cafeteria plan |

Expect New Fed Regs To Increase Childcare Costs

March 30, 2016

By Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Childcare providers, employers sponsoring programs that reimburse childcare expenses and American workers and families can expect increases in childcare costs and possible loss or disruption of childcare providers in response to efforts by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to increase regulation, oversight and enforcement against childcare providers when implementing the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of 2014 (CCDBG). See Child Care and Development Block Grant Act (CCDBG) of 2014: Plain Language Summary of Statutory Changes.

Affordable Childcare Availability Shared Concern For Employers & Employees

For most employees with young children and their employers, limitations on the availability of affordable, reliable childcare presents a shared concern for both the employer and the employee. Studies validate the experience of many employers and employees that employee’s struggle as parents to secure high-quality, consistent child care services often impacts employee employment decisions, attendance and performance. See e.g. The impact of child care problems on employment: findings from a national survey of US parents.

Both cost concerns and limitations in the availability of childcare contribute to the childcare crisis experienced by many American families. See Cost and Availability of Child Care Continues To Burden American Families; 2-1-1 Child Care Affordability and Availability Report; Annual Child Care Capacity, Availability and Enrollment Survey 2014

While the cost of child care varies widely across states, child care expenses often present a significant financial burden for families with young children. See Parents and The High Cost of Childcare 2015 Report. For instance, the Childcare Aware Child Care Cost Data In Each State shows:

In California, a year of infant care in a center for a married couple family is 14%, but for a single parent family this figure is three times more at almost 45%. Single parents with two children can expect to pay over 75% of income on center based care and a married couple with two children living at the poverty line will pay over 80% of their income on center-based care. A year of infant center based care is almost 29% higher than the cost of one year’s tuition at a four-year public college in the state.
In Texas, single parents pay 66% of their income for two children in a center care. Similarly, married couple families with two children living at the poverty line pay almost 64 % of their income for child care. The cost of infant care is $8,759, nearly identical to the cost of a 4 year public college at $8,830.
In South Carolina, single parents pay almost 32% of their income for infant center care. Married couple families with two children at the poverty line pay 46% of their income for child care. The annual cost of child care for an infant and a four-year-old in a center is $11,126.

While many U.S. employers attempt to mitigate some of these challenges by offering employees the opportunity to pay some of these childcare expenses on a pre-tax basis by including dependent care assistance plan options in their cafeteria plans, employer-sponsored or subsidized child care, or family friendly leave and scheduling practices, the substantial cost of child care remains a burden for many employees and their family. Furthermore, even with American families with young children expending significant portions of their income for childcare, limited availability of childcare to meet existing demand makes finding childcare challenging for many families. See, e.g. Annual Child Care Capacity, Availability and Enrollment Survey 2014. With U.S. employees with young children already facing difficult choices finding and maintaining affordable childcare, employees with children requiring childcare and their employers generally share concerns about government regulations or other actions that could drive up costs or further restrict the availability of affordable childcare.

Quality Concerns Prompting HHS To See Tighter Federal Childcare Regulations

As part of federal efforts to mitigate the impact of childcare expenses on low income workers, the U.S. Child Care and Development Fund underwrites the care of nearly 1.5 million children from low-income families every month. In 2015, the U.S. government spent about $5.4 billion of taxpayer dollars to help states, territories and tribes subsidize child care for low-income working families. Increased federal scrutiny of these programs and their expenditures as well as reports of concerns about the quality of the child care programs they fund are prompting both additional federal regulation and oversight of these programs.

The Child Care and Development Block Grant Act (CCDBG) enacted by Congress in 2014 imposed requirements for childcare worker criminal background checks, CPR training, SIDS prevention planning and other health and safety requirements for childcare providers receiving federal subsidies. CCBDG also gave HHS authority to set caseload limits for state inspectors, conduct annual inspections and to impose other requirements to regulate, monitor and enforce quality, health and safety and other standards for subsidized child care providers. See Child Care and Development Block Grant Act (CCDBG) of 2014: Plain Language Summary of Statutory Changes. Based on audits of compliance with current state regulations and other requirements for child care providers by the HHS Office of Inspector General (OIG) now is gearing up to use this authority to tighten federal requirements for federally subsidized childcare and in anticipation of its announcement of proposed regulations, is conducting an aggressive public relations campaign to generate public support for HHS implementing regulations of the CCDBG that will substantially tighten federal requirements for subsidized childcare facilities. While HHS as of now has not published the expanded safeguards that it plans to impose, its high profile public relations campaign indicates that it plans both to substantially tighten these requirements and the required oversight and enforcement against childcare providers in light of widespread deficiencies in the compliance of federally funded childcare centers with applicable state regulations that OIG reports it uncovered in a series of OIG health and safety audits.

