| Page 14

Obama Executive Order’s Prohibition Of Government Contractor Sexual Orientation & Gender Identity Discrimination Creates Challenges For All US Employers

April 8, 2015

Effective today (April 8, 2015), all U.S. businesses working as government contractors or subcontractors are prohibited from discriminating in employment against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) applicants and employees on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. While the new LGBT nondiscrimination rules for government contractors and subcontractors imposed by are the latest in a series of changes imposing new obligations for U.S. government contractors and other U.S. employers in their dealings with LGBT workers, all employers of 15 or more employees, not just government contractors, increasingly face employment discrimination risks and other expanding obligations to LGBT workers as a result of evolving judicial precedent and the pro-LGBT rights regulatory agenda of the Obama Administration. As publicity and the Obama Administration’s outreach about the implementation of the new nondiscrimination rules for government contractors and other announcements about these other new federal LGBT employment protections are likely to fuel new claims and demands by workers asserting these new rights, government contractors and all other employers should act quickly to ensure that their policies and benefit programs, as well as compliance and risk management procedures are properly updated to meet these changing federal rules regarding the employment rights of LGBT workers.

The new federal government contracting prohibition against sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination by federal government contractors is imposed by President Obama’s Executive Order on LGBT Workplace Discrimination, which takes effect today and applies to all federal government contractors and subcontractors regardless of the type of government contract, number of employees or project revenue. The Executive Order’s requirement that government contractors and subcontractors not discriminate based on sexual orientation or gender identity covers every type of new and modified federal contract and every establishment of those contractors and subcontractors – not just the ones directly involved in performing the contract. As a result of the Executive Order, all federal government contractors and subcontractors are prohibited from discriminating against lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender people in hiring, firing, pay, promotion and other employment practices based on their sexual orientation or gender identity.

The Executive Order’s prohibition against federal contractors and subcontractors discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity expressly elevates sexual orientation and gender identity to the same protected status as race, color, religion, national origin, disability and veteran status for purposes of the employment discrimination rules applicable to federal government contractors. While at this point, the Obama Administration rules do not also require federal government contractors and subcontractors to undertake any specific new record keeping, data analysis, goal setting or other similar affirmative action, government contractors and subcontractors of all types and sizes will want to take care to update their nondiscrimination policies and practices to reflect their policy against discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity, as well as ensure that their hiring, promotion, compensation and other employment practices and associated documentation are administered and documented to defend against potential discrimination charges based on gender identity or sexual orientation.

While the Executive Order expressly applies only to government contractors and subcontractors, in fact all employers of 15 or more employees increasingly need to be concerned about employment discrimination exposures brought by employees who are, or are perceived to be LGBT individuals, as well as keeping their employment and employee benefit practices compliant with a host of recent federal rule changes on the treatment of LGBT individuals.

On the employment discrimination front, most employers, not just government contractors, need to use care to meet their duty to protect LGBT and others from “gender stereotyping” and same-sex sexual harassment or other sex discrimination in their workplaces recognized by the courts as encompassed in Title VII’s sex discrimination protections.

Under the gender stereotyping theory recognized by the Supreme Court in Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins (1989), for instance, an employer violates Title VII if “X discriminates against Y because X believes that Y does not dress, walk, talk, etc. as members of Y’s gender typically do.” In EEOC v. Boh Bros. Const. Co., LLC , 731 F. 3d 444 (5th Cir. 2013) for instance, the Fifth Circuit upheld Title VII gender stereotying based sex discrimination claims of an iron worker who claimed his supervisor in the all-male work environment accused him of being gay subjected him to highly offensive, often sexually explicit verbal and physical harassment for months because the supervisor perceived his behavior was effeminate and did not conform to the supervisor’s idea of how a man should act.

Likewise, the EEOC and courts also have continued to recognize sexual harassment claims based on harassing conduct inflicted by a party of the same sex as the victim plaintiff. For instance, last year the EEOC announced that Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. agreed to pay $290,000 to four female bank tellers and take other corrective action to settle an EEOC sexual harassment lawsuit where the EEOC charged that a female manager and another female bank teller at a Wells Fargo branch in Reno, Nevada sexually harassed the women by making graphic sexual comments, gestures and images; inappropriate touching, and making suggestions to wear sexually provocative clothing to attract customers and to advance in the workplace, which the Wells Fargo allegedly failed to act quickly to stop despite complaints about the conduct from the victims.

In addition, government contractors and other U.S. employers also generally need to review and update heir employment, employee benefit plans, leave policies and other practices to ensure that they are up to date and defensible in light of the ongoing series of new rules affording new protections for LGBT workers issued by the Obama Administration in the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s ruling of the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional in Windsor. In the aftermath of Windsor, the Departments of Labor, Veterans Affairs, Treasury, Justice, Homeland Security and other federal agencies modified immigration, family and military leave, employee benefits, and a host of other rules to require both public and private employers and their employee benefit plans afford marriage-equivalent treatment workers involved in certain same-sex relationships as well as to extend other LGBT employment and other protections. As a result of these and other expansions in the legal protections of LGBT individuals by the Obama Administration like the Executive Order and these other regulatory and enforcement changes, as well as evolving precedent in the wake of the Windsor decision, all U.S. employers should prepare to meet new legal requirements, as well as rising expectations by members of the LGBT community about their workplace, employee benefits and other rights.

In anticipation of these rising requirements and expectations all employers including government contractors should engage legal counsel for assistance in reviewing and updating their policies and practices to comply with the evolving federal and state rules on workplace and other rights of LGBT individuals and strategies for appropriately managing the legal risks and other concerns associated with these emerging entitlements and expectations. For government contractors and other employers concerns about discrimination exposures, this discussion generally should include consideration about whether in addition updating written policies and procedures, the employer should consider workforce training, communications or other actions to promote workforce compliance with the new policies, minimize the risk that the failure to retrain the workforce might make it easier for potential plaintiffs to use events or policies occurring before the new rules became effective to help bolster post-effective date discrimination claims, and other risk management and compliance procedures.

For Advice, Representation, Training & Other Resources

If you need help responding to these new or other workforce, benefits and compensation, performance and risk management, compliance, enforcement or management concerns, help updating or defending your workforce or employee benefit policies or practices, or other related assistance, the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer may be able to help.

Recognized as a “Top” attorney in employee benefits, labor and employment and health care law, Ms. Stamer is a practicing attorney Board Certified in Labor & Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, author, pubic speaker,management policy advocate and thought leader with more than 25 years’ experience advising government contractors and other employers, their management, benefit plans and plan fiduciaries, vendors and service providers and others about OFCCP, EEOC, and other employment discrimination, government contracting compliance, and other workforce and operational performance, compliance, risk management, compensation, and benefits matters. As a part of this involvement, Ms. Stamer throughout her career specifically has advised and represented a broad range of employers across the U.S., their employee benefit plans and plan fiduciaries, insurers, health care providers and others about the implications of DOMA and other rules relating to rights and expectations of LBGT community members and others in federally protected classes under Federal and state employment, tax, discrimination, employee benefits, health care and other laws.

In addition to her extensive client work Ms. Stamer also is a widely published author, management policy advocate and thought leader, and management policy advocate on these and other workforce and related matters who shares her experience and leadership in a wide range of contexts. A current or former author and advisory board member of HR.com, Insurance Thought Leadership, SHRM, BNA and several other the prominent publications, Past Chair of the ABA RPTE Employee Benefit & Other Compensation Arrangements Group, Co-Chair and Past Chair of the ABA RPTE Welfare Plan Committee, Vice Chair of the ABA TIPS Employee Benefit Plans Committee, Vice President of the North Texas Health Care Compliance Professionals Association, Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Section, former President of the Richardson Development Center Board of Directors, and the former Board Compliance Chair of the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas, An American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, American Bar Association (ABA) and State Bar of Texas Fellow, Martindale Hubble Premier AV Rated (the highest), Ms. Stamer publishes and speaks extensively on these and other staffing and human resources, compensation and benefits, technology, health care, privacy, public policy, and other operations and risk management concerns. As a part of these activities, Ms. Stamer is scheduled to speak about Same-Sex Marriages and Domestic Partnerships: Lessons Learned, Unanswered Questions and Best Practices on May 1, 2015 for the ABA RPTE Section 2015 Spring Symposium in Washington D.C. See also Stamer Talks About “Handling Health Plan Spouse, Dependent & Other “Family” Matters in Post-DOMA World” at SPBA 2014 Spring Meeting Her publications and insights appear in the ABA and other professional publications, HR.com, SHRM, Insurance Thought Leadership, Health Care Compliance Association, Atlantic Information Service, Bureau of National Affairs, World At Work, The Wall Street Journal, Business Insurance, the Dallas Morning News, Modern Health Care, Managed Healthcare, Health Leaders, and a many other national and local publications.

You can review other recent human resources, employee benefits and internal controls publications and resources and additional information about the employment, employee benefits and other experience of the Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, PC here. 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 or updating your profile www.cynthiastamer.com or by registering to participate in the distribution of these and other updates on our HR & Employee Benefits Update here including:

About Solutions Law Press

Solutions Law Pressâ„¢ provides business risk management, legal compliance, management effectiveness and other resources, training and education on 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 resources at www.solutionslawpress.com.

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 â€“ including your preferred e-mail â€“ by creating or updating your profile at here or e-mailing this information here.

Comments Off on Obama Executive Order’s Prohibition Of Government Contractor Sexual Orientation & Gender Identity Discrimination Creates Challenges For All US Employers | Employers, Health Plans, HIPAA, Human Resources, Insurance | Tagged: Discrimination, DOMA, EEOC, Employee, Employer, Employment, employment law, FMLA, gender identity, Government Contractors, HIPAA, LGBT, OFCCP, Retaliation, same-sex, sexul preference, Whistleblower | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Stamer, Others Discuss Employer, Health Plan Implications Of Anthem Breach on 4/2

March 28, 2015

Recent data breaches by Anthem, Premera and other health plan vendors present significant legal and practical responsibilities and consequences for health plans, their employer and other sponsors, fiduciaries, administrators, service providers and participants. Health Plans, Sponsoring Employers & Others Urged To Act Immediately In Response To Premera, Anthem Blue Cross BreachesSolutions Law Press, Inc. editor and author Cynthia Marcotte Stamer will be among one of the featured speakers discussing these concerns and options for managing them at an upcoming free study group conference call sponsored by the RPTE Employee Benefit Plans and Other Compensation Arrangements Group on April 2, 2015 beginning at Noon Central Time.

During the study group conference call, Ms. Stamer and other speakers, Lisa Van Fleet and Chuck Thulin, will explore challenges for plan fiduciaries, administrators and sponsors including:

Who is the fiduciary with responsibility over these matters
ERISA fiduciary duties to investigate and respond to breaches
Fiduciary obligations in connection with selection of vendors
Curtailing data leakage and breach exposure by addressing delegation rights of vendors
Interaction with HIPAA, IRC, and other laws
Breach notification and ERISA communication duties
Operational challenges

The conference call study group is a free benefit for members of the American Bar Association RPTE Section. Other attorneys and ABA members are invited to join and get involved with RPTE and the Group.The following is the dial in information for the call:

Dial in number: 866/646-6488

Participant Pass code: 725 588 7619

For Help With Risk Management, Compliance & Other Management Concerns

If you need assistance in responding to a health plan breach concern or with auditing or assessing, updating or defending your organization’s compliance, risk management or other internal controls practices or actions, please contact the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer here or at (469) 767-8872.

Scribe for the ABA JCEB Annual Agency Meeting with the Office of Civil Rights, a faculty and steering committee for the Southern California ISSA-HIMSS Health Care Privacy Program, Board Certified in Labor & Employment Law, a Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefits Counsel recognized as a “Top 100″ lawyer in labor and employment, employee benefits and health care law, Ms. Stamer is nationally recognized for her work, publications, public speaking and education and other leadership on privacy and data security and other risk management and compliance.

A management attorney who works with businesses and government to manage and redress people, process and risk, Ms. Stamer has worked extensively on data and other privacy risk management and compliance, Throughout her career, she has conducted investigations and advised, and assisted health care, insurance, retail and a broad range of other public and private organizations with privacy and data security audit and risk management, contracting, investigation, defense and remediation throughout her more than 25 year career.

Past Chair and of the American Bar Association (ABA) RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Committee, a Council Representative on the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits, past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, current Co-Chair of the RPTE Welfare Benefit Committee and Vice Chair of the ABA TIPS Employee Benefits Committee, Ms. Stamer works, publishes and speaks extensively on cyber crime and other privacy, management, reengineering, investigations, human resources and workforce, employee benefits, compensation, internal controls and risk management, federal sentencing guideline and other enforcement resolution actions, and related matters. She also is recognized for her publications, industry leadership, workshops and presentations on these and other concerns and regularly speaks and conducts training on these matters.Her insights on these and other matters appear in the Bureau of National Affairs, Spencer Publications, the ABA, Insurance Thought Leadership, the Wall Street Journal, the Dallas Business Journal, the Houston Business Journal, and many other national and local publications.

As part of her extensive involvements in privacy and data security concerns, Ms. Stamer will be among the panelists discussing “Fiduciary Obligations In the Context of a Data Breach” conference call to be hosted on April 2, 2015 by Fiduciary Responsibility Committee of the American Bar Association (ABA) Real Property Probate and Estate Section Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Group. During the program, Ms. Stamer and other panelists will discuss the quagmire of fiduciary legal and operational challenges that data breach announcements by health plan vendors and insurers present for employer and union-sponsored health plan fiduciaries and health plans. She also will serves as the scribe for the upcoming ABA Joint Committee On Employee Benefits Annual Agency Meeting with the Federal agency that enforces HIPAA, the Office of Civil Rights, and 2014 Conference Chair and steering committee and faculty member of the Southern California ISSA/HIMSS Healthcare Privacy & Security Summit scheduled for June 4, 2015 in Los Angeles.

For additional information about Ms. Stamer and her experience or to access other publications by Ms. Stamer see here or contact Ms. Stamer directly. For information about participation in the April 2 Conference Call or joining the Committee, see here.

About Solutions Law Press

Solutions Law Press™ provides business risk management, legal compliance, management effectiveness and other resources, training and education on 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 resources at www.solutionslawpress.com.

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 or updating your profile at here or e-mailing this information here.

Comments Off on Stamer, Others Discuss Employer, Health Plan Implications Of Anthem Breach on 4/2 | Uncategorized | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Congress Passess Joint Resolution Overturning NLRB “Quickie Election Rule”

March 27, 2015

The new Republican Majority in Congress is moving quickly to attack and overturn a series of pro-union rules implemented under the leadership of the Obama Administration. Today, for instance, a Joint Resolution that seeks to invalidate the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) “election now, hearing later” “quickie election rule” was presented for signatures to President Obama.

Passed by the Senate March 4, 2015 and the House on March 19, 2017 and presented to the President on March 27, 2015, S.J.Res.8 provides Congressional disapproval of, and specifies that the quickie election rule is to have no force and effect on union representation case procedures.

Adopted by the NLRB December 12, 2014 at 79 Fed. Reg. 74308 (Dec. 15, 2014), the quickie election rule would make it more difficult for employers to oppose union organizing elections by subjecting employers to what some commentators refer to as “ambush elections.” The procedural changes to NLRB election procedures implemented by the quickie election rule place employers at a significant disadvantage when faced with a union demand for an election,

Incorporating most of the procedures contained in a 2011 NLRB proposal previously invalidated by the District of Columbia’s district court in Chamber of Commerce of the United States v. NLRB, 879 F. Supp. 2d 18, 21, 25, 30 (D.D.C. 2012), the quickie election rule as finalized by the NLRB among other things requires that:

Union elections generally be held within 10 to 21 days after the petition filing, rather than the previous rule’s 42 days;
Any pre-election hearings occur eight days after the petition filing;
Employers to file before the pre-election hearing a position statement addressing threshold issues such as unit appropriateness, bargaining unit exclusions, and the proposed date, time and location of the election;
Scheduling of post-election hearings 14 days after the filing of objections;
Employers seeking a pre-election hearing to provide the union with two lists identifying employees in the challenged petitioned-for unit and in what the employer argues is the appropriate unit;
Within two days after the unit is decided, the employer to provide an electronic list of employees including names, addresses, phone numbers, work locations and classifications. Employees’ personal phone numbers and email addresses must be provided if available to employer.
Once a union is certified, barring employees from seeking to decertify the election until the later of one year or the expiration of the first collective bargaining agreement.
At the pre-election hearing, the parties generally to litigate issues necessary to determine the appropriateness of conducting an election but allowing deferral of the decision of certain eligibility and inclusion issues decided by an NLRB regional director until the post-election stage.

The Joint Resolution to overturn the quickie election rule is part of an ongoing battle between Republicans, who following the November 2014 elections now hold a slim majority of the seats in both the House and Senate, and President Obama and Congressional Democrats, who since Mr. Obama’s election have acted aggressively to promote and expand union rights and safeguards. Since the November, 2014 elections, President Obama has promised to act aggressively to continue to promote pro-union and other policies opposed by Republications by executive order, rulemaking, veto and enforcement authority. Look for more battles over these and other contested policies in the months ahead.

For Help or More Information

A noted Texas-based management lawyer and consultant, author, lecturer and policy advocate, Ms. Stamer is nationally and internationally known for her innovative leadership and work helping businesses, governments, and communities manage workforce and other performance and other labor and employment, employee benefits and workforce related challenges

Ms. Stamer has helped management deal with all aspects of human resources and workforce management, including employment and outsourcing contracting and performance management, reengineering and other change management, internal controls, compliance and risk management, compensation and employee benefits, communications, worker classification, tax, government relations, enforcement and litigation defense, and other related matters. Drawing upon her extensive knowledge base of knowledge and wealth of practical skills, Ms. Stamer helps businesses and their leaders manage their employees and other workers and service providers, their performance, compliance, compensation, benefits, risks and liabilities, as well as to prevent, stabilize and cleanup workforce and operations crises large and small that arise in the course of operations.

In addition to her more traditional legal, internal controls and other management consulting work, Ms. Stamer also extensively works with a broad range of business and government clients on health care, pension, social security, workforce, insurance and many other related policy matters critical to their business success and liability management. She both only helps her clients anticipate, monitor and cope with emerging laws, regulations and enforcement and respond to and resolve government investigations and enforcement actions, she also 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 College of Employee Benefit Counsel, the American Bar Association (ABA) and the State Bar of Texas, Ms. Stamer annually leads the Joint Committee on Employee Benefits (JCEB) HHS Office of Civil Rights agency meeting. She also works as a policy advisor and advocate to many 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’s insights on employee benefits, insurance, health care and workforce matters in Atlantic Information Services, The Bureau of National Affairs (BNA), InsuranceThoughtLeaders, 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. She also regularly serves on the faculty and planning committees for symposia of LexisNexis, the American Bar Association, 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.

Beyond these involvements, Ms. Stamer also is active in the leadership of a broad range of other professional and civic organizations. For instance, Ms. Stamer presently serves as Vice President of the North Texas Healthcare Compliance Professionals Association; Immediate Past Chair of the American Bar Association RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Committee and its current Welfare Benefit Plans Committee Co-Chair, on its Substantive Groups & Committee and its representative to the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits; Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group and a current member of its Healthcare Coordinating Council; current Vice Chair of the ABA TIPS Employee Benefit Committee; the former Coordinator and a Vice-Chair of the Gulf Coast TEGE Council TE Division and as a faculty member, editorial advisory board member, speaker and author for numerous human resources, employee benefits, insurance, technology and data security and other professional associations, programs, and publications. She previously served as a founding Board Member and President of the Alliance for Healthcare Excellence, as a Board Member and Board Compliance Committee Chair for the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas; the Board President of the early retirement intervention agency, The Richardson Development Center for Children; Chair of the Dallas Bar Association Employee Benefits & Executive Compensation Committee; a member of the Board of Directors of the Southwest Benefits Association.

Comments Off on Congress Passess Joint Resolution Overturning NLRB “Quickie Election Rule” | Employer, Employment, Management, NLRA, Union, Union certification, Union elections | Tagged: Congress, Employer, labor-management relations, laws, Management, NLRB, Union | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

IRS Changes Plan Correction Procedures

March 27, 2015

Revenue Procedure 2015-27 modifies Revenue Procedure 2013-12, 2013-4 I.R.B. 313 to make miscellaneous changes made to improve EPCRS, such as reducing VCP compliance fees relating to failures to meet the requirements of Internal Revenue Code § 72(p) with respect to participant loans, and clarifying that for certain overpayments, as defined in sections 5.01(3)(c) and 5.02(4) of Rev. Proc. 2013-12, a plan may use correction methods other than the correction methods set forth in section 6.06(3) and 6.06(4) of Rev. Proc. 2013-12. This revenue procedure also requests comments on recoupment of overpayments.

For Help or More Information

Comments Off on IRS Changes Plan Correction Procedures | Uncategorized | Tagged: 401(k), correction, defined benefit plan, Determination Letters, disqualification, Employee Benefits, employee benefits policy, Employee Plans, Employer, epcrs, IRS, Retirement Plans, vcp | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Texas Employers Top Target For EEOC Charges

March 26, 2015

Texas employers lead the list of employers that should act to tighten their employment discrimination compliance and risk management to prepare for heightened likelihood of charges, litigation and other enforcement.

Texas employers remain the most frequent target of discrimination charges, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) statistics show.

With EEOC and other agencies as well as private litigants growing more aggressive in bringing claims and judgements, sanctions, investigation and defense costs rising, all employers should evaluate the adequacy of current policies and practices, tighten documentation, weigh the need for employment practices liability coverage and take other steps to minimize exposures to these claims and prepare to defend against allegations of discrimination. With Texas leading the charge list, Texaa employers particularly should be sensitive to their potential exposure.

For Representation, Training & Other Resources

If you need assistance monitoring or addressing human resources, internal controls, employee benefits or compensation risks, compliance, enforcement or management concerns, the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer may be able to help.

