Employee Benefits |

Business Associate Rule Violations Behind $750K HIPAA Settlement

April 21, 2016

Health Plans, Sponsors & Business Associates Should Verify Plan’s HIPAA Compliance

Employers and other health plan sponsors and the health plan fiduciaries and business associates providing services involving dealings on behalf of the plan with protected health information just received another reminder to confirm and be prepared to prove all required business associate agreements are in place and that the health plans otherwise properly are administering all policies, practices, safeguards and procedures for handling, using and disclosing electronic and other protected health information from the April 20, 2016 Department of Health & Human Services Office of Civil Rights (OCR) announcement of its latest resolution agreement settling Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) Privacy and Security Rule charges OCR made against a HIPAA-covered entity for violating HIPAA’s business associate agreement rules.

OCR Charges Brought For Business Associate Agreement Violations

HIPAA’s Privacy Rules generally apply to “covered entities,” which under HIPAA are health plans and insurers, health care providers, health care clearinghouses (Covered Entities) and “business associates,” which are individuals or entities that perform services that aid the Covered Entity to perform its duties as a Covered Entity.

The Resolution Agreement and Corrective Action Plan (Resolution Agreement) with Raleigh Orthopaedic Clinic, P.A. of North Carolina (Raleigh Orthopaedic) announced by OCR on April 20th requires Raleigh Orthopaedic to pay $750,000 to settle charges OCR it violated the Privacy Rule by handing over protected health information of approximately 17,300 patients to a potential business partner without first executing a business associate agreement.

Raleigh Orthopaedic is a provider group practice that operates clinics and a surgery center in the Raleigh, North Carolina area. OCR initiated its investigation of Raleigh Orthopaedic after receiving a breach report on April 30, 2013. OCR’s investigation indicated that Raleigh Orthopaedic violated the Privacy Rules by releasing the x-ray films and related protected health information of 17,300 patients to an entity that promised to transfer the images to electronic media in exchange for harvesting the silver from the x-ray films. Raleigh Orthopaedic failed to execute a business associate agreement with this entity before turning over the x-rays and PHI.

OCR says this sharing of the x-ray files and other protected health information by Raleigh Orthopaedic violated the Privacy Rules.

Specifically, the Privacy Rules prohibit Covered Entities and their business associates from using, accessing and disclosing protected health information except as specifically permitted in the Privacy Rules. As part of these rules, the “Business Associate” requirements of the Privacy Rule prohibit Covered Entities from disclosing or allowing business associates to use, and business associates from receiving or using protected health information unless the parties first enter into a written business associate agreement that complies with the requirements of the Privacy Rules.

The Resolution Agreement settles OCR charges that Raleigh Orthopaedic violated this Business Associate Agreement requirement by sharing the x-rays and other protected health information with the service provider without first entering a business associate agreement. Under the Settlement Agreement, Raleigh Orthopaedic must pay a $750,000 payment, as well as revise its policies and procedures to: establish a process for assessing whether entities are business associates; designate a responsible individual to ensure business associate agreements are in place prior to disclosing PHI to a business associate; create a standard template business associate agreement; establish a standard process for maintaining documentation of a business associate agreements for at least six (6) years beyond the date of termination of a business associate relationship; and limit disclosures of PHI to any business associate to the minimum necessary to accomplish the purpose for which the Covered Entity hires the business associate.

Although the Resolution Agreement only addresses charges OCR brought against the Covered Entity, Raleigh Orthopaedic, business associates need to keep in mind that both Covered Entities and business associates now are responsible for ensuring compliance with the business associate agreement requirements of the Privacy Rules since the Stimulus Bill amended HIPAA to make most provisions of the Privacy Rule directly applicable to business associates as well as Covered Entities.

Take Aways For Covered Entities & Their Business Associates

OCR’s announcement of the Resolution Agreement includes a strong message for other Covered Entities and business associates of the importance of taking seriously their responsibility under the Privacy Rule to ensure that the business associate agreement requirements of the Privacy Rule are met before business associates are allowed to receive, access or use protected health information. The announcement quotes Jocelyn Samuels, Director of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office for Civil Rights (OCR) as stating. “It is critical for entities to know to whom they are handing PHI and to obtain assurances that the information will be protected.” and “HIPAA’s obligation on covered entities to obtain business associate agreements is more than a mere check-the-box paperwork exercise.”

In light of the Business Associate Rule and Director Samuels’ comments, Covered Entities and business associates alike should review the adequacy of their documentation, policies and practices regarding dealings with service providers who are or could collect, receive or use electronic or other protected health information to propose or perform services in the capacity as a business associate. Certainly both Covered Entities and business associates to ensure that they possess and are able to produce if needed signed business associate agreements for each current business associate agreement as well as that appropriate policies, practices and procedures are in place to ensure that all required business associate agreements are implemented before any disclosure or use of protected health information to the business associate in the future. As part of these activities, both Covered Entities and business associates also should ensure their policies and practices appropriately provide for the retention of signed copies of all business associate agreements and other records, and the implementation of all other processes and procedures required to position the entity to be able to demonstrate it not only had policies requiring compliance, but appropriately implemented and administered those policies in accordance with the Privacy Rule.

When conducting this review, Covered Entities and business associates also generally should consider the advisability of also reviewing their business associate agreements and the adequacy of these arrangements in light of any other contractual confidentiality and or contractual rights and commitments, regulatory requirements and other operational and risk management concerns that impact or interrelate with the relationship between the business associate and the Covered Entity. It is important to ensure that appropriate steps are taken to evaluate and properly integrate the confidentiality and other commitments that the Privacy Rules mandate a business associate agreement include with audit, performance assessment, and other data access or disclosure, trade secrets, confidentiality, performance standards and guarantees, indemnity and other contractual obligations of other agreements that could impact or be impacted by the business associate agreements. Steps also should be taken to incorporate appropriate processes and procedures for ensuring that the Covered Entity and members of its workforce understand and consistently administer and document their use of appropriate processes to ensure that the business associate agreement and other requirements of the Privacy Rules are fulfilled. In the case of employer sponsored plans subject to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, for instance, the selection and proper oversight of business associates and the management of plan data both are subject to the fiduciary responsibility rules of ERISA. Meanwhile, insurers, business associates and other plan vendors also generally should anticipate that beyond HIPAA, they also may be subject to data security, privacy and other mandates and exposures under state HIPAA-like rules for protected health information, as well as other obligations under insurance, data security, identity theft, breach, privacy and other state laws.

The process of evaluating the adequacy of current arrangement and considering the advisability of changes to tighten existing practices in many cases will result in the discovery and discussion of potentially sensitive information about the adequacy of current or past compliance with the Privacy Rules or other matters. For example, it is possible that in the course of review, parties may be unable to locate a signed business associate agreement governing a relationship that the Privacy Rules require be subject to a business associate agreement or in the course of review, information indicating breaches of protected health information or other Privacy Rule violations may have occurred. For this reason, most Covered Entities and their business associates will want to consider arranging for this review and analysis to be conducted within the scope of attorney-client privilege by or under the direction of qualified legal counsel with HIPAA experience that has entered into a business associate agreement with the Covered Entity or business associate.

About The Author

A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, the American Bar Foundation and the Texas Bar Foundation, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer is a noted Texas-based management lawyer and consultant, author, lecturer and policy advocate, recognized as among the “Top Rated Labor & Employment Lawyers in Texas” by LexisNexis® Martindale-Hubbell® and as among the “Best Lawyers In Dallas” for her work in the field of “Tax: Erisa & Employee Benefits” and “Health Care” by D Magazine who works, writes and speaks extensively about HIPAA and other data privacy and security concerns.

Ms. Stamer’s legal and management consulting work throughout her career has focused on helping organizations and their management use the law and process to manage people, process, compliance, operations and risk. Highly valued for her rare ability to find pragmatic client-centric solutions by combining her detailed legal and operational knowledge and experience with her talent for creative problem-solving, Ms. Stamer helps public and private, domestic and international 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.

Board Certified in Labor & Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, Ms. Stamer helps management manage. 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.

Throughout her career, Ms. Stamer has advised these and other clients about health care, health plan, financial information, trade secret, privacy and other related compliance, data breach response and remediation and related compliance, risk management and related concerns. In the course of this work, Ms. Stamer has accumulated an impressive resume of experience advising and representing clients on HIPAA and other privacy and data security concerns. The scribe for the American Bar Association (ABA) Joint Committee on Employee Benefits annual agency meeting with the Department of Health & Human Services Office of Civil Rights for several years, Ms. Stamer has worked extensively with health plans, health care providers, health care clearinghouses, their business associates, employer and other sponsors, banks and other financial institutions, and others on risk management and compliance with HIPAA and other information privacy and data security rules, investigating and responding to known or suspected breaches, defending investigations or other actions by plaintiffs, OCR and other federal or state agencies, reporting known or suspected violations, business associate and other contracting, commenting or obtaining other clarification of guidance, training and enforcement, and a host of other related concerns. Her clients include public and private health plans, health insurers, health care providers, banking, technology and other vendors, and others.

Beyond advising these and other clients on privacy and data security compliance, risk management, investigations and data breach response and remediation and other health care industry investigation, enforcement and other compliance, public policy, regulatory, staffing, and other operations and risk management concerns. She also is the author of numerous highly acclaimed publications, workshops and tools for HIPAA or other compliance including training programs on Privacy & The Pandemic for the Association of State & Territorial Health Plans, as well as HIPAA, FACTA, PCI, medical confidentiality, insurance confidentiality and other privacy and data security compliance and risk management for Los Angeles County Health Department, ISSA, HIMMS, the ABA, SHRM, schools, medical societies, government and private health care and health plan organizations, their business associates, trade associations and others.

Ms. Stamer also is deeply involved in helping to influence the 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. She will share updates on HIPAA and other health care and data security concerns when returns to speak and chair at the 4th Annual Healthcare Privacy and Security Forum scheduled on May 20, 2016 in Los Angeles.

Beyond these involvements, Ms. Stamer also is active in the leadership of a broad range of other professional and civic organizations. For instance, Ms. Stamer presently serves 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 here or contact Ms. Stamer directly by email here or by telephone at (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 may be interested reviewing other Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ resources at www.solutionslawpress.com such as:

Comments Off on Business Associate Rule Violations Behind $750K HIPAA Settlement | Attorney-Client Privilege, board of directors, Corporate Compliance, Cybercrime, Data Breach, Data Security, Employee Benefits, Employer, Employers, Employment, ERISA, FACTA, fiduciary duty, Fiduciary Responsibility, health benefit, Health Benefits, health Care, health insurance, health insurance marketplace, health plan, Health Plans, HIPAA, HIPAA, HR, Human Resources, Insurance, insurers, Internal Controls, Uncategorized | Tagged: Business Associate, Corporate Compliance, Employee Benefits, Employer, ERISA, Health Insurance, Health Plans, HIPAA, Human Resources, Insurance, Privacy | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Final Investment Advice Fiduciary Rules Mean Work For Employers, Fiduciaries & Advisors

April 12, 2016

Employer and other employee benefit plan sponsors, benefit plan committees and fiduciaries, and the broker-dealers, financial advisors, insurance agents and other plan service providers that provide investment-related platforms, advice, recommendations or other services for employee benefit plans need to reevaluate the fiduciary status of their service providers and begin restructuring as necessary their associated relationships, service provider commission or other compensation, service agreements and arrangements or other services in response to a new Regulatory Guidance Package (Rule) that explicitly classifies parties providing “covered investment advice” as fiduciaries subject to the conflict of interest and other fiduciary responsibility rules of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).

Supplementing existing precedent and EBSA’s already existing broad, functional definition of “fiduciary,” the Rule clarifies when individuals and entities that provide “covered investment advice” to plans, plan sponsors, fiduciaries, plan participants, beneficiaries and Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs) and IRA owners are:

Fiduciaries of the Plan or IRA for purposes of Title I of ERISA;
Required to acknowledge their status and the status of their individual advisers as “fiduciaries” of the plan for purposes of ERISA;
Accountable as fiduciaries for making prudent investment recommendations without regard to their own interests, or the interests of those other than the plan or plan participant or beneficiary that is the customer;
Restricted to charging only “reasonable compensation” for their advice or service;
Prohibited from making misrepresentations to their customers regarding recommended investments; and
Prohibited from providing advice or making payments that involve any conflicts of interest prohibited by ERISA unless the arrangements fully complies with a prohibited transaction exemption issued by EBSA under ERISA Section 408 that otherwise complies with ERISA Section 404.

Concurrent with its adoption of final regulations implementing these new rules concerning investment advisors and their fiduciary responsibilities, the Rule also adopts certain new Prohibited Transaction Exemptions that define requirements that providers of covered investment advice and the plan fiduciaries that engage them generally will be required after April 7, 2017 to ensure are met for investment advisors to receive commission-based compensation for their services, to sell or purchase certain recommended debt securities and other investments out of their own inventories to or from plans and IRAs, or to receive compensation for recommending fixed rate annuity contracts to plans and IRAs.

Investment Advice Covered By The Rule

The final rule applies to “covered investment advice.” For purposes of the rule, “covered investment advice” generally includes:

A recommendation to a plan, plan fiduciary, plan participant and beneficiary and IRA owner for a fee or other compensation, direct or indirect, as to the advisability of buying, holding, selling or exchanging securities or other investment property, including recommendations as to the investment of securities or other property after the securities or other property are rolled over or distributed from a plan or IRA;
A recommendation as to the management of securities or other investment property, including, among other things, recommendations on investment policies or strategies, portfolio composition, selection of other persons to provide investment advice or investment management services, selection of investment account arrangements (e.g., brokerage versus advisory); or recommendations with respect to rollovers, transfers, or distributions from a plan or IRA, including whether, in what amount, in what form, and to what destination such a rollover, transfer, or distribution should be made.

Under the Rule, the fundamental threshold element in establishing the existence of fiduciary investment advice is whether a “recommendation” occurred. The Department has taken an approach to defining “recommendation” that is consistent with and based upon the approach taken by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), the independent regulatory authority of the broker-dealer industry, subject to the oversight of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

The Rule specifies that a “recommendation” is a communication that, based on its content, context, and presentation, would reasonably be viewed as a suggestion that the advice recipient engage in or refrain from taking a particular course of action. Under the Rule, the more individually tailored the communication is to a specific advice recipient or recipients, the more likely the communication will be viewed as a recommendation.

The types of relationships that must exist for such recommendations to give rise to fiduciary investment advice responsibilities include recommendations made either directly or indirectly (e.g. through or together with any affiliate) by a person who:

Represents or acknowledges that they are acting as a fiduciary within the meaning of ERISA or the Internal Revenue Code (Code);
Renders advice pursuant to a written or verbal agreement, arrangement or understanding that the advice is based on the particular investment needs of the advice recipient; or
Directs the advice to a specific recipient or recipients regarding the advisability of a particular investment or management decision with respect to securities or other investment property of the plan or IRA.

Also, the Rule only applies where a recommendation is provided directly or indirectly in exchange for a “fee or other compensation.” “Fee or other compensation, direct or indirect” means any explicit fee or compensation for the advice received by the person (or by an affiliate) from any source, and any other fee or compensation received from any source in connection with or as a result of the recommended purchase or sale of a security or the provision of investment advice services including, though not limited to, such things as commissions, loads, finder’s fees, and revenue sharing payments. A fee or compensation is paid “in connection with or as a result of” such transaction or service if the fee or compensation would not have been paid but for the transaction or service or if eligibility for or the amount of the fee or compensation is based in whole or in part on the transaction or service.

Investment Advice Not Covered By Rule

While the Rule reaches broadly, not all communications with financial advisers are covered fiduciary investment advice under the Rule. As a threshold issue, if the communications do not meet the definition of “recommendations” as described above, the communications will be considered non-fiduciary. In response to requests from commenters, and for clarification, the final rule includes some specific examples of communications that would not rise to the level of a recommendation and therefore would not constitute a fiduciary investment advice communication under the Rule.

When evaluating the applicability and effect of these exemptions, however, it is important to keep in mind that by adding the new Rule, EBSA seeks to make clear that individuals or organizations that engage in activities described in the Rule as covered investment advice are fiduciaries subject to these requirements. Since the Rule does not revoke existing EBSA fiduciary guidance or judicial precedent, service providers and other parties with discretionary authority or responsibility over employee benefit plans not covered by the Rule still could qualify as fiduciaries if their authority, responsibility or actions functionally causes them to fall within the definition of a fiduciary under these other pre-existing definitions of fiduciary status. Subject to this cautionary proviso, the following are some of the activities that the Rule identifies as activities that might fall outside the Rule’s covered investment activities in the manner required by the Rule:

“Education” as defined and provided in accordance with the Rule;
“General communications that a reasonable person would not view as an investment recommendation;”
Simply making available a platform of investment alternatives without regard to the individualized needs of the plan, its participants, or beneficiaries if a plan fiduciary independent of the platform service provider actually decides what investment options are offered and the platform service provider also represents in writing to the plan fiduciary that they are not undertaking to provide impartial investment advice or to give advice in a fiduciary capacity; and
Transactions with independent plan fiduciaries where the adviser knows or reasonably believes that the independent fiduciary is a licensed and regulated provider of financial services (banks, insurance companies, registered investment advisers, broker-dealers) or those that have responsibility for the management of $50 million in assets, and other conditions set forth in the Rule are met;
Communications and activities made by advisers to ERISA-covered employee benefit plans in swap or security-based swap transactions when the swap transaction meets certain conditions set forth in the Rule, which EBSA designed in coordination with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) to avoid conflicts between the Rule and the swap and security-based swap rules promulgated by those agencies under the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act; and
Activities and communications of employees working in the payroll, accounting, human resources, and financial departments of the plan sponsor or its affiliated business who routinely develop reports and recommendations for the company and other named fiduciaries of the sponsors’ plans if the employees receive no fee or other compensation in connection with any such recommendations beyond their normal compensation for work performed for their employer.