According to OIG, a series of audits conducted by OIG of federally funded childcare facilities uncovered what OIG considers “major health and safety violations” at many state-licensed day care providers around the country. OIG reports that 96 percent (218 out of 227) of childcare centers by OIG in unannounced site visits had at least one health and safety violation. OIG has posted results of these audits by region here, including two just released reports of findings from audits performed in Florida. See, e.g. Some Florida Childcare Centers Did Not Always Comply With State Health and Safety Licensing Requirements; Some Florida Family Childcare Homes Did Not Always Comply With State Health and Safety Requirements.

The audit reports identify a wide range of safety concerns. Some of the deficiencies OIG reports finding at these facilities included:

Childcare workers leaving children unattended;
Understaffed facilities;
Childcare workers with pending criminal charges for corruption of minors, child endangerment or other concerning criminal charges or convictions and others not background checked;
Fire hazards;
Storage of chemicals, liquor, Tree trimming saw and other lawn equipment or other unsafe items left in unlocked locations accessible by children;
Playgrounds with exposed rusty nails; and
Others.

Based on these findings, HHS is gearing up to tighten federal requirements for federal funding of childcare and is engaged in an aggressive public relations campaign to publicize its findings to engender support for tighter federal regulation. As part of this aggressive public relations outreach, OIG has posted a u-Tube video, Eye On Oversight: Childcare Safety Lapses and is conducting an aggressive public relations outreach to expand awareness of its concerns about the childcare industry and its calls for tighter regulation. In a recent editorial opinion published by CNN, Americans footing bill for substandard child care, for instance, Joanne Chiedi, HHS Principal Deputy Inspector General wrote that families whose children are cared for in childcare centers receiving federal subsidies cannot trust the safety of these environments. While conceding that some childcare facilities passed the OIG audits, Ms. Chiedi writes, “the overwhelming number of problems uncovered make it clear that conditions for the subsidized care of low-income children need to change — and quickly.”

To address these concerns, OIG has announced plans to exercise powers granted under the CCDBG of 2014 to tighten the legal requirements that the federal government states must meet to qualify for federal funding of childcare. While HHS has not yet published proposed regulations defining the requirements that it plans to impose to address these concerns, it is inviting public input and comment. In the meanwhile, Ms. Chiedi’s CNN editorial opinion provides some insight to HHS’ future plans for regulating childcare when she writes:

Until recently, the federal government gave the money to states so long as each certified that it had certain minimal health and safety requirements designed to protect the health and safety of children. States received the money whether their health and safety requirements were strict or lenient. …

Setting adequate standards is an important step, and effective oversight is necessary to ensure that providers comply. Child Care Aware of America, an organization advocating for quality child care standards, recommends that states employ one inspector for every 50 child care providers. Yet during our visits to the five states that reported their ratios, caseloads ranged from Connecticut’s 332 providers per site inspector to Pennsylvania’s 143 providers per inspector.

The 2014 law also authorized annual inspections for subsidized child care providers and established appropriate caseloads for inspectors. he Administration for Children and Families in the Department of Health and Human Services must implement the law’s new requirements to the full extent of its authority.

All states should also examine their child care requirements and oversight and make improvements where needed, with the understanding that lax requirements and unsafe conditions risk jeopardizing federal tax dollars.

Our children are precious. They should not be cared for in places that have unsecured weapons, toxic chemicals and blocked fire escapes.

Childcare Providers, Employers & Employees Must Provide Input To HHS About Childcare Regulation

While American families and their employers generally view childcare safety as important, increased federal regulation, oversight and enforcement federal childcare standards are likely both to increase childcare costs and further restrict the availability of childcare. Employees that rely on the availability of affordable childcare and their employers need to ensure that well-intentioned efforts by HHS to promote quality are properly tailored to avoid unduly restricting the availability or affordability of necessary childcare. Childcare providers obviously need to carefully monitor the HHS analysis and proposals and provide meaningful input by commenting on this analysis and proposals. However, industry input alone is not sufficient. American families with young children and their employers concerned about the availability, cost or quality of childcare and their communities also must join the discussion and provide input to HHS about what actions HHS can and should take and other concerns about the cost, availability and regulation of childcare. Interested persons can start monitoring and participating in HHS’ discussion on twitter at #ProtectOurKids, and can learn more on the Office of Child Care of the HHS Administration For Children & Families at www.occ-cmc.org, and can register to receive Office of Child Care updates here.

About The Author

Recognized as a “Top” attorney in employee benefits, labor and employment and health care law extensively involved in health and other employee benefit and human resources policy and program design and administration representation and advocacy throughout her career, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer is a practicing attorney and Managing Shareholder of Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, P.C., a member of Stamer│Chadwick│Soefje PLLC, author, pubic speaker, management policy advocate and industry thought leader with more than 28 years’ experience practicing at the forefront of employee benefits and human resources law.