Cynthia Marcotte Stamer is recognized among the “Top Rated” Labor & Employment Lawyers in Texas in the 2014 LexisNexis® Martindale-Hubbell® list of Top Rated Lawyers. An AV® Preeminent™ (the highest Peer Review Rating available) rated lawyer, Ms. Stamer earned the “Top Rated” Distinction based on confidential Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review Ratings opinions about her skills and experience submitted by other AV® Preeminent™ lawyers and members with professional knowledge of her work. A noted Texas-based management lawyer and consultant, author, lecturer and policy advocate, Ms. Stamer is nationally and internationally known for her innovative leadership and work helping businesses, governments, and communities manage workforce and other performance and other labor and employment, employee benefits and workforce related representations. Board Certified in Labor & Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, and a Fellow in the American Bar Association, Texas Bar Association, and the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, Ms. Stamer’s legal and management consulting work focuses on helping employers, insurers, employee benefit plans and their administrators, fiduciaries and advisors, community leaders and governments manage people, process and risk. Throughout her more than 25 year career, Ms. Stamer has helped management deal with all aspects of human resources and workforce management, including employment and outsourcing contracting and performance management, reengineering and other change management, internal controls, compliance and risk management, compensation and employee benefits, communications, worker classification, tax, government relations, enforcement and litigation defense, and other related matters. Drawing upon her extensive knowledge base of knowledge and wealth of practical skills, Ms. Stamer helps businesses and their leaders manage their employees and other workers and service providers, their performance, compliance, compensation, benefits, risks and liabilities, as well as to prevent, stabilize and cleanup workforce and operations crises large and small that arise in the course of operations. In addition to her more traditional legal, internal controls and other management consulting work, Ms. Stamer also extensively works with a broad range of business and government clients on health care, pension, social security, workforce, insurance and many other related policy matters critical to their business success and liability management. She both only helps her clients anticipate, monitor and cope with emerging laws, regulations and enforcement and respond to and resolve government investigations and enforcement actions, she also 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 College of Employee Benefit Counsel, the American Bar Association (ABA) and the State Bar of Texas, Ms. Stamer annually leads the Joint Committee on Employee Benefits (JCEB) HHS Office of Civil Rights agency meeting. She also works as a policy advisor and advocate to many 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’s insights on employee benefits, insurance, health care and workforce matters in Atlantic Information Services, The Bureau of National Affairs (BNA), InsuranceThoughtLeaders, 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. She also regularly serves on the faculty and planning committees for symposia of LexisNexis, the American Bar Association, 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. Beyond these involvements, Ms. Stamer also is active in the leadership of a broad range of other professional and civic organizations. For instance, Ms. Stamer presently serves as Vice President of the North Texas Healthcare Compliance Professionals Association; Immediate Past Chair of the American Bar Association RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Committee and its current Welfare Benefit Plans Committee Co-Chair, on its Substantive Groups & Committee and its representative to the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits; Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group and a current member of its Healthcare Coordinating Council; current Vice Chair of the ABA TIPS Employee Benefit Committee; the former Coordinator and a Vice-Chair of the Gulf Coast TEGE Council TE Division and as a faculty member, editorial advisory board member, speaker and author for numerous human resources, employee benefits, insurance, technology and data security and other professional associations, programs, and publications. She previously served as a founding Board Member and President of the Alliance for Healthcare Excellence, as a Board Member and Board Compliance Committee Chair for the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas; the Board President of the early retirement intervention agency, The Richardson Development Center for Children; Chair of the Dallas Bar Association Employee Benefits & Executive Compensation Committee; a member of the Board of Directors of the Southwest Benefits Association. You can review other recent human resources, employee benefits and internal controls publications and resources and additional information about the employment, employee benefits and other experience of the Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, PC here.©2015 Cynthia Marcotte Stamer. Limited, non-exclusive right to republished granted to Solutions Law Press, Inc. All other rights reserved.

1 Comment | Uncategorized | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

ACA Prohibits Employer Paying Individual Health Premiums For Employees, IRS Says Again

March 22, 2015

Employers cannot pay for or reimburse employees for any portion of the cost for the employee to buy individual health insurance coverage for himself or his family from a Health Insurance Exchange or “Marketplace” established as part of the health care reforms of the Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act (ACA) or otherwise. That’s the message of new IRS Notice 2015-17. Employers that since 2013 have paid for or reimbursed employers for individual health insurance costs through a cafeteria plan or otherwise in 2014 should contact qualified legal counsel experienced in the health plan rules of ACA and federal health plan rules to discuss their practice, the extent to which any payments or reimbursements previously paid can qualify for special temporary relief granted to small employers under IRS Notice 2015-17, and what if any corrective action the employer needs to take to correct any compliance concerns associated with current or prior year’s practice of paying for or reimbursing individual health policy costs.

Although certain brokers and consultants continue to aggressively promote arrangements under which employers pay for or reimburse employees for individual health policy premiums as a way for employers to circumvent some of the challenges for employers of offering health coverage to employees under the group health plan rules of ACA, the IRS, DOL and HHS have made clear since early 2013 that they view such practices as prohibited by ACA’s Market Reforms, regardless of whether the payment or reimbursement is done on a pre-tax or after-tax basis, or done through a formal “plan” or through any other employer payment plan or arrangement. See FAQs About Affordable Care Act Implementation (Part XI) issued by the Department of Labor (DOL) and Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) on January 24, 2013; Notice 2013-54 and DOL Technical Release 2013-03 issued on September 13, 2013; IRS FAQ on Employer Healthcare Arrangements; and FAQs About Affordable Care Act Implementation (Part XXII) issued by DOL and HHS on November 6, 2014.

While reaffirming the IRS, HHS and DOL’s previous guidance indicating that ACA’s Market reforms prohibit employer payment plans, Notice 2015-17 also:

Announces temporary transitional relief from excise tax penalties under Code § 4980D for certain arrangements maintained by qualifying small employers that maintained such arrangements in 2014.
Provides additional guidance on the tax treatment of employer payment plans; and
Supplements and clarifies the guidance provided in Notice 2013-54 and other guidance about ACA’s prohibition of employer payment plans.

In light of this guidance, any employer currently maintaining such arrangement immediately should consult with qualified legal counsel within the scope of attorney-client privilege about their arrangement, among other things to evaluate:

The legality of the existing and proposed arrangements and their liability and other implications on the employer’s compliance with ACA and resulting liabilities and responsibilities resulting therefrom in light of the additional guidance on the tax treatment of such arrangements set forth in Notice 2015-17, as well as previously published IRS and other Tri-Agencies guidance about employer payment plans; and
Whether any action needs to be taken to address any potential violation of Tri-Agency rules resulting from the arrangement.

When conducting this evaluation, employers and others should use care not to over-estimate the scope of the temporary relief announced in Notice 2015-17. First, the relief announced in 2015-17 only applies for the 2014 tax year for certain small employers from the self-reporting and excise tax liability provisions of Internal Revenue Code (Code) § 4980D for failure to satisfy market reforms in relation to the specific arrangements detailed in Notice 2015-17. In this respect, Notice 2015-17’s transition relief only applies for the 2014 tax year to employer healthcare arrangements that are :

Employer payment plans, as described in Notice 2013-54, if the plan is sponsored by an employer that is not an Applicable Large Employer (ALE) under Code § 4980H(c)(2) and §§54.4980H-1(a)(4) and -2;
S corporation healthcare arrangements for 2-percent shareholder-employees;
Medicare premium reimbursement arrangements; and
TRICARE-related health reimbursement arrangements (HRAs).

When evaluating an existing, previous or proposed employer payment arrangement, employers and others involved should consider taking steps to arrange for their discussions and evaluations to be conducted in a manner that positions the party or parties to be able to claim attorney-client privilege of the discussions and to protect such privileges against waiver to the extent possible. In this respect, employers and others involved in such arrangements should be cognizant that certain evidentiary privileges such as accountant-client privilege that sometimes might apply for certain tax representation purposes may provide less reliable evidentiary discovery protection than attorney-client privileges under the circumstances as discussions with accountants or other non-attorney consultants or advisors typically do not generally provide protection like attorney-client privilege in non-tax civil litigation by private plaintiffs or enforcement actions by certain of the Tri-Agencies of potential violations of the ACA Market Reform prohibition.

ACA’s prohibition against employer payment of individual health insurance policy premiums is only one of an ever-growing list of ACA and other federal health plan rules that employers and other group health plan sponsors and their plans must meet. Many of these rules also fall under a Sarbanes-Oxley style provision of the Code that requires most employers to evaluate and maintain their health plan’s compliance with the applicable rule or self-report and self-assess and pay the applicable penalty for the violation when filing their health plan’s annual Form 5500. With the 2014 plan year Form 5500 filing deadline rapidly approaching, employers and their health plan fiduciaries, insurer and vendors will want to act quickly to review, identify and develop a plan with legal counsel to address any potential concerns with the market reform and other requirements of federal law promptly.

For Advice, Training & Other Resources

Board Certified in Labor & Employment Law, Past Chair of the ABA RPTE Employee Benefit & Other Compensation Arrangements Group, Co-Chair and Past Chair of the ABA RPTE Welfare Plan Committee, Vice Chair of the ABA TIPS Employee Benefit Plans Committee, an ABA Joint Committee On Employee Benefits Council representative, Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Section, a Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, ABA, and State Bar of Texas, Ms. Stamer has more than 25 years’ experience advising health plan and employee benefit, insurance, financial services, employer and health industry clients about these and other matters. Ms. Stamer has extensive experience advising and assisting health plans and insurers about ACA, and a wide range of other plan design, administration, data security and privacy and other compliance risk management policies. Ms. Stamer also regularly represents clients and works with Congress and state legislatures, EBSA, IRS, EEOC, OCR and other HHS agencies, state insurance and other regulators, and others. She also publishes and speaks extensively on health and other employee benefit plan and insurance, staffing and human resources, compensation and benefits, technology, public policy, privacy, regulatory and public policy and other operations and risk management concerns. Her publications and insights appear in the Health Care Compliance Association, Atlantic Information Service, Bureau of National Affairs, World At Work, The Wall Street Journal, Business Insurance, the Dallas Morning News, Modern Health Care, Managed Healthcare, Health Leaders, and a many other national and local publications.

You can review other recent human resources, employee benefits and internal controls publications and resources and additional information about the employment, employee benefits and other experience of the Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, PC here. 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 or updating your profile www.cynthiastamer.com or by registering to receive these and other updates here. Recent examples of these updates include:

About Solutions Law Press

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 or updating your profile here. For important information about this communication click here.

The following disclaimer is included to ensure that we comply with U.S. Treasury Department Regulations. The Regulations now require that either we (1) include the following disclaimer in most written Federal tax correspondence or (2) undertake significant due diligence that we have not performed (but can perform on request).

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.

Comments Off on ACA Prohibits Employer Paying Individual Health Premiums For Employees, IRS Says Again | 4980D, 4980H, 6039D, ACA, exchange, health insurance, health insurance marketplace, Health Plans, IRC, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, zane benefits | Tagged: 4980D, ACA, Affordable Care Act, cafeteria plan, employer reimbursement, Group Health plans, Health Insurance, Health Plans, Market Reforms, Obamacare, premium reimbursement, Zane Benefits | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

New Excepted Benefits Final Rule May Allow Some Employers Limited Opportunity To Offer Individually Insured Wraparound Coverage

March 20, 2015

Employers Urged Not Overestimate When Plan Qualifies As Excepted Or Overlook Other Applicable Federal Mandates

Changes to the definition of “excepted benefits” in Final Excepted Benefit Rules (Rules) published March 18, 2015 by the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Treasury (Tri-Agencies) might allow some employer and union group health plan sponsors, in limited circumstances, to offer wraparound coverage to certain employees purchasing individual health insurance in the private market, including in the Health Insurance Marketplace without violating the Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act (ACA) if the arrangements are carefully crafted to meet the specific requirements of one of two pilot programs set forth in the Rules.

Employers contemplating or maintaining arrangements that they or their service providers consider excepted benefits should use care to ensure that their arrangements are vetted in light of the latest guidance by experienced, qualified employee benefits counsel knowledgeable in these and other applicable group health plan rules and products because it is important to meet all of the requirements for qualifying the arrangement as an excepted benefit arrangement under the Rules and other applicable requirements of law to minimize the likelihood that the arrangement does not produce undesirable unanticipated consequences.

Beyond the new Rules, the Tri-Agencies have published a host of other guidance regarding the arrangements that qualify as excepted benefit arrangements and those that the Tri-Agencies view as not meeting this definition, as well as the implications of these distinctions. This includes guidance that reflects the Tri-Agencies concerns that many arrangements prompted by certain brokers or other advisors as qualifying as excepted benefits, alone or in conjunction with other arrangements sponsored or offered by the employer, do not qualify as excepted benefit arrangements as well as guidance about potential consequences of these arrangements that the promoter or an employer considering these arrangements should fully understand before moving forward, For this reason, employers that already provide, or are interested in providing health coverage under an employer sponsored arrangement to employees or their dependents enrolled in individual health coverage through the Health Insurance Marketplace or other privately provided individual insurance arrangement are urged to carefully review the proposed arrangement in light of the Rules, as well as to understand the treatment and implication of their proposed arrangement under other applicable Federal group health plan mandates and rules.

As interpreted by the Tri-Agencies, except for excepted benefit arrangements as defined in the Rules, employers generally cannot pay for individual health coverage or offer or provide wrap around or other group health coverage to employees that enroll in individual coverage The Rules amend the definition of excepted benefits to include under very narrow specified conditions an employer to offer specified limited coverage that wraps around individual health insurance when the employer provided coverage is specifically designed to provide “meaningful benefits” such as coverage for expanded in-network medical clinics or providers, reimbursement for the full cost of primary care, or coverage of the cost of prescription drugs not on the formulary of the primary plan and otherwise fulfills the requirements of the Rules.

The final rules permit group health plan sponsors, only in the limited circumstances identified in the Rules, to offer wraparound coverage to employees who are purchasing individual health insurance in the private market, including in the Health Insurance Marketplace.

The Rules establish two pilot programs where the Rules treat wraparound coverage as an excepted benefit that an employers can offer to individuals enrolled in health coverage through the Health Insurance Marketplace:

One allows wraparound benefits only for multi-state plans in the Health Insurance Marketplace; and
One that allows wraparound benefits for part-time workers who enroll in an individual health insurance policy or in Basic Health Plan coverage for low-income individuals established under the Affordable Care Act. These workers could, under existing excepted benefit rules, qualify for a flexible spending arrangement alternative to this wraparound coverage.

When the requirements of the Rules are met, the Rules allow employers a narrow opportunity to offer certain employees enrolled in individual coverage wrap around health coverage from the employer to enhance that individual coverage.

Because the arrangement must qualify as an excepted benefit arrangement under the Rules, employers also need to fully understand the implications of the excepted health benefit status of the anticipated arrangement under related rules like the Portability Rules of the Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act (HIPAA), the ACA rules and other relevant laws and arrangements.

Because of the necessity to ensure that any arrangement an employer contemplates offering as an excepted benefit meet all of the required conditions to qualify for that status under the Rules and otherwise meet all other requirements of applicable law, it is important to carefully review any such proposed arrangement with qualified legal counsel.

Most employers contemplating moving forward to implement such arrangements also should consider seeking written opinions of qualified counsel that meets the Internal Revenue Service’s requirements to be a “tax reliance opinion” as well as the written opinion of the broker, insurer or other vendor promoting or endorsing the arrangement.

Employers also should keep in mind that with excepted benefit status may excuse the arrangement from the obligation to comply with certain mandates of ACA, the Portability Rules of the Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act or certain other rules, these arrangements generally remain subject to the requirements of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, various Code rules, and a host of other federal rules. As a result, employers should consult with qualified legal counsel about the implications and compliance of these and other health coverage arrangements to ensure that they properly understand all responsibilities and consequences of these arrangements and manage potential responsibilities and liabilities.

Employers and their health plan fiduciaries, administrators, and vendors are reminded that the excepted benefit distinction has implications on other compliance obligations and health plan treatment of the arrangement in question. For instance, excepted benefit coverage typically does not qualify as minimum excepted coverage that an employer can count as providing minimum essential coverage for purposes of the Code Section 4980H employer shared responsibility payment rules or as enrollment by the individual in minimum individual coverage for purposes of the employee avoiding liability for the individual shared responsibility payment.

Beyond ensuring that the proposed wrap around arrangement meets the requirements to qualify as an excepted benefit under the Rules, employers and those working with them on the design or use of these arrangements need to verify that the arrangements and other arrangements of the employer by their terms and in operation comply with other health plan rules and guidance. With regard to dealings with employees who are enrolled in individual policies, employers must keep in mind the Tri-Agencies rules prohibiting employer payment or subsidization of the costs of those policies. The Tri-Agencies have made clear that they construe ACA as prohibiting employer payment or reimbursement of the cost of individual health insurance policies (other than excepted benefit only arrangements) p covering employees or dependents whether purchased from a Health Insurance Marketplace or otherwise. This prohibition extends to any employer payment or reimbursement arrangement, whether pre-tax or after-tax or on a group or individual basis. See Notice 2015-17 (affirming employer payment plans or other arrangements that reimburse or pay employees for costs of individual health coverage purchased through Health Insurance Marketplaces or private insurance markets are prohibited as previously announced in Notice 2013-54). See also ACA Prohibits Employer Paying Individual Health Premiums For Employees, IRS Says Again.

About the Author

If your business need legal advice about the your health or other employee benefit or human resources practices, assistance assessing or resolving potential past or existing compliance exposures, or monitoring and responding to these or other workforce, benefits and compensation, performance and risk management, compliance, enforcement or management concerns, the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer may be able to help.You can review other recent human resources, employee benefits and internal controls publications and resources and additional information about the employment, employee benefits and other experience of the Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, PC here. 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 or updating your profile www.cynthiastamer.com or by registering to receive these and other updates here. Recent examples of these updates include:

About Solutions Law Press

NOTE: This article is provided for educational purposes. It is does not establish any attorney-client relationship nor provide or serve as a substitute for legal advice to any individual or organization. Readers must engage properly qualified legal counsel to secure legal advice about the rules discussed in light of specific circumstances. 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.

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 or updating your profile here. For important information about this communication click here.

Comments Off on New Excepted Benefits Final Rule May Allow Some Employers Limited Opportunity To Offer Individually Insured Wraparound Coverage | ACA, Excepted Benefits, Health Plans, HIPAA | Tagged: 4980H, ACA, Administrative Simplification, Affordable Care Act, cafeteria plan, Corporate Compliance, Employee Benefits, Employer, Employers, ERISA, Excepted Benefits, Fiduciary, Health Plans, HIPAA, Miniimum Essential Coverage | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Stamer, Others Discuss Fiduciary Challenges Arising From Health Plan Vendor Data Breaches On 4/2

March 18, 2015

Practicing attorney and Solutions Law Press, Inc. publisher/editor/author Cynthia Marcotte Stamer will be among the panelists discussing “Fiduciary Obligations In the Context of a Data Breach” conference call to be hosted on April 2, 2015 by Fiduciary Responsibility Committee of the American Bar Association (ABA) Real Property Probate and Estate Section Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Committee. During the program, Ms. Stamer and other panelists will discuss the quagmire of fiduciary legal and operational challenges that data breach announcements by health plan vendors and insurers present for employer and union-sponsored health plan fiduciaries and health plans. This discussion will explore selected challenges for plan fiduciaries, administrators and sponsors and will include a discussion of the following issues:

Who is the fiduciary with responsibility over these matters
ERISA fiduciary duties to investigate and respond to breaches
Fiduciary obligations in connection with selection of vendors
Curtailing data leakage and breach exposure by addressing delegation rights of vendors
Interaction with HIPAA, IRC, and other laws
Breach notification and ERISA communication duties
Operational challenges

An American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, ABA and State Bar of Texas Fellow Martindale Hubble Premier AV Rated (the highest) and recognized as a “Top” attorney in employee benefits, labor and employment and health care law, Ms. Stamer is a practicing attorney, author, pubic speaker and policy advocate with more than 25 years’ experience working with health plans, insurers, health care providers and others on privacy and data security and other workforce and operational performance, compliance and risk management matters, Ms. Stamer is widely recognized for her extensive knowledge and experience on privacy and data security concerns. In addition to her extensive client work and representation on HIPAA and other privacy and data security matters for health plans, health care providers, technology and other service provider and others. Beyond her extensive client experience, she also is a recognized educator and thought leader on the management of these challenges.

Among other things, Ms. Stamer serves as the scribe for the ABA Joint Committee On Employee Benefits Annual Agency Meeting with the Federal agency that enforces HIPAA, the Office of Civil Rights, a steering committee and faculty member of the Southern California ISSA/HIMSS Healthcare Privacy & Security Summit, conducts training and speaks extensively on privacy and data security requirements and risks, and is the author of a multitude of highly regarded publications and training resources on health information and other data privacy and security compliance and risk management. For additional information about Ms. Stamer and her extensive experience, involvements and publications, see www.cynthiastamer.com.

Ms. Stamer will be joined on the panel by fellow attorneys Lisa A. Van Fleet of Bryan Cave LLP and Charles H.Thuline of Ekman Thuline, P.S. For information about participation in the Conference Call or joining the Committee, see here.

Comments Off on Stamer, Others Discuss Fiduciary Challenges Arising From Health Plan Vendor Data Breaches On 4/2 | Uncategorized | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Health Plans, Sponsoring Employers & Others Urged To Act Immediately In Response To Premera, Anthem Blue Cross Breaches

March 17, 2015

Today’s report by Premera Blue Cross of a massive data breach affecting as many as 11 million customers’ personal health and financial information on the heels of the large-scale data breach announcement by fellow Blue Cross Association, Anthem, is another reminder that employers and other health plan sponsors, fiduciaries, insurers specifically, and U.S. businesses generally should immediately assess and tighten up their privacy, data security and data breach compliance and risk management to fulfill applicable legal mandates and to strengthen defenses against resulting liabilities and member backlash likely to arise from these or future breaches.

Notice of the Premera and Anthem breaches are likely to trigger obligations for health plans and their sponsoring employers or unions, administrators, insurers, and other vendors and service providers to take immediate steps to conduct documented investigations, take corrective action and provide breach notifications the Privacy, Security and Breach Notification rules of the Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act require health plans and their business associates to provide in response to notice of a breach. Depending on the scope and nature of data affected and their involvement with the affected plans, employer or other plan sponsors, fiduciaries, administrators and service providers also may be subject additional responsibilities under applicable contracts and policies, the fiduciary responsibility requirements of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), the Internal Revenue Code, and a host of other laws. Insurance industry or other vendors providing services to these plans also may face specific responsibilities under applicable insurance, health care, federal or state identity theft, privacy or data security, or other federal or state laws. See, e.g., Restated HIPAA Regulations Require Health Plans To Tighten Privacy Policies And Practices; Cybercrime and Identity Theft: Health Information Security Beyond; HIPAA Compliance & Breach Data Shares Helpful Lessons For Health Plans, Providers and Business Associates.