New Prohibited Transaction Exemptions Published With Rule

Concurrent with its publication of the Rule, EBSA also is adopting the following new “Prohibited Transaction Exemptions to the otherwise applicable statutory list of prohibited conflict of interest transactions in ERISA Section 406 and the companion rules of the Internal Revenue Code (Code) applicable to qualified retirement plans.

Noncompliance with the Rule, including where necessary to avoid violating ERISA Section 406’s prohibited transaction prohibitions, by parties providing covered investment advice or the engagement or retention of such a service provider by an employer or other party exercising or with responsibility or authority to make that engagement carriers big legal risk. Advisers and financial institutions that don’t meet the BICE standards and other requirements of the Rule expose themselves to liability from breach of fiduciary duty claims under ERISA brought by ERISA plans, participants, and beneficiaries or in the case of IRAs or other non-ERISA plans, state law breach of contract or other state law claims brought by IRAs and other non-ERISA plans or accountholders. Likewise an employer, member of its management or other party responsible for or having authority to choose the service provider risks breaching its own fiduciary duties under ERISA by engaging a party that renders covered investment advice without complying with the Rule. In addition, to the extent that the engagement or activities of the service provider involves commission compensation payments, swaps or other activities that would constitute a prohibited conflict of interest under ERISA Section 406 not structured and conducted with an applicable prohibited transaction exemption, both the service provider and the fiduciary could bear personal liability for involving the plan or its assets in a prohibited transaction in violation of ERISA Section 406. For this reason, to help positions themselves to mitigate or defend against liability for such potential claims, advisors generally should take steps to ensure that the advisor can prove the advisor acted in their clients’ best interest by documenting their use of a reasonable process and adherence to professional standards in deciding to make the recommendation and determining it was in the customer’s best interest, and by documenting their compliance with the financial institution’s policies and procedures required by the Best Interest Contract Exemption.

“Best Interest Contract Exemption” (BICE)

ERISA and the Internal Revenue Code rules for qualified retirement plans generally prohibit individuals or entities providing fiduciary investment advice to plan sponsors, plan participants, and IRA owners to receive payments creating any of the listed statutory conflicts of interest listed in ERISA or the Code without a prohibited transaction exemption (PTE), employee benefit plan sponsors, benefit plan committees and other fiduciaries, and the broker-dealers, financial advisors, insurance agents and other plan service providers providing covered investment services to employee benefit plans also need to ensure that their compensation is structured to ensure that the compensation and other arrangements do not violate these prohibited transaction and conflict of interest prohibitions of the Code and ERISA, ERISA’s reasonable compensation rules, or the other requirements of ERISA.

Concerning ERISA Section 406’s party-in-interest and other conflict of interest requirements, EBSA issued in conjunction with its publication of the Rule a new “Best Interest Contract Exemption” (BICE), which provides a prohibited transaction exception that permits the payment of commission-based compensation to fiduciary investment advisors as long as the conditions specified in the BICE are met. Among other things, the BICE requires as a condition of the applicability of this exception that:

The financial institution to acknowledge in writing fiduciary status for itself and its advisers;
The financial institution and advisers to adhere to ERISA’s basic standards of impartial conduct, including giving prudent advice that is in the customer’s best interest, avoiding making misleading statements, and receiving no more than reasonable compensation;
The financial institution to have policies and procedures designed to mitigate harmful impacts of conflicts of interest; and
The financial institution to disclose specified information about their conflicts of interest and the cost of their advice.

The specified disclosures required to meet the conditions of the BICE include:

Descriptions of material conflicts of interest;
Descriptions of fees or charges paid by the retirement investor
A statement of the types of compensation the firm expects to receive from third parties in connection with recommended investments;
Notification that investors have the right to obtain specific disclosure of costs, fees, and other compensation upon request; and
A requirement that a website must be maintained and updated regularly that includes information about the financial institution’s business model and associated material conflicts of interest, a written description of the financial institution’s policies and procedures that mitigate conflicts of interest, and disclosure of compensation and incentive arrangements with advisers, among other information. However, the BICE currently does not require that the website include individualized information about a particular adviser’s compensation.

Noncompliance with the Rule by parties providing covered investment advice or the engagement or retention of such a service provider by an employer or other party exercising or with responsibility or authority to make that engagement carriers big legal risk. Advisers and financial institutions that don’t meet the BICE standards and other requirements of the Rule expose themselves to liability from breach of fiduciary duty claims under ERISA brought by ERISA plans, participants, and beneficiaries or in the case of IRAs or other non-ERISA plans, state law breach of contract or other state law claims brought by IRAs and other non-ERISA plans or accountholders. Likewise an employer, member of its management or other party responsible for or having authority to choose the service provider risks breaching its own fiduciary duties under ERISA by engaging a party that renders covered investment advice without complying with the Rule. In addition, to the extent that the engagement or activities of the service provider involves commission compensation payments, swaps or other activities that would constitute a prohibited conflict of interest under ERISA Section 406 not structured and conducted with an applicable prohibited transaction exemption, both the service provider and the fiduciary could bear personal liability for involving the plan or its assets in a prohibited transaction in violation of ERISA Section 406. For this reason, to help positions themselves to mitigate or defend against liability for such potential claims, advisors generally should take steps to ensure that the advisor can prove the advisor acted in their clients’ best interest by documenting their use of a reasonable process and adherence to professional standards in deciding to make the recommendation and determining it was in the customer’s best interest, and by documenting their compliance with the financial institution’s policies and procedures required by the Best Interest Contract Exemption.

Principle Transactions Exemption

The “Principal Transactions Exemption” published in connection with the Rule provides an exemption from the prohibitions of ERISA Section 406 to allow investment advice fiduciaries to sell or purchase certain recommended debt securities and other investments out of their own inventories to or from plans and IRAs where the requirements of the Exemption are met. As with the Best Interest Contract Exemption, the Principle Transaction Exemption requires, among other things, that investment advice fiduciaries adhere to certain impartial conduct standards, including obligations to act in the customer’s best interest, avoid misleading statements, and seek to obtain the best execution reasonably available under the circumstances for the transaction.

Existing PTE For Fixed Rate Annuity Contracts

In connection with its adoption of the Rule, EBSA also is amending existing exemption, PTE 84-24, which provides relief for insurance agents and brokers, and insurance companies, to receive compensation for recommending fixed rate annuity contracts to plans and IRAs. As amended in connection with the Rule, the requirements of PTE 84-24 are modified to provide increased safeguards for retirement investors while still providing “more streamlined conditions” than those required to meet the Best Interest Contract Exemption. Consistent with its enthusiasm for encouraging the offering and adoption of life time income products to retirees over the past several years, EBSA says these more streamlined conditions of PTE 84-24 are appropriate to “facilitate access by plans and IRAs to these relatively simple lifetime income products.” More complex products, such as variable annuities and indexed annuities, will be able to be recommended by advisers and financial institutions under the terms of the Best Interest Contract Exemption.

Other PTE Exemptions Modified To Raise Requirements

The Department is amending other existing exemptions, as well, to ensure that plan and IRA investors receiving investment advice are consistently protected by impartial conduct standards, regardless of the particular exemption upon which the adviser and the fiduciary engaging that advisor intend to rely upon to avoid violating of ERISA 406.

While the compliance deadline for the new Rule is not until April 8, 2017, the relief from ERISA Section 406 offered by the new Exemptions announced in connection with the Rule’s publication generally became available when EBSA published them in connection with the Rule on April 8, 2016. As this relief could provide helpful protection against fiduciary challenges or exposures that some service providers might already face under already existing fiduciary precedent or guidance, many service providers involved in dealings with plan or IRA investments may wish to take steps to position themselves to claim protection under one of these new PTE Exemptions even before the Rule takes effect. When evaluating this option, some service providers should be aware of the availability of transitional relief that may make it easier for some service providers to claim relief under the new BICE or Principal Transactions Exemption between April 8, 2017 and January 1, 2018 (Transition Period). In addition, parties that contemplate wishing to take advantage of the relief offered by the new BICE or Principal Transactions Exemption may benefit from taking advantage of reduced requirements for meeting these conditions during the phase in Transition Period. During this Transition Period, EBSA still will require firms and advisers to adhere to the Exemptions’ impartial conduct standards, provide a notice to retirement investors that, among other things, acknowledges their fiduciary status and describes their material conflicts of interest, and to designate a person responsible for addressing material conflicts of interest and monitoring advisers’ adherence to the impartial conduct standards; however compliance with certain other requirements is waived until January 1, 2018. Of course, full compliance with all requirements of the applicable Exemptions will be required as of January 1, 2018.

Rule Requires Action By Plan Sponsors, Fiduciaries & Service Providers

The new Rule creates lots of new work both for advisors and other service providers in, as well as plan sponsors, plan administrative committees or other fiduciaries responsible for selection, retention and oversight of those providing these services. All such parties have much to do to fulfill their ERISA responsibilities by the April 8, 2017 deadline for compliance with the new Rule and to deal with other likely fallout from the new Rule.

Fallout for Covered Investment Advisors & Other Service Providers

Clearly, advisors, financial institutions and other service providers providing covered investment advice and others with involvement with investments or investment platforms have much work to do to prepare for the new rule. However, compliance with the Rule is not merely a service provider problem. Employer or other plan sponsors, plan fiduciaries or other responsible for the credentialing, selection, retention, and oversight of service providers dealing with investments also need to ensure that the party or parties responsible for these vendor dealings fulfills its own fiduciary responsibilities in dealing with vendors and service providers that may be impacted by these requirements.

Advisers and financial institutions that don’t meet the requirements of the new Rule expose themselves to liability from breach of fiduciary duty claims under ERISA brought by ERISA plans, participants, and beneficiaries or in the case of IRAs or other non-ERISA plans, state law breach of contract or other state law claims brought by IRAs and other non-ERISA plans or accountholders. Obviously, advisors, financial institutions and other service providers providing advice or having dealings or involvement with IRA or employee benefit plan investments, their selection or administration will want to review and update their relationships and their associated compensation, contracts, disclosures and other arrangements and processes in light of the new Rule. Clearly, those that could be considered to offer or provide covered investment advice need to start revising contracts, compensation, policies, practices and other arrangements in anticipation of the Rule. At the same time, the Rule also is likely to create work for certain service providers with involvement or dealings with investments that the service provider considers to fall outside of the Rule:

To respond to changes in client requests for proposals, contracts or other due diligence in response to the Rule;
To respond to changes in response to the Rule by covered investment advisors to reconfigure services, relationships and contracts in response to the Rule;
To clarify and institutionalize and document communications by the uncovered service provider to clients and others of limits on the service provider’s services and capacity that are necessary or helpful to avoid or limit exposure of the service provider to coverage by or claims of liability arising out of the Rule; and/or
Otherwise.

Fallout For Plan Sponsors & Plan Fiduciaries Selecting & Overseeing Service Providers

Employer or other plan sponsors, plan fiduciaries or other responsible for the credentialing, selection, retention, and oversight of service providers dealing with investments also need to anticipate and be prepared to deal the effects of adoption of the Rule on their responsibilities and risks as they relate to the selection, retention, contracting, compensation and other dealings with service providers impacted by the Rule.

The Rule’s explicit designation as fiduciaries of certain service providers that previously may have been characterized as providing services as non-fiduciaries, much less its tightening of requirements for the investment advisors that are covered fiduciaries, creates a host of new responsibilities and considerations for employers sponsoring plans and its members of management that select, retain, contract with and oversee these service providers.

Under ERISA, parties designated in writing or function exercising discretionary authority or responsibility for the selection, retention, compensation and oversight of fiduciary or other service providers generally are considered fiduciaries for purposes of carrying out these responsibilities and bear personal liability for prudently selecting, retaining and monitoring the service provider in accordance with ERISA.

To fulfill this fiduciary obligation, those involved in selecting and retaining investment advisors covered by the rules should expect to bear responsibility for ensuring that the covered investment advisor is engaged in compliance with the Rule and the otherwise applicable requirements of ERISA, including that the engagement and compensation of the selected investment advisor will not involve the plan or its assets in a prohibited conflict of interest listed in ERISA Section 406. Furthermore, failing to ensure that the engagement of an investment advisor does not violate these conflict of interest rules also exposes a sponsoring employer of a qualified plan to excise tax liability under the Code’s companion party-in-interest rules applicable to such plans.

Accordingly, whether the employer itself retains and directly exercises the discretionary authority to select and retain a service provider or appoints a committee or member of its staff to perform these responsibilities as a designated fiduciary, an accurate understanding of which service providers, taking into account the rule, now will be considered fiduciaries and the requirements of the Rule flowing from this status is essential to understand and make appropriate provisions to ensure that proper steps are taken to ensure that the Rule and ERISA’s other requirements for prudent credentialing, bonding, contracting, compensation, and other dealings with the service provider and to budget for the proper conduct of the activities needed to fulfill these obligations.

In light of these and other exposures and obligations, employer and other plan sponsors, plan fiduciaries and plan service providers alike all should start preparing to respond to the new Rule.

To help positions themselves to mitigate or defend against liability for such potential claims, each party generally will want to take prudent and well-documented steps to evaluate the fiduciary status of each applicable service provider, as well as its own fiduciary status, capacity, responsibility and other exposures in light of the new Rule. Since ERISA fiduciary status attaches functionally based on the functional facts and circumstances, sponsoring employers, as well as service providers generally will want to consider taking appropriate steps to document this analysis and other compliance and risk management efforts to avoid violations of the Rule, as well as to position themselves to defend against other claims and liabilities.

In all cases, each impacted party should make an effort to apply and retain evidence documenting its efforts including, in the case of all service providers, whether or not covered investment advisors under the Rule, their efforts to act in their clients’ best interest by documenting their use of a reasonable process and adherence to professional standards in deciding to make the recommendation and determining it was in the customer’s best interest, and by documenting their compliance with the financial institution’s policies and procedures and applicable requirements of the law.

About The Author

Board Certified in Labor and Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, a Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, past Group Chair, past Welfare Benefit Committee Chair, and Current Defined Contribution Plan 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, a past ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits Council Representative Cynthia Marcotte Stamer is a practicing attorney, regulatory and public policy advocate, author, lecturer and industry and public policy thought leader recognized as a “Top” attorney in employee benefits, labor and employment and health care law for her more than 28 years’ of leading edge experience nationally and internationally providing practical and effective advice and representation to management.

Ms. Stamer’s legal and management consulting work throughout her career has focused on helping organizations and their management understand and use the law and process to manage people, performance, 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 and pragmatic 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.

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

As a key part of this work, Ms. Stamer uses her deep and highly specialized health, insurance, labor and employment and other knowledge and experience to help 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, ex-patriate 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. In these and other engagements, 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 advises and represents clients on OCR and other HHS, Department of Labor, IRS, FTC, DOD and other health care industry investigation, enforcement and other compliance, public policy, regulatory, staffing, and other operations and risk management concerns. In the course of this work, Ms. Stamer has accumulated an impressive resume of more than 28 years’ of experience advising and representing clients on Title I and other ERISA fiduciary responsibility concerns including assisting and advising plan sponsors, plan fiduciary and plan service providers to design and administer fiduciary and other compliance and risk management policies and practices, conducting investigations of potential fiduciary or other breaches, and serving as special counsel, advising and representing these and other clients in connection with EBSA, IRS, SEC and other governmental audits, investigations and enforcement actions; in private disputes and litigation regarding plan investments or other fiduciary concerns between plan participant and beneficiaries, plans, plan fiduciaries, plan sponsors and plan service providers; or both.

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

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 www.cynthiastamer.com, or http://www.stamerchadwicksoefje.com the member of contact Ms. Stamer via email here or via telephone to (469) 767-8872.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information including your preferred e-mail by creating or updating your profile here. ©2016 Cynthia Marcotte Stamer. Non-exclusive right to republish granted to Solutions Law Press. All other rights reserved.