A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, past Chair and current Welfare Benefit Committee Co-Chair of the American Bar Association (ABA) RPTE Section Employee Benefits Group, Vice Chair of the ABA Tort & Insurance Practice Section Employee Benefits Committee, former Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, an ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits Council Representative and Board Certified in Labor & Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, Ms. Stamer is recognized nationally and internationally for her practical and creative insights and leadership on health and other employee benefit, human resources and insurance matters and policy.

Ms. Stamer helps management manage. Ms. Stamer’s legal and management consulting work throughout her nearly 30- year career has focused on helping organizations and their management use the law and process to manage people, process, compliance, operations and risk. Highly valued for her rare ability to find pragmatic client-centric solutions by combining her detailed legal and operational knowledge and experience with her talent for creative problem-solving, Ms. Stamer helps public and private, domestic and international businesses, governments, and other organizations and their leaders manage their employees, vendors and suppliers, and other workforce members, customers and other’ performance, compliance, compensation and benefits, operations, risks and liabilities, as well as to prevent, stabilize and cleanup workforce and other legal and operational crises large and small that arise in the course of operations.

Ms. Stamer works with businesses and their management, employee benefit plans, governments and other organizations deal with all aspects of human resources and workforce management operations and compliance. She supports her clients both on a real time, “on demand” basis and with longer term basis to deal with daily performance management and operations, emerging crises, strategic planning, process improvement and change management, investigations, defending litigation, audits, investigations or other enforcement challenges, government affairs and public policy. Well known for her extensive work with health care, insurance and other highly regulated entities on corporate compliance, internal controls and risk management, her clients range from highly regulated entities like employers, contractors and their employee benefit plans, their sponsors, management, administrators, insurers, fiduciaries and advisors, technology and data service providers, health care, managed care and insurance, financial services, government contractors and government entities, as well as retail, manufacturing, construction, consulting and a host of other domestic and international businesses of all types and sizes. Common engagements include internal and external workforce hiring, management, training, performance management, compliance and administration, discipline and termination, and other aspects of workforce management including employment and outsourced services contracting and enforcement, sentencing guidelines and other compliance plan, policy and program development, administration, and defense, performance management, wage and hour and other compensation and benefits, reengineering and other change management, internal controls, compliance and risk management, communications and training, worker classification, tax and payroll, investigations, crisis preparedness and response, government relations, safety, government contracting and audits, litigation and other enforcement, and other concerns.

Ms. Stamer uses her deep and highly specialized health, insurance, labor and employment and other knowledge and experience to help employers and other employee benefit plan sponsors; health, pension and other employee benefit plans, their fiduciaries, administrators and service providers, insurers, and others design legally compliant, effective compensation, health and other welfare benefit and insurance, severance, pension and deferred compensation, private exchanges, cafeteria plan and other employee benefit, fringe benefit, salary and hourly compensation, bonus and other incentive compensation and related programs, products and arrangements. She is particularly recognized for her leading edge work, thought leadership and knowledgeable advice and representation on the design, documentation, administration, regulation and defense of a diverse range of self-insured and insured health and welfare benefit plans including private exchange and other health benefit choices, health care reimbursement and other “defined contribution” limited benefit, 24-hour and other occupational and non-occupational injury and accident, expat and medical tourism, onsite medical, wellness and other medical plans and insurance benefit programs as well as a diverse range of other qualified and nonqualified retirement and deferred compensation, severance and other employee benefits and compensation, insurance and savings plans, programs, products, services and activities. As a key element of this work, Ms. Stamer works closely with employer and other plan sponsors, insurance and financial services companies, plan fiduciaries, administrators, and vendors and others to design, administer and defend effective legally defensible employee benefits and compensation practices, programs, products and technology. She also continuously helps employers, insurers, administrative and other service providers, their officers, directors and others to manage fiduciary and other risks of sponsorship or involvement with these and other benefit and compensation arrangements and to defend and mitigate liability and other risks from benefit and liability claims including fiduciary, benefit and other claims, audits, and litigation brought by the Labor Department, IRS, HHS, participants and beneficiaries, service providers, and others. She also assists debtors, creditors, bankruptcy trustees and others assess, manage and resolve labor and employment, employee benefits and insurance, payroll and other compensation related concerns arising from reductions in force or other terminations, mergers, acquisitions, bankruptcies and other business transactions including extensive experience with multiple, high-profile large scale bankruptcies resulting in ERISA, tax, corporate and securities and other litigation or enforcement actions.

