership, experience and advocacy on these and other concerns by her service in the leadership of a broad range of other professional and civic organization including her involvement as the Vice Chair of the North Texas Healthcare Compliance Association; Executive Director of the Coalition on Responsible Health Policy and its PROJECT COPE: Coalition on Patient Empowerment; former Board President of the early childhood development intervention agency, The Richardson Development Center for Children; former Gulf Coast TEGE Council Exempt Organization Coordinator; a founding Board Member and past President of the Alliance for Healthcare Excellence; former board member and Vice President of the Managed Care Association; past Board Member and Board Compliance Committee Chair for the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas; a member and advisor to the National Physicians’ Council for Healthcare Policy; current Vice Chair of the ABA Tort & Insurance Practice Section Employee Benefits Committee; current Vice Chair of Policy for the Life Sciences Committee of the ABA International Section; Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Section; a current Defined Contribution Plan Committee Co-Chair, former Group Chair and Co-Chair of the ABA RPTE Section Employee Benefits Group; immediate past RPTE Representative to ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits Council Representative and current RPTE Representative to the ABA Health Law Coordinating Council; past Chair of the Dallas Bar Association Employee Benefits & Executive Compensation Committee; a former member of the Board of Directors, Treasurer, Member and Continuing Education Chair of the Southwest Benefits Association and others.

Ms. Stamer also is a highly popular lecturer, symposia chair and author, who publishes and speaks extensively on human resources, labor and employment, employee benefits, compensation, occupational safety and health, and other regulatory and operational risk management. Examples of her many highly regarded publications on these matters include the “Texas Payday Law” Chapter of Texas Employment Law, as well as thousands of other publications, programs and workshops these and other concerns for the American Bar Association, ALI-ABA, American Health Lawyers, Society of Human Resources Professionals, the Southwest Benefits Association, the Society of Employee Benefits Administrators, the American Law Institute, Lexis-Nexis, Atlantic Information Services, The Bureau of National Affairs (BNA), InsuranceThoughtLeaders.com, Benefits Magazine, Employee Benefit News, Texas CEO Magazine, HealthLeaders, the HCCA, ISSA, HIMSS, Modern Healthcare, Managed Healthcare, Institute of Internal Auditors, Society of CPAs, Business Insurance, Employee Benefits News, World At Work, Benefits Magazine, the Wall Street Journal, the Dallas Morning News, the Dallas Business Journal, the Houston Business Journal, and many other symposia and publications. She also has served as an Editorial Advisory Board Member for human resources, employee benefit and other management focused publications of BNA, HR.com, Employee Benefit News, InsuranceThoughtLeadership.com and many other prominent publications and speaks and conducts training for a broad range of professional organizations and for clients on the Advisory Boards of InsuranceThoughtLeadership.com, HR.com, Employee Benefit News, and many other publications.

Want to know more? See here for details about the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, e-mail her here or telephone Ms. Stamer at (469) 767-8872.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Comments Off on 8/28 Comment Deadline For Proposed Changes To OSHA OSHA Beryllium Standards | employee, Employer, Employers, Employment, OSHA, Uncategorized, Whistleblower | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Comment By 7/13 On OSHA Proposed Electronic Reporting Rule Delay To 12/1/17

July 7, 2017

July 13 is the deadline to comment on a Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) proposed rule that would delay four months the compliance date of its electronic reporting rule, formally called “Improve Tracking of Workplace Injuries and Illnesses.” The compliance date would be extended from July 1, 2017, to Dec. 1, 2017 to allow OSHA to further review and consider its final rule the Obama Administration previously published on May 12, 2016. The rule requires certain employers to submit their employee injury and illness logs to OSHA electronically.

Employers and others that support the rule should act promptly to express their support in the form of a comment by the July 13 deadline.