The need for prompt assessment and action is not necessarily limited to health plans and organizations sponsoring, administering or doing business with the plans involved in the Premera or Anthem breaches. The occurrence of these breaches arguably raises the questions about the adequacy of the safeguards, practices and policies of other health plans and insurers, their sponsors and fiduciaries, insurers, administrators and other vendors. places other health plans. Health plans, their sponsors, fiduciaries, administrators, insurers and other vendors generally will want to make prudent documented inquiries about the adequacy of their health plan’s data security and privacy safeguards in anticipation of potential future breaches, audits or other scrutiny.

Beyond the specific health plan related concerns, most businesses also will want to consider the adequacy and defensibility of the data collection, use, disclosure, security and other practices affecting sensitive data within or on behalf of their organization. The report of these and other health plan breaches, as well recent reports of identity theft and other fraud impacting federal tax returns and other large data breach reports involving retailers and other prominent businesses are spurring recognition of the large risks and need for greater scrutiny and accountability to business collection, use, and protection of sensitive personal and other data.

Of course, as in the case of health plans, the risk is exploding largely in response to the continued evolution of electronic payment and other business operating systems coupled with the emergence of data harvesting and other capabilities. These new technologies and practices are fueling a host of new mandates, opportunities and risks for virtually every U.S. business. Cyber criminals seem to always be one step ahead of business and government in leveraging these emerging opportunities for their criminal purposes.

With everyone from the Internal Revenue Service and other federal and state government agencies to private business partners pushing to leverage the efficiencies and other opportunity of electronic transactions and data, businesses in the US and around the world increasing are encouraged if not required to conduct more and more transactions containing sensitive business and individual tax information, personal financial information, personal health information, trade secrets and other confidential business and personal information electronically. Meanwhile big data and other business and marketing gurus also encourage business to leverage their own opportunities to use data collected for these business mandates and expanding technology also to collect, use and repurpose customer, prospect or other business information collected in the course of business to benefit their business’ marketing, transactional and other opportunities.

As these practices take hold and expand, data breaches and other cyber crime events, the legal requirements and risks of collection and use of data also are growing. Privacy, identity theft and other cyber crime and other concerns have led federal and state lawmakers to enact an ever-growing list of notice, consent, disclosure, security and other laws and regulations including but not limited to the Fair & Accurate Credit Transaction Act (FACTA),the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, the HIPAA Privacy & Security Rules, state identity theft, data security and data breach and other electronic privacy and security laws and an ever-growing plethora of others.

As the cyber crime epidemic continues to grow and notorious breeches and schemes involving the Internal Revenue Service, Veterans Administration, retail giants like Target, Home Depot, and others, insurance giants like Anthem and Premera and others, government and private enforcement is rising and the judgments, penalties and other costs soaring even as federal and state regulators are looking at the need for expanded rules and penalties. See Cybercrime Enforcement Statistics; DOJ Enforcement Priorities & Statistics. In addition, widening data privacy and security concerns from these massive data breach reports also are prompting Congress and State regulatorsto consider the need for added reforms, see, McCaul to Hold Hearing on President’s Cybersecurity. In deed, even before news of the Premera breach broke, he Federal Trade Commission today announced plans to host a workshop on Nov. 16, 2015, to look at the privacy issues around the tracking of consumers’ activities across their different devices for advertising and marketing purposes.

While these and other legal and enforcement developments promise new liabilities and expenses, the business losses and customer and business partner implications experienced by Target, Anthem and other businesses already affected illustrate the severe business consequences that inevitably result if a business appears to have failed to take customer privacy or other data security concerns seriously.

The now notorious Target hacking data breach event is illustrative. Target reported in late 2013 that credit and debit card thieves stole the name, address, email address and phone number from the credit and debit card records of around 70 million Target shoppers between November 27 and December 15, 2013. After announcing the breach, Target reported a 46% drop in profits in the fourth quarter of 2013, compared with the year before despite having announced plans to invest $100 million upgrading their payment terminals to support Chip-and-PIN enabled cards and millions of dollars more in rectification efforts. See The Target Breach, By the Numbers. Subsequently, Target’s losses have continued to mount even as it now faces lawsuits and other enforcement actions as a result of the breach. See Banks’ Lawsuits Against Target for Losses Related to Hacking Can Continue. Meanwhile, the enforcement and other fallout continues to evolve.

While businesses generally need to tighten their defenses and compliance, health plans, their sponsors, fiduciaries, administrators and vendors have specific obligations that require immediate, well-documented action when an actual or potential breach happens. The Privacy, Security and Breach Notification requirements of HIPAA require that health plans adopt specific policies and maintain and administer specific safeguards to prevent and respond to breaches of protected health information. In the event of a breach, these rules require that the health plan, usually acting through its fiduciaries, and affected service providers that qualify as business associates both investigate and redress the breach, as well as provide specific notification as soon as possible and usually no later than 30 days after the health plan knows or has reason to know of the breach. Significant civil and even criminal penalties can apply if a health plan, health insurer or its business associate fails to fulfill these obligations.

Beyond the specific requirements of HIPAA, employers and other plan sponsors and others involved in the maintenance and administration of the health plan or the selection and oversight of its vendors often may have other less-realized responsibilities. As health plan data often includes payroll and other tax data, employers, the health plans and other parties involved also may have specific responsibilities under the Internal Revenue Code or other laws. To the extent that the plan sponsor or another party is named as the plan administrator or otherwise exercises discretion and control over the selection of the insurer or other plan vendor or other plan operations, the fiduciary obligations of ERISA also may require a prudent investigation and other action to meet fiduciary obligations of ERISA. Brokers, insurers, third party administrators, preferred provider organizations or other managed care providers and others doing business with the health plan also may have specific responsibilities under state insurance, health care, data breach and identity theft or other laws. Under the provisions of most of these laws, leaving it to the insurer or other vendor involved in the breach generally will not suffice to fulfill applicable legal responsibilities, much less allay the fears of plan members, employees, health care providers and others involved with the health plan.

In the face of these developments, health plans and their sponsors, fiduciaries and others working with them must take immediate action in response to the breaches reported. Along with these specific health plan related responses, businesses also should the adequacy and defensibility of their current overall data collection, use and security practices while remaining ever vigilant for new requirements, as well as weaknesses in their own practices. Health plans specifically and businesses generally need to build their defenses in anticipation of these events both to withstand government and private litigation and enforcement, and to survive the harsh judgment of public opinion.

For Help With Risk Management, Compliance & Other Management Concerns

Scribe for the ABA JCEB Annual Agency Meeting with the Office of Civil Rights, a faculty and steering committee for the Southern California ISSA-HIMSS Health Care Privacy Program, Board Certified in Labor & Employment Law, a Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefits Counsel recognized as a “Top 100” lawyer in labor and employment, employee benefits and health care law, Ms. Stamer is nationally recognized for her work, publications, public speaking and education and other leadership on privacy and data security and other risk management and compliance.

About Solutions Law Press

1 Comment | Claims Administration, Data Security, Employers, ERISA, Fiduciary Responsibility, Health Plans, HIPAA, Insurance, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, Reporting & Disclosure | Tagged: Anthem, Data Breach, HIPAA, Personal Health Information, PHI, Premera | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Read Transcript of King v. Burwell Supreme Court Oral Argument

March 4, 2015

Americans trying to predict how the Supreme Court will rule on King v. Burwell’s challenge to the Obama Administration’s authority to allow qualifying residents of states that do not maintain their own state health insurance exchange under the Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act (ACA) to receive ACA subsidies to help pay the cost of purchasing health care coverage offered through the federal Healthcare.gov health insurance exchange may want to read the Transcript of the March 4, 2015 Supreme Court oral argument. In addition to providing potential insights into how the various Justices are likely to rule, Americans reading the transcript also will enjoy an educational and often entertaining glimpse into the most public portion of the process through which the Justices of the Supreme Court decide significant legal questions. The appellants challenge the Obama Administration’s decision to authorize payment of subsidies to enrollees in the federal exchanges. They contend that the express language of ACA only authorizes the payment…

View original post 2,014 more words

Comments Off on Read Transcript of King v. Burwell Supreme Court Oral Argument | Uncategorized | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Read Transcript of King v. Burwell Supreme Court Oral Argument

March 4, 2015

While the written briefs filed with the Supreme Court and Appellate Court provide a much clearer discussion of the parties’ respective arguments for individuals interested in understanding the various legal arguments before the Supreme Court, the questioning by the Supreme Court Justices during the Oral Argument provides strong hints of the potential leanings of the various Justices.

Beyond a better understanding of the various legal arguments before the Court, the transcript also provides readers unversed in the proceedings of the Supreme Court with an entertaining look at the oral argument process through which the Justices interrupt and disrupt the planned arguments of the attorneys as they fight to persuade the Justices to adopt their client’s interpretation of the law. With an exchange of witty dialogue of an Academy award-winning movie, the parties break the tension of their debate with a series of teasing exchange that will bring a smile to the discriminating reader and highlight the humanism of the players.

Enjoy!

About Project COPE: The Coalition On Patient Empowerment & Coalition on Responsible Health Policy

Do you have ideas or experiences to share about medical debit, ACA or other health care challenges? Have ideas for helping improve ACA and other health care policies impacting the US health care system, helping Americans cope with these and other health care challenges or other health care matters? Know other helpful resources or experiences that you are willing to share? Are you concerned about health care coverage or other health care and disability issues or policy concerns? Join the discussion and share your input by joining Project COPE: Coalition for Patient Empowerment here.

As American leaders continue to struggle to deal with these and other mounting problems impacting the U.S. health care system, the input of individual Americans and businesses and community leaders is more critical than ever. Get involved in helping to shape improvements and solutions to the U.S. health care system and the Americans it cares for by sharing your ideas and input through the Coalition For Responsible Health Care Policy and exchanging information and ideas for helping American families deal with their family member’s illnesses, disabilities and other healthcare challenges through Project COPE: Coalition for Patient Empowerment here.

Sharing and promoting the use of practical practices, tools, information and ideas that patients and their families, health care providers, employers, health plans, communities and policymakers can share and offer to help patients, their families and others in their care communities to understand and work together to better help the patients, their family and their professional and private care community plan for and manage these needs is the purpose of

The Coalition and its Project COPE arise and operate on the belief that health care reform and policy must be patient focused, patient centric and patient empowering. The best opportunity to improve access to quality, affordable health care for all Americans is for every American, and every employer, insurer, and community organization to seize the opportunity to be good Samaritans. The government, health care providers, insurers and community organizations can help by providing education and resources to make understanding and dealing with the realities of illness, disability or aging easier for a patient and their family, the affected employers and others. At the end of the day, however, caring for people requires the human touch. Americans can best improve health care by not waiting for someone else to step up: Step up and help bridge the gap when you or your organization can. Speak up to help communicate and facilitate when you can. Building health care neighborhoods filled with good neighbors throughout the community is the key.

The outcome of this latest health care reform push is only a small part of a continuing process. Whether or not the Affordable Care Act makes financing care better or worse, the same challenges exist. The real meaning of the enacted reforms will be determined largely by the shaping and implementation of regulations and enforcement actions which generally are conducted outside the public eye. Americans individually and collectively clearly should monitor and continue to provide input through this critical time to help shape constructive rather than obstructive policy. Regardless of how the policy ultimately evolves, however, Americans, American businesses, and American communities still will need to roll up their sleeves and work to deal with the realities of dealing with ill, aging and disabled people and their families. While the reimbursement and coverage map will change and new government mandates will confine providers, payers and patients, the practical needs and challenges of patients and families will be the same and confusion about the new configuration will create new challenges as patients, providers and payers work through the changes.

We also encourage you and others to help develop real meaningful improvements by joining Project COPE: Coalition for Patient Empowerment here by sharing ideas, tools and other solutions and other resources. The Coalition For Responsible Health Care Policy provides a resource that concerned Americans can use to share, monitor and discuss the Health Care Reform law and other health care, insurance and related laws, regulations, policies and practices and options for promoting access to quality, affordable healthcare through the design, administration and enforcement of these regulations.

You also may be interested in one or more of the following other recent articles published on the Coalition for Responsible Health Care Reform electronic publication available here, our electronic Solutions Law Press Health Care Update publication available here, or our HR & Benefits Update electronic publication available here.

You also can get details about how to arrange for your employees or other communities to participate in training on “Building Your Family’s Health Care Toolkit,” using the “PlayForLife” resources to organize low-cost wellness programs in your workplace, school, church or other communities, and other process improvement, compliance and other training and other resources for health care providers, employers, health plans, community leaders and others here.

For Advice, Training & Other Resources

Should your business need legal advice about the taxability of or other requirements on tips, gratuities or other compensation, assistance assessing or resolving potential past or existing compliance exposures, or monitoring and responding to these or other workforce, benefits and compensation, performance and risk management, compliance, enforcement or management concerns, the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer may be able to help.

You can review other recent human resources, employee benefits and internal controls publications and resources and additional information about the employment, employee benefits and other experience of the Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, PC here. 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 or updating your profile www.cynthiastamer.com or by registering to receive these and other updates here. Recent examples of these updates include:

1 Comment | Uncategorized | Tagged: Affordable Care Act, Health Care Reform, King v. Burwell, subsidies | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

State Exchange Problems Present ACA Concerns That Exist Beyond King v. Burwell

March 3, 2015

While most Americans are familiar with the well-publicized issues and higher than projected premium costs of coverage offered to Americans enrolling in health care coverage through the federal healthcare marketplace Healthcare.gov created under the health care reforms of the Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act (ACA), many Americans are just beginning to recognize the growing problems and concerns emerging with state exchanges in those states that elected to enact their own exchange. As the Supreme Court prepares to hear arguments in the challenge to the payment of ACA subsidies to individuals in states that elected not to adopt a state-run health care exchange to pay for coverage purchased through the federal healthcare.gov marketplace in King v. Burwell on Wednesday, March 4, 2015, the growing evidence of rapidly emerging funding and other challenges affecting state-run exchanges raise concerns about the solvency and reliability of coverage promised and purchased through those state-run exchanges.

During the Congressional debates leading up to the enactment of ACA, for instance, ACA advocates touted the Massachusetts health care mandates and reform law of Massachusetts as part of the model for ACA and evidence of the potential benefits offered by enactment of ACA. Now Massachusetts officials are blaming ACA for serious underfunding and other problems in their state’s health care connector.

Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker recently cited the Health Connector and its challenges in enrolling Massachusetts residents in health insurance plans as part of the Affordable Care Act that forced the state to temporarily transition hundreds of thousands of state residents into the commonwealth’s Medicaid program as a primary reason for the state’s projected $1.5 billion budget deficit. He now has asked for the resignations of four Massachusetts Health Connector board members: MIT professor Jonathan Gruber, Covered California actuarial consultant John Bertko; Massachusetts Nonprofit Network CEO Rick Jakious and Spring Insurance Group CEO George Conser.

The Massachusetts experience is not unique. Other states also are experiencing significant funding and other problems dealing with the ACA mandates and implementation. See, e.g., Funding Woes Imperil Future of State Run Exchanges; State Insurance Exchanges Face Challenges In Offering Standardized Choices Alongside Innovative Value-Based Insurance.

This mounting evidence of serious cost, financing and other concerns in state-run exchanges creates new reason for concern about the future of ACA’s health care reforms even for those citizens of states whose eligibility for subsidies is not challenged by the King v. Burwell Supreme Court challenge. These and other budget overruns and operational challenges raise serious questions about the ability of the federal government or the states to fund the promises currently made by ACA in its present form. Congress and state governments almost certainly will be forced to deal with these broader challenges regardless of the outcome of King v. Burwell. As American leaders continue to struggle to deal with these and other mounting problems impacting the U.S. health care system, the input of individual Americans and businesses and community leaders is more critical than ever. Get involved in helping to shape improvements and solutions to the U.S. health care system and the Americans it cares for by sharing your ideas and input through the Coalition For Responsible Health Care Policy and exchanging information and ideas for helping American families deal with their family member’s illnesses, disabilities and other healthcare challenges through Project COPE: Coalition for Patient Empowerment here.

About Project COPE: The Coalition On Patient Empowerment & Coalition on Responsible Health Policy

You also can find out about how you can arrange for training for you, your employees or other communities to participate in training on “Building Your Family’s Health Care Toolkit,” using the “PlayForLife” resources to organize low-cost wellness programs in your workplace, school, church or other communities, and other process improvement, compliance and other training and other resources for health care providers, employers, health plans, community leaders and others here.

For Advice, Training & Other Resources

You can review other recent human resources, employee benefits and internal controls publications and resources and additional information about the employment, employee benefits and other experience of the Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, PC here. 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 or updating your profile www.cynthiastamer.com or by registering to receive these and other updates here. Recent examples of these updates include:

Comments Off on State Exchange Problems Present ACA Concerns That Exist Beyond King v. Burwell | ADA, Affirmative Action, Disability, Discrimination, EEOC, Employers, family leave, FMLA, Human Resources, Internal Controls, Leave, Risk Management, Uncategorized | Tagged: ACA, Employers, Health Care Reform, Health Plans, King v. Burwell, Patient Empowerment, subsidies | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

EEOC Charges Employer Violated ADA By Terminating Employment At FMLA Leave End

March 2, 2015

Employers considering terminating the employment of employees not ready to resume their usual duties when their eligibility for medical leave ends under the Family & Medical Leave Act (FMLA) or other leave policies should first consider whether the employee qualifies for accommodation under the Americans With Disabilities Act. That’s the message transmitted by a new Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) lawsuit against ValleyLife of Phoenix, Arizona.

In EEOC v. ValleyLife, the EEOC charges that ValleyLife engaged in illegal disability discrimination in violation of the ADA when it allegedly fired employees with disabilities instead of providing them with reasonable accommodations when their eligibility for family leave ended under the FMLA and allegedly failed to keep employees’ medical records confidential. See EEOC v. ValleyLife, Civil Action No. 2:15-cv-00340-GMS (N.Az).

According to the lawsuit, ValleyLife fired employees with disabilities rather than provide them with reasonable accommodations due to its inflexible leave policy. The policy compelled the termination of employees who had exhausted their paid time off and/or any unpaid leave to which they were eligible under the FMLA. In its complaint, for instance, the EEOC alleges that ValleyLife fired supervisor, Glenn Stephens, due to his need for further surgery when his FMLA leave was exhausted. EEOC claims this termination violated the ADA because ValleyLife did not engage in any interactive process to determine whether any accommodations (including additional leave) were possible. Stephens had worked for ValleyLife for over ten years at the time of his termination. The EEOC contends that ValleyLife’s failure to offer extended leave or other accommodation to Stephens when his leave eligibility ended violated the ADA, which protects workers from discrimination based upon disability and requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations to the known physical or mental impairments of disabled employees unless doing so would cause an undue hardship.

The suit also alleges that ValleyLife commingled medical records in employee personnel files and failed to maintain these medical records confidential in violation of the medical record confidentiality requirements of the ADA, which requires employees’ to keep medical documents confidential and separate from other personnel records.

The lawsuit seeks lost wages and compensatory and punitive damages for the alleged victims, as well as appropriate injunctive relief to prevent discriminatory practices in the future.

Prepare Employment Discrimination Defenses

The EEOC suit against ValleyLife sends a message to employers of the need to use care to monitor and manage ADA and other disability discrimination risks at the end of a FMLA or other medical leave. Employers assume at their own peril that their responsibility to an employee ends when an employee is unable to or fails to return to work following a FMLA or other medical leave. Instead, the employer should evaluate whether the affected employee qualifies as disabled under the ADA and if so, whether the employer has any responsibility to offer the employee an extended leave or other accommodations before terminating the employee.

Employers also should consider reviewing and updating their current FMLA and other leave policies and communications to incorporate appropriate accommodation offer and administration procedures and notices, as well as other processes to ensure that these practices are operationalized in a manner to create and keep appropriate documentation to defend staffing decisions against potential claims of illegal discrimination under the ADA, Civil Rights, or other laws that could trigger ADA or other discrimination charges. Employers should keep in mind that an evidentiary doctrine known as the “after acquired evidence rule” makes it important to properly document analysis and decision-making before an employment action is taken to help ensure that critical evidence of employer intention necessary to defend discrimination claims will not be excluded or compromised in the event of litigation.

For Advice, Training & Other Resources

You can review other recent human resources, employee benefits and internal controls publications and resources and additional information about the employment, employee benefits and other experience of the Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, PC here. 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 or updating your profile www.cynthiastamer.com or by registering to receive these and other updates here. Recent examples of these updates include:

Comments Off on EEOC Charges Employer Violated ADA By Terminating Employment At FMLA Leave End | ADA, Affirmative Action, Disability, Discrimination, EEOC, Employers, family leave, FMLA, Human Resources, Internal Controls, Leave, Risk Management | Tagged: civil rights, EEOC, FMLA, Health Care, HHS, Hospital, Medicare Terms of Participation, OCR, Race Discrimination | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

New Opportunity To Share Your Input With HHS About How To Improve Healthcare

March 2, 2015

PROJECT COPE: COALITION ON PATIENT EMPOWERMENT

Health care providers, health plans and insurers, employers, providers, patients, states, consumer groups, individual Americans and others concerned about health care in the United States should sign up and participate in the new Health Care Payment Learning and Action Network (“Network”) the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is creating to help shape the transformation of the nation’s health care delivery system to promote better care, smarter spending, and healthier people through the expansion of new health care payment models and other reforms. HHS is inviting private payers, employers, providers, patients, states, consumer groups, consumers, and other partners within the health care community to register hereto participate in the Network activities including kickoff event scheduled for Wednesday, March 25, 2015.