Ms. Stamer also is deeply involved in helping to influence the Affordable Care Act and other health care, pension, social security, workforce, insurance and other policies critical to the workforce, benefits, and compensation practices and other key aspects of a broad range of businesses and their operations. She both helps her clients respond to and resolve emerging regulations and laws, government investigations and enforcement actions and helps them shape the rules through dealings with Congress and other legislatures, regulators and government officials domestically and internationally. A former lead consultant to the Government of Bolivia on its Social Security reform law and most recognized for her leadership on U.S. health and pension, wage and hour, tax, education and immigration policy reform, Ms. Stamer works with U.S. and foreign businesses, governments, trade associations, and others on workforce, social security and severance, health care, immigration, privacy and data security, tax, ethics and other laws and regulations. Founder and Executive Director of the Coalition for Responsible Healthcare Policy and its PROJECT COPE: the Coalition on Patient Empowerment and a Fellow in the American Bar Foundation and State Bar of Texas, Ms. Stamer annually leads the Joint Committee on Employee Benefits (JCEB) HHS Office of Civil Rights agency meeting and other JCEB agency meetings. 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 also is a highly sought out speaker and industry thought leader known for empowering audiences and readers. Ms. Stamer’s insights on employee benefits, insurance, health care and workforce matters in Atlantic Information Services, The Bureau of National Affairs (BNA), InsuranceThoughtLeaders.com, Benefits Magazine, Employee Benefit News, Texas CEO Magazine, HealthLeaders, Modern Healthcare, Business Insurance, Employee Benefits News, World At Work, Benefits Magazine, the Wall Street Journal, the Dallas Morning News, the Dallas Business Journal, the Houston Business Journal, and many other publications. She also has served as an Editorial Advisory Board Member for human resources, employee benefit and other management focused publications of BNA, HR.com, Employee Benefit News, InsuranceThoughtLeadership.com and many other prominent publications. Ms. Stamer also regularly serves on the faculty and planning committees for symposia of LexisNexis, the American Bar Association, ALIABA, the Society of Employee Benefits Administrators, the American Law Institute, ISSA, HIMMs, and many other prominent educational and training organizations and conducts training and speaks on these and other management, compliance and public policy concerns.

Ms. Stamer also is active in the leadership of a broad range of other professional and civic organizations. For instance, Ms. Stamer presently serves on an American Bar Association (ABA) Joint Committee on Employee Benefits Council representative; Vice President of the North Texas Healthcare Compliance Professionals Association; Immediate Past Chair of the ABA RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Committee, its current Welfare Benefit Plans Committee Co-Chair, on its Substantive Groups & Committee and its incoming Defined Contribution Plan Committee Chair and Practice Management Vice Chair; 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; on the Advisory Boards of InsuranceThoughtLeadership.com, HR.com, Employee Benefit News, and many other publications. She also 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 childhood development 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. For additional information about Ms. Stamer, see CynthiaStamer.com or StamerChadwickSoefje.com or contact Ms. Stamer via email here or via telephone to (469) 767-8872.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ provides human resources and employee benefit and other business risk management, legal compliance, management effectiveness and other coaching, tools and other resources, training and education on leadership, governance, human resources, employee benefits, data security and privacy, insurance, health care and other key compliance, risk management, internal controls and operational concerns. If you find this of interest, you also be interested reviewing some of our other Solutions Law Press, Inc. ™ resources at Solutionslawpress.com such as:

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.

Comments Off on Expect New Fed Regs To Increase Childcare Costs | Child Safety, Uncategorized | Tagged: cafeteria plan, child care, child care facility, Dependent Care Assistance Plan, Employee, Employee Benefits, Employer, Family, FMLA, Health Care, school | 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

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.

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.

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

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.

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 distributions here including:

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

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

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.

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 distributions here including:

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

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 distributions here including:

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

Post-Windsor Same-Sex Participant Guidance May Require Mid-Year Plan Amendments

May 15, 2014

Employers and fiduciaries of 401(k) plans should take note of the potential need to adopt a mid-year amendment to their plans to comply with new guidance of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) on the need to timely amend their plans to comply with IRS recent guidance on when their plans must afford same-sex partners treatment equivalent to opposite-sex married couples issued in response to the Supreme Court’s decision striking down the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in United States v. Windsor, 570 U.S. ___, 133 S.Ct. 2675 2013). At the same time, they also should review other recent guidance to determine if changes are required or otherwise desirable to their cafeteria, health and other welfare, and other employee benefit plans, family leave, and other human resources and employee benefit policies.