About The Author

Recognized by her peers as a Martindale-Hubble “AV-Preeminent” (Top 1%) and “Top Rated Lawyer” with special recognition LexisNexis® Martindale-Hubbell® as “LEGAL LEADER™ Texas Top Rated Lawyer” in Health Care Law and Labor and Employment Law; as among the “Best Lawyers In Dallas” for her work in the fields of “Labor & Employment,” “Tax: Erisa & Employee Benefits,” “Health Care” and “Business and Commercial Law” by D Magazine, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer is a practicing attorney board certified in labor and employment law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization and management consultant, author, public policy advocate and lecturer widely known for work, teachings and publications.
Ms. Stamer works with businesses and their management, employee benefit plans, governments and other organizations deal with all aspects of human resources and workforce, safety and occupational injury, internal controls and regulatory compliance, change management and other performance and operations management and compliance. Her day-to-day work encompasses both labor and employment issues, as well as independent contractor, outsourcing, employee leasing, management services and other nontraditional service relationships. She supports her clients both on a real-time, “on demand” basis and with longer term basis to deal with all aspects for workforce and human resources management, including, recruitment, hiring, firing, compensation and benefits, occupational health and safety, promotion, discipline, compliance, trade secret and confidentiality, noncompetition, privacy and data security, daily performance and operations management, emerging crises, strategic planning, process improvement and change management, investigations, defending litigation, audits, investigations or other enforcement challenges, government affairs and public policy.

A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, the American Bar Foundation and the Texas Bar Foundation, Ms. Stamer also shares her thought leadership, experience and advocacy on these and other concerns by her service in the leadership of a broad range of other professional and civic organization including her involvement as the Vice Chair of the North Texas Healthcare Compliance Association; Executive Director of the Coalition on Responsible Health Policy and its PROJECT COPE: Coalition on Patient Empowerment; former Board President of the early childhood development intervention agency, The Richardson Development Center for Children; former Gulf Coast TEGE Council Exempt Organization Coordinator; a founding Board Member and past President of the Alliance for Healthcare Excellence; former board member and Vice President of the Managed Care Association; past Board Member and Board Compliance Committee Chair for the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas; a member and advisor to the National Physicians’ Council for Healthcare Policy; current Vice Chair of the ABA Tort & Insurance Practice Section Employee Benefits Committee; current Vice Chair of Policy for the Life Sciences Committee of the ABA International Section; Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Section; a current Defined Contribution Plan Committee Co-Chair, former Group Chair and Co-Chair of the ABA RPTE Section Employee Benefits Group; immediate past RPTE Representative to ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits Council Representative and current RPTE Representative to the ABA Health Law Coordinating Council; past Chair of the Dallas Bar Association Employee Benefits & Executive Compensation Committee; a former member of the Board of Directors, Treasurer, Member and Continuing Education Chair of the Southwest Benefits Association and others.

Want to know more? See here for details about the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, e-mail her here or telephone Ms. Stamer at (469) 767-8872.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Comments Off on Comment By 7/13 On OSHA Proposed Electronic Reporting Rule Delay To 12/1/17 | compliance, Corporate Compliance, Employment, HR, Human Resources, Internal Investigations, occupational safety, OSHA, Uncategorized | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Read Senate Republican Leaders Proposed Answer To Obamacare Here

June 23, 2017

Senate Republican Leaders unveiled their proposal to reform Obamacare on Thursday, the “Better Care Reconciliation Act of 2017.”

Read the language and share your thoughts here or in our forums on Linkedin or Facebook.

Comments Off on Read Senate Republican Leaders Proposed Answer To Obamacare Here | Better Care Reconciliation Act of 2017.", Uncategorized | Tagged: healthcare reform, Obamacare | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

About the Author

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

About the Author

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

About the Author

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

About the Author

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

About the Author

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

About the Author

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

About the Author

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

About the Author

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

About the Author

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

About the Author

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

About the Author

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

About the Author

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

About the Author

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

About the Author

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

About the Author

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

About the Author

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

About the Author

Continuing Fallout of 2015 Data Breach Provides Many Lessons For Other Businesses & Their Health Plans

Email Subscription

Pages

Recent Posts

Archives

Share this blog

Solutions Law Press HR & Benefits Update