HHS hopes cooperation through the Network will help the entire U.S. health care system match and exceed the following HHS goals for Medicare:

Tying 30 percent of payments to quality or value through…

View original post 1,158 more words

Comments Off on New Opportunity To Share Your Input With HHS About How To Improve Healthcare | Uncategorized | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

IRS Updates Procedures For 403(b) Opinions & Approvals

February 26, 2015

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is revising the application procedures for pre-approved 403(b) opinions and advisory letters. Revenue Procedure 2015-22 modifies Revenue Procedure 2013-22, 2013-18 I.R.B. 985, as modified by Revenue Procedure 2014-28, 2014-16 I.R.B. 944, and Revenue Procedure 2015-8, 2015-1 I.R.B. 235 to:

Update the addresses to which applications for opinion and advisory letters for § 403(b) pre-approved plans should be submitted; and

To insert a user fee that was omitted from Rev. Proc. 2015-8. Revenue Procedure 2015-22 will be officially published in Internal Revenue Bulletin 2015-11 dated March 16, 2015.

For Advice, Training & Other Resources

If you need assistance with plan design or qualification, monitoring and responding to these and other regulatory policy, enforcement, litigation or other developments, or to review or respond to these or other workforce, benefits and compensation, performance and risk management, compliance, enforcement or management concerns, the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer may be able to help.

Comments Off on IRS Updates Procedures For 403(b) Opinions & Approvals | Employee Benefits, Employers, ERISA, Form 5500, Health Plans, Human Resources, Insurance, MEWA, Reporting & Disclosure, Uncategorized | Tagged: 125 Plan, Annual Return, cafeteria plan, Data Breach, Dependent Care Assistance Plan, Disability Plan, EBSA, employee benefit plan, FLexible Spending Account Plan, Form 5500, Group Legal Services Plan, Group Term Life, Health FSA, Health Plan, Health Plans, information return, IRS, M-1, PBGC, penalties, pension plan, plan administrator, retirement plan | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

3/6 ABA Study Group Conference Call Explores ACA Employer Compliance Challenges Hot Topics

February 23, 2015

Solutions Law Press, Inc. publisher/author Cynthia Marcotte Stamer and Society of Professional Benefits Administrators Director of Public Relations & Legal Affairs Elizabeth Ysla Leight will lead a conference call discussion of Hot Topics In Employer Requirements of the Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act (ACA) for the Welfare Benefits Plans Committee of the American Bar Association (ABA) Real Property, Trusts & Estates Section Employee Benefit Plans and Other Compensation Arrangements Group (Group) on Friday, March 6, 2015 at 1 PM (Eastern), Noon (Central), 11 AM (Mountain), and 10 AM (Pacific). Conducted as part of a regular series of “Study Group” style conference calls hosted by the Group, participation in the conference call is available at no charge to ABA RPTE members as part of their ABA RPTE membership.

As health care reform continues to unfold, join the Welfare Benefits Committee to examine the requirements imposed on employers by ACA. With a myriad of ever-evolving technical changes in the requirements, their interpretation and deadlines, there is no shortage of compliance challenges or and ideas for amendments for welfare benefit plan documents and practices. This will be a round-robin hot topics session that will cover as many topics as time will allow.

Expected topics for discussion include:

What is on your short list of “Hot Topics”?
ACA litigation, including King v Burwell
Self-reporting ACA violations
Other topics, including cafeteria plan elections, etc.
“Employer “play-or-pay” mandate
Employer reporting on the B and C Forms
Employee/Independent Contractor Classification Issues
More

Welfare Benefits Committee Co-Chairs Ms. Stamer and Ms. Leight, will lead the conference call discussion. Both are nationally known for their extensive experience and involvement with ACA and other health plan matters.

As the Director of Public and Legal Affairs for the SPBA, Ms. Leight plays a lead role in helping the SPBA’s member third party administration service providers monitor, shape and respond to the ever-shifting federal and state regulatory environment and develop strategies and knowledge to help employer and other health plan sponsors design and administer legally compliant health and other welfare benefit plan strategies. In addition to her leadership in the Committee, Ms. Leight also serves on the US Department of Labor ERISA Advisory Council on Employee Welfare and Pension Benefit Plans, which provides advice on policies and regulations affecting employee benefit plans governed by ERISA.

Past Chair of the Group, Ms. Stamer is nationally and internationally known for her innovative leadership and work helping employers, insurers, TPAs, governments, and communities on health benefit and reform and other labor and employment, employee benefits and workforce related challenges.

About Solutions Law Press

For information about joining the conference call or other details about joining the ABA and participating in the RPTE Welfare Benefit Committee or other activities, see the Welfare Committee Webpage.

Comments Off on 3/6 ABA Study Group Conference Call Explores ACA Employer Compliance Challenges Hot Topics | 105(h), ACA, Cafeteria Plans, Employers, ERISA, Fair Labor Standards Act, FMLA, Health Plans, HIPAA, Human Resources, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Premium Subsidies, Tax, Wellness Programs | Tagged: 11 AM (Mountain), 2015 at 1 PM (Eastern), ABA, ACA, and 10 AM (Pacific). Conducted as part of a regular series of "Study Group" style conference calls hosted by the Group, Employer, Health Care Reform, Health Plans, 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, March 6, Noon (Central), participation in the conference call is available at no charge to ABA RPTE members as part of their ABA RPTE membership., Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act, Solutions Law Press, tpa, Trusts & Estates Section Employee Benefit Plans and Other Compensation Arrangements Group (Group) on Friday | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Businesses Should Verify Proper Tracking, Withholding & Reporting On Tips & Gratuities

February 5, 2015

Employers of restaurant, hotel and other hospitality, cosmetology, and other tipped employees should take the publication by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) of IRS Tax Tip 2015-13, What You Should Know if You Get Tipped at Work, reminding employees about their responsibility to pay taxes on tips and other gratuities as a reminder of the need to implement proper procedures to accurately track the amount of, report as income, and withhold employee’s income and employment tax and report and pay the employer’s required employment taxes on taxable tips and gratuities as required by the Internal Revenue Code (Code) as well as a resource to aid the employer in educating workers about these requirements.

While the IRS’ publication of Tax Tip 2015-13 is targeted at workers receiving tipped compensation, its publication also signals employers of tipped workers of the IRS’ expectation that both employers and employees comply with the Code’s rules about taxation, reporting and withholding on tips and gratuities.

Under the Code, tips and other gratuities generally qualify as taxable wages under the Internal Revenue Code. Consequently, employers of employees receiving tips, gratuities or other similar compensation generally are responsible for accurately tracking and reporting taxable tips and gratuities collected by their employees, including those amounts when calculating and collecting required income and employment taxes from employee’s pay, and calculating, reporting and paying employment taxes due with respect to those wages by the employer. Employers caught failing to fulfill these responsibilities risk incurring penalties for failing to report and pay taxes on the tipped wages due from the employer as well as potentially becoming liable as a backup guarantor to pay income and employment taxes owed by the employee on unreported tipped wages that otherwise would have been due from the recipient employee. To help mitigate these risks, employers of tipped employees should adopt and communicate clearly written policies and procedures requiring employees to report accurately all tips and gratuities, should monitor and enforce these policies and procedures, and should accurately report, pay employment taxes, and report and withhold income and the employee’s required share of employment taxes as required to comply with the Code. See Publication 531, Tax Topic 761 – Tips – Withholding and Reporting; Form 4137, Social Security and Medicare Tax on Unreported Tip Income; Tip Recordkeeping and Reporting.To aid in this process, employers of tipped employees may want to review and require employee’s to keep a daily log of tips to report tips and gratuities to the employer based on the information provided by the IRS in Publication 1244, Employee’s Daily Record of Tips and Report to Employer, to record your tips.

Businesses employing tipped employees also should use care to abstain from posting signs or other practices such as asking or otherwise encouraging customers to pay tips or other amounts in cash, which are or could be construed to seek to hide or obscure wages or other taxable receipts to avoid reporting or payment of taxes due under the Code. Businesses also should use care to properly document, report and include tips and gratuities as required to comply with state unemployment compensation, disability, worker’s compensation, and other laws.

For Advice, Training & Other Resources

Comments Off on Businesses Should Verify Proper Tracking, Withholding & Reporting On Tips & Gratuities | Income Tax, Payroll Tax, Tax, Unemployment Insurance | Tagged: Employer, Employment Tax, FICA, FUTA, gratuities, hospitality, Income Tax, Taxes, tips | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Tell Congress to protect wellness programs against EEOC attacks

January 28, 2015

The EEOC has declared war on many employer sponsored wellness programs. The Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee will hold a hearing about how to improve employer wellness programs on Thursday, January 29. Employers and others should urge the Committee and other Congressional leaders to overrule the EEOC’s attacks on wellness programs as illegal disability discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

View original post

Comments Off on Tell Congress to protect wellness programs against EEOC attacks | Uncategorized | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Tell Congress to protect wellness programs against EEOC attacks

January 28, 2015

1 Comment | ADA, Affordable Care Act, Disability, Discrimination, EEOC, EEOC, Employee Benefits, Employers, ERISA, GINA, Health Care Reform, Health Plans, Human Resources, Insurance, Internal Controls, MEWA, Patient Empowerment, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Privacy, Rehabilitation Act, Wellness, Wellness Programs | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Stay Connected Update Your Contact Information

January 21, 2015

Stay Connected Update Your Contact Information

http://www.CynthiaStamer.com

Comments Off on Stay Connected Update Your Contact Information | Uncategorized | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Stamer Recognized As A “Top” Labor & Employment Lawyer

January 7, 2015

Board Certified in Labor & Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, and a Fellow in the American Bar Association, Texas Bar Association, and the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, Ms. Stamer’s legal and management consulting work focuses on helping employers, insurers, employee benefit plans and their administrators, fiduciaries and advisors, community leaders and governments manage people, process and risk. Throughout her more than 25 year career, Ms. Stamer has helped management deal with all aspects of human resources and workforce management, including employment and outsourcing contracting and performance management, reengineering and other change management, internal controls, compliance and risk management, compensation and employee benefits, communications, worker classification, tax, government relations, enforcement and litigation defense, and other related matters. Drawing upon her extensive knowledge base of knowledge and wealth of practical skills, Ms. Stamer helps businesses and their leaders manage their employees and other workers and service providers, their performance, compliance, compensation, benefits, risks and liabilities, as well as to prevent, stabilize and cleanup workforce and operations crises large and small that arise in the course of operations.

2 Comments | Employee Benefits, Employers, ERISA, Form 5500, Health Plans, Human Resources, Insurance, MEWA, Reporting & Disclosure, Uncategorized | Tagged: defined benefit, IRC 412, Pension, Pension Funding, Qualified Plans, Retirement Plans, Tax | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

IRS Gives Guidance On When Defined Benefit Funding Method Changes Due Actuary Change Automatically Approved

January 6, 2015

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) today (January 6, 2015) published guidance on when a change in a single-employer defined benefit plan’s funding method due to a change in the plan’s enrolled actuary will qualify for automatic approval. For additional details, see Announcement 2015-03, which is scheduled for official publication in Internal Revenue Bulletin 2015-3 on January 20, 2015.

For Advice, Training & Other Resources

If you need assistance resolving past Form 5500 or other filing exposures, or monitoring and responding to these and other regulatory policy, enforcement, litigation or other developments, or to review or respond to these or other workforce, benefits and compensation, performance and risk management, compliance, enforcement or management concerns, the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer may be able to help.

Comments Off on IRS Gives Guidance On When Defined Benefit Funding Method Changes Due Actuary Change Automatically Approved | Employee Benefits, Employers, ERISA, Form 5500, Health Plans, Human Resources, Insurance, MEWA, Reporting & Disclosure, Uncategorized | Tagged: defined benefit, IRC 412, Pension, Pension Funding, Qualified Plans, Retirement Plans, Tax | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Newly-Medicare Eligible Not Driving Medicare Advantage Enrollment Increases

January 5, 2015

Findings of a just-released Kaiser Family Foundation study, At Least Half of New Medicare Advantage Enrollees Had Switched from Traditional Medicare During 2006-11, disputes the popular misperception that Baby Boomers’ overwhelmingly choice of private plans accounts for the steady rise in Medicare Advantage enrollment. Instead, Study reports that seniors switching from traditional Medicare account for the majority of new enrollees in Medicare Advantage each year.

According to the study published January 5, 2015 in the journal Health Affairs, fewer than one-quarter of people newly-eligible for Medicare enrolled in Medicare Advantage from the outset, and these newly-Medicare eligible comprised less than half of all new Medicare Advantage enrollees each year between 2006 and 2011. However the study also reports that the share of seniors who switch between traditional Medicare and Medicare Advantage is relatively small, reinforcing the notion that most Medicare beneficiaries make a coverage choice and stick with it.

Other findings reported in the study include:

The share of people newly eligible for Medicare that elected Medicare Advantage plan coverage instead of traditional Medicare at initial enrollment rose slightly from 15 percent in 2006 to 22 percent in 2011;

In each year between 2006 and 2011, the majority of new Medicare Advantage enrollees were people who had switched from traditional Medicare; seniors in their first few years on Medicare (in their late sixties) switched from traditional Medicare to Medicare Advantage at higher than average rates;

In each year between 2006 and 2011, fewer than 5 percent of traditional Medicare beneficiaries switched to Medicare Advantage, and a similar percentage of Medicare Advantage enrollees switched to traditional Medicare, suggesting that initial coverage decisions made by Medicare beneficiaries have long-lasting effects;

People dually eligible for Medicare and Medicaid (“dual eligibles”) and Medicare beneficiaries under age 65 and disabled disenrolled from Medicare Advantage at higher than average rates.

Understanding Medicare Advantage enrollment preferences and trends is of growing importance to Congress as well as private insurers and plan sponsors as the Obama Administration – long hostile to Medicare Advantage plans – is expected to continue to try to curb the growth of Medicare Advantage enrollment, cut Medicare Advantage expenditures and tighten regulations and enforcement against these private sector alternatives to traditional Medicare implemented as part of Republican-lead health care reforms during the Bush Administration.

For Advice, Training & Other Resources

Comments Off on Newly-Medicare Eligible Not Driving Medicare Advantage Enrollment Increases | Employee Benefits, Employers, ERISA, Form 5500, Health Plans, Human Resources, Insurance, MEWA, Reporting & Disclosure, Uncategorized | Tagged: 125 Plan, Annual Return, cafeteria plan, Data Breach, Dependent Care Assistance Plan, Disability Plan, EBSA, employee benefit plan, FLexible Spending Account Plan, Form 5500, Group Legal Services Plan, Group Term Life, Health FSA, Health Plan, Health Plans, information return, IRS, M-1, PBGC, penalties, pension plan, plan administrator, retirement plan | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Advance Copies Of 2014 Form 5500s Reminder To Avoid Penalties By Confirming Compliance

December 16, 2014

Employers and other sponsors, plan administrators, third party administrators, and other service providers of employee benefit plans will want to check out the relevant advance informational copies of the 2014 Form 5500 and 5500-SF and final copy of the 2014 Form M-1 annual returns released by the U.S. Departments of Employee Benefits Security Administration, the Internal Revenue Service, and the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation December 15, 2015.

Subject to certain exceptions, federal law generally requires that the plan administrator of a pension as well as health and welfare benefit plan electronically file the appropriate annual return/report about the employee benefit plan’s financial conditions, investments and operations along with any required attachments satisfy annual reporting requirements under Title I and Title IV of the Employee Benefit Security Act (ERISA) and under the Internal Revenue Code (Code). Late or non-filing a required Form 5500 can be an expensive mistake. ERISA subjects the plan administrator of an employee benefit plan that fails to file required Form 5500s on time to penalties of up to $1,100 per day. Meanwhile, violations of the Code’s Form 5500 requirements by late filing or non-filing of a Form 5500 also carries its own penalties. In addition to DOL penalties, the IRS may impose a penalty of:

$1 for each participant for whom the plan fails to file a Form 8955-SSA statement for each day the failure continues, up to $5,000 for any plan year
$1 for each day for not filing a notification of change of status, up to $1,000
$1,000 for each failure to file an actuarial report by the required deadline and
$25 each day the Form 5500-series return is not filed, up to a maximum of $15,000.Copies of the current Form 5500 Forms and associated schedules are available here.
A quick review of the advance copies of the 2014 Form 5500s that plan administrators will be required to file for 2014 plan years reveals various changes compared to the 2013 Form 5500s. “The Changes to Note” discussion in the Instructions to the 2014 instructions to the Forms highlights these changes, which include:
In light of these penalties, plan administrators need to ensure that all required Form 5500s and other annual returns are appropriately completed and filed on a timely basis. To the extent that any previously required Form 5500s were not filed or were filed late, the plan administrator also will want to correct this deficiency promptly using the Voluntary Compliance Resolution Programs currently offered by the Internal Revenue Service and Department of Labor. See Labor Department Delinquent Filer Voluntary Compliance Program; IRS Notice 2014-35.

The MEWA Form M-1 compliance information that was filed as an attachment for 2013 now appears as three new questions on the Form 5500.
The Form 5500 and Form 5500-SF instructions for “Signature and Date” have been updated to caution filers to check the Filing Status. If the filing status is “Processing Stopped” or “Unprocessable,” the submission may not have had a valid electronic signature, and depending on the error, may be considered not to have been filed.
Filers are now required to provide the total number of active participants at the beginning of the plan year and at the end of the plan year on both forms.
Form 5500-SF filers now must provide the number of participants that terminated employment during the plan year with accrued benefits that were not fully vested.
Multiple-Employer Plan Information. In accordance with the Cooperative and Small Employer Charity Pension Flexibility Act, the Form 5500 and Form 5500-SF now require multiple-employer pension plans and multiple-employer welfare plans to include an attachment that generally identifies each participating employer, and includes a good faith estimate of each employer’s percentage of the total contributions during the year.
The instructions for line 1c(13) have been enhanced to set out what is an investment company registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940.
New Line 4f requires plans in critical status to indicate the plan year in which a plan is projected to emerge from critical status or, if the rehabilitation plan is based on forestalling possible insolvency, the plan year in which insolvency is expected.
Schedule SB, line 3 has been modified so that the funding target is reported separately for each type of participant (active, retired, or terminated vested). Schedule SB, Line 11b has been split into two parts: the calculation based on the prior year’s effective interest rate, and the calculation based on the prior year’s actual return. Modifications to Form 5500 and Form 5500-SF, and their schedules and instructions for plan year 2014 are described under “Changes to Note” in the 2014 instructions. Examples of these changes include:
DOL Form M-1 Compliance Information. The MEWA Form M-1 compliance information that was filed as an attachment for 2013 now appears as three new questions on the Form 5500.
Signature and Date. The Form 5500 and Form 5500-SF instructions for “Signature and Date” have been updated to caution filers to check the Filing Status. If the filing status is “Processing Stopped” or “Unprocessable,” the submission may not have had a valid electronic signature, and depending on the error, may be considered not to have been filed.
Active Participant Information. Filers are now required to provide the total number of active participants at the beginning of the plan year and at the end of the plan year on both forms.
Terminated Participant Vesting Information. Form 5500-SF filers now must provide the number of participants that terminated employment during the plan year with accrued benefits that were not fully vested.
Multiple-Employer Plan Information. In accordance with the Cooperative and Small Employer Charity Pension Flexibility Act, the Form 5500 and Form 5500-SF now require multiple-employer pension plans and multiple-employer welfare plans to include an attachment that generally identifies each participating employer, and includes a good faith estimate of each employer’s percentage of the total contributions during the year.
Schedule H. The instructions for line 1c(13) have been enhanced to set out what is an investment company registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940.
Schedule MB. New Line 4f requires plans in critical status to indicate the plan year in which a plan is projected to emerge from critical status or, if the rehabilitation plan is based on forestalling possible insolvency, the plan year in which insolvency is expected.
In Schedule SB, line 3 has been modified so that the funding target is reported separately for each type of participant (active, retired, or terminated vested); line 11b has been split into two parts: the calculation based on the prior year’s effective interest rate, and the calculation based on the prior year’s actual return; line 15 instructions have been expanded to address situations in which the AFTAP was not certified for the plan year; and line 27 and related instructions have been modified to reflect funding changes under the CSEC Act for defined benefit pension plans impacted by the act.
Line 15 instructions have been expanded to address situations in which the AFTAP was not certified for the plan year. Line 27 and related instructions have been modified to reflect funding changes under the CSEC Act for defined benefit pension plans impacted by the act.

The Form 5500 annual filing requirements are only one of a growing series of informational returns and reports that employee benefit plan sponsors or administrators are likely to be required to file concerning their employee benefit plans annually or in response to other specified events depending on the nature of the plan and the circumstances. In the case of health plans, for instance, the health care reforms of the Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act have resulted in a proliferation of new reporting requirements. Underfunding, plan termination or a series of other events also can trigger special reporting requirements for defined benefit pension plans. Other special rules also may apply for profit-sharing defined contribution pension plans, as well as other types of employee benefit plans. As proper understanding and timely fulfillment of these requirements is key to avoiding potentially significant liabilities, plan administrators, plan fiduciaries, employers or other plan sponsors and their service providers should consult with qualified experienced legal counsel to confirm they understand these requirements, conduct documented due diligence to confirm timely fulfillment of past filing requirements, take prompt action to correct any past deficiencies, and plan ahead and prepare for the upcoming 2014 filing deadlines by scheduling preparations and arranging to collect the necessary data to timely meet these deadlines now.

For Advice, Training & Other Resources

Comments Off on Advance Copies Of 2014 Form 5500s Reminder To Avoid Penalties By Confirming Compliance | Employee Benefits, Employers, ERISA, Form 5500, Health Plans, Human Resources, Insurance, MEWA, Reporting & Disclosure, Uncategorized | Tagged: 125 Plan, Annual Return, cafeteria plan, Data Breach, Dependent Care Assistance Plan, Disability Plan, EBSA, employee benefit plan, FLexible Spending Account Plan, Form 5500, Group Legal Services Plan, Group Term Life, Health FSA, Health Plan, Health Plans, information return, IRS, M-1, PBGC, penalties, pension plan, plan administrator, retirement plan | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Out-Of-Date, Unpatched Software Triggers HIPAA Security Sanction

December 11, 2014

Health plans, health care providers ealth care clearinghouses (covered entities) and their business associates need to watch for and protect protected health information (PHI) against security exposures from unpatched or unsupported software and other weaknesses in their data security protections as part of their compliance obligations under the Security Rules of the Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act (HIPAA).