Comments Off on Final Investment Advice Fiduciary Rules Mean Work For Employers, Fiduciaries & Advisors | 401(k), Banking, board of directors, Brokers, compensation, compliance, Consumer Protection, Corporate Compliance, corporate governance, defined benefit plan, defined contribution plan, directors, EBSA, Employee Benefits, Employer, Employers, Employment, ERISA, Excise Tax, Excise Taxes, fiduciary duty, Fiduciary Responsibility, HR, Human Resources, insurers, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, Internal Revenue Code, IRC, Tax, Tax Qualification, Uncategorized | Tagged: benefit plan, conflict of interest, conflict of interest rule, employee benefit plan, Employee Benefits, Employer, ERISA, Fiduciary, Fiduciary Responsibility, investment advice, investment advisor, plan, prohibited transaction | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Employers, Insurers & TPAS: Budget Time, $ For 2017 Summary of Benefits and Coverage Updates

April 11, 2016

Group health plans and group and individual health insurers (Health Plans) must add updating their 2017 Summary of Benefits and Coverage (SBC) forms to their 2017 to do list in response to the publication by the Departments of Health and Human Services (HHS), Labor (DOL) and Treasury (collectively “Agencies) of enhanced content requirements for the 2017 Summary of Benefits and Coverage (SBC) template and Uniform Glossary that the Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act (ACA) requires Health Plans to provide to Health Plan members. Health Plans must begin using SBCs updated to comply with the 2017 SBC template released by the Agencies on April 6, 2016 beginning on the first day of the first open enrollment period that begins on or after April 1, 2017.

The ACA requires Health Plans to provide covered persons a brief (4 page) summary of what the plan covers and the plan’s cost sharing along with a comprehensive uniform glossary of commonly used health coverage and medical terms with the detailed content and format dictated by the Agencies SBC regulations. Intended to help covered persons understand and compare coverage options by providing standardized information in a standardized format about each plan, the SBC and Glossary must include all required content in the type and format dictated by the SBC regulations. In addition to ensuring that their SBC and Glossary meet these requirements, Health Plans also may need to prepare and offer translations of the SBC and Glossary to comply with the ACA’s “culturally and linguistically appropriate” requirements.

The current and 2017 SBC Template along with instructions for its preparation and completion, model translation documents for certain forms, and other information about the SBC requirements are available here.

Currently, the dictated SBC format includes coverage examples that demonstrate the cost sharing amounts an individual might be responsible for in three common medical situations. In addition to the current coverage examples that address diabetes care and childbirth, the updated template for 2017 also will require a new coverage example that addresses coverage for a foot fracture so that a consumer understands what a plan covers in an emergency scenario.

Beyond dictating the emergency example, the 2017 templates also expand the information about cost sharing that SBCs much contain to include enhanced language to explain deductibles and a requirement that plans address individual and overall out-of-pocket limits in the SBC.

While the Agencies regulations dictate the required content, health insurers and employers or others serving as health plan administrators or sponsors need to use care to ensure that SBCs are prepared appropriately and provided when and how required. Failure to timely deliver the SBC not only can trigger penalties under ERISA against the plan administrator and/or against the insurer under the ACA market reform rules, noncompliance with the SBC requirements also is among the listed ACA compliance defects that can expose the sponsoring employer to excise tax penalties under the Internal Revenue Code.

In order to fulfill this and other important ACA and other federal health plan notice and reporting mandates, employer and other plan sponsors, administrators and fiduciaries generally must finalize their health plan design well in advance of the date the new health plan design is intended to take effect. The Agencies SBC regulations generally require that the SBC be provided before the first day of the enrollment period and that updated SBCs be provided whenever any material change in benefits or coverage is enacted after the delivery of the original SPB. The requirement to prepare and deliver the SBC is in addition to the current federal mandate that plan administrators provide written notice of material changes to a health plan at least 60 days before the effective date of the material change and a host of other health plan notice requirements imposed by federal law. Employers, insurers, third party administrators and health plan fiduciaries need to understand and make appropriate arrangements to ensure that these SBC and other notice and reporting requirements are timely and appropriately completed.

About The Author

A practicing attorney and Managing Shareholder of Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, P.C., Ms. Stamer’s more than 28 years’ of leading edge work as an practicing attorney, author, lecturer and industry and policy thought leader have resulted in her recognition as a “Top” attorney in employee benefits, labor and employment and health care law.

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

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Comments Off on Employers, Insurers & TPAS: Budget Time, $ For 2017 Summary of Benefits and Coverage Updates | ACA, Affordable Care Act, Employee Benefits, Employer, Employers, Employment, ERISA, Excise Taxes, Fiduciary Responsibility, health benefit, Health Benefits, Health Care Reform, health insurance, health insurance marketplace, health plan, Health Plans, health reform, HR, Human Resources, Insurance, insurers, Internal Controls, Internal Revenue Code, IRC, Patient Empowerment, Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Public Policy, Reporting & Disclosure, SBC, Uncategorized | Tagged: Affordable Care Act, disclosure, Employee Benefits, Employer, Employment, ERISA, Health Insurance, Health Insurer, Health Plans, Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act, SBC, Summary of Benefts and Coverage, tpa | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

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 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:

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

Brace For Health Plan OCR HIPAA Audits

March 22, 2016

Employer and union sponsored health plans, their sponsors, fiduciaries, and business associates should brace for audits and enforcement of the Privacy, Security, and Breach Notification rules by the Department of Health & Human Service Office of Civil Rights (OCR) follow OCR’s 2016 audit program on the heels of its announcement last week of two large HIPAA settlements last week.

OCR confirmed today it is sending emails notifying health plans, healthcare providers, healthcare clearing houses (Covered Entities) and their business associates identified as part of the kickoff of its next phase of audits of Covered Entities. In light of the HIPAA verification rules and the notorious spread of opportunistic identity theft and other fraud by opportunistic Cybercriminals following these types of announcements, Covered Entities and business associates should carefully verify the requests validity and manage the response to avoid violating HIPAA in responding and position for defensibility against potential penalties.

Even if health plans or other Covered Entities reviewed their practices in the last 12-months, most will want to update this review in response to new OCR guidance and enforcement actions, including new guidance on obligations to provide plan members or other subjects of protected health information with access to or copies of their records and other guidance, as well as the ever-expanding list of enforcement actions by OCR.

To catch up on this latest guidance, Solutions Law Press, Inc. ™ invites you to register to participate in a special WebEx briefing on “HIPAA Update: The Latest On Security, Patient Access & Other HIPAA Developments” on Wednesday, March 30, 2016 beginning at Noon Central Time on Wednesday, March 30, 2016.

2016 Audit Program

In its 2016 Phase 2 HIPAA Audit Program, OCR will review the policies and procedures adopted and employed by Covered Entities and their business associates to meet selected standards and implementation specifications of the Privacy, Security, and Breach Notification Rules. OCR says it will primarily conduct these audits as desk audits, although some on-site audits will be conducted.

According to today’s announcement, the 2016 audit process begins with verification of an entity’s address and contact information. OCR is sending emails to Covered Entities and business associates requesting that contact information be provided to OCR on time. OCR will then send a pre-audit questionnaire to gather data about the size, type, and operations of potential audit targets. OCR says this data will be used with other information to create potential audit subject pools. Recipients should contact qualified legal counsel immediately for advice and assistance about proper procedures to verify the email is in fact from OCR and for assistance in responding.

If an entity does not respond to OCR’s request to verify its contact information or pre-audit questionnaire, OCR will use publicly available information about the entity to create its audit subject pool. Therefore an entity that does not respond to OCR may still be selected for an audit or subject to a compliance review. Communications from OCR will be sent via email and may be incorrectly classified as spam. If your entity’s spam filtering and virus protection are automatically enabled, OCR expects entities to check their junk or spam email folder for emails from OCR.

The announcement also reflects that OCR is still developing other aspects of the audit program. OCR will post updated audit protocols on its website closer to conducting the 2016 audits. The audit protocol will be updated to reflect the HIPAA Omnibus Rulemaking and can be used as a tool by organizations to conduct their own internal self-audits as part of their HIPAA compliance activities.

OCR says its audits will enhance industry awareness of compliance obligations and enable OCR to better target technical assistance regarding problems identified through the audits. Through the information gleaned from the audits, OCR will develop tools and guidance to aid the industry in compliance self-evaluation and in preventing breaches. OCR plans to use results and procedures used in the phase 2 audits to develop its permanent HIPAA audit program.

OCR Settlements Show Enforcement Risk

The audit program announcement comes less than a week after OCR announced millions of dollars of new penalties under settlements with two Covered Entities:

A $1,555,000 settlement with North Memorial Health Care of Minnesota;
A $3.9 million settlement with Feinstein Institute for Medical Research.

The two settlements drive home again the substantial liability that health care providers, health plans, health care clearinghouses and their business associates risk for violating HIPAA.

Feinstein Settlement

Feinstein is a biomedical research institute organized as a New York not-for-profit corporation sponsored by Northwell Health, Inc., formerly known as North Shore Long Island Jewish Health System, a large health system headquartered in Manhasset, New York comprised of 21 hospitals and over 450 patient facilities and physician practices.

OCR’s investigation began after Feinstein filed a breach report indicating that on September 2, 2012, a laptop computer containing the electronic protected health information (ePHI) of approximately 13,000 patients and research participants was stolen from an employee’s car. The ePHI stored in the laptop included the names of research participants, dates of birth, addresses, social security numbers, diagnoses, laboratory results, medications, and medical information about potential participation in a research study.

OCR’s investigation discovered that Feinstein’s security management process was limited in scope, incomplete, and insufficient to address potential risks and vulnerabilities to the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of ePHI held by the entity. Further, Feinstein lacked policies and procedures for authorizing access to ePHI by its workforce members, failed to implement safeguards to restrict access to unauthorized users, and lacked policies and procedures to govern the receipt and removal of laptops that contained ePHI into and out of its facilities. For electronic equipment procured outside of Feinstein’s standard acquisition process, Feinstein failed to implement proper mechanisms for safeguarding ePHI as required by the Security Rule.

“Research institutions subject to HIPAA must be held to the same compliance standards as all other HIPAA-covered entities,” said OCR Director Jocelyn Samuels. “For individuals to trust in the research process and for patients to trust in those institutions, they must have some assurance that their information is kept private and secure.”

The resolution agreement and corrective action plan may be found on the OCR website at http://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-professionals/compliance-enforcement/agreements/Feinstein/index.html.

North Memorial

The Feinstein settlement announcement follows yesterday’s announcement of a $1.5 million plus settlement with North Memorial to resolve HIPAA charges that it failed to implement a business associate agreement with a major contractor and failed to institute an organization-wide risk analysis to address the risks and vulnerabilities to its patient information. North Memorial is a comprehensive, not-for-profit health care system in Minnesota that serves the Twin Cities and surrounding communities.

The settlement highlights the importance for healthcare providers, health plans, healthcare clearinghouses and their business associates to comply with HIPAA’s business associate agreement and other HIPAA organizational, risk assessment, privacy and security, and other requirements.

OCR’s announcement emphasizes the importance of meeting these requirements. “Two major cornerstones of the HIPAA Rules were overlooked by this entity,” said Director Samuels. “Organizations must have in place compliant business associate agreements as well as an accurate and thorough risk analysis that addresses their enterprise-wide IT infrastructure.”

The settlement comes from charges filed after OCR initiated its investigation of North Memorial following receipt of a breach report on September 27, 2011, which indicated that an unencrypted, password-protected laptop was stolen from a business associate’s workforce member’s locked vehicle, impacting the ePHI of 9,497 individuals.

OCR’s investigation indicated that North Memorial failed to have in place a business associate agreement, as required under the HIPAA Privacy and Security Rules, so that its business associate could perform certain payment and health care operations activities on its behalf. North Memorial gave its business associate, Accretive, access to North Memorial’s hospital database, which stored the ePHI of 289,904 patients. Accretive also received access to non-electronic protected health information as it performed services on-site at North Memorial.

The investigation further determined that North Memorial failed to complete a risk analysis to address all of the potential risks and vulnerabilities to the ePHI that it maintained, accessed, or transmitted across its entire IT infrastructure — including but not limited to all applications, software, databases, servers, workstations, mobile devices and electronic media, network administration and security devices, and associated business processes.

In addition to the $1,550,000 payment, North Memorial is required to develop an organization-wide risk analysis and risk management plan, as required under the Security Rule. North Memorial will also train appropriate workforce members on all policies and procedures newly developed or revised pursuant to this corrective action plan.

The Resolution Agreement and Corrective Action Plan can be found on the HHS website at: http://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-professionals/compliance-enforcement/agreements/north-memorial-health-care/index.html.
Settlement Latest Reminder To Manage HIPAA Risks.

Following up on OCR’s imposition of its second-ever HIPAA Civil Monetary Penalty (CMP) and the latest in an ever-growing list of settlements by Covered Entities under HIPAA, these latest settlements illustrate the substantial liability that Covered Entities face for violating HIPAA. To avoid these liabilities, Covered Entities must constantly be diligent to comply with the latest guidance of OCR about their obligations under HIPAA.

As OCR continues to issue additional guidance as well as supplement this guidance through information shared in settlement agreements like the North Memorial settlement, even if Covered Entities reviewed their practices in the last 12-months, most will want to update this review in response to new OCR guidance and enforcement actions, including new guidance on obligations to provide plan members or other subjects of protected health information with access to or copies of their records and other guidance, as well as the ever-expanding list of enforcement actions by OCR.

Since the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act of 2009 (HITECH) amended HIPAA, Covered Entities face growing responsibilities and liability for maintaining the security of ePHI.

In response to HITECH, OCR continues to use a carrot and stick approach to encouraging and enforcing compliance. As demonstrated by OCR’s imposition of the second-ever HIPAA Civil Monetary Penalty (CMP) of $239,000 against Lincare and the ever-growing list of Resolution Agreements OCR announces with other Covered Entities, OCR continues to step up enforcement against Covered Entities that breach the Privacy and Security Rules. See OCR’s 2nd-Ever HIPAA CMP Nails Lincare For $239,000.

On the other hand, OCR also continues to encourage voluntary compliance by Covered Entities by sharing guidance and tools to aid Covered Entities to understand fulfill their HIPAA responsibilities such as the HIPAA Security Rule Crosswalk to NIST Cybersecurity Framework (Crosswalk) unveiled by OCR on February 24, 2016.The crosswalk that maps the HIPAA Security Rule to the standards of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Framework for Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity (the Cybersecurity Framework) as well as mappings to certain other commonly used security frameworks.

While stating that the HIPAA Security Rule does not require use of the NIST Cybersecurity Framework, OCR says it hopes the Crosswalk will provide “a helpful roadmap” for HIPAA Covered Entities and their business associates to understand the overlap between the NIST Cybersecurity Framework, the HIPAA Security Rule, and other security frameworks that can help Covered Entities safeguard health data in a time of increasing risks and help them to identify potential gaps in their programs.

At the same time, OCR’s announcement of its release of the Crosswalk also cautions users that “use of the Framework does not guarantee HIPAA compliance.” Rather, OCR says “the crosswalk provides an informative tool for entities to use to help them more comprehensively manage security risks in their environments.

With a USA Today report attributing more than 40 percent of data breaches to the healthcare industry over the last three years 91 percent of all health organizations having reporting breaches over the last two years, OCR has made clear that it intends to zealously investigate and enforce the Security Rules against Covered Entities that violate the Security Rules against Covered Entities that fail to take suitable steps to safeguard the security of PHI as required by the HIPAA Security Rule.

To meet these requirements, the HIPAA Security Rule requires that Covered Entities conduct and be prepared to product documentation of their audit and other efforts to comply with the Security Rule Most Covered Entities will want to consider including an assessment of the adequacy of their existing practices under the Crosswalk and other requirements disclosed by OCR in these assessments to help position the Covered Entity to defend or mitigate HIPAA CMP and other liabilities in the event of a HIPAA breech or audit.

Changing Rules Complicate Compliance

In addition to maintaining adequate security, HIPAA also requires Covered Entities to provide individuals with the right to access and receive a copy of their health information from their providers, hospitals, and health insurance plans in accordance with the HIPAA Privacy Rule. In response to recurrent difficulties experienced by individuals in exercising these rights, OCR recently published supplemental guidance to clarify and promote better understanding and compliance with these rules by Covered Entities. OCR started this process in January, 2015 by releasing a comprehensive fact sheet (Access fact sheet) and the first in a series of topical frequently asked questions (FAQs) addressing patients’ right to access their medical records, which set forth requirements providers must follow in sharing medical records with patients, including that they must do so in a timely manner and in a format that works for the patient.

Earlier this month, OCR followed up by publishing on March 1, 2016 a second set of FAQs addresses additional issues, including the fees individuals may be charged for copies of their health information and the right of individuals to have their health information sent directly to a third party if they so choose.

Covered entities and their business associates should expect OCR to ask about use of these tools in audits and investigations. Accordingly, they should move quickly to review and update their business associate agreements and other practices to comply with this new guidance as well as watch for further guidance and enforcement about these practices from OCR.