The IRS previously announced that a mid-year amendment to 401(k) plans to recognize same-sex partners as married couples for certain plan purposes might be required in Notice 2014-19. This announcement has presented some confusion for some sponsors of safe harbor 401(k) plans as Treasury Regulation § 1.401(k)-3(e)(1) generally requires that a Section 401(k) safe harbor plan be adopted before the beginning of the plan year and maintained throughout a full 12-month plan year, however, except as otherwise provided in § 1.401(k)-3(g) (on the reduction or suspension of safe harbor contributions) or in guidance of general applicability published in the Internal Revenue Bulletin. To resolve these questions, the IRS announced today (May 15, 2014) released an advance copy of Notice 2014-37, which is scheduled for official publication in Internal Revenue Bulletin 2014-23 on June 2, 2014. Notice 2014-37 will provide that the adoption of a mid-year amendment to a 401(k) safe harbor plan that will take effect during the plan year (“mid-year amendment”) will not disqualify the plan.

In light of this guidance, 401(k) sponsors, including those sponsoring 401(k) safe harbor plans, should ensure that their plans are timely amended to comply with the post-Windsor rules.

In addition to amending their 401(k) plans, employers also should review other emerging post-Windsor guidance impacting other employment and employee benefit practices and update their policies and practices as needed to comply with emerging guidance. For instance, the IRS also recently has published guidance s rules about health savings accounts (HSAs) after the Windsor decision.

Before the Windsor decision declared DOMA unconstitutional, Internal Revenue Service (IRS) guidance prohibited cafeteria plans, including HSAs and FSAs from treating same-sex partners as married based on DOMA’s restriction of the definition for federal tax and other federal law purposes to only a legal union between one man and one woman and the definition of “spouse” only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or wife. As a result, IRS pre-Winsor guidance prohibited HSAs, FSAs and other cafeteria plans from allowing employees to choose coverage of same-sex spouses on a pre-tax basis under a cafeteria plan unless the spouse otherwise qualified as a tax dependent of the employee.

In Windsor, the Supreme Court struck down DOMA’s prohibition of the recognition of same-sex couples as married or spouses as an unconstitutional violation of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

In response to the Windsor ruling of DOMA unconstitutional, the IRS initially updated its guidance to reflect the Windsor ruling in Rev. Rul. 2013-17, which held:

For Federal tax purposes, the terms “spouse,” “husband and wife,” “husband,” and “wife” include an individual married to a person of the same sex if the individuals are lawfully married under state law, and the term “marriage” includes such a marriage between individuals of the same sex;
For Federal tax purposes, the IRS adopts a general rule recognizing a marriage of same-sex individuals that was validly entered into in a state whose laws authorize the marriage of two individuals of the same sex even if the married couple is domiciled in a state that does not recognize the validity of same-sex marriages;
For Federal tax purposes, the terms “spouse,” “husband and wife,” “husband,” and “wife” do not include individuals (whether of the opposite sex or the same sex) who have entered into a registered domestic partnership, civil union, or other similar formal relationship recognized under state law that is not denominated as a marriage under the laws of that state, and the term “marriage” does not include such formal relationships;
Rev. Rul. 2013-17 also stated that taxpayers could rely on this holding retroactively for purposes of filing original returns, amended returns, adjusted returns, or claims for credit or refund employment tax and income tax with respectto employer-provided health coverage benefits or fringe benefits that the employer provided and are excludable from income under sections 106, 117(d), 119, 129, or 132 based on an individual’s marital status; and
For purposes of the preceding sentence, if an employee made a pre-tax salary-reduction election for health coverage under a section 125 cafeteria plan sponsored by an employer and also elected to provide health coverage for a same-sex spouse on an after-tax basis under a group health plan sponsored by that employer, an affected taxpayer may treat the amounts that were paid by the employee for the coverage of the same-sex spouse on an after-tax basis as pre-tax salary reduction amounts.

Subsequently, the IRS also published special administrative procedures for employers to use to make adjustments or claims for refund or credit of employment taxes paid with respect to the value of same-sex spousal benefits that are excludable from the income and wages of an employee under the Windsor decision, as interpreted by Rev. Rul. 2013-17.

Most recently regarding cafeteria plans, Notice 2014-01 discusses when plan sponsors may need to amend their cafeteria plan documents to allow mid-year election changes by same-sex spouses. It states that a cafeteria plan that does not contain written terms that allow changes of election upon change in legal marital status generally would need to be amended before a same-sex couple could be allowed to make an election change. However, where the cafeteria plan already contains written terms permitting a change in election upon a change in legal marital status, Notice 2014-01 states a plan amendment generally is not required to allow an employee who acquires a same-sex spouse to make a mid-year election change in response to the acquisition of a same-sex spouse.

Beyond this plan amendment guidance, Notice 2014-01 also further clarifies the IRS’ previous post-Windsor guidance by answering various questions about the treatment of same-sex couples following Windsor for purposes of administering FSA-reimbursements, HSA limits and mid-year election changes.

For Representation, 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.

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 24 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.