The need to monitor and address data security threats associated with unpatched or unsupported software is demonstrated by the December 9, 2014 announcement by the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) Office of Civil Rights (OCR) that Anchorage Community Mental Health Services (ACMHS) will pay $150,000 and adopt a corrective action plan to correct deficiencies in its HIPAA compliance program resulting from unpatched and unsupported software.

OCR opened an investigation against the five-facility, nonprofit provider of behavioral health care services to children, adults, and families in Anchorage, Alaska after receiving notification from ACMHS of a breach of unsecured electronic protected health information (ePHI) affecting 2,743 individuals due to malware compromising the security of its information technology resources.

According to the OCR announcement of the ACMHS Resolution Agreement with OCR, OCR’s investigation revealed that ACMHS had adopted sample Security Rule policies and procedures in 2005, but failed to follow these procedures. Moreover, OCR found that the reported security incident directly resulted of ACMHS failing to identify and address basic risks, such as not regularly updating their IT resources with available patches and running outdated, unsupported software.

“Successful HIPAA compliance requires a common sense approach to assessing and addressing the risks to ePHI on a regular basis,” said OCR Director Jocelyn Samuels. “This includes reviewing systems for unpatched vulnerabilities and unsupported software that can leave patient information susceptible to malware and other risks.”

In an effort to promote awareness of the need to assess and monitor the security of ePHI by covered entities and business associates, OCR continues to encourage covered entities and business associates to conduct regular documented evaluations of the adequacy of their ePHI safeguards and systems. To aid in this process, OCR and the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology have created a Security Rule Risk Assessment Tool available here to assist organizations that handle PHI in conducting a regular review of the administrative, physical and technical safeguards they have in place to protect the security of the information. Since OCR points to the Tool as a resource, covered entities and business associates should anticipate that their failure to identify and address any deficiencies in the areas identified by the tools as a potentially serious compliance issue. As a result, covered entities and business associates likely will want to take steps to ensure that their records include documented review of the adequacy of the security safeguards identified in the Tool. At the same time, covered entities and their business associates should not assume that the Tool adequately covers all potential HIPAA Security Rule exposures. OCR has made clear in this and other Resolution Agreements that HIPAA’s Security Rule requires ongoing monitoring and assessment of the adequacy of security in response to changes in software or system, emerging threats and other developments.

For Advice, Training & Other Resources

If you need assistance monitoring these and other regulatory policy, enforcement, litigation or other developments, or to review or respond to these or other workforce, benefits and compensation, performance and risk management, compliance, enforcement or management concerns, the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer may be able to help.

Comments Off on Out-Of-Date, Unpatched Software Triggers HIPAA Security Sanction | Employee Benefits, Employers, ERISA, Health Plans, Human Resources, Insurance, MEWA, Reporting & Disclosure, Uncategorized | Tagged: Data Breach, Health Plans, HIPAA, Mileage, OCR employer, Privacy | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

2015 Tax Standard Mileage Rates Announced

December 10, 2014

Employers should review and update mileage reimbursement policies and rates in light of the 2015 standard mileage rates that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) just announced will apply for federal tax deduction purposes in 2015. Meanwhile, employees and other individuals also will want to review these updated rates for purposes of estimating their expected mileage-related income and deductions for 2015.

Notice 2014-79 scheduled for official publication in Internal Revenue Bulletin 2014-53 on December 29, 2014 sets the optional standard mileage rates for substantiating the amount of deductible expenses for using an automobile for business, moving, medical, or charitable purposes. For 2015, the standard mileage rates are 57.5 cents for business use of an automobile, 14 cents for use of an automobile as a charitable contribution, and 23 cents for use of an automobile as a medical or moving expense. s

Notice 2014-79 also provides the amount a taxpayer must use in calculating reductions to basis for depreciation taken under the business standard mileage rate and the maximum standard automobile cost that a taxpayer may use in computing the allowance under a fixed and variable rate plan.

When projecting expected income or deductions based on the 2015 number, individuals planning to claim deductions for mileage and employers responsible for reporting income on taxable mileage reimbursements to employees and other service providers should keep in mind that the standard deductible mileage rates for medical travel mileage differ from those for other business purposes. The rules for using the optional standard mileage rates to calculate the amount of a deductible business, moving, medical, or charitable expense are in Rev. Proc. 2010-51.

For Advice, Training & Other Resources

Comments Off on 2015 Tax Standard Mileage Rates Announced | Employee Benefits, Employers, ERISA, Health Plans, Human Resources, Insurance, MEWA, Reporting & Disclosure, Uncategorized | Tagged: Employer, Health Plans, Mileage | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

12/5 Deadline For Insurers, Certain Self-Insured Health Plans To Submit 2014 Transitional Reinsurance Program Contribution Data

December 3, 2014

Friday, December 5, 2014 is the last day for health insurers and certain self-insured group health plans that are “contributing entities” to submit their required 2014 enrollment counts for the transitional reinsurance program contributions under 45 CFR 153.405(b).

Section 1341 of the Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act (ACA) established the transitional reinsurance program to help stabilize premiums in the individual market by partially offsetting issuers’ risk associated with high-cost enrollees.

The transitional reinsurance program will collect contributions from health insurance issuers and certain self-insured group health plans offering major medical coverage for the 2014, 2015 and 2016 benefit years. Under Final Rules published March 5, 2014, the insurer pays the fee for insured plans but where a group health plan is self-insured, the plan itself pays the fee.

In preparation for the collection of the transition reinsurance program fees, the Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) required that contributing entities, or third party administrators or administrative services-only contractors on their behalf, to complete the reinsurance contributions submission process through the Pay.gov website starting October 24, 2014. Subsequently, HHS extended the 2014 data submission deadline to submit the 2014 enrollment counts for transitional reinsurance program contributions but to date has not modified the deadline for making the required transition reinsurance program fees.

The reinsurance fee equals the yearly rate times the number of plan participants. The yearly rate is $63 for 2014, $44 for 2015, and to be announced for 2016.

Final Rules published March 5, 2014 provide that self-insured plans that are self-administered plans are exempt from the fees in 2015 and 2016. Since the guidance about these determinations is impacted by the allocation of fiduciary responsibilities under the plan and its associated vendor contracts, plan sponsors need to verify both whether their existing obligations qualifies as exempt and that any planned changes in their vendor contracts and other associated allocation of duties for its administration will not impact this determination. Employers and others sponsoring self-insured plans should consult with qualified counsel about whether they fall into this exception under the applicable rules, as well as to confirm that their program meets these and other applicable requirements.

Self-insured group health plan sponsors, fiduciaries and administrators should confirm with qualified legal counsel whether their program is a contributing entity required covered by the program and if so, both include the expected cost of the required payments in their budgets and obtain written confirmation from their third party administrator that the data reporting is completed and all other required steps to calculate, pay required contributions and fulfill reporting and other requirements of the program are completed for their records.

For Advice, Training & Other Resources

Comments Off on 12/5 Deadline For Insurers, Certain Self-Insured Health Plans To Submit 2014 Transitional Reinsurance Program Contribution Data | Employee Benefits, Employers, ERISA, Health Plans, Human Resources, Insurance, MEWA, Reporting & Disclosure, Uncategorized | Tagged: 105(h), ACA, Affordable Care Act, Code Section 4980H, Health Care Reform, Health Plans, Insurer, issuer, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Pay or Play, Reinsurance Fee, Risk ADjustment, Skinny Plans, tpa | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

OIG Report Pressures EBSA To Finalize ERISA Fiduciary Investment Advice Rule & Repeal or Restrict Small Scope Audit Rule

December 3, 2014

Employee benefit plan sponsors, administrators, fiduciaries and the banks, insurers and other service providers involved in the investment or management of plan assets that currently rely upon existing Employee Benefit Security Administration (EBSA) limited scope audit regulations to avoid the expense and other burdens of conducting full scale audits of certain employee benefit plan assets held by banks, insurers and certain other regulated entities should watch for EBSA proposals to repeal or tighten these regulations in response to recommendations in a new report published by the U.S. Department of Labor Office of Inspector General (OIG) . If adopted by the EBSA, plans sponsors, administrators and fiduciaries could expect to incur significant increases in the annual audit expenses of their employee benefit plans, banks, insurers and other organizations currently covered by the small scope audit exception could expect greater scrutiny and expenses when dealing with employee benefit plan accounts, and all of these parties could expect greater fiduciary risk and other compliance obligations.

Repealing or tightening the EBSA limited scope audit regulations and finalizing proposed conflict of interest rules are two key recommendations that OIG urges EBSA to adopt to strengthen its ability to fulfill its mission to protect the security of retirement, health, and other private‐sector employer‐sponsored benefit plans for America’s workers, retirees, and their families in the Top Management Challenges Facing the Department of Labor report (Report) just released by the OIG.

While ERISA generally requires plan asset audits on most employee benefit plan assets, the small scope audit rule of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) currently authorizes so‐called “limited scope audits” for plan assets held in certain banks, insurance companies and certain other qualifying entities under the presumption that these organizations and their actions with respect to the assets are being audited by other entities for other purposes. As a result, the independent public accountants that conduct their audits express “no opinion” on the financial statements of the assets they hold on behalf of plans.

According to the OIG Report, this small scope audit rule inappropriately challenges EBSA’s oversight efforts by allowing as much as $3.3 billion in pension assets held in otherwise regulated entities, such as banks to “escape audit scrutiny.” The Report states, “These limited scope audits weaken assurances to stakeholders and may put retirement plan assets at risk because they provide little or no confirmation regarding the existence or value of plan assets.

In addition to attacking the small scope audit rule, OIG also urges EBSA to finalize its long awaited rules defining prohibited conflicts of interest for parties and individuals providing investment advice to employee benefit plans that EBSA has been working on since 2010. The so‐called “conflict of interest ‐‐ fiduciary investment advice rule” would broaden the definition of investment advice fiduciary for ERISA plans and individual retirement accounts to try to reduce the opportunities for financial conflicts of interest to compromise the impartiality of investment advice in the retirement savings marketplace.

Accordingly, the OIG Report concludes that EBSA should “concentrate on issuing final regulations on the so‐called “conflict of interest rule” and continue its work to obtain legislative changes repealing the limited‐scope audit exemption. In the interim, EBSA should continue to expand upon its existing authority to clarify and strengthen limited scope audit regulations and evaluate the ERISA Council’s recommendations on the issue.”

The OIG recommendations in the Report are likely to refuel pressure on EBSA to finalize the fiduciary investment advice rule and tighten or eliminate the small scope audit rule. Since either or both of these actions would likely increase the expense and other responsibilities and risks associated with the investment and maintenance of employee benefit plan assets, plan sponsors, fiduciaries, administrators, banks, insurers, investment advisors and others involved in the investment or administration of employee benefit plans and their assets should both carefully monitor the response of the EBSA to the OIG recommendations and react promptly to provide feedback to help shape any changes to manage these costs and expenses.

About Author Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

If you need help evaluating or monitoring the implications of these developments or reviewing or updating your health benefit program for compliance or with any other employment, employee benefit, compensation or internal controls matter, please contact the author of this article, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer.

A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefits Council, immediate past-Chair and current Welfare Benefit Committee Co-Chair of the American Bar Association (ABA) RPPT Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Arrangements, an ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits Council Representative, the ABA TIPS Employee Benefit Plan Committee Vice Chair, former ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group Chair, past Southwest Benefits Association Board Member, Employee Benefit News Editorial Advisory Board Member, and a widely published speaker and author, Ms. Stamer has more than 24 years experience advising businesses, plans, fiduciaries, insurers. plan administrators and other services providers, and governments on health care, retirement, employment, insurance, and tax program design, administration, defense and policy. Nationally and internationally known for her creative and highly pragmatic knowledge and work on health benefit and insurance programs, Ms. Stamer’s experience includes extensive involvement in advising and representing these and other clients on ACA and other health care legislation, regulation, enforcement and administration.

Widely published on health benefit and other related matters, Ms. Stamer’s insights and articles have been published by the HealthLeaders, Modern Health Care, Managed Care Executive, the Bureau of National Affairs, Aspen Publishers, Business Insurance, Employee Benefit News, the Wall Street Journal, the American Bar Association, Aspen Publishers, World At Work, Spencer Publications, SHRM, the International Foundation, Solutions Law Press and many others.

For additional information about Ms. Stamer and her experience, see www.CynthiaStamer.com.

For Added Information and Other Resources

If you found this update of interest, you also may be interested in reviewing some of the other updates and publications authored by Ms. Stamer available including:

For Help Or More Information

If you need assistance in auditing or assessing, updating or defending your organization’s compliance, risk manage or other internal controls practices or actions, please contact the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer here or at (469)767-8872.

Board Certified in Labor & Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, management attorney and consultant Ms. Stamer is nationally and internationally recognized for more than 24 years of work helping employers and other management; employee benefit plans and their sponsors, administrators, fiduciaries; employee leasing, recruiting, staffing and other professional employment organizations; and others design, administer and defend innovative workforce, compensation, employee benefit and management policies and practices. Her experience includes extensive work helping employers implement, audit, manage and defend union-management relations, wage and hour, discrimination and other labor and employment laws, privacy and data security, internal investigation and discipline and other workforce and internal controls policies, procedures and actions. The Chair of the American Bar Association (ABA) RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Committee, a Council Representative on the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits, Government Affairs Committee Legislative Chair for the Dallas Human Resources Management Association, and past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, Ms. Stamer works, publishes and speaks extensively on management, re-engineering, investigations, human resources and workforce, employee benefits, compensation, internal controls and risk management, federal sentencing guideline and other enforcement resolution actions, and related matters. She also is recognized for her publications, industry leadership, workshops and presentations on these and other human resources concerns and regularly speaks and conducts training on these matters.Her insights on these and other matters appear in the Bureau of National Affairs, Spencer Publications, the Wall Street Journal, the Dallas Business Journal, the Houston Business Journal, and many other national and local publications. For additional information about Ms. Stamer and her experience or to get access to other publications by Ms. Stamer see hereor contact Ms. Stamer directly.

About Solutions Law Press

Comments Off on OIG Report Pressures EBSA To Finalize ERISA Fiduciary Investment Advice Rule & Repeal or Restrict Small Scope Audit Rule | 105(h), ACA, Affordable Care Act, Cafeteria Plans, CHIP, Claims Administration, Employee Benefits, Employers, Employment Tax, ERISA, Fiduciary Responsibility, FMLA, H.R. 4872, Health Care Reform, Health Plans, HIPAA, Human Resources, Insurance, Internal Controls, Leave, Patient Empowerment, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Preemption, Reporting & Disclosure, USERRA, VEVRRA, Wellness Programs | Tagged: audit, conflict of interest, Employee Plans, ERISA, Exempt Organizations, fiduciary investment rule, Fiduciary Responsibility, IRA, IRS, plan audit, Qualification, Retirement Plans, small scope audit, Tax | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

TEGE Counsel To Assume Responsibility For Employee Plans, Exempt Orgs & IRA Technical Guidance in 2015

December 3, 2014

The Department of Treasury announced today the transfer of technical responsibility for certain tax related technical issues involving exempt organizations, qualified retirement plans, and individual retirement annuities and accounts (IRAs) to the Office of Chief Counsel. The reassignment of duties scheduled for formal publication in Announcement 2014-34 in Internal Revenue Bulletin 2014-51 on Dec. 15, 2014.will happen as part of a realignment of the Tax Exempt and Government Entities Division (TE/GE). As a result of the realignment occurring at the beginning of 2015, the technical responsibility for preparing revenue rulings, revenue procedures, and certain other forms of published guidance, and issuing technical advice and certain letter rulings, will shift from TE/GE to the Office of Associate Chief Counsel (Tax Exempt and Government Entities) (TEGE Counsel). The annual revenue procedures addressing these matters will be updated in January of 2015 to reflect this realignment.

About Author Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

For additional information about Ms. Stamer and her experience, see www.CynthiaStamer.com.

For Added Information and Other Resources

If you found this update of interest, you also may be interested in reviewing some of the other updates and publications authored by Ms. Stamer available including:

For Help Or More Information

About Solutions Law Press

Comments Off on TEGE Counsel To Assume Responsibility For Employee Plans, Exempt Orgs & IRA Technical Guidance in 2015 | 105(h), ACA, Affordable Care Act, Cafeteria Plans, CHIP, Claims Administration, Employee Benefits, Employers, Employment Tax, ERISA, Fiduciary Responsibility, FMLA, H.R. 4872, Health Care Reform, Health Plans, HIPAA, Human Resources, Insurance, Internal Controls, Leave, Patient Empowerment, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Preemption, Reporting & Disclosure, USERRA, VEVRRA, Wellness Programs | Tagged: Employee Plans, Exempt Organizations, IRA, IRS, Qualification, Retirement Plans, Tax | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Private Exchanges: Employer Health Program Panacea or Problem? Consider Carefully!

November 20, 2014

Employers trying to continue offering affordable health and welfare benefits amid the expanding costs and regulations enacted under the Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act (ACA) often are encouraged by some consultants and brokers to consider offering coverage options pursuant to a “private exchange” offering employees the options to get reimbursement for individual health coverage from a health reimbursement account (HRA) (collectively the “agencies”) or other choice optand cions.

While these options sound attractive, not all of these options work for all employers. The consumer driven health care and other private exchange lingo used to describe these arrangements often means different things to different people. Some “private exchanges” are little more than high-tech online cafeteria enrollment arrangements. See, e.g. A ‘Cynical’ Look at Private Exchanges Employers need to carefully scrutinize these proposals both for their compliance and other legal risks, affordability and cost, and other suitability.

When considering a private exchange or other arrangement, it is important to understand clearly the proposal, its design, operation, participating vendors, the charges, what is excluded or costs extra, and who is responsible for delivering what. Assuming an employer views the cost and operations merit considering the option, it also needs to carefully evaluate the legal compliance and risks of the arrangements.

The agencies have issued a long stream of guidance cautioning employers about the use of arrangements where the employer provides pre- or after-tax dollars to pay for or reimburse premiums for individual policies, and employers from paying or reimbursing employees for the cost of enrolling in coverage under a public health insurance exchange or both. See, e.g., DOL Technical Release 2013-03; IRS Notice 2013-54; Insurance Standards Bulletin, Application of Affordable Care Act Provisions to Certain Healthcare Arrangement; IRS May 13, 2014 FAQs available here. Most recently, for instance, the new FAQS About Affordable Care Act Implementation (XXII) (FAQ XXII) published by the agencies on November 6, 2014 reiterates previous agency guidance indicating that tax basis for purchasing individual coverage in lieu of group health plan coverage. FAQ XXII, among other things, states

HRAS, health flexible spending arrangements (health FSAs) and certain other employer and union health care arrangements where the employer promises to reimburse health care costs: are considered group health plans subject to the Public Health Service Act (PHS Act) § 2711 annual limits, PHS Act § 2713 preventive care with no cost-sharing and other group market reform provisions of PHS Act §§ 2711-2719 and incorporated by reference into the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and the Internal Revenue Code (Code) but
HRA or other premium reimbursement arrangements do not violate these market reform provisions when integrated with a group health plan that complies with such provisions. However, an employer health care arrangement cannot be integrated with individual market policies to satisfy the market reforms. Consequently, such an arrangement may be subject to penalties, including excise taxes under section 4980D of the Internal Revenue Code (Code).

FAQ XXII reaffirms and reinforces this prior guidance, stating “Such employer health care arrangements cannot be integrated with individual market policies to satisfy the market reforms and, therefore, will violate PHS Act sections 2711 and 2713, among other provisions, which can trigger penalties such as excise taxes under section 4980D of the Code. Under the Departments’ prior published guidance, the cash arrangement fails to comply with the market reforms because the cash payment cannot be integrated with an individual market policy.”

Another potential arises under the various tax and non-discrimination rules of the Code and other federal laws. For instance, Code sections 105, 125 and other Code provisions prohibitions against discrimination in favor of highly compensated or key employees could arise based on the availability of options or enrollment participation. Historically many have assumed that these concerns could be managed by treating the premiums or value of discriminatory coverage as provided after-tax for highly compensated or key employees. However IRS and Treasury leaders over the past year have made statements in various public meetings suggesting that the IRS does not view this as a solution. Of course, FAQ XXII also highlights the potential risks of underwriting or other practices of offering individual or other coverage in a manner that discriminates against disabled, elderly or other employees protected against federal employment discrimination, Medicare, Medicaid, veterans or other federal employment or related laws.

In addition to confirming that the arrangement itself doesn’t violate specific Code or other requirements, employers and others responsible for structuring these arrangements also should exercise care to critically evaluate and document their analysis that the options offered are suitable. Like other employee benefit arrangements, ERISA generally requires that individual or group products offered by employers, unions or both be prudently selected and managed. Employers sponsoring or considering sponsoring these arrangements should expect that the DOL will expect that each product or benefit option offered be prudently selected in accordance with ERISA’s rules. Compensation arrangements for the brokers and consultants offering these arrangements also should be reviewed for prudence, as well as to ensure that the arrangements don’t violate ERISA’s prohibited transaction rules. Eligibility and other enrollment and related administrative systems and information sharing also should be critically evaluated under ERISA, as well as to manage exposures under the privacy and security rules of the Health Insurance & Portability Act (HIPAA) and other laws.

As a part of this analysis, employers and others contemplating involvement in these arrangements also will want to critically review the vendor contracts and operating systems of the vendors that will participate in the program both for legal compliance, prudence for inclusion, prohibited transactions, and other legal compliance, as well as to ensure that the contract by its terms holds the vendor responsible for delivering on service and other expectations created in the sales pitch. In reviewing the contract, special attention should be given to fiduciary allocations, indemnification and standards of performance, business associate or other privacy and data security assurances required to comply with HIPAA and other confidentiality and data security requirements and the like. As HHS discovered with the rollout of the Healthcare.gov exchange, unctionality also plays a big role in the value proposition justified, the contractual commitments from the vendor also should cover expected operational performance and reliability as well as legal compliance and risk management.

About Author Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

For additional information about Ms. Stamer and her experience, see www.CynthiaStamer.com.