Other Key HIPAA Regulatory & Enforcement Changes Raise Responsibilities & Risks

OCR’s new guidance on access to PHI follows a host of other regulatory and enforcement activities. While the particulars of each of these new actions and guidance vary, all send a very clear message: OCR expects Covered Entities and their business associates to comply with HIPAA and is offering tools and other guidance to aid them in that process. In the event of a breach or audit, Covered Entities and their business associates need to be prepared to demonstrate their efforts to comply.

Those that cannot show adequate compliance efforts should be prepared for potentially substantial CMP or Resolution Agreement payments and other sanctions.

Register For 3/30 Webex Briefing

Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ invites to catch up on the latest guidance on the Covered Entities’ responsibility under HIPAA to provide access to patients to PHI by registering here to participate in the “HIPAA Update: The Latest On Security, Patient Access & Other HIPAA Developments” Webex briefing by attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer that Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ will host beginning at Noon Central Time on Wednesday, March 30, 2016.

About The Author

Cynthia Marcotte Stamer is a practicing attorney and management consultant, author, public policy advocate and lecturer widely recognized for her extensive work and pragmatic thought leadership, experience, publications and training on HIPAA and other privacy, medical records and data and other health care and health plan concerns.
Recognized as “LEGAL LEADER™ Texas Top Rated Lawyer” in both Health Care Law and Labor and Employment Law, a “Texas Top Lawyer,” an “AV-Preeminent” and “Top Rated Lawyer” by Martindale-Hubble and as among the “Best Lawyers In Dallas” in employee benefits 2015 by D Magazine; Ms. Stamer has more than 28 years of extensive proven, pragmatic knowledge and experience representing and advising health industry clients and others on operational, regulatory and other compliance, risk management, product and process development, public policy and other key concerns.

As a core component of her work as the Managing Shareholder of Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, PC, the Co-Managing Member of Stamer Chadwick Soefje PLLC, Ms. Stamer has worked extensively throughout her nearly 30 year career with health care providers, health plans, health care clearinghouses, their business associates, employers, banks and other financial institutions, their technology and other vendors and service providers, and others on legal and operational risk management and compliance with HIPAA, FACTA, PCI, trade secret, physician and other medical confidentiality and privacy, federal and state data security and data breach and other information privacy and data security rules and concerns; prevention, investigation, response, mitigation and resolution of known or suspected data or privacy breaches or other incidents; defending investigations or other actions by plaintiffs, OCR, FTC, state attorneys’ general and other federal or state agencies; reporting and redressing known or suspected breaches or other violations; business associate and other contracting; insurance or other liability management and allocation; process and product development, contracting, deployment and defense; evaluation, commenting or seeking modification of regulatory guidance, and other regulatory and public policy advocacy; training and discipline; enforcement, and a host of other related concerns for public and private health care providers, health insurers, health plans, technology and other vendors, employers, and others.

Beyond her extensive involvement advising and defending clients on these matters, Ms. Stamer also has served for several years as the scrivener for the ABA JCEB’s meeting with OCR for many years. She returns as Chair of the Southern California ISSA Health Care Privacy & Security Summit for the third year in 2016, as well as speaks and serves on the steering committee of a multitude of other programs.

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

Ms. Stamer also is a highly popular lecturer, symposia chair and author, who publishes and speaks extensively on health and managed care industry, human resources, employment and other privacy, data security and other technology, regulatory and operational risk management. Examples of her many highly regarded publications on these matters include “Protecting & Using Patient Data In Disease Management: Opportunities, Liabilities And Prescriptions,” “Privacy Invasions of Medical Care-An Emerging Perspective,” “Cybercrime and Identity Theft: Health Information Security: Beyond HIPAA,” as well as thousands of other publications, programs and workshops these and other concerns for the American Bar Association, ALI-ABA, American Health Lawyers, Society of Human Resources Professionals, the Southwest Benefits Association, the Society of Employee Benefits Administrators, the American Law Institute, Lexis-Nexis, Atlantic Information Services, The Bureau of National Affairs (BNA), InsuranceThoughtLeaders.com, Benefits Magazine, Employee Benefit News, Texas CEO Magazine, HealthLeaders, the HCCA, ISSA, HIMSS, Modern Healthcare, Managed Healthcare, Institute of Internal Auditors, Society of CPAs, Business Insurance, Employee Benefits News, World At Work, Benefits Magazine, the Wall Street Journal, the Dallas Morning News, the Dallas Business Journal, the Houston Business Journal, and many other symposia and publications. She also has served as an Editorial Advisory Board Member for human resources, employee benefit and other management focused publications of BNA, HR.com, Employee Benefit News, InsuranceThoughtLeadership.com and many other prominent publications and speaks and conducts training for a broad range of professional organizations and for clientson the Advisory Boards of InsuranceThoughtLeadership.com, HR.com, Employee Benefit News, and many other publications. For additional information about Ms. Stamer, see CynthiaStamer.com or the Stamer│Chadwick │Soefje PLLC 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 www.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. ©2016 Cynthia Marcotte Stamer. Non-exclusive right to republish granted to Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ All other rights reserved.

Comments Off on Brace For Health Plan OCR HIPAA Audits | Brokers, Civil Rights, compensation, compliance, Corporate Compliance, Cybercrime, Data Breach, Data Security, employee, Employee Benefits, FACTA, fiduciary duty, Fiduciary Responsibility, Financial Security, GINA, health benefit, Health Benefits, health Care, health insurance, health insurance marketplace, health plan, Health Plans, HIPAA, HIPAA, Hospitality, HR, Human Resources, Identity Theft, Insurance, insurers, Internal Controls, Management, Medicare Part D, Mental Health, Mental Health Parity, MEWA, Obamacare, Patient Empowerment, Prescription Drugs, Privacy, Professional Liability, Risk Management, third party administrators, Uncategorized, Wellness, Wellness Programs, Workforce | Tagged: Data Breach, Data Security, Employee Benefits, ERISA, Fiduciary Liability, financial privacy, Health Insurance, Health Plan, Health Plans, HIPAA, Medical Privacy, OCR, Office of Civil Rights, Privacy | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

SCOTUS: States Can’t Require Reporting of ERISA Health Plan Data

March 2, 2016

Employer and union sponsored group health plans covered by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) and their insurers are not required to comply with a Vermont state law that requires health insurers and certain other parties to report payments relating to health care claims and other information relating to health care services to a state agency for compilation in an all-inclusive health care database, according to the United States Supreme Court’s March 1, 2016 ruling in Gobeille v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company.

In a 6-2 opinion authored by Justice Kennedy, the Supreme Court held in Gobeille that ERISA Section 514 preempts Vermont’s requirement that health insurers and other health benefit payers report health care claims and other information relating to health care services to a state agency for inclusion in an all-inclusive health care data base.

The lawsuit stemmed from a lawsuit challenging Vermont’s attempt to enforce the law against Liberty Mutual Insurance Company’s self-insured health plan (Plan). Liberty Mutual provides benefits under the Plan to its thousands of employees which are located in all 50 States of which only approximately 140 of which are located in Vermont. When Vermont sought to require the Plan’s third-party administrator, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts, Inc. (Blue Cross) to transmit its files on the Plan’s eligibility, medical claims, and pharmacy claims for the Plan’s Vermont members to the state data base, Liberty Mutual was concerned that the disclosure of such confidential information might violate its fiduciary duties, It instructed Blue Cross not to comply and sued seeking a declaratory judgement that ERISA pre-empts application of Vermont’s statute and regulation to the Plan and an injunction prohibiting Vermont from trying to acquire data about the Plan or its members. After the District Court granted summary judgment to Vermont, the Second Circuit reversed, concluding that Vermont’s reporting scheme is pre-empted by ERISA as applied to the Plan.

When Vermont appealed the Second Circuit’s decision to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court sided with Liberty Mutual. It upheld the Second Circuit’s ruling, holding that the preemption provisions of ERISA bar Vermont from enforcing the reporting requirement against ERISA-covered health plans or their administrators.

Righting for the Supreme Court Majority, Justice Kennedy explained that ERISA expressly pre-empts “any and all State laws insofar as they may now or hereafter relate to any employee benefit plan.” 29 U.S.C §1144(a). Commenting that this preemption reaches to any state law that has an impermissible “connection with” ERISA plans, Justice Kennedy took judicial notice that ERISA seeks to make the benefits promised by an employer more secure by mandating certain uniform reporting and other oversight systems and other standard procedures, Justice Kennedy said ERISA’s extensive reporting, disclosure, and recordkeeping requirements are central to, and an essential part of, this uniform plan administration system. He also wrote that ERISA’s uniform rule design also makes clear that it is the Secretary of Labor, not the separate States, that is authorized to decide whether to exempt plans from ERISA reporting requirements or to require ERISA plans to report data such as that sought by Vermont. Because Vermont’s law and regulation also govern plan reporting, disclosure, and recordkeeping, Justice Kennedy explained that pre-emption is necessary in order to prevent multiple jurisdictions from imposing differing or even parallel, regulations, creating wasteful administrative costs and threatening to subject plans to wide-ranging liability.

Justice Kennedy also found unpersuasive Vermont’s counterargument that respondent has not shown that the State scheme has caused it to suffer economic costs, stating that Liberty Mutual need not wait to bring its pre-emption claim until confronted with numerous inconsistent obligations and encumbered with any ensuing costs. In addition, Justice Kennedy wrote that the fact that ERISA and the state reporting scheme have different objectives does not transform Vermont’s direct regulation of a fundamental ERISA function into an innocuous and peripheral set of additional rules and that Vermont’s regime also cannot be saved by invoking the State’s traditional power to regulate in the area of public health. Furthermore, Justice Kennedy added that ERISA’s pre-existing reporting, disclosure, and recordkeeping provisions maintain their pre-emptive force regardless of whether the new Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act’s reporting obligations also pre-empt state law.

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 27 years’ experience practicing at the forefront of employee benefits and human resources law.

Ms. Stamer helps management manage. Ms. Stamer’s legal and management consulting work throughout her 27 plus 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 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, ex-patriate 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 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 the Stamer│Chadwick │Soefje PLLC or contact Ms. Stamer via email to 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 http://www.solutionslawpress.com such as:

U.S. Businesses & Their Leaders Face Rising FLSA Collective Action Liability Risks

Health Care Providers’ ERISA Health Plan Benefit Opportunities & Employee Benefits Compliance Obligations Topic of 9/15 Study Group

Improve HR Value To Company By Making HR A Performance Rather Than People Department

Sponsoring Employers Face Excise Taxes, Other Liabilities Unless Health Plans Comply With ACA Out-Of-Pocket & Other Federal Rules

Legal Review Of Health Plan Documents, Processes Needed To Mitigate Employer’s Excise Tax & Other Health Plan Risks

EEOC ADA Suit Against Magnolia Health Highlights US Employer’s Growing Disability Discrimination Risks

Proposed OSHA Regs Will Clarify Employer’s Continuing Duty To Ensure OSHA 300 Log Completeness

10 Practical Pointers To Use Law To Better Strengthen The Legal Defensibility Of Your Business & Its Leaders

Tri-Agencies Update On Planned ACA Transparency Reporting Rules For Non-QHP Issuers & Non-Grandfathered Group Health Plans

Employers, Plan Administrators Confirm All Form 5500s Timely Filed; Valuable Relief Options Available For Non-Filers

Health Insurer/Vendor’s Claims & Appeals Deficiencies Could Trigger Significant Employer Excise Tax Liability

HIPAA Settlement Warns Health Plans, Sponsoring Employers & Business Associates To Manage HIPAA Risks

Obama Administration Proposal Would Extend FLSA Minimum Wage & Overtime Requirements To 5 Million+ Workers

Prompt Business Action Needed To Mitigate Post-King Employer Health Benefit Costs & Liabilities

Comments Off on SCOTUS: States Can’t Require Reporting of ERISA Health Plan Data | ACA, Claims Administration, employee, Employee Benefits, Employer, Employers, ERISA, fiduciary duty, Fiduciary Responsibility, Form 5500, health benefit, Health Benefits, health Care, health insurance, health insurance marketplace, health plan, Health Plans, health reform, HIPAA, HIPAA, Preemption, Uncategorized | Tagged: 10th Amendment, eligibility, Employee Benefits, Employee Retirement Income Security act, enrollment, ERISA, Health Data, Health Data Privacy, Health Data Reporting, Health Insurance, Health Plan, HIPAA, Plan Administration, Privacy, reporting, Supreme Court, third party administrator, Vermont | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

IRS OK’s Skipping Certain 2015 Form 5500 Questions

February 29, 2016

2015-5500

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has announced that it will not require plan administrators to answer certain new questions added to the Form 5500/5500-SF and Schedules H, I and R for the 2015 plan year. The questions on the 2015 Form 5500 that the IRS says plan administrators can skip answering are:

The Preparer Information on the bottom of page 1 of the Form 5500
Lines 4o-p, 6a-d on the Schedule H
Lines 4o-p, 6a-d on the Schedule I
New Part VII (Lines 20a-c, 21a-b, 22a-d, and 23) on Schedule R
Preparer Information (page 1 bottom), Lines 10j, 14a-d, and New Part IX
(Lines 15a-c, 16a-b, 17a-d, 18, 19, and 20) on Form 5500-SF

See IRS Compliance Questions on the 2015 Form 5500-Series Returns (February 25, 2016).

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 27 years’ experience practicing at the forefront of employee benefits and human resources law.

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:

DOL Proposes Changes To Summary of Benefit & Coverage Rules

More proof government should stay out of healthcare

Health Care Quality: Different Meaning For Care Vs. Coverage

IRS Changes Plan Qualification Procedures, Returns, Other Procedures

Remember Microsoft: The Need for Effective Risk Management as to Contract Employees

Obama Administration Proposes Rules Giving Jobseeker Equal Opportunity Protections

Health Benefit Still Top Employer Benefit Cost

Practioners Register For New PBGC E-Filing Portal

Health Coverage Options When Employment Ends

Varying LGBT Obligations Of Private Employers Underscore Importance Of Familiarity With State and Municipal Laws

Strengthen Your Cyber Security By Sharing National Cyber Security Awareness Month Resources This Week

Ranching Employers: Labor Department Tightening H-2A VISA Rules For Employing Range Workers

NLRB 29 Unfair Labor Practice Charges Against Community Health Systems, Inc. Shows Industry Labor Risks

DOL Schools Halliburton With $18M+ Overtime Settlement; Other Employers & Executives Should Take Note

U.S. Businesses & Their Leaders Face Rising FLSA Collective Action Liability Risks

Improve HR Value To Company By Making HR A Performance Rather Than People Department

Sponsoring Employers Face Excise Taxes, Other Liabilities Unless Health Plans Comply With ACA Out-Of-Pocket & Other Federal Rules

Legal Review Of Health Plan Documents, Processes Needed To Mitigate Employer’s Excise Tax & Other Health Plan Risks

EEOC ADA Suit Against Magnolia Health Highlights US Employer’s Growing Disability Discrimination Risks

Proposed OSHA Regs Will Clarify Employer’s Continuing Duty To Ensure OSHA 300 Log Completeness

10 Practical Pointers To Use Law To Better Strengthen The Legal Defensibility Of Your Business & Its Leaders

Tri-Agencies Update On Planned ACA Transparency Reporting Rules For Non-QHP Issuers & Non-Grandfathered Group Health Plans

Employers, Plan Administrators Confirm All Form 5500s Timely Filed; Valuable Relief Options Available For Non-Filers

Health Insurer/Vendor’s Claims & Appeals Deficiencies Could Trigger Significant Employer Excise Tax Liability

HIPAA Settlement Warns Health Plans, Sponsoring Employers & Business Associates To Manage HIPAA Risks

Obama Administration Proposal Would Extend FLSA Minimum Wage & Overtime Requirements To 5 Million+ Workers

Prompt Business Action Needed To Mitigate Post-King Employer Health Benefit Costs & Liabilities

Comments Off on IRS OK’s Skipping Certain 2015 Form 5500 Questions | 401(k), EBSA, Employee Benefits, Employers, ERISA, Health Benefits, health Care, health insurance, health plan, Health Plans, Reporting & Disclosure, Uncategorized | Tagged: Employee Benefits, Employer, Form 5500, Form 5500 ERISA Employee Benefits, Health Plans | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Health Care Providers’ ERISA Health Plan Benefit Opportunities & Employee Benefits Compliance Obligations Topic of 9/15 Study Group

September 9, 2015

Solutions Law Press, Inc. is happy to share information about this upcoming free health industry study group meeting on 9/15/2015 in Irving, Texas.

NORTH TEXAS HEALTHCARE COMPLIANCE PROFESSIONALS ASSOCIATION

Invites Members and Guests to Our Next Group Luncheon

Employee Benefit Security Administration Insights On Healthcare Organization’s Health & Other Employee Benefit Plan Rights & Responsibilities Under Employee Retirement Income Security Act

Featuring

Kristi Gotcher

U.S. Department of Labor Employee Benefit Security Administration Investigator

Tuesday, September 15, 2015

11:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m.