For the past two 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 Post-Windsor Same-Sex Participant Guidance May Require Mid-Year Plan Amendments | Employers, Health Plans, HIPAA, Human Resources, Insurance | Tagged: 125, cafeteria plan, defense of marriage act, FSA, HSA, Windsor | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

IRS Gives Temporary Nondiscrimination Relief For Closed Defined Benefit Plans

January 20, 2014

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) recently granted temporary nondiscrimination relief for certain “closed” defined benefit pension plans (i.e., defined benefit plans that provide ongoing accruals but that have been amended to limit those accruals to some or all of the employees who participated in the plan on a specified date).

Notice 2014-05 allows certain employers that sponsor a closed defined benefit plan and a defined contribution plan to show that the aggregated plans comply with the nondiscrimination requirements of Internal Revenue Code Section 401(a)(4) on the basis of equivalent benefits, even if the aggregated plans do not satisfy the current conditions for testing on that basis. The Notice also requests comments on possible permanent changes to the nondiscrimination rules under Internal Revenue Code Section 401(a)(4).

Notice 2014-was published in Internal Revenue Bulletin 2014-2 on January 6, 2014

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 24 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.

For the past two 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 often appear in medical privacy related publications of a broad range of health care, health plan and other industry publications Among others, she has conducted privacy training for the Association of State & Territorial Health Plans (ASTHO), the Los Angeles Health Department, 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 ask 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.

Comments Off on IRS Gives Temporary Nondiscrimination Relief For Closed Defined Benefit Plans | Employers, Health Plans, HIPAA, Human Resources, Insurance | Tagged: 125, 401(a)(4), cafeteria plan, closed defined benefit plan, defense of marriage act, defined benefit plan, discrimination testing, FSA, HSA, nondiscrimination, Qualified Plan, Windsor | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

New IRS Guidance On Claiming Small Business Health Care Tax Credit When No SHOP Enrollment Option

January 20, 2014

Notice 2014-06 provides guidance on Section 45R of the Internal Revenue Code for certain small employers that cannot offer a qualified health plan through a Small Business Health Options Program (SHOP) Exchange because the employer’s principal business address is in a county in Washington or Wisconsin in which a QHP through a SHOP Exchange will not be available for 2014. Published in Internal Revenue Bulletin 2014-2 on January 6, 2014, it provides guidance about how these employers might satisfy the requirements to qualify to claim the small business health care tax credit under Code Section 45R for the 2014 taxable year.

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 24 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 New IRS Guidance On Claiming Small Business Health Care Tax Credit When No SHOP Enrollment Option | Employers, Health Plans, HIPAA, Human Resources, Insurance | Tagged: 125, cafeteria plan, defense of marriage act, FSA, HSA, Windsor | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

IRS Updates, Supplements Cafeteria Plan & HSA Post-Windsor Same-Sex Participant Guidance

January 20, 2014

Sponsoring employers and administrators of cafeteria plans now have additional guidance from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) about when same-sex couples can be treated as spouses for purposes of Internal Revenue Code (Code) Section 125’s rules on cafeteria plans, including health and dependent care flexible spending arrangements (FSAs), and Code Section 223’s rules about health savings accounts (HSAs) following the Supreme Court decision declaring unconstitutional the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in United States v. Windsor, 570 U.S. ___, 133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013). Notice 2014-01 supplements the guidance originally published by the IRS by responding to certain questions about when plan amendments may be necessary, the handling of mid-year election requests based on acquisition of a same-sex spouse and the reimbursement of medical or dependent care expenses of same-sex spouses.

Original Post-Windsor Guidance

Before the Windsor decision declared DOMA unconstitutional, Internal Revenue Service (IRS) guidance prohibited cafeteria plans, including HSAs and FSAs from treating same-sex partners as married based on DOMA’s restriction of the definition for federal tax and other federal law purposes to only a legal union between one man and one woman and the definition of “spouse” only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or wife. As a result, IRS pre-Winsor guidance prohibited HSAs, FSAs and other cafeteria plans from allowing employees to elect coverage of same-sex spouses on a pre-tax basis under a cafeteria plan unless the spouse otherwise qualified as a tax dependent of the employee.