For Added Information and Other Resources

If you found this update of interest, you also may be interested in reviewing some of the other updates and publications authored by Ms. Stamer available including:

For Help Or More Information

About Solutions Law Press

Comments Off on Private Exchanges: Employer Health Program Panacea or Problem? Consider Carefully! | 105(h), ACA, Affordable Care Act, Cafeteria Plans, CHIP, Claims Administration, Employee Benefits, Employers, Employment Tax, ERISA, Fiduciary Responsibility, FMLA, H.R. 4872, Health Care Reform, Health Plans, HIPAA, Human Resources, Insurance, Internal Controls, Leave, Patient Empowerment, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Preemption, Reporting & Disclosure, USERRA, VEVRRA, Wellness Programs | Tagged: Administrative Simplification, CMS, Health Benefits, Health Insurance, Health insurers, Health Plans, HHS, HPID, HPOES, out-of-pocket maximum, TPAs | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Tell Senate To Pass Fix To ACA’s Full-Time Employee Definition

November 17, 2014

Employers and others concerned about the financial, reporting and other burdens of complying with the Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act (ACA) “pay-or-play” employer shared responsibility rules imposed under Internal Revenue Code (Code) § 4980H and other rules should review and consider letting their elected representatives and other Senate leaders know if they support the ACA corrections H.R. 4, the “Jobs For America Act” (Act). With key leadership appointments completed for both Houses for when the new Congress takes office January 3, 2014, now is a key time for businesses and others to let Senate and other leaders know what businesses see as the key legislative priorities that Congress should enact over the next six months.

Pending in the Senate since the House passed it on September 13, 2014, the Act as passed by the House would modify ACA. Among other things, the Act would:

Raise from 30 to 40 hours per week the number of hours per week that an employee would need to work to count as a “full-time employee” for purposes of Code § 4980H’s employer “pay-or play” shared responsibility rule requirement that employers to provide health care coverage for their full-time employees;
Amend the Code to let an employer, for purposes of determining whether such employer is an applicable large employer and thus required to provide health care coverage to its employees under ACA to exclude employees who have coverage under a health care program administered by the Department of Defense (DOD), including TRICARE, or the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA); and
Repeal of Medical Device Excise Tax on medical devices.

The Act also provides for enactment of numerous reforms beyond these specifically relevant to health care that Congressional supporters say will reduce burdens on business that cost jobs by undermining the competitiveness of U.S. businesses and workers.

While President Obama has vowed to veto any attempt by Republicans that he perceives would roll back the reforms enacted as part of ACA, many members of Congress have expressed support for tightening the definition of full-time employee for purposes of the employer pay-or-play mandates and certain other reforms. Following the designation of the members of the House and Senate that will occupy key leadership positions completed last week, committee assignments and other key leadership assignments are clarifying and members of both houses of Congress are now discussing the key legislative priorities and their work schedule for the balance of 2014 and when the new Congress is sworn in on January 3, 2014. Consequently, business and other leaders supporting the Act’s reforms or other ACA reforms should identify the key Congressional players on the committees influencing the Act and other legislation and begin communicating with the key leaders and their elected Congressional leaders about this support.

Interested persons can review the Act and monitor its status here.

For Advice, Training & Other Resources

Comments Off on Tell Senate To Pass Fix To ACA’s Full-Time Employee Definition | Employee Benefits, Employers, ERISA, Health Plans, Human Resources, Insurance, MEWA, Reporting & Disclosure, Uncategorized | Tagged: 105(h), ACA, Affordable Care Act, Code Section 4980H, Health Care Reform, Health Plans, Insurer, issuer, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Pay or Play, Reinsurance Fee, Risk ADjustment, Skinny Plans, tpa | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

HHS Delays Deadline To Submit ACA Reinsurance Program Enrollment Counts To 12/5

November 17, 2014

The Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) has yielded to requests for an extension of the deadline for contributing entities to submit their 2014 enrollment counts for transitional reinsurance program contributions under 45 CFR 153.405(b) required as part of the required under HHS’ rules implementing the Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act (ACA) transitional reinsurance program. The extended deadline is now 11:59 p.m. on December 5, 2014. The January 15, 2015 and November 15, 2015 payment deadlines remain the same.

The transitional reinsurance program established as part of ACA imposes a reinsurance fee applies in 2014, 2015, and 2016. Under Final Rules published March 5, 2014, the insurer pays the fee for insured plans but where a group health plan is self-insured, the plan itself pays the fee. Final Rules published March 5, 2014 provide that self-insured plans that are self-administered plans are exempt from the fees in 2015 and 2016. Employers and others sponsoring self-insured plans should consult with qualified counsel about whether they fall into this exception under the applicable rules, as well as to confirm that their program meets these and other applicable requirements.

The reinsurance fee equals the yearly rate times the number of plan participants. The yearly rate is $63 for 2014, $44 for 2015, and to be announced for 2016.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) plans to run the first risk adjustment and reinsurance calculation estimates in mid-December, 2014 using data to be collected from insurers and TPAs on the EDGE system. It is unclear how if at all the extension announced by HHS for reporting will impact the timing of these calculations.

For Advice, Training & Other Resources

Comments Off on HHS Delays Deadline To Submit ACA Reinsurance Program Enrollment Counts To 12/5 | Employee Benefits, Employers, ERISA, Health Plans, Human Resources, Insurance, MEWA, Reporting & Disclosure, Uncategorized | Tagged: 105(h), ACA, Affordable Care Act, Code Section 4980H, Health Care Reform, Health Plans, Insurer, issuer, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Pay or Play, Reinsurance Fee, Risk ADjustment, Skinny Plans, tpa | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Check Out Updated Kaiser Calculator For 2015 Zip Code-Specific Premium and Tax Credit Estimates for Health Marketplace Coverage Coverage

November 13, 2014

The Kaiser Family Foundation has announced that its updated Health Insurance Marketplace Calculator now includes zip code-specific data on 2015 health plans that are being sold through the Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act’s (ACA’s) insurance marketplaces during the open enrollment period that begins this Saturday, November 15.

Kaiser says the new tool allows consumers around the nation to generate estimates of their health insurance premiums and government subsidies for 2015 plans that they purchase on their own through an ACA marketplace. The estimates are based on zip code, household income, family size and ages of family members. The calculator also helps consumers determine whether they could be eligible for Medicaid.

For Representation, Training & Other Resources

If you need assistance monitoring HIPAA and other health and health plan related regulatory policy or enforcement developments, or to review or respond to these or other health care or health IT related risk management, compliance, enforcement or management concerns, the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer may be able to help.

Board Certified in Labor & Employment Law, Past Chair of the ABA RPTE Employee Benefit & Other Compensation Arrangements Group, Co-Chair and Past Chair of the ABA RPTE Welfare Plan Committee, Vice Chair of the ABA TIPS Employee Benefit Plans Committee, Vice President of the North Texas Health Care Compliance Professionals Association, Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Section and the former Board Compliance Chair of the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas, Ms. Stamer has more than 26 years experience advising health plan and employee benefit, insurance, financial services, employer and health industry clients about these and other matters. Ms. Stamer has extensive experience advising and assisting health care providers, health plans, their business associates and other health industry clients to establish and administer medical privacy and other compliance and risk management policies, to health care industry investigation, enforcement and other compliance, public policy, regulatory, staffing, and other operations and risk management concerns. She regularly designs and presents HIPAA and other risk management, compliance and other training for health plans, employers, health care providers, professional associations and others.

Vice President of the North Texas Health Care Compliance Professionals Association, Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Section and the former Board Compliance Chair of the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas, Ms. Stamer has more than 26 years experience advising health industry, insurance, technology and other clients to establish and administer compliance and risk management policies; prevent, conduct and investigate, and respond to peer review and other quality concerns; and to respond to OCR Privacy and Civil Rights, DOL, IRS, SEC, insurance department and other investigation and enforcement and other compliance, public policy, regulatory, staffing, and other operations and risk management 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, Ms. Stamer has worked extensively with health care providers, health plans, health care clearinghouses, their business associates, employers, 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 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, ISSA, HIMMS, the ABA, SHRM, schools, medical societies, government and private health care and health plan organizations, their business associates, trade associations and others.

For the past four years, Ms. Stamer has served as the scribe for the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits agency meeting with OCR. Ms. Stamer also regularly works with OCR, FTC, USSS, FBI and state and local law enforcement on privacy, data security, health care, benefits and insurance and other matters, publishes and speaks extensively on medical and other privacy and data security, health and managed care industry regulatory, staffing and human resources, compensation and benefits, technology, public policy, reimbursement and other operations and risk management concerns. Her publications and insights appear in the Health Care Compliance Association, Atlantic Information Service, Bureau of National Affairs, World At Work, The Wall Street Journal, Business Insurance, the Dallas Morning News, Modern Health Care, Managed Healthcare, Health Leaders, and a many other national and local publications. For instance, Ms. Stamer for the second year will serve as the appointed scribe for the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits Agency meeting with OCR. Her insights on HIPAA risk management and compliance frequently 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, the American Bar Association, the Health Care Compliance Association, a multitude of health industry, 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.

If you need assistance with these or other compliance concerns, wish to inquire about arranging for compliance audit or training, or need legal representation on other matters please contact Ms. Stamer at (469) 767-8872 or via e-mail here.

You can review other recent publications and resources and additional information about the other experience of Ms. Stamer here. Examples of some recent publications that may be of interest include:

Comments Off on Check Out Updated Kaiser Calculator For 2015 Zip Code-Specific Premium and Tax Credit Estimates for Health Marketplace Coverage Coverage | Employers, Health Plans, HIPAA, Human Resources, Insurance | Tagged: Discrimination, Ebola, Employer, Health Plans, HIPAA, Leave, OCR, Pandemic, Privacy, Resolution agreement | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Ebola Scare & New OCR Privacy Guidance Reminder To Prepare For Pandemic & Other Emergencies

November 11, 2014

The recent US Ebola scare provided an important reminder to health care providers, health insurers and health plans, health care clearinghouses, employers and others of the importance of understanding and preparing to deal with health care privacy and other challenges arising from epidemics and other emergencies. In response to the recent Ebola and other contagious disease outbreaks and just as U.S. health care and other business leaders are working to prepare for the biggest contagious disease time of the year, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office for Civil Rights (OCR) is reminding health care providers, health plans, health care clearinghouses (Covered Entities) and their business associates that the privacy rules of the Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act (HIPAA) requiring Covered Entities and their business associates to limit the use, access and disclosure of patient’s protected health information (PHI) continue to apply during emergency situations and help them understand when HIPAA allows them to share PHI in emergency situations in a new notice titled “HIPAA Privacy in Emergency Situations” (Guidance) published November 10, 2014. A business associate of a covered entity (including a business associate that is a subcontractor) also must continue to comply with HIPAA and may only make disclosures permitted by the Privacy Rule on behalf of a Covered Entity or another business associate to the extent authorized by its business associate agreement and consistent with HIPAA’s requirements. With annual flu season approaching and the Ebola and other pandemic issues still circling, it’s time for all organizations to prepare to respond to these and other emergencies including the special privacy and other concerns they often raise.

Sharing Patient Information

The Guidance begins by reminding Covered Entities and their business associates that HIPAA’s Privacy Rule continues to apply in emergency situations and requires Covered Entities protect and prohibits their use, access or disclosure of patient’s protected health information except as allowed by HIPAA unless the patient authorizes the Covered Entity to disclose the PHI in accordance with HIPAA’s requirements for authorization set forth in 45 CFR 164.508.

The Guidance then goes on to discuss the following circumstances that the HIPAA Privacy Rule might allow Covered Entities to share PHI without getting patient authorization, subject to the reminder that in many cases, HIPAA will require that the Covered Entity limit the disclosure to the minimum necessary disclosure necessary for the allowable purpose and require other conditions to be fulfilled:

Treatment.

Under the Privacy Rule, covered entities may disclose, without a patient’s authorization, protected health information about the patient as necessary to treat the patient or to treat a different patient. Treatment includes the coordination or management of health care and related services by one or more health care providers and others, consultation between providers, and the referral of patients for treatment. See 45 CFR §§ 164.502(a)(1)(ii), 164.506(c), and the definition of “treatment” at 164.501.

Public Health Activities.

The HIPAA Privacy Rule recognizes the legitimate need for public health authorities and others responsible for ensuring public health and safety to have access to protected health information that is necessary to carry out their public health mission. Therefore, the Privacy Rule permits covered entities to disclose needed protected health information without individual authorization:

To Or At The Direction Of A Public Health Authority.

The HIPAA Privacy Rule allows Covered Entities to share protected health information with Public Health Authorities authorized by law to collect or receive such information for the purpose of preventing or controlling disease, injury or disability like the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) or a state or local health department. This would include, for example, the reporting of disease or injury; reporting vital events, such as births or deaths; and conducting public health surveillance, investigations, or interventions. A “public health authority” is an agency or authority of the United States government, a State, a territory, a political subdivision of a State or territory, or Indian tribe that is responsible for public health matters as part of its official mandate, as well as a person or entity acting under a grant of authority from, or under a contract with, a public health agency. See 45 CFR §§ 164.501 and 164.512(b)(1)(i). For example, a covered entity may disclose to the CDC protected health information on an ongoing basis as needed to report all prior and prospective cases of patients exposed to or suspected or confirmed to have Ebola virus disease.

The HIPAA Privacy Rule also allows Covered Entities to share information at the direction of a public health authority:

To a foreign government agency that is acting in collaboration with the public health authority. See 45 CFR 164.512(b)(1)(i); and
To persons at risk of contracting or spreading a disease or condition if other law, such as state law, authorizes the covered entity to notify such persons as necessary to prevent or control the spread of the disease or otherwise to carry out public health interventions or investigations. See 45 CFR 164.512(b)(1)(iv)

Disclosures to Family, Friends, and Others Involved in an Individual’s Care and for Notification.

The HIPAA Privacy Rule allows a Covered Entity to share protected health information:

With a patient’s family members, relatives, friends, or other persons identified by the patient as involved in the patient’s care;
About a patient as necessary to identify, locate, and notify family members, guardians, or anyone else responsible for the patient’s care, of the patient’s location, general condition, or death including where necessary to notify family members and others, the police, the press, or the public at large. See 45 CFR 164.510(b).

The Guidance reminds Covered Entities, however, that the Privacy Rule requires the Covered Entity to get verbal permission from individuals or otherwise be able to reasonably infer that the patient does not object, when possible. If the individual is incapacitated or not available, the Guidance states Covered Entities may share information for these purposes if, in their professional judgment, doing so is in the patient’s best interest.

The Guidance also confirms that Covered Entities may share protected health information with disaster relief organizations authorized by law or by their charters to assist in disaster relief efforts like the American Red Cross for the purpose of coordinating the notification of family members or other persons involved in the patient’s care, of the patient’s location, general condition, or death. It is unnecessary to obtain a patient’s permission to share the information in this situation if doing so would interfere with the organization’s ability to respond to the emergency.

Imminent Danger

The Guidance also states that Covered Entities that are health care providers may share patient information with anyone as necessary to prevent or lessen a serious and imminent threat to the health and safety of a person or the public – consistent with applicable law (such as state statutes, regulations, or case law) and the provider’s standards of ethical conduct. See 45 CFR 164.512(j).

Disclosures to the Media & Others Not Involved in the Care of the Patient/Notification

The Guidance also reminds Covered Entities of the importance of closely adhering to HIPAA’s rules when responding to information requests from the medial or others not involved in the care of a patient. The Guidance states that when the media or other other party not involved un the patient’s care asks the Covered Entity for information about a particular patient by name, a hospital or other health care facility may release limited facility directory information to acknowledge an individual is a patient at the facility and provide basic information about the patient’s condition in general terms (e.g., critical or stable, deceased, or treated and released) if the patient has not objected to or restricted the release of such information or, if the patient is incapacitated, if the disclosure is believed to be in the best interest of the patient and is consistent with any prior expressed preferences of the patient. See 45 CFR 164.510(a). In general, except in the limited circumstances authorized in the HIPAA Privacy Rule, affirmative reporting to the media or the public at large about an identifiable patient, or the disclosure to the public or media of specific information about treatment of an identifiable patient, such as specific tests, test results or details of a patient’s illness, may not be done without the patient’s written authorization (or the written authorization of a personal representative who is a person legally authorized to make health care decisions for the patient).

Minimum Necessary Restriction Requirement

The Guidance cautions Covered Entities and their business associates that for most disclosures, a Covered Entity generally must make reasonable efforts to limit the information disclosed to that which is the “minimum necessary” to accomplish the purpose. However, this minimum necessary requirement does not apply to disclosures to health care providers for treatment purposes.

Covered Entities may rely on representations from a public health authority or other public official that the requested information is the minimum necessary when making disclosures in response to request from those parties. For example, a covered entity may rely on representations from the CDC that the protected health information requested by the CDC about all patients exposed to or suspected or confirmed to have Ebola virus disease is the minimum necessary for the public health purpose.

Required Internal Restrictions On Use, Access & Disclosure

Internally, covered entities should continue to apply their role-based access policies to limit access to protected health information to only those workforce members who need it to carry out their duties. See 45 CFR §§ 164.502(b), 164.514(d).

Safeguarding Patient Information

Beyond limiting the use, access and disclosure of PHI, the Guidance also reminds Covered Entities and their business associates that even in emergency situations, HIPAA continues to require them to implement reasonable safeguards to protect patient information against intentional or unintentional impermissible uses and disclosures as well as to apply the administrative, physical, and technical safeguards of the HIPAA Security Rule to electronic PHI.

Limited Waiver

Although HHS has yet to take steps to trigger a limited waiver, the Guidance also reminds Covered Entities and their business associates that HHS has the power to do so, the effect of a limited waiver and the circumstances under which HHS could elect to apply a limited waiver to waive sanctions against a hospital for certain specific types of HIPAA violations while the waiver is in effect.

As the Guidance notes, the HIPAA Privacy Rule is not suspended during a public health or other emergency. Rather, the limited waiver rules only operates to permit the Secretary of HHS to waive certain provisions of the Privacy Rule under the Project Bioshield Act of 2004 (PL 108-276) and section 1135(b)(7) of the Social Security Act. The limited waiver only applies when the President declares an emergency or disaster and HHS declares a public health emergency. When and if these requirements are met, HHS may waive sanctions and penalties against a Covered Entity that is a hospital for failing to comply with the following HIPAA Privacy Rule provisions:

The requirements to obtain a patient’s agreement to speak with family members or friends involved in the patient’s care. See 45 CFR 164.510(b).
The requirement to honor a request to opt out of the facility directory. See 45 CFR 164.510(a).
The requirement to distribute a notice of privacy practices. See 45 CFR 164.520.
The patient’s right to request privacy restrictions. See 45 CFR 164.522(a).
The patient’s right to request confidential communications. See 45 CFR 164.522(b).

If the Secretary issues such a waiver, Covered Entities and their business associates should keep in mind the waiver only applies to the list violations and only applies:

For so long as the waiver remains in effect;
In the emergency area and for the emergency period identified in the public health emergency declaration
To hospitals that have instituted a disaster protocol; and
For up to 72 hours from the time the hospital implements its disaster protocol.

When the Presidential or Secretarial declaration terminates, a hospital must then comply with all the requirements of the Privacy Rule for any patient still under its care, even if 72 hours has not elapsed since implementation of its disaster protocol.

Not Necessarily Just About HIPAA

HIPAA is not necessarily the only law that Covered Entities, business associates or others need to consider when deciding what to disclose during an emergency or otherwise. The HIPAA Privacy Rule applies to disclosures made by and Covered Entities, business associates employees, volunteers, and other members of a Covered Entity’s or Business Associate’s workforce. The Privacy Rule does not apply to disclosures made by entities or other persons who are not Covered Entities.

Beyond HIPAA, Covered Entities, their business associates or members of their workforce, employers, and other organizations also need to consider whether other federal or state laws, ethical rules, contracts or policies may restrict use or disclosure, safeguard, or take other steps to protect PHI or other information. For instance, other federal laws, state law, professional ethical rules, contracts, facility policies or procedures, or other restrictions often apply to health care provides, insurers, brokers, employers or others. Employers, health care organizations, insurers and others also need to be concerned about potential discrimination, common law and statutory privacy, retaliation, defamation and other exposures.

Prepare For Compliance Now

The recent experiences of various health care organizations intimately involved in caring for the Ebola patients highlights the importance of anticipating, preparing and conducting training, and having your workforce practice to prepare to deal with the special challenges of dealing with HIPAA and other legal responsibilities in advance of emergency events. When preparing for these events, Covered Entities and business associates need to take into account the need to comply operationally as well as to document and retain records of compliance. They should both should anticipate and prepare to respond to both typical inquiries as well as those from the media, public and others. They also should consider how various types of emergencies could create new privacy or security risks. For instance, in certain emergency situations, recordkeeping or other systems could be disrupted, impacting the ability retain and subsequently produce required documentation. Furthermore, Covered Entities also should prepare to manage the patient and public relations aspects of these events including adverse impressions that often arise when the media or others are disappointed at being denied information because of compliance obligations, from breaches or perceived breaches, or other similar events.

For Representation, Training & Other Resources

Board Certified in Labor & Employment Law, Past Chair of the ABA RPTE Employee Benefit & Other Compensation Arrangements Group, Co-Chair and Past Chair of the ABA RPTE Welfare Plan Committee, Vice Chair of the ABA TIPS Employee Benefit Plans Committee, Vice President of the North Texas Health Care Compliance Professionals Association, Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Section and the former Board Compliance Chair of the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas, Ms. Stamer has more than 26 years experience advising health plan and employee benefit, insurance, financial services, employer and health industry clients about these and other matters. Ms. Stamer has extensive experience advising and assisting health care providers, health plans, their business associates and other health industry clients to establish and administer medical privacy and other compliance and risk management policies, to health care industry investigation, enforcement and other compliance, public policy, regulatory, staffing, and other operations and risk management concerns. She regularly designs and presents HIPAA and other risk management, compliance and other training for health plans, employers, health care providers, professional associations and others.