DFW Hospital Council Offices

250 Decker Drive

Irving, Texas

RSVP here by Noon on September 14, 2015

Space Limited! Register Early To Reserve Your Spot To Participate!

Please share this invitation with others who might be interested in this topic or other NTHCPA events!

The North Texas Healthcare Compliance Professionals Association (NTHCPA) invites members and other interested health care compliance professionals to join us on Tuesday, September 15, 2015 from 11:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. for our Study Group Luncheon featuring a program on “Employee Benefit Security Administration Insights On Healthcare Organization’s Health & Other Employee Benefit Plan Rights & Responsibilities Under Employee Retirement Income Security Act” from U.S. Department of Labor Employee Benefit Security Administration (EBSA) Investigator Kristi Gotcher.

The health and other employee benefit plan rules of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) generally offer important protections and create significant compliance challenges for health care organizations and providers. On one hand, health care providers generally rely heavily on their or their patient’s ability to obtain health benefits promised under employer or union-sponsored health plans covering their patients to help reimbursement provider charges. Meanwhile, health care providers and their leaders also can incur significant liability for failing to comply with ERISA’s rules when establishing and maintaining health or other employee benefit programs for their own employees. Drawing on her involvement as investigator with the Department of Labor agency primarily responsible for both interpreting and enforcing ERISA’s rules, EBSA Ms. Gotcher will share key updates and insights on both how ERISA and the EBSA can help patients and providers enforce benefit rights under ERISA-covered health plans and key health and highlight employee benefit compliance responsibilities that health care organizations and their leaders need to ensure that their own health and other employee benefit programs meet to avoid violating ERISA.

About the Speaker

Kristi A. Gotcher is an Investigator with the United States Department of Labor, Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA) in the Dallas Regional Office. Kristi began working for EBSA in the Dallas Regional Office in November 2007 as a Benefits Advisor. She earned her Bachelor of Arts in Social Political Relations from St. Edwards University and a J.D. from Texas Wesleyan University School of Law (now Texas A&M University School of Law). Ms. Gotcher is licensed to practice law in the State of Texas.

Registration & Meeting Details

The meeting scheduled from 11:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. on Tuesday, September 15, 2015 at the DFW Hospital Council Offices located at 250 Decker Drive, Irving Texas. Participants who timely R.S.V.P. will enjoy a complimentary luncheon. Networking and lunch service will begin at 11:30. Our program will begin at Noon.

NTHCPA encourages members and other interested health care compliance professionals to register early to reserve their spot to participate and to share this invitation with others in the industry who might benefit from participation.

There is no charge to participate in the meeting. However space is limited and available only on a first come, first serve basis. To ensure your spot and help us to arrange for adequate space and refreshments for this meeting, R.S.V.P. here as soon as possible and no later than Noon on September 14, 2015. Walk in guests will be accommodated on a space-available basis only.

Thanks To Meeting Underwriter Stamer ׀ Chadwick ׀ Soefje, PLLC

NTHCPA and its members extend our thanks to Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, P.C. and the other members of Stamer ׀ Chadwick ׀ Soefje PLLC for underwriting this month’s study group luncheon and other support of NTHCPA.

A boutique firm of exceptionally experienced and skilled “big-firm” lawyers committed to changing the way law firms serve their clients, Stamer │Chadwick │Soefje, PLLC delivers sophisticated legal advice and innovative solutions to the most challenging and complex problems. Simply put, Stamer │Chadwick │Soefje, PLLC attorneys are “Solutions Lawyers™.”

Stamer │Chadwick │Soefje, PLLC attorneys deliver sophisticated legal advice and innovative solutions to the most challenging and complex problems. Stamer │Chadwick │Soefje, PLLC attorneys possess the breadth of experience to respond to the unique legal and operational challenges health industry and other clients face and help guide them toward pragmatic resolutions that make sense for them. “Solutions Lawyers™ possess the breadth of experience to respond to the unique challenges our corporate and individual clients face and help guide them toward pragmatic resolutions that make sense for them.

Founded by nationally-known, healthcare and labor & employment attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer; labor & employment attorney Robert G. Chadwick; and professional liability and civil litigation attorney Timothy B. Soefje, Stamer │Chadwick │Soefje, PLLC focuses on advising and representing businesses and professionals nationally in the areas of healthcare, cyber liability, ERISA, employee benefits, labor & employment, corporate and commercial litigation, professional liability, construction litigation, and insurance defense. All three attorneys are rated AV® Preeminent™ by Martindale-Hubbell® Peer Review Ratings™ Ms. Stamer and Mr. Chadwick are both Board Certified in Labor & Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, are Fellows in the American Bar Foundation, and recognized as “Top Lawyers” in Labor and Employment Law. Ms. Stamer also has received recognition as a “Top” attorney in health care and employee benefits law and is a Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Council.

Ms. Stamer more than 28 years’ experience advising and representing health industry and employee benefit clients on a wide range of legal, public policy, management and operational concerns as well as extensive leadership and management experience serving in on the board of health industry nonprofit organizations. Nationally recognized for her legal work, advocacy, publications, writings and presentations on health industry concerns, Ms. Stamer provides legal and management advice, training and coaching, defense, public policy and regulatory advocacy to health industry and other clients on health and other regulatory and operational compliance, federal and state public policy and enforcement, managed care and other contracting, reimbursement, fraud, quality, employment, staffing and other workforce, benefits, licensing, credentialing and peer review, safety, disaster preparedness and response, HIPAA and other privacy and data security, corporate governance, investigations and internal controls, and a host of other health industry compliance and risk management and other legal and operational concerns. In addition to her legal experience, Ms. Stamer also contributes her experience and talents to serving in a number of health industry and other civil and professional groups. Among other things, Ms. Stamer serves as Vice President of the NTHCPA, the RPTE representative to the American Bar Association (ABA) Joint Committee on Employee Benefits Council and scrivener for its annual agency meeting with the Office of Civil Rights, the ABA International Section Life Sciences and Health Law Committee Vice President of Policy, RPTE Liaison to the ABA Health Care Coordinating Counsel, TIPS Employee Benefit Committee Vice Chair, Founder and Executive Director of the Project COPE: The Coalition on Patient Empowerment, and National Physicians Council for Healthcare Policy. She also previously served as President and Founding Board Member of the Alliance for Health Care Excellence and its Health Care Heroes and Patient Empowerment Programs, as RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Group Chair and Welfare Benefit Committee Vice Chair, Exempt Organizations Coordinator of the Gulf States Area TEGE Council, Board President and Audit Committee Chair of the Richardson Development Center for Children ECI Agency, National Kidney Foundation of North Texas Board Audit Committee Chair, the United Way of North Texas Long Range Planning Committee. She also has and continues to serve in the leadership of many other civic and professional boards, seminar faculties, editorial advisory boards and publishes and speaks extensively on health industry and employee benefit related concerns.

Mr. Chadwick has extensive experience advising and defending health industry and other clients on OSHA and other occupational health and safety, employee benefits, compensation and other labor and employment concerns as well as defending boards and other management leaders against management liability claims.

Mr. Soefje has extensive experience advising and representing health industry clients and professionals on medical malpractice, officers and directors liability and other professional liability, errors and omissions, construction defect and other litigation and disputes.

For additional information, contact Ms. Stamer cstamer@solutionslawyer.net

About the NTHCPA

NTHCPA exists to champion ethical practice and compliance standards and to provide the necessary resources for ethics and compliance Professionals and others in North Texas who share these principles. The vision of NTHCPA is to be a pre-eminent compliance and ethics group promoting lasting success and integrity of organizations within North Texas.

About Solutions Law Press

Other Helpful Resources & Other Information

We hope that this information is useful to you. If you found these updates of interest, you also be interested in one or more of the following other recent articles published on the Coalition for Responsible Health Care Reform electronic publication available here, our electronic Solutions Law Press Health Care Update publication available here, or our HR & Benefits Update electronic publication available here. You also can get access to information about how you can arrange for training on “Building Your Family’s Health Care Toolkit,” using the “PlayForLife” resources to organize low-cost wellness programs in your workplace, school, church or other communities, and other process improvement, compliance and other training and other resources for health care providers, employers, health plans, community leaders and others here. 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. You can reach other recent updates and other informative publications and resources.

Examples of some of these recent health care related publications include:

Comments Off on Health Care Providers’ ERISA Health Plan Benefit Opportunities & Employee Benefits Compliance Obligations Topic of 9/15 Study Group | EBSA, ERISA, Fiduciary Responsibility, health benefit, Health Care Reform, health insurance, Health Plans, health reform, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act | Tagged: Affordable Care Act, Appeals, Claims, compliance, Employee Benefits, ERISA, Health Benefits, Health Claims, Health Insurance, Health Plans, healthcare providers, Hospitals, Human Resources, Physicians, reimbursement | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Legal Review Of Health Plan Documents, Processes Needed To Mitigate Employer’s Excise Tax & Other Health Plan Risks

August 21, 2015

Employers sponsoring health plans and members of their management named as plan fiduciaries or otherwise having input or oversight over health plan concerns should verify their company’s group health plan meets the out-of-pocket maximum rules of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) § 1302(c)(1) as well as a long list of other federal health benefit rules to minimize the risk that violations will compel the sponsoring employer to self-assess, self-report on IRS Form 8928, and pay a $100 per day per violation excise tax penalty and while expose the plan and its fiduciaries to fiduciary or other liability under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ACA). Consequently, sponsoring employers and their management generally will want to ensure that their plan documents are properly updated to comply with the out-of-pocket maximum and other federal requirements, to require contractual commitments to administer the health plan in compliance with and to report, correct, and indemnify for violations of these requirements in vendor contracts with their health plan insurers, administrators and other vendors, and conduct documented audits to verify the health plan’s operational compliance with these requirements as interpreted by the Department of Health & Human Services (HHS), Department of Labor (DOL) and Internal Revenue Service (IRS) in form and operation. The new self-reporting and excise tax self-assessment and payment requirements for employers coupled with already long-standing fiduciary and other liabilities for fiduciaries, plan administrators and others makes it important that employers sponsoring group health plans and their management or other leaders overseeing or participating in plan design or vendor selection, plan administration or other plan related activities seek the advice and help of qualified, experienced legal counsel for assistance with conducting an appropriate compliance review and risk assessment of their health plans, correcting or taking other steps to mitigate risks from any past or existing violations, and steps to take to tighten documents, vendor contracts, and processes to mitigate compliance or other risks going forward.

Employers, Insurers & Plan Fiduciaries Face Big Risks From Federal Health Plan Rule Violations

As amended by ACA, health plan violations of ACA and various other federal health plan mandates carry big risks for health plans, their sponsoring employers, and representatives of sponsoring employers, insurers and third party administrators responsible as fiduciaries for administering a group health plan in accordance with these federal rules. As amended by ACA, federal law imposes significant penalties against plans, their fiduciaries and even the sponsoring employer if the group health plan violates the ACA out-of-pocket limit or a long list of other ACA and other federal group health rules. Group health plans can face lawsuits from covered persons, their health care providers as assignees or the DOL, to enforce rights to benefits, plus attorneys’ fees and other costs of enforcement. Beyond benefit litigation, the employer or representatives of the sponsoring employer, if any, named or acting as fiduciaries, insurer or third party service providers named or acting as fiduciaries, also could face fiduciary lawsuits seeking damages, equitable relief, and attorneys’ fees and costs of court, for failing to prudently administer the plan in accordance with its terms and the law brought by covered persons or their beneficiaries or the DOL as well as fiduciary breach penalties if the fiduciary breach action is brought by the DOL. If the plan fails to comply with claims and appeals procedures or other ERISA notification requirements, parties named or functioning as the plan administrator for this purpose also could face penalties of up to $125 per violation per day in the case of enforcement actions brought by participants and beneficiaries or $1025 per violation per day in the case of actions brought by the DOL, plus attorneys’ fees and other costs of enforcement.

Except in rare circumstances where the sponsoring employer has carefully contracted to transfer fiduciary liability to its insurer or administrator and otherwise does not exercise or have a fiduciary obligation to exercise discretion or control over these responsibilities, employers sponsoring group health plans that violate federal mandates like the out-of-pocket limit often ultimately bear some or all of these liabilities even if the violation actually was committed by a plan vendor hired to administer the program either because the plan documents name the employer as the “named fiduciary” or “plan administrator” under ERISA, the employer bears fiduciary responsibility functionally for selection or oversight of the culpable party, the employer signed a contract, resolution or plan document obligating the employer to indemnify the service provider for the liability, or a combination of these reasons. Even where the employer avoids these direct or indirect ERISA exposures, however, employers now also need to be concerned that out-of-pocket limitation or other federal health plan rule violations will trigger expensive excise tax liability for the sponsoring employer.

As part of ACA, the Internal Revenue Code now generally requires employers sponsoring a group health plan that violates the ACA out-of-pocket limit or a long list of other federal health plan rules after 2013 to self-assess, report and pay stiff new excise tax penalties of $100 per day per violation when filing their annual tax return. See, Businesses Must Confirm & Clean Up Health Plan ACA & Other Compliance Following Supreme Court’s King v. Burwell　Decision;　 More Work For Employers, Benefit Plans Following SCOTUS Same-Sex Marriage　Ruling; 2016 & 2017 Health Plan Budgets, Workplans Should Anticipate Expected Changes To　SBCs. Since prompt self-audit and correction can help mitigate these liabilities, business leaders should act quickly to engage experienced legal counsel for their companies for advice about how to audit their group health plan’s 2014 and 2015 compliance with the out-of-pocket limit and other federal health plan rules within the scope of attorney client privilege while managing fiduciary exposures that could result if the audit is improperly structured or conducted, as well as options for addressing potential 2014, 2015 and future years excise tax and other exposures that compliance deficiencies with these rules could trigger.

While businesses inevitably will need to involve or coordinate with their accounting, broker, and other vendors involved with the plans, businesses generally will want to get legal advice in a manner that preserves their potential to claim attorney-client privilege to protect against discovery in the event of future enforcement or litigation actions sensitive discussions and analysis　about compliance audits, plan design choices, and other risk management and liability planning as well as to get help identifying potential plan design, contracting, procedural or other changes that may be needed to fix compliance deficiencies and mitigate other risks, particularly in light of complexity of the exposures and risks.

The Supreme Court’s recent King v. Burwell decision makes it particularly important that employers and other group health plan sponsors, and those named or serving functionally as the plan administrator or other fiduciary responsible for properly administering the group health plan in accordance with these rules move quickly to manage these risks. With the continued limited Republican majority in the Senate, Republicans lack sufficient votes to override a promised Presidential veto of any legislation that would repeal or substantially modify ACA. Meanwhile, President Obama is moving to help ensure that his Presidential Legacy includes implementation of ACA and to mitigate ACA’s budgetary impacts by collecting excise tax and other penalties from insurers, plan administrators and employers by instructing the Tri-Agencies to move forward on full implementation and enforcement of ACA and other federal health plan rules. As a consequence, employers that sponsored group health coverage in 2014 need to confirm that their plan complied with the out-of-pocket maximum and other specified federal health plan rules or take timely action to self-assess, report on the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Form 8928, and pay the $100 per day per violation penalty required by the Internal Revenue Code for 2014 when filing their 2014 business tax return.

Adjusted Out-Of-Pocket Limit Amounts

The ACA out-of-pocket maximum limitation is one of many broad health care reforms enacted by ACA. Under its provisions, federal law now limits the amount of the maximum deductible, co-payments or other cost sharing that most employer or union sponsored group health plans can impose on essential health benefits to the out-of-pocket limitation allowed by ACA § 1302(c)(1). See Public Health Service (PHS) Act §2707(b).

The out-of-pocket limitations of $6,350 for individual only coverage and $12,700 for other than self-only coverage that first took effect with the 2014 plan year, are subject to annual adjustment for inflation under ACA §1302(c)(4) by the premium adjustment percentage beginning this plan year. The IRS recently announced the adjusted limitations that will apply to the 2015 and 2016 plan years. The applicable limits for 2014-2016 are as follows based on this guidance:

Plan Year	Individual Coverage Only	Other Than Self-Only
2014	$6,350	$12,700
2015	6,600	13,200
2016	6,850	13,700

Since noncompliance with this limitation is one of a long list of federal health plan mandates that triggers a duty for the sponsoring employer to self-assess, report and pay an excise tax of $100 per day per violation for post-2013 plan years, employers that sponsored health plans in 2014 generally will want to verify that their plan complied with this out-of-pocket rule in 2014 and ensure that its 2015 plan has been updated to reflect the adjusted limit and otherwise comply with its requirements.

In this respect, the final HHS Notice of Benefit and Payment Parameters for 2016 (2016 Payment Notice) clarifies that the self-only maximum annual limitation on cost sharing applies to each individual, regardless of whether the individual is enrolled in self-only coverage or in coverage other than self-only.