In response to the Windsor ruling of DOMA unconstitutional, the IRS initially updated its guidance to reflect the Windsor ruling in Rev. Rul. 2013-17, which held:

For Federal tax purposes, the terms “spouse,” “husband and wife,” “husband,” and “wife” include an individual married to a person of the same sex if the individuals are lawfully married under state law, and the term “marriage” includes such a marriage between individuals of the same sex;
For Federal tax purposes, the IRS adopts a general rule recognizing a marriage of same-sex individuals that was validly entered into in a state whose laws authorize the marriage of two individuals of the same sex even if the married couple is domiciled in a state that does not recognize the validity of same-sex marriages;
For Federal tax purposes, the terms “spouse,” “husband and wife,” “husband,” and “wife” do not include individuals (whether of the opposite sex or the same sex) who have entered into a registered domestic partnership, civil union, or other similar formal relationship recognized under state law that is not denominated as a marriage under the laws of that state, and the term “marriage” does not include such formal relationships;
Rev. Rul. 2013-17 also stated that taxpayers could rely on this holding retroactively for purposes of filing original returns, amended returns, adjusted returns, or claims for credit or refund employment tax and income tax with respectto employer-provided health coverage benefits or fringe benefits that the employer provided and are excludable from income under sections 106, 117(d), 119, 129, or 132 based on an individual’s marital status; and
For purposes of the preceding sentence, if an employee made a pre-tax salary-reduction election for health coverage under a section 125 cafeteria plan sponsored by an employer and also elected to provide health coverage for a same-sex spouse on an after-tax basis under a group health plan sponsored by that employer, an affected taxpayer may treat the amounts that were paid by the employee for the coverage of the same-sex spouse on an after-tax basis as pre-tax salary reduction amounts.

Notice 2014-01 Supplemental Guidance

Notice 2014-01 discusses when plan sponsors may need to amend their cafeteria plan documents to allow mid-year election changes by same-sex spouses. It states that a cafeteria plan that does not contain written terms that allow changes of election upon change in legal marital status generally would need to be amended before a same-sex couple could be allowed to make an election change. However, where the cafeteria plan already contains written terms permitting a change in election upon a change in legal marital status, Notice 2014-01 states a plan amendment generally is not required to allow an employee who acquires a same-sex spouse to make a mid-year election change in response to the acquisition of a same-sex spouse.

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 24 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 IRS Updates, Supplements Cafeteria Plan & HSA Post-Windsor Same-Sex Participant Guidance | Employers, Health Plans, HIPAA, Human Resources, Insurance | Tagged: 125, cafeteria plan, defense of marriage act, FSA, HSA, Windsor | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

IRS U-Tube Video Discusses 2012 Flexible Benefit Plan Rule Change

November 14, 2011

Recent health care reforms and other statutory and regulatory changes have impacted the Internal Revenue Code’s rules for cafeteria plans.

The Internal Revenue Service is seeking to help employers and adminstrators involved in the sponsorship or administration of these arrangements by sharing a U-Tube Video discussing these changes.

This new YouTube video describes a change in the law that affects flexible spending arrangements for 2012.

For Help or More Information

If you need help reviewing, updating, administering or defending your cafeteria plan or other fringe benefit or other employee benefit, compensation or human resources practices, please contact the author of this update, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer.

Recently selected for induction as a Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Council and for extensive work and accomplishments in the employee benefits and human resources area, immediate past Chair of the American Bar Association (ABA) RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Group and current Co-Chair of its Welfare Benefit Committee, Vice-Chair of the ABA TIPS Employee Benefits Committee, a council member of the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits, and past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, Ms. Stamer is recognized, internationally, nationally and locally for her more than 24 years of work, advocacy, education and publications on employee benefit, human resources and related workforce, insurance and financial services, and health care matters.

A board certified labor and employment attorney widely known for her extensive and creative knowledge and experienced with these and other employment, employee benefit and compensation matters, Ms. Stamer continuously advises and assists employers, employee benefit plans, their sponsoring employers, fiduciaries, insurers, administrators, service providers, insurers and others to monitor and respond to evolving legal and operational requirements and to design, administer, document and defend medical and other welfare benefit, qualified and non-qualified deferred compensation and retirement, severance and other employee benefit, compensation, and human resources, management and other programs and practices tailored to the client’s human resources, employee benefits or other management goals. A primary drafter of the Bolivian Social Security pension privatization law, Ms. Stamer also works extensively with management, service provider and other clients to monitor legislative and regulatory developments and to deal with Congressional and state legislators, regulators, and enforcement officials concerning regulatory, investigatory or enforcement concerns.

Recognized in Who’s Who In American Professionals and both an American Bar Association (ABA) and a State Bar of Texas Fellow, Ms. Stamer serves on the Editorial Advisory Board of Employee Benefits News, the editor and publisher of Solutions Law Press HR & Benefits Update and other Solutions Law Press Publications, and active in a multitude of other employee benefits, human resources and other professional and civic organizations. She also is a widely published author and highly regarded speaker 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, Modern and many other national and local publications. You can learn more about Ms. Stamer and her experience, review some of her other training, speaking, publications and other resources, and register to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns from Ms. Stamer here.

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:

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, compensation, data security and privacy, health care, insurance, and other key compliance, risk management, internal controls and other key operational concerns. If you find this of interest, you also be interested reviewing some of our other Solutions Law Press resources available at www.solutionslawpress.com.