Comments Off on Ebola Scare & New OCR Privacy Guidance Reminder To Prepare For Pandemic & Other Emergencies | Employers, Health Plans, HIPAA, Human Resources, Insurance | Tagged: Discrimination, Ebola, Employer, Health Plans, HIPAA, Leave, OCR, Pandemic, Privacy, Resolution agreement | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Stamer Kicks Off Dallas HR 2015 Monthly Lunch Series With 2015 Federal Legislative, Regulatory & Enforcement Update

November 10, 2014

Human resources and other management leaders are watching Washington to see if the change in Congressional control resulting from the November 4, 2014 mid-term election ushers in a more management friendly federal legal environment. Since President Obama took office, the Democrats aggressive pursuit of health care, minimum wage and other federal pro-labor legislation, regulations and enforcement has increased management responsibilities, costs and liabilities.

Nationally recognized management attorney, public policy advisor and advocate, author and lecturer Cynthia Marcotte Stamer will help human resources and other management leaders prepare for 2015 when she speaks on “2015 Federal Legislative, Regulatory & Enforcement Update: What HR & Benefit Leaders Should Expect & Do Now” at the 2015 Dallas HR monthly luncheon series kickoff meeting on January 13, 2014.

About The Program

While November 4, 2014 Republican election victories gave Republicans a narrow majority in both the House and Senate when the new Congress takes office January 3, 2015, the new Republican Majority may face significant challenges delivering on their promises to move quickly to enact more business-friendly health care, guest worker, tax and other key reforms Republicans say will boost the employment and the economy.

While President Obama and Democrat Congressional leaders say they plan to work with the new majority, President Obama already is threatening to use vetoes, regulations and executive orders to block Republicans from obstructing or rolling back his pro-labor policy and enforcement agenda. When the new Congress takes office, the narrowness of the Republican Majority in the Senate means Republicans can’t block a Democratic filibuster or override a Presidential veto without recruiting some Democratic support.

As the Democrats and Republicans head into battle again, Board Certified Labor & Employment attorney and public policy advocate Cynthia Marcotte Stamer will help human resources and other management leaders get oriented for the year ahead by sharing her insights and predictions on the legislative, regulatory and enforcement agendas that HR, benefit and other business leaders need to plan for and watch in 2015. Among other things, Ms. Stamer will:

Discuss how management can benefit from monitoring and working to influence potential legislative, regulatory and enforcement developments when planning and administering HR and related workforce policies;
Discuss the key workforce and other legislative, regulatory and enforcement priorities and proposals Democrats and Republicans plan to pursue during 2015;
Share her insights and predictions about how the narrow Republican majority, Mr. Obama’s lame duck presidency and other factors could impact each Party’s ability to pursue its agenda
Share tips management leaders can use to help monitor developments and to help shape legislation, regulation and enforcement through Dallas HR, SHRM and other organizations as well as individually;
Learn tips for anticipating and maintaining flexibility to respond to legislative, regulatory and enforcement developments; and
More

To register or get more details about the program, DallasHR, or both, see http://www.dallashr.org.

About Ms. Stamer

Board certified labor and employment attorney, public policy leader, author, speaker Cynthia Marcotte Stamer is nationally and internationally recognized and valued for her more than 25 years of work advising and representing employers, insurers, employee benefit plans, their fiduciaries and advisors, business and community leaders and governments about workforce, employee benefits, social security and pension, health and insurance, immigration and other performance and risk management, public policy and related regulatory and public policy, management and other operational concerns.

Throughout her career, Ms. Stamer continuously both has helped businesses and their management to monitor and respond to federal and state legislative, regulatory and enforcement concerns and to anticipate and shape federal, state and other laws, regulations, and enforcement in the United States and internationally.

Well known for her leadership on workforce, health and pension policy through her extensive work with clients as well as through her high profile involvements as the Founder and Executive Director of the Coalition for Responsible Healthcare Policy and its PROJECT COPE: the Coalition on Patient Empowerment, a founding Board member of the Alliance for Health Care Excellence, a Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, the American Bar Association (ABA), and the State Bar of Texas leadership and other involvements with the ABA including her annual service leading the annual agency meeting of Joint Committee on Employee Benefits (JCEB) representatives with the HHS Office of Civil Rights and participation in other JCEB agency meetings, past involvements with legislative affairs for the Texas Association of Business and Dallas HR and others, and many speeches, publications, and other educational outreach efforts, Ms. Stamer has worked closely with Congress and federal and state regulators on the Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act and other health care, pension, immigration, tax and other workforce-related legislative and regulatory reforms for more than 30 years. One of the primary drafters of the Bolivian Social Security reform law and a highly involved leader on U.S. workforce, benefits, immigration and health care policy reform, Ms. Stamer’s experience also includes working with U.S. and foreign government, trade association, private business and other organizations to help reform other countries’ and U.S. workforce, social security and severance, health care, immigration, privacy and data security, tax, ethics and other laws and regulations. Ms. Stamer also contributes her policy, regulatory and other leadership to many professional and civic organizations including as Vice President of the North Texas Healthcare Compliance Professionals Association; Immediate Past Chair of the American Bar Association RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Committee and its current Welfare Benefit Plans Committee Co-Chair, a Substantive Groups & Committee Member; a member of the leadership council of the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits; Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group and a current member of its Healthcare Coordinating Council; the current Vice Chair of the ABA TIPS Employee Benefit Committee, and the past Coordinator of the Gulf Coast TEGE Council TE Division.

The publisher and editor of Solutions Law Press, Inc. who serves on the Editorial Advisory Boards of Employee Benefit News, HR.com, InsuranceThoughtLeadership.com and many other publications, Ms. Stamer also is a prolific and highly respected author and speaker, National Public Radio, CBS, NBC, and other national and regional news organization, Atlantic Information Services, The Bureau of National Affairs, HealthLeaders, Telemundo, Modern Healthcare, Business Insurance, Employee Benefit News, the Employee Benefits News, World At Work, Benefits Magazine, InsuranceThoughtLeadership.com, the Wall Street Journal, the Dallas Morning News, the Dallas Business Journal, CEO Magazine, CFO Magazine, CIO Magazine, the Houston Business Journal, and many other prominent news and publications. She also serves as a planning faculty member and regularly conducts training and speaks on these and other management, compliance and public policy concerns for these and a diverse range of other organizations. For additional information about Ms. Stamer, see www.cynthiastamer.com.

For Added Information and Other Resources

If you found this update of interest, you also may be interested in reviewing some of the other updates and publications authored by Ms. Stamer available including:

For Help Or More Information

Board Certified in Labor & Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, management attorney and consultant Ms. Stamer is nationally and internationally recognized for more than 24 years of work helping employers and other management; employee benefit plans and their sponsors, administrators, fiduciaries; employee leasing, recruiting, staffing and other professional employment organizations; and others design, administer and defend innovative workforce, compensation, employee benefit and management policies and practices. Her experience includes extensive work helping employers implement, audit, manage and defend union-management relations, wage and hour, discrimination and other labor and employment laws, privacy and data security, internal investigation and discipline and other workforce and internal controls policies, procedures and actions. The Chair of the American Bar Association (ABA) RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Committee, a Council Representative on the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits, Government Affairs Committee Legislative Chair for the Dallas Human Resources Management Association, and past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, Ms. Stamer works, publishes and speaks extensively on management, reengineering, investigations, human resources and workforce, employee benefits, compensation, internal controls and risk management, federal sentencing guideline and other enforcement resolution actions, and related matters. She also is recognized for her publications, industry leadership, workshops and presentations on these and other human resources concerns and regularly speaks and conducts training on these matters.Her insights on these and other matters appear in the Bureau of National Affairs, Spencer Publications, the Wall Street Journal, the Dallas Business Journal, the Houston Business Journal, and many other national and local publications. For additional information about Ms. Stamer and her experience or to access other publications by Ms. Stamer see hereor contact Ms. Stamer directly.

About Solutions Law Press

Comments Off on Stamer Kicks Off Dallas HR 2015 Monthly Lunch Series With 2015 Federal Legislative, Regulatory & Enforcement Update | 105(h), ACA, ADA, Affirmative Action, Affordable Care Act, Bankruptcy, Cafeteria Plans, Child Labor, CHIP, Civil Rights, Claims Administration, COBRA, compensation transparency, Corporate Compliance, Defined Benefit Plans, Defined Contribution Plans, Disability, Disability, Disability Plans, Discrimination, Disease Management, Drug & Alcohol, E-Verify, EEOC, EEOC, Employee Benefits, Employers, Employment Agreement, Employment Tax, ERISA, ESOP, Excise Tax, Executive Compensation, family leave, Fiduciary Responsibility, FMLA, GINA, Government Contractors, Health Care Reform, Health Plans, HIPAA, Human Resources, I-9, Immigration, Income Tax, Insurance, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, Labor Management Relations, Leave, medical leave, Mental Health, Mental Health Parity, MEWA, Military Leave, Non-Compete, Non-Competition Agreement, Nonresident aliens, OFCCP, OSHA, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Payroll Tax, Preemption, Premium Subsidies, Prescription Drugs, Privacy, Professional Liability, Protected Health Information, Public Policy, Rehabilitation Act, Reporting & Disclosure, Restructuring, Retaliation, Retirement Plans, Risk Management, Safety, Sexual Harassment, Tax, Tax Credit, Telecommuting, Unemployment Benefits, Unemployment Insurance, Union, USERRA, VEVRRA, Wage & Hour, Wellness, Wellness Programs | Tagged: Administrative Simplification, CMS, Health Benefits, Health Insurance, Health insurers, Health Plans, HHS, HPID, HPOES, out-of-pocket maximum, TPAs | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

New DOL, IRS & HHS FAQ Confirms Employers Can’t Pay, Use HRAs to Reimburse Employees For Individual Policy Premiums

November 6, 2014

Employer and other sponsors of healthcare reimbursement arrangements (HRAs), health flexible spending arrangements (Health FSAs) or other arrangements that reimburse employees for health premiums, their fiduciaries, insurers and administrators should re-evaluate the defensibility of these arrangements in light of supplemental guidance about the treatment of these arrangements under the annual limits, preventive care without cost-sharing and other Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act (ACA) group market reform rules, in the new FAQS About Affordable Care Act Implementation (XXII) (FAQ XXII) published November 6, 2014. It

FAQ XXII confirms that employers can’t reimburse employees on a pre-tax or after-tax basis for purchasing individual coverage in lieu of group health plan coverage as promoted by various vendors and others.

Employers Can’t Reimburse Employees For Individual Premiums

Concerning employer reimbursement of employees for premiums to purchase individual coverage, FAQ XXII makes clear that the Departments object to this practice. FAQ XXII makes clear that the Departments consider ACA’s market reforms to outlaw any arrangement pursuant to which an employer provides cash reimbursement to employees for the purchase of an individual market policy, regardless of whether the reimbursement is paid on a pre- or after-tax basis. According to the FAQ XXII, the Departments view any such employer’s payment arrangement part of a plan, fund, or other arrangement established or maintained for the purpose of providing medical care to employees regardless if the employer treats the money as pre-tax or post-tax to the employee that is group health plan coverage subject to the market reform provisions of ACA.

This position is consistent with a series of previous guidance that the Departments have published previously in which the Departments have stated, among other things, that:

Health reimbursement arrangements (HRAs), health flexible spending arrangements (health FSAs) and certain other employer and union health care arrangements where the employer promises to reimburse health care costs: are considered group health plans subject to the Public Health Service Act (PHS Act) § 2711 annual limits, PHS Act § 2713 preventive care with no cost-sharing and other group market reform provisions of PHS Act §§ 2711-2719 and incorporated by reference into the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and the Internal Revenue Code (Code);
HRA or other premium reimbursement arrangements do not violate these market reform provisions when integrated with a group health plan that complies with such provisions. However, an employer health care arrangement cannot be integrated with individual market policies to satisfy the market reforms. Consequently, such an arrangement may be subject to penalties, including excise taxes under section 4980D of the Internal Revenue Code (Code).

See, DOL Technical Release 2013-03; IRS Notice 2013-54; Insurance Standards Bulletin, Application of Affordable Care Act Provisions to Certain Healthcare Arrangement; IRS May 13, 2014 FAQs available here.

Code § 105 Reimbursement Plan Can’t Pay For Individual Policies

FAQ XXII also confirms the Departments’ view that arrangements where a vendor markets a product to employers claiming that employers can cancel their group policies, set up a Code section 105 reimbursement plan that works with health insurance brokers or agents to help employees select individual insurance policies, and allow eligible employees to access the premium tax credits or other HRA dollars to pay for Marketplace coverage are illegal.

According to FAQ XXII, these arrangements are problematic for several reasons including the following:

The arrangements themselves group health plans. Therefore, employees participating in such arrangements are ineligible for premium tax credits (or cost-sharing reductions) for Marketplace coverage. The mere fact that the employer does not get involved with an employee’s individual selection or purchase of an individual health insurance policy does not prevent the arrangement from being a group health plan. DOL guidance indicates that the existence of a group health plan is based on many facts and circumstances, including the employer’s involvement in the overall scheme and the absence of an unfettered right by the employee to receive the employer contributions in cash.12

Under DOL Technical Release 2013-03, IRS Notice 2013-54, and the two IRS FAQs addressing employer health care arrangements, such arrangements are subject to the market reform provisions of the Affordable Care Act, including the PHS Act § 2711 prohibition on annual limits and the PHS Act § 2713 requirement to provide certain preventive services without cost sharing. Such employer health care arrangements cannot be integrated with individual market policies to satisfy the market reforms and, therefore, will violate PHS Act §§ 2711 and 2713, among other provisions, which can trigger penalties such as excise taxes under Code § 4980D.

ACA & HIPAA Prohibit Employers From Offering Only High Risk Employees Cash In Lieu of Health Coverage

FAQ XXII also confirms the Department’s position that an employer violates the ACA provisions of PHS Act § 2705, ERISA § 715 and Code § 9815, as well as the Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act (HIPAA) nondiscrimination provisions of ERISA section 702 and Code § 9802 prohibiting discrimination based on one or more health factors if it offers selectively only to employees with high claims risk a choice between enrollment in its standard group health plan or cash. FAQ XXII clarifies that while the Departments’ regulations allow more favorable rules for eligibility or reduced premiums or contributions based n an adverse health factor (sometimes referred to as benign discrimination), in the Departments’ view, this position does not extend to cash-or-coverage arrangements offered only to employees with a high claims risk. Accordingly, FAQ XXII states such arrangements will violate the nondiscrimination provisions, regardless of whether (1) the cash payment is treated by the employer as pre-tax or post-tax to the employee, (2) the employer is involved in the selection or purchase of any individual market product, or (3) the employee obtains any individual health insurance.

Beyond these concerns stated in FAQ XXII, employers and others contemplating offering such a choice also should discuss potential exposures under the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) and, depending on the nature of the condition, Medicare law.

In light of this new guidance and previous guidance published by the Departments, employers and others sponsoring or contemplating engaging in these arrangements are encouraged to contact competent counsel for assistance in understanding the potential concerns raised by involvement in these practices and their resolution.

About Author Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

For additional information about Ms. Stamer and her experience, see www.CynthiaStamer.com.

For Added Information and Other Resources

If you found this update of interest, you also may be interested in reviewing some of the other updates and publications authored by Ms. Stamer available including:

For Help Or More Information

Board Certified in Labor & Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, management attorney and consultant Ms. Stamer is nationally and internationally recognized for more than 24 years of work helping employers and other management; employee benefit plans and their sponsors, administrators, fiduciaries; employee leasing, recruiting, staffing and other professional employment organizations; and others design, administer and defend innovative workforce, compensation, employee benefit and management policies and practices. Her experience includes extensive work helping employers implement, audit, manage and defend union-management relations, wage and hour, discrimination and other labor and employment laws, privacy and data security, internal investigation and discipline and other workforce and internal controls policies, procedures and actions. The Chair of the American Bar Association (ABA) RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Committee, a Council Representative on the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits, Government Affairs Committee Legislative Chair for the Dallas Human Resources Management Association, and past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, Ms. Stamer works, publishes and speaks extensively on management, reengineering, investigations, human resources and workforce, employee benefits, compensation, internal controls and risk management, federal sentencing guideline and other enforcement resolution actions, and related matters. She also is recognized for her publications, industry leadership, workshops and presentations on these and other human resources concerns and regularly speaks and conducts training on these matters.Her insights on these and other matters appear in the Bureau of National Affairs, Spencer Publications, the Wall Street Journal, the Dallas Business Journal, the Houston Business Journal, and many other national and local publications. For additional information about Ms. Stamer and her experience or to access other publications by Ms. Stamer see hereor contact Ms. Stamer directly.

About Solutions Law Press

Comments Off on New DOL, IRS & HHS FAQ Confirms Employers Can’t Pay, Use HRAs to Reimburse Employees For Individual Policy Premiums | 105(h), ACA, Cafeteria Plans, Employee Benefits, Employers, Employment Tax, ERISA, Fiduciary Responsibility, Health Plans, HIPAA, Human Resources, Premium Subsidies, Reporting & Disclosure | Tagged: Administrative Simplification, CMS, Health Benefits, Health Insurance, Health insurers, Health Plans, HHS, HPID, HPOES, out-of-pocket maximum, TPAs | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Review Health Plans With Reference-Based Reimbursement Designs Under New Agency FAQ Guidance

November 6, 2014

Employer and other sponsors, insurers and administrators of non-grandfathered group health plans that pay a fixed amount for a particular procedure (for example, a knee replacement) where network providers have agreed to accept that referenced amount as payment in full (“reference-based pricing”) should verify their use of these practices complies in design and administration with the additional guidance on the Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act (ACA) out-of-pocket maximum rules in the new FAQs About Affordable Care Act Implementation (Part XXI) (FAQ XXI) published October 10, 2014 and other FAQs on the allowable use of reference-based pricing jointly published by the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services (HHS), and the Treasury (collectively, the Departments).

As a part of the annual cost-sharing limits enacted as part of ACA, Public Health Service (PHS) Act section 2707(b) requires non-grandfathered group health plans to have individual’s maximum out-of-pocket (MOOP) limit for essential health benefits of not more than $6,600 for self-only coverage and $13,200 for coverage other than self-only coverage.

In addressing the use of reference-based pricing and other similar arrangements in earlier FAQs, the Departments expressed concern that some plans might misuse these provisions as a subterfuge for circumventing ACA’s cost-sharing limitations. At the same time, the Departments also acknowledge that properly used, reference-based pricing arrangements could help promote access to quality services on a more affordable basis for plan participants. Accordingly, the Departments in earlier FAQ guidance stated that pending further guidance the Departments would not treat a large group market plan issuer or self-insured group health plan that uses a reference-based pricing design as failing to comply with the MOOP requirements of PHS Act § 2707(b) solely because the plan or issuer treats providers that accept the reference amount as the only in-network providers, as long as the plan or issuer uses a reasonable method to ensure that it offers adequate access to quality providers but solicited comments on the standards that should apply to ensure that plans using reference-based pricing provide meaningful access to medically appropriate, quality care to prevent these arrangements’ use as a subterfuge to avoid ACA’s MOOP limits. See e.g. Affordable Care Act Implementation FAQs, Part XII, Q2; See Affordable Care Act Implementation FAQs, Part XVIII, Q2-Q5; Affordable Care Act Implementation FAQs, Part XIX, Q2-Q4; Affordable Care Act Implementation FAQs, Part XIX, Q4;

FAQ XXI published October 10, 2014 follows up on and supplements this prior guidance on reference-based pricing designs as they relate to ACA’s MOOP limitations. With regard to reference-based pricing, FAQ XXI indicates:

FAQ provides more insights of the circumstances that the Departments view as required to ensure that reference-based pricing arrangements comply with ACA’s MOOP limit rules. According to FAQ XXI, pending future guidance, for purposes of enforcing PHS Act section 2707(b)’s MOOP rules, the Departments will consider if the plan makes appropriate disclosures, the type of service subject to reference-based pricing, the plan’s arrangements for ensuring reasonable access, quality standards, and providing appropriate exceptions, and all other facts and circumstances when evaluating for purposes of enforcing ACA’s MOOP and other cost-sharing limitations whether a plan’s reference-based pricing design (or similar network design) that treats providers that accept the reference-based price as the only in-network providers and excludes or limits cost-sharing for services rendered by other providers is using a reasonable method to ensure adequate access to quality providers at the reference price.

Additionally, FAQ XXI also provides some insights about how the Departments intend to apply this facts and circumstances test. For instance, FAQ XXI states that the Departments expect plans using reference-based pricing designs to have:

Standards to ensure that the network is designed to enable the plan to offer benefits for services from high-quality providers at reduced costs, and does not function as a subterfuge for otherwise prohibited limitations on coverage;

Procedures to ensure that an adequate number of providers that accept the reference price are available to participants and beneficiaries;
Appropriate carve outs to meet ACA’s requirements about emergency services and other federal mandates;
Procedures to ensure that an adequate number of providers accepting the reference price meet reasonable quality standards;
An easily accessible exceptions process, allowing services rendered by providers that do not accept the reference price to be treated as if the services were provided by a provider that accepts the reference price if access to a provider that accepts the reference price is unavailable within a reasonable wait time or travel distance, the quality of services with respect to a particular individual could be compromised with the reference price provider or the like; and
Provides appropriate disclosures.

Concerning the Departments expectations about the disclosures that plans using reference-based pricing should make, FAQ XXI indicates that plans should provide the following disclosures regarding reference-based pricing (or similar network design) to plan participants free of charge.

Automatically in the plan’s summary plan description or another similar document should provide information regarding the pricing structure, including a list of services to which the pricing structure applies and the exceptions process.
Upon request provide a list of providers that will accept the reference price for each service; a list of providers that will accept a negotiated price above the reference price for each service; and information on the process and underlying data used to ensure that an adequate number of providers accepting the reference price meet reasonable quality standards.

FAQ XXI also cautions that its provisions only address the Department’s treatment of reference-based pricing as it relates to ACA’s cost-sharing requirements, not other requirements of ACA or other provisions of law, and that the Departments plan to monitor the use of reference-based pricing and may provide additional guidance in the future, including guidance relating to requirements other than ACA’s cost sharing requirements.

Given the Guidance in FAQ XXI and the Departments previous FAQs, employers and other sponsors, insurers, and administrators of non-grandfathered health plans using reference-based pricing or other similar designs will want to both ensure that their summary plan descriptions and other communications included the expected disclosures as well as to confirm that their arrangements squarely meet the existing guidance as well as monitor developments for new guidance. Among other things, this review should include a documentation of their prudent review and analysis of the adequacy of the plan and plan disclosures, network access, exception procedures and other required terms and operating procedures.