While employers can design their group health plans to apply higher out-of-pocket limitations on coverages for non-essential benefits and out-of-network care, plans designed to take advantage of this permitted distinction must be carefully administered to ensure that the limits allowed for non-essential benefits are not improperly applied to essential benefit coverages under the plan. Employers are cautioned to use care to avoid this from occurring by drafting the plan terms and requiring fiduciaries to administer the plan to ensure that:

The plan properly essential and non-essential health benefits, both in terms and in operation;
The limit is properly applied and calculated with respect to all benefits considered essential health benefits; and
The application of higher out-of-pocket limitations for non-essential benefits does not violate other federal health plan rules such as special federal health plan rules regarding out-of-network emergency care, mental health coverage parity, coverage for newborns and mothers, or the like.

Ensure Plan Language & Operations Comply With Tri-Agency Out-Of-Pocket Guidance & Other Federal Health Plan Rules

Updating the out-of-pocket maximum rules of a group health plan to comply with the ACA out-of-pocket maximum rule can be more complicated than many employers or plan fiduciaries might realize since the plan terms, and its administration must comply in form and operation with the regulations and other interpretations of the three agencies jointly responsible for administration and enforcement of this and various other federal health plan rules: the Departments of Health & Human Services (HHS), Internal Revenue Service (IRS), and Labor (DOL) (collectively, the “Tri-Agencies”).

In the case of ACA’s out-of-pocket maximum rules, the Tri-Agencies already have supplemented the guidance in their implementing regulations by publishing a FAQ that gives additional clarification and examples that the Tri-Agencies intend to help explain the proper administration of the rule. Group health plans, their insurers or other fiduciaries, as well as sponsoring employers should take into account all of this existing guidance when reviewing and assessing the compliance of their group health plans, as well as stay vigilant for the publication of additional guidance.

Existing guidance on the out-of-pocket maximum rule states that group health plans and insurance policies generally must count toward the out-of-pocket maximum limit all deductibles, coinsurance, copayments, or similar charges and any other expenditure the group health plan requires a covered person to pay for a qualified medical expense that is an “essential health benefit” within the meaning of ACA other than premiums, balance billing amounts for non-network providers and other out-of-network cost-sharing, or spending for non-essential health benefits.

One of the first considerations should be to ensure that the plan document and parties responsible for administer it properly understand and apply the rule to all charges falling within coverage for “essential health benefits.” Technically, the out-of-pocket limitation only applies to coverage of “essential health benefits” within the meaning of ACA, in any group health plan, whether insured or self-insured. What benefits are considered “essential health benefits” is defined by Tri-Agency regulations. The definition of “essential health benefits” in these Tri-Agency regulations is complicated and generally varies by state, even when the group health plan is self-insured. Sponsors of self-insured group health plans and employers sponsoring plans covering individuals in different states generally will want to seek legal advice about the adequacy of their group health plan’s essential health benefit definition to make sure that these rules and their limitations are met.

When applying these limits, employers, insurers, and administrators of group health plans attempting to distinguish non-essential health coverages such as prescription drug, behavior health, or dental coverages provided separately from otherwise applicable major medical coverage should consult with legal counsel to confirm that those arrangements comply with existing guidance on ACA’s out-of-pocket maximum and other federal mandates in form and operation. This analysis generally should both verify that the plan documents and administrative processes incorporate these requirements generally into the plan document as well as include provisions to ensure that these requirements are properly integrated with other federal mandates requiring cost-sharing for emergency care in the case of behavioral health coverage, the applicable federal mental health parity mandates, and other federal health plan rules. Special care and scrutiny should be applied if the group health plan uses multiple service providers to help administer benefits (such as one third-party administrator for major medical coverage, a separate pharmacy benefit manager, and a separate managed behavioral health organization).

Special care also is needed if a group health plan uses separate plan service providers to administer the plan or certain of its provisions. Separate plan service providers may impose different levels of out-of-pocket limitations and may utilize different methods for crediting participants’ expenses against any out-of-pocket maximums. Administrators, insurers or other fiduciaries responsible for administration of these coverages must properly coordinate, and sponsoring employers should consult with legal counsel about auditing their plans for proper coordination of these processes across these different service providers.

Along with making specific plan document and process changes to provide for proper implementation and administration of the out-of-pocket and other federal coverage and benefit mandates, all parties also should review the claims and appeals procedures used in connection with the processing and notification of covered persons about claims and appeals determinations made about denials to ensure that they fully comply with both the DOL’s reasonable claims and appeals regulations and, in the case of non-grandfathered health plans, ACA’s special independent review and other heightened requirements for administering and notifying covered persons or their beneficiaries about claim denials or appeals as any of these violations could trigger the obligation for the sponsoring employer to self-report on IRS Form 8928 and pay the $100 per day per violation ERISA liability for the plan and its fiduciaries, as well as other penalties under ERISA §502(c).

Sponsoring Employers, Plan Fiduciaries and Vendors Should Act To Manage Exposures

Since violations trigger substantial excise tax liability for the sponsoring employer, as well as expose the group health plan and its sponsor, members of management or others acting as fiduciaries to judgments, regulatory penalties, and associated investigation, defense settlement and other costs and disruptions, most sponsoring employers and their leaders generally will want to consult with qualified legal counsel knowledgeable about these health plan rules and their management about steps that they should take to prevent or mitigate legal and financial exposures that violations of the out-of-pocket maximum and other federal health plan mandates can trigger. Timely action generally both can help prevent future violations and their expensive redress and mitigate penalties and other exposures incurred for violations, if any, that may have or in the future inadvertently occur.

As a part of these efforts, steps that plan sponsors and fiduciaries generally should take include.

Having plan documents and other plan materials and communications carefully review and drafted to meet mandates and mitigate risks;
Using care in when selecting and contracting with plan insurers or other vendors, by conducting appropriate documented review and credentialing of each vendor and its practices, as well as reviewing and negotiating administrative, insurance or other vendor agreements to appropriately name and allocate fiduciary status as well as include provisions requiring insurers, administrators and other group health plan vendors appropriately designate to provide contractual commitments that the policies and other plan documentation, systems and practices provided by the vendor are and will be administered in accordance with the out-of-pocket and other legal mandates, to provide certification of compliance and notice of violations, correction and indemnification of compliance deficiencies, and other related assurances and taking other documented prudent safeguards to require compliant practices;
Auditing as part of the vendor selection and renewal process and at other times throughout the year the operational compliance of the administration of the group health plan and taking corrective action as needed;
Ensuring that stop-loss, group or other insurance coverages are drafted to include catchall language to help ensure that the employer does not get left unexpectedly self-insuring the cost of funding benefits mandated by law that the carrier asserts fall outside the policy coverage because of gaps between drafting and the law;
Arranging for fiduciary liability, directors and officers or other coverage, indemnification from financially secure vendors, or other backup funding to help protect or mitigate the potential costs or liabilities that the sponsoring employer or its plan fiduciaries can expect to incur in the event of a challenge to the compliance of their group health plan or its practices; and
Learning and using appropriate processes to document prudent efforts to appropriately administer the plan in a compliant, legally defensible manner throughout the year.

For Legal or Consulting Advice, Legal Representation, Training Or More Information

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

Recognized as a “Top” attorney in employee benefits, labor and employment and health care law 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 27 years’ experience practicing at the forefront of employee benefits and human resources law.

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, ex-patriate 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 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 http://www.cynthiastamer.com or the Stamer│Chadwick │Soefje PLLC website or contact Ms. Stamer via email to 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 http://www.solutionslawpress.com such as:

Comments Off on Legal Review Of Health Plan Documents, Processes Needed To Mitigate Employer’s Excise Tax & Other Health Plan Risks | 4980H, 6039D, ACA, Appeals, Attorney-Client Privilege, board of directors, Brokers, Claims, Health Benefits, health insurance, health insurance marketplace, health plan, Health Plans, Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act, Patient Protection and Affordabel Care Act, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act | Tagged: ACA, Affordable Care Act, compliance, Corporate Compliance, corporate liability, D&O, Directors & Officers, Employee Benefits, Employer, Employers, Employment, employment law, ERISA, Fiduciary Liability, Health Care Reform, Health Insurance, Health Plan, Health Plans, Human Resources, Management, Risk Management, Worker Classification | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Employers, Plan Administrators Confirm All Form 5500s Timely Filed; Valuable Relief Options Available For Non-Filers

July 28, 2015

Businesses sponsoring 401(k) or other defined contribution or defined benefit pension plans, health plans or other employee benefit plans should verify that any required Form 5500s, Annual Returns of Employee Benefit Plans were timely filed and if any were not, should contact legal counsel about whether they can come into compliance and avoid painful penalties by taking advantage of a newly announced Internal Revenue Service (IRS) low-cost penalty relief program for IRS penalties and a Department of Labor (DOL) voluntary compliance resolution program for Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) penalties.

In most cases, the Internal Revenue Code and ERISA each separately require that a Form 5500, Annual Return of Employee Benefit Plan be filed each year for the plan by the end of the seventh month after the close of the plan year. For plans that work on a calendar-year basis, as most do, this means the 2014 return is due on July 31, 2015. Businesses sponsoring employee benefit plans and the plan administrator of an employee benefit plan face substantial penalties under the Internal Revenue Code and ERISA if the required Form 5500 is not timely filed. Under the Internal Revenue Code, a business that fails to file a required Form 5500 can incur IRS penalties of up to $15,000 per return per plan year. In addition, the plan administrator (often the sponsoring business or a member of its management) of an employee benefit plan with unfiled Form 5500s separately also can incur DOL penalties of up to $1000 per day per plan per plan year. By simultaneously filing the late returns under both the new IRS penalty relief program and the long-standing DOL voluntary compliance resolution program, however, qualifying employers can resolve these exposures much more cost effectively.

While the DOL for many years has allowed plan administrators of retirement and other employee benefit plans the opportunity to resolve ERISA late or non-filing penalties through late filing under its Delinquent Filer Voluntary Compliance Program (DFVCP), the IRS only recently has established a companion program for small employers to use to resolve Internal Revenue Code penalty exposures of employers failing to file the required Form 5500 for their retirement plans. Based on its positive experience from a one-year pilot program, however, the IRS in May, 2015 now has implemented a new permanent penalty relief program that allows qualifying employers to resolve the Internal Revenue Code penalties for failing to file a Form 5500 required by the Internal Revenue Code.

The DOL DFVCP is available for use by plan administrators of retirement or welfare benefit plans sponsored by employers of all sizes. Plan administrators of employee benefit plans with unfiled required Form 550s can fix the penalty to resolve their ERISA penalty exposures for non- or late-filing of a required Form 5500s for all unfiled years at $1,500 per submission for “small plans” (generally, fewer than 100 participants at the beginning of the plan year) and $4,000 per submission for “large plans” (generally, 100 participants or more at the beginning of the plan year). A single filing for each plan for all plan years for which a required Form 5500 for that plan has not been timely filed can resolve the potential ERISA penalties for all unfiled plan years. Further reduced penalty caps are applicable to submissions for certain 501(c)(3) organizations and for Top Hat and Apprenticeship programs. However, by filing late returns under this program, eligible filers can avoid these penalties by paying only $500 for each return submitted, up to a maximum of $1,500 per plan.

In contrast, the new IRS program is only offers penalty relief from the Internal Revenue Code’s penalties for failure to file a required Form 5500 for plans sponsored by small businesses with plans covering a 100 percent owner or the partners in a business partnership, and the owner’s or partner’s spouse (but no other participants), and certain foreign plans. While employers sponsoring employee benefit plans with broader coverage do not qualify for relief under the new IRS penalty relief program, employers sponsoring these employee benefit plans nevertheless should visit with legal counsel about options for resolving their existing penalty exposures for non-filing as legal counsel often can negotiate reductions in penalties with the IRS for employers voluntarily late filing forms. Such relief generally is not available under the new penalty relief from for small employers or otherwise if the IRS already has assessed a penalty for late filing. Accordingly, it is important for employer and plan administrators to evaluate whether there are any unfiled required Form 5500s for any plan year for their employee benefit plans and act promptly to voluntarily resolve these issues through late filing before the IRS or DOL discovers the omission.

For Legal or Consulting Advice, Legal Representation, Training Or More Information

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

A practicing attorney and Managing Shareholder of Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, P.C., a member of Stamer│Chadwick │Soefje PLLC, Ms. Stamer’s more than 27 years’ of leading edge work as a practicing attorney, author, lecturer and industry and policy thought leader have resulted in her recognition as a “Top” attorney in employee benefits, labor and employment and health care law.

Recognized as a “Top” Employee Benefits, Labor and Employment and Health Care Lawyer, Board Certified in Labor and Employment law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, a Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, the State Bar of Texas and the American Bar Association, 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, and an ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits Council Representative, Ms. Stamer is recognized nationally and internationally for her practical and creative insights and leadership on health, pension, severance and other employee benefit, human resources, and related insurance, health care, privacy and data security and tax matters and policy.

Ms. Stamer’s legal and management consulting work throughout her career has focused on helping organizations and their management use the law and process to manage people, process, compliance, operations and risk with a special emphasis on employee benefits, compensation and management controls. 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.

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, expatriot and medical tourism, on site 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. In these and other engagements, 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.

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

Ms. Stamer also is deeply involved in helping to influence the 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. She also works as a policy advisor and advocate to health plans, their sponsors, administrators, insurers and many other business, professional and civic organizations.

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 www.cynthiastamer.com, or http://www.stamerchadwicksoefje.com the member of contact Ms. Stamer via email here or via telephone to (469) 767-8872.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Comments Off on Employers, Plan Administrators Confirm All Form 5500s Timely Filed; Valuable Relief Options Available For Non-Filers | 401(k), ACA, defined benefit plan, defined contribution plan, health plan, retirement plan | Tagged: compliance, Employee Benefits, Employee Retirement Income Security act, Employer, ERISA, Fiduciary, Form 5500, Heatlh Plans, Internal Controls, penalties, plan administrator, Retirement Plans, Risk Management, Tax | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Prompt Business Action Needed To Mitigate Post-King Employer Health Benefit Costs & Liabilities

June 30, 2015

With the Obama Administration construing the United States Supreme Court’s King v. Burwell decision as a green light for its full implementation and enforcement of the Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act (ACA), U.S. businesses should brace for both increases in health benefit costs and liabilities over the next year as well as take prompt action to identify and mitigate potential excise tax and other exposures from any unaddressed compliance deficiencies in their 2014 or 2015 health plans as soon as possible and no later than the due date for filing their 2014 business tax return.

As health benefit costs continue their upward trend, many businesses and their leaders plan to look for new options to manage costs and liabilities following the King decision. In most cases, businesses assume they can delay these actions until the beginning of their upcoming health plan year, not realizing their company’s potential liability exposures from existing and past defects. Businesses and their leaders who have held off updating their health plan compliance and expect to delay completion of these activities until the beginning of their upcoming health plan year are likely to be in for a rude awakening, however, particularly since a much underappreciated Sarbanes-Oxley style provision of the Internal Revenue Code will require employer or other group health plan sponsors to self-report, self-assess and pay stiff excise tax penalties when filing their company’s 2014 business tax return unless their group health plan complied with a long list of ACA and other federal health plan rules in 2014.

Employer Health Benefit & Other Compensation Up, Costs Exposures Projected To Continue To Rise

While many businesses delayed making tough choices about their health plan design and compliance over the past several years in hopes of some judicial or Congressional relief from the mandates and costs of ACA, businesses generally have continued to struggle with ever-rising compensation and benefit costs, with health benefit costs the biggest challenge. Recent U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) data confirms what business leaders already know. Compensation and benefit costs rose over the past year, with health benefit costs remaining a big factor in these increased costs. According to BLS, employer compensation costs rose slightly and health benefit costs remained the largest individual benefit cost for employers during the 12-month period ending March 31, 2015, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). See BLS Employment Cost Index News Release (April 30, 2015).

The BLS Employer Costs For Employee Compensation Report, March 2015 released June 10, 2015 Report) shows private employers spent an average of $31.65 per hour worked for compensation in March 2015 with health benefits accounting averaging 7.7 percent of this average employer total compensation cost per employee. This compares to BLS showing that in March 2014, In March 2014, total employer compensation costs for private industry workers averaged $29.99 per hour worked, with wages and salaries averaging $20.96 per hour (69.9 percent) and benefits averaging $9.03 per hour (30.1 percent). See BLS Employer Costs For Employee Compensation, March 2014 (June 12, 2014)(2014 Report).

BLS data on health benefit and other compensation and benefit costs and trends provides many interesting insights for business as well as government leaders and the role health benefit cost increases play in these increased expenditures. For instance, BLS statistics show for private employers on average during the 12-month period ending March 31, 2015:

Compensation costs for private industry workers increased 2.8 percent over the year, higher than the March 2014 increase of 1.7 percent;
Wages and salaries increased 2.8 percent, also higher than the March 2014 increase of 1.7 percent;
Benefits costs rose 2.6 percent, which was higher than March 2014, when the increase was 1.8 percent; and
Health benefits on average increased 2.5 percent over during the 12-month period that ended on March 31, 2015, rising from the March 2014 increase in compensation costs of 1.8 percent.