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.

Comments Off on IRS U-Tube Video Discusses 2012 Flexible Benefit Plan Rule Change | Employee Benefits, Employers, Retirement Plans, Tax | Tagged: 401(k), cafeteria plan, Determination Letters, Employee Benefits, flexible benefit plan, Fringe Benefits, investment advice, IRA, meal expense, plan qualification, prohibited transactions, Retirement Plans, travel expense | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

IRS Expands When HFSAs & HRAS May Allow Over-The-Counter Drug Purchases With Drug Cards

January 24, 2011

Recent Internal Revenue Service (IRS) guidance loosens the conditions under which health flexible spending account (HFSA) and health reimbursement accounts may permit participants to use debit cards to purchase over-the-counter medicines or drugs after January 15, 2011. Under Internal Revenue Code rules amended by the Affordable Care Act, drug card and other over-the-counter prescription drug purchases must meet new requirements to qualify for reimbursement by a HFSA or HRA. HFSA and HRA sponsors and administrators wishing to allow participants to use debt cards to purchase over-the-counter drugs must ensure that their arrangements comply with this updated guidance. Sponsors and administrators that are unable or unwilling to meet the conditions established under the updated rules for allowing debt card reimbursement of over-the-counter drugs should act quickly to confirm that all relevant plan documents, procedures and communications clearly forbid reimbursement of over-the-counter medicines and drugs to the extent required by the updated rules.

IRS Notice 2011-5 modifies IRS guidance providing that HFSA and HRA debit cards generally could not be used after January 15, 2011 to purchase over-the-counter medicines or drugs after January 15, 2011, except with respect to “90 percent pharmacies.” previously announced in Notice 2010-59

Under the new rules announced in Notice 2011-5, after January 15, 2011, the IRS has expanded the circumstances under which HFSA and HRA debit cards may continue to be used to purchase over-the-counter medicines or drugs depends on where and how they are purchased. Different conditions must be met if the over-the-counter drug is purchased with a drug card from a vendor that under IRS rules:

Is a “90-percent pharmacy;”
Has a “health care related Merchant Code;
Is a non-health care merchant that has a pharmacy, or that sells prescription drugs via mail order or the web.

Where the applicable requirements established for each of these types of vendors is met, Notice 2011-5 permits HFSAs and HRAs to continue to allow participants to purchase over-the-counter drugs using debit cards after January 15, 2011. In contrast, if the vendor is not one of these types of vendors or is a listed vendor but the applicable requirements for allowing a debit card purchase of an over-the-counter medicine for that type of vendor are not met, HFSA and HRA debit cards may not be used to purchase over-the-counter medicines or drugs after January 15, 2011.

For More Information Or Assistance

If you need assistance evaluating or updating your HSFA, HRA or other health and cafeteria plans in response to these new rules or auditing or assessing, updating or defending other labor and employment, employee benefit or compensation practices, 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 23 years of work helping employers; 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. 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 wage and hour, worker classification and other human resources and workforce, employee benefits, compensation, internal controls 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 here or contact Ms. Stamer directly.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ provides business risk management, legal compliance, management effectiveness and other resources, training and education on human resources, employee benefits, compensation, data security and privacy, health care, insurance, and other key compliance, risk management, internal controls and other key operational concerns. If you find this of interest, you also be interested in exploring other Solutions Law Press, Inc. ™ tools, products, training and other resources here and reading some of our other Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ human resources or other updates 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 here. For important information concerning this communication see here.

Comments Off on IRS Expands When HFSAs & HRAS May Allow Over-The-Counter Drug Purchases With Drug Cards | 105(h), Cafeteria Plans, Employee Benefits, Employers, ERISA, Health Plans, Human Resources, Insurance, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Tax | Tagged: 105, 106, 126, Affordable Care Act, cafeteria plan, drug card, health flexible spending account, Health Plans, HFSA, HRA, over-the-counter | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Expect New Fed Regs To Increase Childcare Costs

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

Post-Windsor Same-Sex Participant Guidance May Require Mid-Year Plan Amendments

IRS Gives Temporary Nondiscrimination Relief For Closed Defined Benefit Plans

New IRS Guidance On Claiming Small Business Health Care Tax Credit When No SHOP Enrollment Option

IRS Updates, Supplements Cafeteria Plan & HSA Post-Windsor Same-Sex Participant Guidance

IRS U-Tube Video Discusses 2012 Flexible Benefit Plan Rule Change

IRS Expands When HFSAs & HRAS May Allow Over-The-Counter Drug Purchases With Drug Cards

Email Subscription

Pages

Recent Posts

Archives

Share this blog

Blogroll

Solutions Law

Solutions Law Press HR & Benefits Update