About Author Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

For additional information about Ms. Stamer and her experience, see www.CynthiaStamer.com.

For Added Information and Other Resources

If you found this update of interest, you also may be interested in reviewing some of the other updates and publications authored by Ms. Stamer available including:

For Help Or More Information

Board Certified in Labor & Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, management attorney and consultant Ms. Stamer is nationally and internationally recognized for more than 24 years of work helping employers and other management; employee benefit plans and their sponsors, administrators, fiduciaries; employee leasing, recruiting, staffing and other professional employment organizations; and others design, administer and defend innovative workforce, compensation, employee benefit and management policies and practices. Her experience includes extensive work helping employers implement, audit, manage and defend union-management relations, wage and hour, discrimination and other labor and employment laws, privacy and data security, internal investigation and discipline and other workforce and internal controls policies, procedures and actions. The Chair of the American Bar Association (ABA) RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Committee, a Council Representative on the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits, Government Affairs Committee Legislative Chair for the Dallas Human Resources Management Association, and past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, Ms. Stamer works, publishes and speaks extensively on management, reengineering, investigations, human resources and workforce, employee benefits, compensation, internal controls and risk management, federal sentencing guideline and other enforcement resolution actions, and related matters. She also is recognized for her publications, industry leadership, workshops and presentations on these and other human resources concerns and regularly speaks and conducts training on these matters.Her insights on these and other matters appear in the Bureau of National Affairs, Spencer Publications, the Wall Street Journal, the Dallas Business Journal, the Houston Business Journal, and many other national and local publications. For additional information about Ms. Stamer and her experience or to access other publications by Ms. Stamer see hereor contact Ms. Stamer directly.

About Solutions Law Press

Comments Off on Review Health Plans With Reference-Based Reimbursement Designs Under New Agency FAQ Guidance | 105(h), ACA, Cafeteria Plans, Employee Benefits, Employers, Employment Tax, ERISA, Fiduciary Responsibility, Health Plans, HIPAA, Human Resources, Premium Subsidies, Reporting & Disclosure | Tagged: Administrative Simplification, CMS, Health Benefits, Health Insurance, Health insurers, Health Plans, HHS, HPID, HPOES, out-of-pocket maximum, TPAs | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

IRS Raises Health FSA Contribution Limit For 2015

November 5, 2014

On Friday, October 31, 2014, the Internal Revenue Service announced that the new 2015 health plan flexible spending account limit will rise from $2,500 to $2,550. This change takes effect January 1st. Employers, plan administrators and others involved in the administration of these arrangements may want to update plan documents and associated communications quickly to allow employees to take advantage of this increased limit.

About Author Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

For additional information about Ms. Stamer and her experience, see www.CynthiaStamer.com.

For Added Information and Other Resources

If you found this update of interest, you also may be interested in reviewing some of the other updates and publications authored by Ms. Stamer available including:

For Help Or More Information

Board Certified in Labor & Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, management attorney and consultant Ms. Stamer is nationally and internationally recognized for more than 24 years of work helping employers and other management; employee benefit plans and their sponsors, administrators, fiduciaries; employee leasing, recruiting, staffing and other professional employment organizations; and others design, administer and defend innovative workforce, compensation, employee benefit and management policies and practices. Her experience includes extensive work helping employers implement, audit, manage and defend union-management relations, wage and hour, discrimination and other labor and employment laws, privacy and data security, internal investigation and discipline and other workforce and internal controls policies, procedures and actions. The Chair of the American Bar Association (ABA) RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Committee, a Council Representative on the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits, Government Affairs Committee Legislative Chair for the Dallas Human Resources Management Association, and past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, Ms. Stamer works, publishes and speaks extensively on management, reengineering, investigations, human resources and workforce, employee benefits, compensation, internal controls and risk management, federal sentencing guideline and other enforcement resolution actions, and related matters. She also is recognized for her publications, industry leadership, workshops and presentations on these and other human resources concerns and regularly speaks and conducts training on these matters.Her insights on these and other matters appear in the Bureau of National Affairs, Spencer Publications, the Wall Street Journal, the Dallas Business Journal, the Houston Business Journal, and many other national and local publications. For additional information about Ms. Stamer and her experience or to access other publications by Ms. Stamer see hereor contact Ms. Stamer directly.

About Solutions Law Press

Comments Off on IRS Raises Health FSA Contribution Limit For 2015 | 105(h), ACA, Cafeteria Plans, Employee Benefits, Employers, Employment Tax, ERISA, Fiduciary Responsibility, Health Plans, HIPAA, Human Resources, Premium Subsidies, Reporting & Disclosure | Tagged: Administrative Simplification, CMS, Health Benefits, Health Insurance, Health insurers, Health Plans, HHS, HPID, HPOES, TPAs | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

IRS Guidance Raises Concerns For Many Employers Offering “Skinny” & Other Limited Coverage Health Plans

November 4, 2014

Learn More Details By Participating In November 13, 2014 WebEx Briefing

Employers of 100 or more full-time employees that plan currently offering or planning to offer after November 4, 2014 health plans with mandate only or other “skinny” plan designs which do not provide “substantial coverage” for both in-patient hospitalization and physician services should re-evaluate the implications of their proposed plan design as well as existing and planned employee enrollment or other communications about those plans, in light of the new guidance provided by Notice 2014-69 released by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) today. Learn all the details about this new guidance and its implication by participating in our November 13 , 2014 briefing.

Plans Must Provide “Substantial Coverage” for Both In-Patient Hospitalization & Physician Services To Provide Minimum Value

Notice 2014-69 makes it official that the Department of Treasury (including the IRS) and Department of Health and Human Services (collectively the Departments) believe that group health plans that fail to provide substantial coverage for in-patient hospitalization services or for physician services (or for both) (referred to in the Notice as Non-Hospital/Non-Physician Services Plans) do not provide the “minimum value” necessary to fulfill the minimum value requirements of Code §36B and 4080H(b).

The Notice also notifies sponsoring employers about the Departments expectations about notifications and other communications to employees about Non-Hospital/Non-Physician Services Plans) as well as shares details about the Departments plans for implementing their interpretation in planned final regulations by March, 2015.

Standards On Employer Communications About Non-Hospital/Non-Physician Services Plans

The Notice cautions employers about the need to use care in communicating with employees about Non-Hospital/Non-Physician Services Plan. Among other things, the Notice states that an employer that offers a Non-Hospital/Non-Physician Services Plan (including a Pre-November 4, 2014 Non-Hospital/Non-Physician Services Plan) to an employee must:

Not state or imply in any disclosure that the offer of coverage under the Non-Hospital/Non-Physician Services Plan precludes an employee from obtaining a premium tax credit, if otherwise eligible, and
Timely correct any prior disclosures that stated or implied that the offer of the Non-Hospital/Non-Physician Services Plan would preclude an otherwise tax-credit-eligible employee from obtaining a premium tax credit.
Without such a corrective disclosure, the Notice warns that a statement (for example, in a summary of benefits and coverage) that a Non-Hospital/Non-Physician Services Plan provides minimum value will be considered to imply that the offer of such a plan precludes employees from obtaining a premium tax credit. However, an employer that also offers an employee another plan that is not a Non-Hospital/Non/-Physician Services Plan and that is affordable and provides minimum value (MV) is permitted to advise the employee that the offer of this other plan will or may preclude the employee from obtaining a premium tax credit.

Anticipated Approach In Planned Regulations

Regarding the Departments plans to adopt regulations implementing the interpretation of Code § 36B announced in the Notice, the Notice indicates:

HHS intends to promptly propose amending 45 CFR 156.145 to provide that a health plan will not provide minimum value if it excludes substantial coverage for in-patient hospitalization services or physician services (or both).
Treasury and the IRS intend to issue proposed regulations that apply these proposed HHS regulations under Code section 36B. Accordingly, under the HHS and Treasury regulations, an employer will not be permitted to use the MV Calculator (or any actuarial certification or valuation) to demonstrate that a Non-Hospital/Non-Physician Services Plan provides minimum value.
Treasury and IRS anticipate that the proposed changes to regulations will be finalized in 2015 and will apply to plans other than Pre-November 4, 2014 Non-Hospital/Non-Physician Services Plans on the date they become final rather than being delayed to the end of 2015 or the end of the 2015 plan year. As a result, a Non-Hospital/Non-Physician Services Plan (other than a Pre-November 4, 2014 Non-Hospital/Non-Physician Services Plan) should not be adopted for the 2015 plan year.
Solely in the case of an employer that has entered into a binding written commitment to adopt, or has begun enrolling employees in, a Non-Hospital/Non-Physician Services Plan prior to November 4, 2014 based on the employer’s reliance on the results of use of the MV Calculator (a Pre-November 4, 2014 Non-Hospital/Non-Physician Services Plan), however, Notice 2014-69 states the Departments anticipate that final regulations, when issued, will not be applicable for purposes of Code section 4980H with respect to the plan before the end of the plan year (as in effect under the terms of the plan on November 3, 2014) if that plan year begins no later than March 1, 2015.
Employers offering Non-Hospital/Non-Physician Services Plans should “exercise caution in relying on the Minimum Value Calculator to demonstrate that these plans provide minimum value for any portion of a taxable year after publication of the planned final regulations.
The IRS will not require an employee to treat a Non-Hospital/Non-Physician Services Plan as providing minimum value for purposes of an employee’s eligibility for a premium tax credit under Code section 36B, regardless of whether the plan is a Pre-November 4, 2014 Non-Hospital/Non-Physician Services Plan before final regulations take effect.

Employers & Plans Most Likely To Be Affected

The interpretation of minimum value and planned future regulatory changes announced in Notice 2014-69 primarily will impact large employers subject to the “pay or play” shared responsibility rules of Code § 4980H that offer a health plan providing coverage that meets the “minimum essential coverage” standards of Code § 4980H.

Under Code § 4980H(a), large employers that fail to offer employee and dependent coverage under a health plan providing “minimum essential coverage” to each full-time employee generally become liable to pay an employer shared responsibility payment of $165 per month ($2000 per year) (commonly referred to as the “A Penalty”) for each full-time employee.

In contrast, the penalties (commonly referred to as the “B Penalty”) created under Code § 4980H(b) generally comes into play when a covered large employer offers health plan coverage under a health plan providing minimum essential coverage but the plan either:

Does not provide minimum value; or
The cost to the employee for coverage exceeds 9.5% of the employee’s family adjusted gross income or an otherwise applicable safe harbor amount allowed under IRS regulations.Register For Briefing To Learn More
To learn more about Notice 2014-69 and its implications on employer health plan obligations and Code § 4980H shared responsibility exposures, register to participate in a special Solutions Law WebEx Briefing on the new guidance conducted by Attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer on Thursday, November 13, 2014 from Noon to 1:00 p.m. Central Time here.
Assuming at least one full-time employee of a covered large employer receives a subsidy for enrolling in health coverage through a health care exchange or “Marketplace” established under ACA, the B Penalty generally is equal to $250 per month ($3000 per year) multiplied by the number of such subsidized employees of the employer.

Learn More By Joining November 13, 2014 Solutions Law Press, Inc. Virtual Briefing Register Now!

To learn more about Notice 2014-69 and its implications on employer health plan obligations and Code § 4980H shared responsibility exposures, register to participate in a special Solutions Law WebEx Briefing on the new guidance conducted by Attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer on Thursday, November 13, 2014 from Noon to 1:00 p.m. Central Time here.

During the briefing, Ms. Stamer will:

Explain what health benefits, if any, employers must offer employees under current ACA guidance
Brief participants on this new guidance and other related guidance
Discuss potential implications for employers and their health plans
Discuss potential options for employers dealing with these plans and
Take questions from virtual audience participants as time permits.

Registration Fee is $35.00 per person Registration required for each virtual participant. Payment required via website registration in advance of the program.. Payment only accepted via website PayPal. No checks or cash accepted. Participation is limited and available on a first come, first serve basis. Persons not registered at least 24 hours in advance not guaranteed to receive access information or materials prior to commencement of the briefing.

This briefing will be conducted via WebEx over the internet. Participants may have the opportunity to participate via telephone, provided that participants electing to participate may incur added charges for telephone connectivity. Solutions Law Press, Inc. is not responsible for any power or system failures. Solutions Law Press, Inc. also expects to offer the opportunity for individuals unable to participate in the live briefing to listen to a recording of the briefing beginning approximately one week after the program via the Internet by registering, paying the required registration fee and following listening instructions received in response to such registration.

Interested persons can register here now!

About The Speaker

A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefits Counsel, recognized in International Who’s Who, and Board Certified in Labor & Employment Law, attorney and health benefit consultant Cynthia Marcotte Stamer has 25 years experience advising and representing private and public employers, employer and union plan sponsors, employee benefit plans, associations, their fiduciaries, administrators, and vendors, group health, Medicare and Medicaid Advantage, and other insurers, governmental leaders and others on health and other employee benefit. employment, insurance and related matters. A well-known and prolific author and popular speaker Board Certified in Labor & Employment Law, Ms. Stamer presently serves as Co-Chair of the ABA RPTE Section Welfare Plan Committee, Vice Chair of the ABA TIPS Employee Benefit Committee, an ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits Representative, an Editorial Advisory Board Member of the Institute of Human Resources (IHR/HR.com), Insurance Thought Leadership,com and Employee Benefit News, and various other publications. With extensive domestic and international regulatory and public policy experience, Ms. Stamer also has worked extensively domestically and internationally on public policy and regulatory advocacy on health and other employee benefits, human resources, insurance, tax, compliance and other matters and representing clients in dealings with the US Congress, Departments of Labor, Treasury, Health & Human Services, as well as state legislatures, attorneys general, insurance and labor departments, and other agencies and regulators. A prolific author and popular speaker, Ms. Stamer regularly authors materials and conducts workshops and professional, management and other training and serves on the faculty and planning committees of a multitude of symposium and other educational programs. See http://www.CynthiaStamer.com for more details.

A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefits Counsel, recognized in International Who’s Who, and Board Certified in Labor & Employment Law, attorney and health benefit consultant Cynthia Marcotte Stamer has 25 plus years’ experience advising and representing private and public employers, employer and union plan sponsors, employee benefit plans, associations, their fiduciaries, administrators, and vendors, group health, Medicare and Medicaid Advantage, and other insurers, governmental leaders and others on health and other employee benefit. employment, insurance and related matters. A well-known and prolific author and popular speaker Board Certified in Labor & Employment Law, Ms. Stamer presently serves as Co-Chair of the ABA RPTE Section Welfare Plan Committee, Vice Chair of the ABA TIPS Employee Benefit Committee, an ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits Representative, an Editorial Advisory Board Member of the Institute of Human Resources (IHR/HR.com), Insurance Thought Leadership,com and Employee Benefit News, and various other publications. With extensive domestic and international regulatory and public policy experience, Ms. Stamer also has worked extensively domestically and internationally on public policy and regulatory advocacy on health and other employee benefits, human resources, insurance, tax, compliance and other matters and representing clients in dealings with the US Congress, Departments of Labor, Treasury, Health & Human Services, as well as state legislatures, attorneys general, insurance and labor departments, and other agencies and regulators. A prolific author and popular speaker, Ms. Stamer regularly authors materials and conducts workshops and professional, management and other training and serves on the faculty and planning committees of a multitude of symposium and other educational programs. See http://www.CynthiaStamer.com. for more details.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ provides business and management information, tools and solutions, training and education, services and support to help organizations and their leaders promote effective management of legal and operational performance, regulatory compliance and risk management, data and information protection and risk management and other key management objectives. Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ also conducts and assist businesses and associations to design, present and conduct customized programs and training targeted to their specific audiences and needs.

For Added Information and Other Resources

If you found this update of interest, you also may be interested in reviewing some of the other updates and publications authored by Ms. Stamer available including:

For additional information about upcoming programs, to inquire about becoming a presenting sponsor for an upcoming event, e-mail your request to info@Solutionslawpress.com These programs, publications and other resources are provided only for general informational and educational purposes. Neither the distribution or presentation of these programs and materials to any party nor any statement or information provided in or in connection with this communication, the program or associated materials are intended to or shall be construed as establishing an attorney-client relationship, to constitute legal advice or provide any assurance or expectation from Solutions Law Press, Inc., the presenter or any related parties. If you or someone else you know would like to receive future Alerts or other information about developments, publications or programs or other updates, send your request to info@solutionslawpress.com. If you would prefer not to receive communications from Solutions Law Press, Inc. send an e-mail with “Solutions Law Press Unsubscribe” in the Subject to support@solutionslawyer.net. CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE: The following disclaimer is included to comply with and in response to U.S. Treasury Department Circular 230 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. If you are an individual with a disability who requires accommodation to participate, please let us know when you register so that we may consider your request. ©2014 Solutions Law Press, Inc. All rights reserved.

Comments Off on IRS Guidance Raises Concerns For Many Employers Offering “Skinny” & Other Limited Coverage Health Plans | ADA, Affordable Care Act, Claims Administration, Corporate Compliance, Disability, EEOC, EEOC, Employee Benefits, Employers, ERISA, Fiduciary Responsibility, GINA, Health Plans, HIPAA, Human Resources, MEWA, Tax, Wellness Programs | Tagged: 4980H, ACA, ADA, Affordable Care Act, employer shared responsibility, GINA, HIPAA, HIPAA Portability, HIPAA Privacy, minimum value, MV, Pay or Play, Skinny Plans, Wellness, Wellness Programs | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Supreme Court Delays Deciding Availabilities of ACA Subsidies For Coverage Purchased On Federal Exchange

November 3, 2014

The Supreme Court apparently still has not decided whether it will hear the appeal filed by plaintiffs in King v. Burwell that challenges the legality of the Obama Administration’s plan to pay Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) premium subsidies to consumers living in those states that have declined to establish their own state exchanges under ACA who buy health care coverage from the Federal health care exchange. Despite discussing whether to hear the appeal last week, the Justices did not include King v. Burwell on the list of appeals scheduled for hearing published by the Supreme Court today. Instead, the Justices put off deciding whether to hear the appeal for now by relisting it.

Plaintiffs in King v. Burwell are asking the Supreme Court to set aside the July, 2014 ruling by the 4^th Circuit ruling that ACA allows the Administration to pay ACA subsidies to individuals enrolling in health care coverage through either a state exchange or the Federal exchange. While the Obama Administration argues ACA allows payment of premium subsidies regardless of whether the coverage comes through a state exchange or a federal exchange, the King v. Burwell plaintiffs argue that language in the ACA law that provides for subsidies for Americans who enroll “through an Exchange established by the State” prohibits payment of the subsidies for coverage purchased via the federal exchange. Since ACA relies heavily on the payment of subsidies to help make health care coverage affordable for millions of Americans earning less than 400 percent of poverty level and many states have not established their own exchanges, a Supreme Court decision in favor of the plaintiff/appellants would deal a devastating blow to ACA’s goal of making its mandated coverage affordable to Americans living in States without their own State exchanges.

The Supreme Court’s decision to hold off its agreement to decide the King v. Burwell appeal does not mean that the Justices won’t agree to decide the appeal at a later time. Many commentators believe the Supreme Court delayed accepting the appeal now because there is not currently any appellate court decision that conflicts with its holding since the full D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the Halbig v. Burwell ruling that ACA does not authorize subsidy payments for consumers from states without their own exchanges that buy coverage through the federal exchange previously issued by a panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. The full D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals will not rehear and decide Halbig en banc. Oral arguments before the D.C. Circuit Court in Halbig now are scheduled December 17, 2014. If the Court of Appeals in Halbig or another Appeals Court reaches a conflicting decision to the 4^th Circuit decision in King v. Burwell, the Supreme Court likely will accept and schedule for hearing the King v. Burwell appeal. Pending these decisions, that delay leaves a cloud of uncertainty for Americans, their employers and others about whether subsidies will be available to help individuals earning less than 400% of the poverty level living in States that don’t have a State exchange to pay premiums for health care coverage bought through the Federal exchange.

About Author Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

For additional information about Ms. Stamer and her experience, see www.CynthiaStamer.com.

For Added Information and Other Resources

If you found this update of interest, you also may be interested in reviewing some of the other updates and publications authored by Ms. Stamer available including:

For Help Or More Information

Board Certified in Labor & Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, management attorney and consultant Ms. Stamer is nationally and internationally recognized for more than 24 years of work helping employers and other management; employee benefit plans and their sponsors, administrators, fiduciaries; employee leasing, recruiting, staffing and other professional employment organizations; and others design, administer and defend innovative workforce, compensation, employee benefit and management policies and practices. Her experience includes extensive work helping employers implement, audit, manage and defend union-management relations, wage and hour, discrimination and other labor and employment laws, privacy and data security, internal investigation and discipline and other workforce and internal controls policies, procedures and actions. The Chair of the American Bar Association (ABA) RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Committee, a Council Representative on the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits, Government Affairs Committee Legislative Chair for the Dallas Human Resources Management Association, and past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, Ms. Stamer works, publishes and speaks extensively on management, reengineering, investigations, human resources and workforce, employee benefits, compensation, internal controls and risk management, federal sentencing guideline and other enforcement resolution actions, and related matters. She also is recognized for her publications, industry leadership, workshops and presentations on these and other human resources concerns and regularly speaks and conducts training on these matters.Her insights on these and other matters appear in the Bureau of National Affairs, Spencer Publications, the Wall Street Journal, the Dallas Business Journal, the Houston Business Journal, and many other national and local publications. For additional information about Ms. Stamer and her experience or to access other publications by Ms. Stamer see hereor contact Ms. Stamer directly.

About Solutions Law Press

Comments Off on Supreme Court Delays Deciding Availabilities of ACA Subsidies For Coverage Purchased On Federal Exchange | 105(h), ACA, Cafeteria Plans, Employee Benefits, Employers, Employment Tax, ERISA, Fiduciary Responsibility, Health Plans, HIPAA, Human Resources, Premium Subsidies, Reporting & Disclosure | Tagged: Administrative Simplification, CMS, Health Benefits, Health Insurance, Health insurers, Health Plans, HHS, HPID, HPOES, TPAs | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Email Subscription

Pages

Recent Posts

Archives

Share this blog

Solutions Law Press HR & Benefits Update