Businesses Must Prepare For Impending ACA Enforcement While Dealing With Upsurge In Health Benefit Costs

While the continued rise in the average hourly cost of health benefits for employers is significant in its own right, the reported health benefit cost and employer health cost data in the Report does not include additional reporting and other compliance and risk management costs, which in light of the explosion in employer group health plan mandates since the passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA). Research indicates that the employer plan design changes slowed the upward trend in employer health benefit expenditures that otherwise would have occurred in 2015. This upward trend is projected to continue if not accelerate in 2016, however.

The 2015 Report shows these upward increases in employer costs for health benefits and other compensation continued in the first quarter of 2015. Concerning health benefits, for instance, the 2015 Report shows health benefit costs paid by employers averaged $2.43 per hour worked (7.7 percent of total compensation)in private industry in March 2015, compared to the average health benefit costs BLS reported. In comparison, the 2014 Report indicated in March, 2014, the average cost for health insurance benefits in private industry was $2.36 per hour worked in March 2014 (7.9 percent of total compensation).

Overall health benefit costs and associated compliance expenses of employers that elect to continue to offer health benefits for employees are projected to rise throughout 2015 and 2016 as ACA driven mandates and market changes drive up employer’s direct health benefit costs. See, e.g. Employers’ Health Costs Projected to Rise 6.5% for 2016.

The trend data and judicial and political developments indicate that business leaders can look for these trends not only to continue, but accelerate. With an impending responsibility to self-report violations of ACA and various of federal health plan mandates imminent, business leaders should brace to deal with any deficiencies in compliance in their 2014 and 2015 health plans much sooner than they might have expected following the Supreme Court’s King v. Burwell decision last week. President Obama made clear last week he views the King ruling as giving the Internal Revenue Service, Department of Labor and Department of Health & Human Services the all clear for full implementation and enforcement of ACA and other federal health plan rules. While these overall enforcement exposures will play out over the next several years, many employers are poised to experience the first bite of these new enforcement exposures over the next few months, when the Internal Revenue Code will require that employers that offered health coverage for employees in 2014 self-assess, report and pay stiff new excise tax penalties of $100 per day per violation when filing their 2014 tax return unless their program complied with all of a long list of ACA or other federal law mandates in addition to otherwise applicable exposures under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and other laws. See, Businesses Must Confirm & Clean Up Health Plan ACA & Other Compliance Following Supreme Court’s King v. Burwell Decision. Since prompt self-audit and correction can help mitigate these liabilities, business leaders should act quickly to engage experienced legal counsel for their companies for help in evaluating, within the scope of attorney client privilege, the adequacy of their 2014 and 2015 health plan compliance, options for addressing potential exposures from any compliance deficiencies, and for advice and assistance to decide whether to offer health benefits going forward and if so, aid in designing and implementing their future health benefit program to enhance its defensibility. While businesses inevitably will need to involve or coordinate with their accounting, broker, and other vendors involved with the plans, businesses generally will want to get legal advice in a manner that preserves their potential to claim attorney-client privilege to protect against discovery in the event of future enforcement or litigation actions sensitive discussions and analysis about compliance audits, plan design choices, and other risk management and liability planning as well as to get help evaluating potential future plan design changes or proposed solutions to known or suspected liability exposures, particularly in light of complexity of the exposures and risks.

For Legal or Consulting Advice, Legal Representation, Training Or More Information

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 27 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 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, ex-patriate 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 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 www.cynthiastamer.com, or www.stamerchadwicksoefje.com the member of 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 www.solutionslawpress.com including:

1 Comment | 105(h), ACA, board of directors, compensation, compliance, corporate governance, directors, Employee Benefits, Excise Tax, Health Care Reform, health insurance, Health Plans, insurers, Internal Controls, Internal Revenue Code, officers, Tax, third party administrators | Tagged: ACA, business, compensaton, compliance, corporate budgets, corporate liability, Employee Benefits, Employer, ERISA, Group Health plans, Health Insurance, Health Plans, Insurance, king, King v. Burwell, Management, Obamacare, officers and directors, Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act, Risk Management | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Obama Administration Devoting $1.25 Million To Find Ways To Encourage States To Force Employers To Give Paid Leave

June 16, 2015

The Obama Administration took another step in its efforts to compel employers to provide paid leave to workers today with the U.S. Department of Labor’s announcement of its investment of $1.25 million to research and analyze how paid leave programs can be developed and implemented across the country. The department’s Women’s Bureau will administer the funding opportunity. See Paid leave effort gets $1.25M to study expansion in U.S.

According to today’s announcement, the Department of Labor will award up to 10 grants of up to $250,000 each. Eligible applicants include government entities from States, U.S. Territories and Possessions, counties and cities with at least 100,000 residents, and federally recognized Indian/Native American tribes with a population of at least 50,000. This funding opportunity builds upon a 2014 grant program that awarded a total of $500,000 to support paid leave feasibility studies in three states and the District of Columbia.

The grant opportunity was announced during a Google+ Hangout on paid leave that included Women’s Bureau Director Latifa Lyles, Senior Advisor to the President Valerie Jarrett, YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki, and others. The Google+ Hangout was a virtual stop on the “Lead on Leave” tour, an effort by senior Administration officials to highlight the importance of paid leave for working American families.

The Department of Labor also announced that it will hold a webinar for prospective applicants on Wednesday, June 24, 2015, at 1:00 p.m. EDT. Participants will have an opportunity to ask questions during the webinar. Interested prospective applicants must register for the webinar in advance of the event by clicking here.

Today’s announcement is part of an aggressive campaign by the Obama Administration to require employers to provide paid leave. The Obama Administration estimates that 40 percent of private-sector employees work at a company that does not offer sick pay for their own illness or injury and that low- and middle-income workers are much less likely to be offered paid sick leave than highly paid workers. Disregarding concern about the added adverse effect on hiring and wages that business leaders and others say will result if the federal government burdens U.S. employers with additional paid leave, increased minimum wage and other mandates, the Obama Administration is moving forward on its plans to force U.S. employers to provide paid leave to workers.

In pursuit of this goal, while his party controlled both the House and Senate on December 21, 2009, President Obama signed into law the Airline Flight Crew Technical Corrections Act, Public Law 111-119, which amended section 101(2) of the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) to establishes a special hours of service eligibility requirements for airline flight attendants and flight crew members that make it easier for these workers to qualify for FMLA Leave and expanded FMLA coverage for military families. Over the past year, the Obama Administration also has amended its FMLA regulations to make clear that the Obama Administration expects private sector employers covered by the FMLA to offer family leave to same-sex domestic partners on the same terms as for heterosexual married couples in the wake of the Supreme Court’s Windsor decision.

Beyond these and other regulatory and administrative actions, the Obama Administration also is on the record for supporting further amendments to the FMLA to extend its mandates to smaller employers as well as to add federal mandates that would mandate that many employers allow their workers to earn up to 7 days per year of paid sick time, which to care for themselves or for a sick family member.

With Republicans now the controlling party in the House and Senate, however, Republican opposition has slowed the Administration’s efforts to advance this agenda legislatively. As a result, the Administration, as it has done in many other areas where it is unable to garner the necessary support to achieve change legislatively, now is looking for other means to promote its objectives. For instance, President Obama’s budget proposals called for millions of dollars of funding for a State Paid Leave Fund for the Department of Labor to use to help encourage states to enact paid leave mandates or other arrangements by helping to cover start-up costs for states that choose to launch paid leave programs as well as to provide additional funding to the Women’s Bureau at the Department of Labor to exploring options for improving the collection of data and the promotion of other funding to advance the Administration’s agenda for imposing added responsibilities on employers relating to parental leave, child care responsibilities, usage of family leave insurance programs, and other topics related to the intersection of work and family responsibilities.

Along with these efforts to impose added paid leave responsibilities upon private sector employers, the Obama Administration also wants to spend more taxpayer dollars providing additional paid leave for federal workers. While federal workers already have access to paid sick leave and vacation time, this currently doesn’t include paid time off specifically for Federal employees to use when they have a newborn baby, or who choose to adopt or foster a child, have no paid leave that they can access specifically to meet those responsibilities. The Obama Administration is on record that it believes that the federal government should provide paid parental leave to federal employees to help federal employees to care for their families.

Today’s announcement confirms that the Obama Administration is working to expand employer paid leave mandates with or without Congressional approval. Employers concerned about the potential costs and other burdens of such mandates should carefully monitor the studies and other activities of the Administration at the federal and state level and express any concerns to their elected Federal and state officials early and often to help ensure that these concerns are properly appreciated and taken into account.

For Advice, Representation, Training & Other Resources

Recognized as a “Top” attorney in employee benefits, labor and employment and health care law, Ms. Stamer is Board Certified in Labor & Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, and Managing Shareholder of Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, P.C., a member of Stamer│Chadwick │Soefje PLLC, Ms. Stamer is a practicing attorney, author, pubic speaker, management policy advocate and industry thought leader with more than 27 years’ experience advising government contractors and other private sector and public employers, their management, benefit plans and plan fiduciaries, vendors and service providers and others about performance management and internal controls, OSHA and other safety and occupational injury management and compliance, OFCCP, EEOC, and other employment discrimination, government contracting compliance, and other workforce and operational performance, compliance, risk management, compensation, and benefits matters. Her work includes strategic planning and advice, contract, settlement and other negotiation, handbook and other policies and procedures, contract, employee benefit and other drafting, design, review and enforcement, real time crisis and other management response, investigations, defense, mitigation, training, management regulatory and legislative advocacy and other management representation.

In addition to her extensive client work Ms. Stamer also is a widely published author, management policy advocate and thought leader, and management policy advocate on these and other workforce and related matters who shares her experience and leadership in a wide range of contexts. A current or former author and advisory board member of HR.com, Insurance Thought Leadership, SHRM, BNA and several other the prominent publications, Past Chair of the ABA RPTE Employee Benefit & Other Compensation Arrangements Group, Co-Chair and Past Chair of the ABA RPTE Welfare Plan Committee, Vice Chair of the ABA TIPS Employee Benefit Plans Committee, Vice President of the North Texas Health Care Compliance Professionals Association, Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Section, former President of the Richardson Development Center Board of Directors, and the former Board Compliance Chair of the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas, An American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, American Bar Association (ABA) and State Bar of Texas Fellow, Martindale Hubble Premier AV Rated (the highest), Ms. Stamer publishes and speaks extensively on these and other staffing and human resources, compensation and benefits, technology, health care, privacy, public policy, and other operations and risk management concerns. Her publications and insights appear in the ABA and other professional publications, HR.com, SHRM, Insurance Thought Leadership, Health Care Compliance Association, Atlantic Information Service, Bureau of National Affairs, World At Work, The Wall Street Journal, Business Insurance, the Dallas Morning News, Modern Health Care, Managed Healthcare, Health Leaders, and a many other national and local publications.

You can review other recent human resources, employee benefits and internal controls publications and resources and additional information about the employment, employee benefits and other experience of the Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, PC here. If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information – including your preferred e-mail – by creating or updating your profile www.cynthiastamer.com or by registering to participate in the distribution of these and other updates on our HR & Employee Benefits Update here including:

About Solutions Law Press, 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 www.solutionslawpress.com.

Comments Off on Obama Administration Devoting $1.25 Million To Find Ways To Encourage States To Force Employers To Give Paid Leave | Uncategorized | Tagged: business, Employee Benefits, Employers, Family Leave, FMLA, Human Resources, Leave, Maternity Leave, Paid Leave, PTO | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

6/2 Deadline To Claim Special Penalty Relief Available for Late Returns Filings By Certain Small Retirement Plans

May 6, 2015

June 2, 2015 is the deadline for small employers sponsoring retirement plans who failed to meet the Internal Revenue Code’s employee benefit plan Form 5500 reporting requirements to claim the penalty relief available under the one-year temporary pilot program announced by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) on June 2, 2014 to help qualifying businesses that may violated the rules because they were unaware of the reporting requirements.

All employee benefit plan sponsors and administrators should make understanding and arranging for timely preparation and filing of Form 5500s and other returns and other reports and disclosures required by the Code and other laws like the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) a priority.

Under the Internal Revenue Code, plan administrators and sponsors of retirement plans who fail to file required annual returns, can face stiff penalties – up to $15,000 per return. Where the plan also is subject to a Form 5500 filing requirement under ERISA, additional penalties also can apply for late or nonfiling of the required form.

As part of their efforts to outreach to small and other employer plan administrators and sponsors, both the IRS and Department of Labor are offering voluntary compliance programs to encourage plan sponsors and administrators to voluntarily come into compliance with these requirements who previously have failed to file required Form 5500s. The pilot program announced June 2, 2014 and scheduled to close June 2, 2015 is an example of one of those programs. By filing late returns by June 2, eligible filers filing under the program can avoid the potentially significant penalities that the IRS otherwise might impose for non- or late filing of the required returns.

This program is generally open to certain small business (owner-spouse) plans and plans of business partnerships (together, “one-participant plans”) and certain foreign plans. Those who have already been assessed a penalty for late filings are not eligible for this program.

When considering making a filing under the IRS pilot program, a plan sponsor or plan administrator also should evaluate whether there also are non-filing or late filing exposures arising under the Form 5500 filing requirements of ERISA that may need resolution. If so, consideration should be given also to file the return under the Department of Labor’s Voluntary Compliance Resolution Program for late filers.

For Advice, Representation, Training & Other Resources

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

About Solutions Law Press

Solutions Law Press, Inc. provides business risk management, legal compliance, management effectiveness and other resources, training and education on human resources, employee benefits, data security and privacy, insurance, health care and other key compliance, risk management, internal controls and operational concerns. If you find this of interest, you also be interested reviewing some of our other Solutions Law Press resources at www.solutionslawpress.com.

If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information â€“ including your preferred e-mail â€“ by creating or updating your profile at here or e-mailing this information here.

Comments Off on 6/2 Deadline To Claim Special Penalty Relief Available for Late Returns Filings By Certain Small Retirement Plans | Uncategorized | Tagged: Annual Return, Employee Benefits, Employers, Form 5500, Health Plans, Retirement Plans, Tax | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

IRS Changes Plan Correction Procedures

March 27, 2015

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

For Help or More Information

Cynthia Marcotte Stamer is recognized among the “Top Rated” Labor & Employment Lawyers in Texas in the 2014 LexisNexis® Martindale-Hubbell® list of Top Rated Lawyers. An AV® Preeminent™ (the highest Peer Review Rating available) rated lawyer, Ms. Stamer earned the “Top Rated” Distinction based on confidential Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review Ratings opinions about her skills and experience submitted by other AV® Preeminent™ lawyers and members with professional knowledge of her work.

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

Board Certified in Labor & Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, and a Fellow in the American Bar Association, Texas Bar Association, and the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, Ms. Stamer’s legal and management consulting work focuses on helping employers, insurers, employee benefit plans and their administrators, fiduciaries and advisors, community leaders and governments manage people, process and risk. Throughout her more than 26 year career,

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

In addition to her more traditional legal, internal controls and other management consulting work, Ms. Stamer also extensively works with a broad range of business and government clients on health care, pension, social security, workforce, insurance and many other related policy matters critical to their business success and liability management. She both only helps her clients anticipate, monitor and cope with emerging laws, regulations and enforcement and respond to and resolve government investigations and enforcement actions, she also helps them shape the rules through dealings with Congress and other legislatures, regulators and government officials domestically and internationally. A former lead consultant to the Government of Bolivia on its Social Security reform law and most recognized for her leadership on U.S. health and pension, wage and hour, tax, education and immigration policy reform, Ms. Stamer works with U.S. and foreign businesses, governments, trade associations, and others on workforce, social security and severance, health care, immigration, privacy and data security, tax, ethics and other laws and regulations. Founder and Executive Director of the Coalition for Responsible Healthcare Policy and its PROJECT COPE: the Coalition on Patient Empowerment and a Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, the American Bar Association (ABA) and the State Bar of Texas, Ms. Stamer annually leads the Joint Committee on Employee Benefits (JCEB) HHS Office of Civil Rights agency meeting. She also works as a policy advisor and advocate to many business, professional and civic organizations.

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

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

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

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:

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.

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.

NOTE: This article is provided for educational purposes. It is does not establish any attorney-client relationship nor provide or serve as a substitute for legal advice to any individual or organization. Readers must engage properly qualified legal counsel to secure legal advice about the rules discussed in light of specific circumstances. ANY STATEMENTS CONTAINED HEREIN ARE NOT INTENDED OR WRITTEN BY THE WRITER TO BE USED, AND NOTHING CONTAINED HEREIN CAN BE USED BY YOU OR ANY OTHER PERSON, FOR THE PURPOSE OF (1) AVOIDING PENALTIES THAT MAY BE IMPOSED UNDER FEDERAL TAX LAW, or (2) PROMOTING, MARKETING OR RECOMMENDING TO ANOTHER PARTY ANY TAX-RELATED TRANSACTION OR MATTER ADDRESSED HEREIN.

If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information including your preferred e-mail by creating or updating your profile here. For important information about this communication click here.

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

Stamer Talks About “Handling Health Plan Spouse, Dependent & Other “Family” Matters in Post-DOMA World” at SPBA 2014 Spring Meeting

April 8, 2014

Health plans, their sponsoring employers and administrators face new challenges and responsibilities under a slew of regulations on the treatment of same-sex domestic partners issued by the Internal Revenue Service, Department of Labor and other federal government agencies since the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional the Defense Against Marriage Act’s prohibition against the recognition of same-sex partnerships as marriage for purposes of federal law.

Attorney and industry thought leader Cynthia Marcotte Stamer will join officials from the Internal Revenue Service National Office in discussing “Handling Health Plan Spouse, Dependent & Other ‘Family’ Matters in Post-DOMA World” on Thursday, April 17, 2014 at the Society of Professional Benefits Administrators (SPBA) Spring 2014 Meeting at the Capital Hilton in Washington, DC.

The SPBA Spring Meeting scheduled to take place May 16-18 will cover a broad range of timely topics on health care reform and other issues and concerns for self-insured health plan administrators and their clients.

In addition to her April 17 DOMA presentation, Ms. Stamer also is scheduled to share her insights and experiences financial, ethical and legal concerns that third party administrators of self-insured employee benefit plans should consider when their client stops funding the plan due to illiquidity, bankruptcy or otherwise as a panelist on the April 18, 2014 panel on “Action Steps When a Client Stops Funding Claims.”

For additional details about the SPBA or its Spring Meeting, see www.spbatpa.org.

For More Information Or Assistance

If you need help labor and employment, health and other employee benefit, compensation, privacy and data other internal controls and management concerns, please contact the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer.

A board certified labor and employment attorney widely known for her extensive and creative knowledge and experience with health matters, Ms. Stamer works extensively with employers, employee benefit plan sponsors, insurers, administrators, and fiduciaries, payroll and staffing companies, technology and other service providers and others to develop and run legally defensible programs, practices and policies that promote the client’s human resources, employee benefits or other management goals. Ms. Stamer has more than 25 years experience advising these and other clients about these matters and representing employer, employee benefit and other clients before the Internal Revenue Service, the Department of Labor, Immigration & Customs, Justice, and Health & Human Services, the Securities and Exchange Commission, Federal Trade Commission, state labor, insurance, tax and attorneys’ general, and other agencies, private plaintiffs and others on health and other employee benefit, labor, employment and other human resources, worker classification, tax, internal controls, risk management and other legal and operational management concerns.

A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefits Council, the immediate past Chair and current Welfare Benefit Committee Co-Chair of the American Bar Association (ABA) RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Committee, a Council Representative on the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits, the Vice Chair of the ABA TIPS Employee Benefits Committee, the Gulf States Area TEGE Council Exempt Organizations Coordinator, past-Government Affairs Committee Legislative Chair for the Dallas Human Resources Management Association, past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, and the editor and publisher of Solutions Law Press HR & Benefits Update and other Solutions Law Press Publications, Ms. Stamer also is a widely published author and highly regarded speaker on these and other employee benefit and human resources matters who is active in many other employee benefits, human resources and other management focused organizations who is published and speaks extensively on worker classification and related matters. She 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.

You can learn more about Ms. Stamer and her experience, find out about upcoming training or other events, review some of her past training, speaking, publications and other resources, and register to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns from Ms. Stamer at www.CynthiaStamer.com.

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 including:

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 click here.

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. ©2014 Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, P.C. Non-exclusive license to republish granted to Solutions Law Press. All other rights reserved.

Comments Off on Stamer Talks About “Handling Health Plan Spouse, Dependent & Other “Family” Matters in Post-DOMA World” at SPBA 2014 Spring Meeting | 105(h), Affordable Care Act, Claims Administration, COBRA, Corporate Compliance, Employee Benefits, Employers, ERISA, Fiduciary Responsibility, FMLA, Health Plans, HIPAA, Human Resources, I-9, Immigration, Insurance, Internal Controls, Medicare Part D, Mental Health, Mental Health Parity, Prescription Drugs, Uncategorized | Tagged: ACA, Bankruptcy, defense of marriage act, distressed plans, DOMA, Employee Benefits, Employers, expatriate plans, Fiduciary Responsibility, Health Plans, International, same-sex, tpa, Windsor | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Stamer Speaks On “Action Steps When A Client Stops Funding Claims” at 2014 SPBA Spring Meeting

April 8, 2014

Health plans and their administrators face significant practical legal and operational challenges when the employer sponsoring the plan goes bankruptcy, has financial trouble or otherwise stops funding the plan.

Attorney, industry thought leader and Solutions Law Press, Inc. Publisher and Editor, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer will join a panel of distinguished attorneys discussing financial, ethical and legal concerns that third party administrators of self-insured employee benefit plans should consider when their client stops funding the plan due to illiquidity, bankruptcy or otherwise as a panelist on the April 18, 2014 panel on “Action Steps When a Client Stops Funding Claims” on Friday, April 18, 2014 at the Society of Professional Benefits Administrators (SPBA) Spring 2014 Meeting at the Capital Hilton in Washington, DC.

In addition to her April 18 presentation, Ms. Stamer also is scheduled to join officials from the Internal Revenue Service National Office in discussing “Handling Health Plan Spouse, Dependent & Other ‘Family’ Matters in Post-DOMA World” on Thursday, April 17, 2014.

For More Information Or Assistance

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 including:

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 click here.

Comments Off on Stamer Speaks On “Action Steps When A Client Stops Funding Claims” at 2014 SPBA Spring Meeting | 105(h), Affordable Care Act, Claims Administration, COBRA, Corporate Compliance, Employee Benefits, Employers, ERISA, Fiduciary Responsibility, FMLA, Health Plans, HIPAA, Human Resources, I-9, Immigration, Insurance, Internal Controls, Medicare Part D, Mental Health, Mental Health Parity, Prescription Drugs, Uncategorized | Tagged: ACA, Bankruptcy, distressed plans, Employee Benefits, Employers, expatriate plans, Fiduciary Responsibility, Health Plans, International | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

IRS Gives Ex Pat Plans Limited Exemption From ACA Reporting Rule

April 3, 2014

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is giving U.S. businesses with workers working oversees (expatriates) additional limited temporary relief from certain mandates of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA). While this relief will be welcome for many multinational employers, these employers and their health plans and insurers need to use caution not to overestimate this relief. Employers and administrators of health plans covering expatriates generally generally remain obligated by U.S. law to design and administer their group health plans to properly comply with applicable U.S. mandates and tax rules..

The temporary relief for employers and health plans covering expatriate announced by the IRS today (April 3, 2014) scheduled to be published in Internal Revenue Bulletin 2014-16 on April 14, 2014, Notice 2014-24, provides a temporary safe harbor for an entity that reports expatriate health insurance plans on its Supplemental Health Care Exhibit (SHCE). For the 2014 and 2015 fee years, Notice 2014-24 will allow such an entity to exclude 50% of its direct premiums written for expatriate plans in reporting total direct premiums written to the IRS for purposes of determining its ACA § 9010 Health Insurance Providers Fee.

This new guidance supplements guidance previously published guidance in“FAQS About Affordable Care Act Implementation (Part XIII)”(the “Expat FAQ”). The Expat FAQ states these health plans generally are not required to comply with the ACA requirements for pre-January 1, 2016 plan years, as long as they comply with the applicable federal health plan mandates of pre-Affordable Care Act version of Title XXVII of the Public Health Service (PHS) Act and other applicable law under ERISA and the Internal Revenue Code (Code) under temporary transitional relief announced in the Expat FAQ jointly announced by the Agencies of Labor, Health and Human Services (HHS), and the IRS (collectively, the Agencies) on March 8, 2013. The Expat FAQ makes clear that the Agencies generally view expatriate health plans and other health benefit coverage provided by businesses subject to U.S. law for employees working outside their home country generally are subject to the mandates of ACA, as well as other federal health plan mandates. However, ERISA section 4(b)(4) may exempt from ERISA coverage “plans maintained outside the United States primarily for the benefit of persons substantially all of whom are nonresident aliens.” Similar exemptions also may be available for certain provisions of the Code or ERISA for these extra-territorial plans for nonresident aliens. For instance, for purposes of the eligibility non-discrimination rule of Code section 105(h), the Code specifies that an employer can disregard employees who are nonresident aliens and who receive no earned income (within the meaning of section 911(d)92) from the employer which constitutes income from sources within the United States within the meaning of section 861(a)(3).

While the Agencies gather further information and analyze the potential challenges expatriate plans may face in complying with the Affordable Care Act, the Expat FAQ states that for plan years beginning on or before December 31, 2015, the Agencies will treat expatriate health plans as treating the requirements of subtitles A and C of Title I of the Affordable Care Act if the plan and issuer comply with the pre-Affordable Care Act version of Title XXVII of the PHS Act, section 715 of ERISA, and section 9815 of the Code and other applicable law under ERISA and the Code including, for example, the mental health parity provisions, the HIPAA nondiscrimination provisions, the ERISA section 503 requirements for claims procedures, and any reporting and disclosure obligations under ERISA Part 1.

The Expat FAQ also confirms that the Agencies will treat coverage provided under an expatriate group health plan as a form of minimum essential coverage under section 5000A of the Code. If an individual has minimum essential coverage, the individual will not be subject to the “Individual Mandate” tax. Additionally, an employee who is offered “minimum essential coverage” by his/her employer will not be eligible for a subsidy in the Exchange if the employer coverage is “affordable” and provides “minimum value.” This means the employer will not be subject to a potential penalty under the ACA “Employer Shared Responsibility” provisions of new Code section 4980H.

Employers also should be careful to ensure that the guidance applies to their program. Sponsors and insurers providing or administering health benefits with respect to employees working or living outside the United States are cautioned of the need to confirm that their program falls under the Expat FAQ’s definition of “expatriate health plan.” For purposes of this temporary transitional relief, the Expat FAQ defines an “expatriate health plan” as “an insured group health plan with respect to which enrollment is limited to primary insureds who reside outside of their home country for at least six months of the plan year and any covered dependents, and its associated group health insurance coverage.” The Expat FAQ confirms its definition of “expatriate health coverage” also applies for purposes of the Health Insurer Issuer Standards Related to Transitional Reinsurance Program of 45 CFR 153.400(a)(1)(iii) for plans with plan years ending on or before December 31, 2015.

This definition of expatriate health plan will not extend to all health coverage provided for employees of U.S. companies working outside the United States. Employers and administrators of self-insured health plans providing coverage for expatriate employees take note, however. Because this definition presently is limited to “insured group health plans,” it self-insured health coverage provided for expatriate employees presently do not qualify as expatriate health plans covered by the relief contained in the Expat FAQ. Likewise, the definition also does not apply to health coverage provided for employees working abroad for periods of less than six months. Sponsors, insurers and administrators of health plans providing coverage for employees of U.S. employer working outside their home countries that fall outside the Expat FAQ definition of an “expatriate health plan” should ensure that their programs timely comply with all applicable federal health plan mandates including ACA.

Review and Update Plans To Manage Risks & Improve Effectiveness

Businesses providing health coverage to workers working outside of the United States should review their policies for compliance with the applicable requirements of the Affordable Care Act, to the extent applicable taking into account the Expat FAQ, as well as otherwise applicable requirements of ERISA, the Code, the PHS Act and other relevant federal laws. When conducting this review, sponsors, administrators and insurers also should consider opportunities to manage risks, improve plan value and cost effectiveness and mitigate other legal or operational concerns.

Health coverage provided to employees of U.S. businesses working outside the United States typically are provided under policies, plans and programs pursuant to products or other arrangements that may not be designed, documented or administered to adequately comply with relevant federal health plan mandates. Beyond minimizing legal exposures that may result from overlooked compliance obligations, employer or other sponsors, administrators and insurers of these programs generally should familiarize themselves about the health care delivery systems, private and public health benefit programs, regulations and other relevant requirements and circumstances that may impact their business’ obligations to provide or contribute toward the cost of health care coverage, access to quality care by their employees and their families while working outside the United States or their home country, and legal and operational issues that may arise when employees are working oversees, transitioning between countries, have family members residing in different countries or other special circumstances.

The Expat FAQ is only one of a deluge of new guidance recently finalized or proposed by the Agencies. With the effective date of the 2014 Affordable Care Act reforms rapidly approaching, more guidance is impending. Stay tuned for additional updates about Affordable Care Act and other federal health plan rules and guidance.

For More Information Or Assistance

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 including:

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 click here.

Comments Off on IRS Gives Ex Pat Plans Limited Exemption From ACA Reporting Rule | 105(h), Affordable Care Act, Claims Administration, COBRA, Corporate Compliance, Employee Benefits, Employers, ERISA, Fiduciary Responsibility, FMLA, Health Plans, HIPAA, Human Resources, I-9, Immigration, Insurance, Internal Controls, Medicare Part D, Mental Health, Mental Health Parity, Prescription Drugs, Uncategorized | Tagged: ACA, Employee Benefits, Employers, expatriate plans, Health Plans, International | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Affordable Care Act Requires Proper Integration of HRAs, HFSAs, & Certain Other Health Premium Reimbursement Arrangements

September 24, 2013

Employers using health reimbursement arrangements (HRAs), health flexible spending plans (HFSAs) or other employer payment plan arrangements under which the employer provides a fixed defined contribution from the employer to employees to use to purchase individual or group health insurance should have those arrangements reviewed for compliance with the Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act (ACA) annual limit and preventive care rules as interpreted by the Departments of Labor, Treasury and Health & Human Service.

The Internal Revenue Service and the Employee Benefit Security Administration construe ACA as requiring that these arrangements be properly integrated with health insurance coverage that otherwise complies with the Affordable Care Act’s annual limit and preventive care rules to avoid violating ACA in recent guidance published in IRS Notice 2013-54 and EBSA Technical Release No. 2013-04.

Employers that use HRAs, HFSAs, or other employer defined contribution style arrangements to reimburse employees for individual or group insurance coverage should review their arrangements to ensure that they are properly designed to comply with ACA’s annual limit, preventive care and other mandates.

For Help or More Information

If you need help understanding or dealing with these impending notification requirements, with other 2014 health plan decision-making or preparation, or with reviewing and updating, administering or defending your group health or other employee benefit, human resources, insurance, health care matters or related documents or practices, please contact the author of this update, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer.

A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Council, 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 25 years of work, advocacy, education and publications on cutting edge health and managed care, employee benefit, human resources and related workforce, insurance and financial services, and health care matters.

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, HR.com, Insurance Thought Leadership, Solutions Law Press, Inc. and other 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 of interest, you may also be interested in the following recent publications by Ms. Stamer published by Solutions Law Press, Inc.:

For important information about this communication see here. 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 Affordable Care Act Requires Proper Integration of HRAs, HFSAs, & Certain Other Health Premium Reimbursement Arrangements | Employee Benefits, Employers, ERISA, family leave, Fiduciary Responsibility, Health Plans, Human Resources, Insurance, Leave, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Uncategorized, Wage & Hour | Tagged: Affordable Care Act, DOMA, Employee Benefits, ERISA, Exchange Notice, FMLA, Health Plans, Model NOtices, same-sex marriage, Section 18B, Windsor | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Review Benefit Plan, FLMA & Other Family-Related Policies In Light Of Labor Department Same-Sex Marriage Guidance

September 24, 2013

Employers and other employee benefit plan sponsors, benefit plan fiduciaries, and their advisors and service providers should review and update their health and employee benefit plan’s definitions of “spouse,” “marriage” and “dependent” in light of new guidance from the Department of Labor Wage & Hour Division (WHD) guidance under the Family & Medical Leave Act and the Employee Benefit Security Administration (EBSA) guidance under the under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) on the effect of the Supreme Court’s finding of the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional in United States v. Windsor on their family leave and employee benefit plan obligations to employees involved in same-sex domestic partnership relationships. When doing so, employers and employee benefit plan sponsors, fiduciaries and administrators also should keep in mind that the Defense of Marriage Act ruling is only one of a number of recent developments fueling an evolution in the traditional concepts of marriage, dependent and family and their effect on employment and employee benefit policies and practices. Accordingly, when reviewing these arrangements, employers and their benefit plans need to be reviewed and updated to keep abreast of and comply with these evolving practices and standards.

On June 26, 2013, the Windsor decision struck down the provisions of the Defense of Marriage Act that denied federal benefits to legally married, same-sex couples.

In Technical Release No. 2013-04 published on September 18, 2013, the EBSA states the Department plans to issue additional guidance in the coming months as it consults with the Department of Justice and other federal agencies to implement the Winsor decision. In the meanwhile, however, EBSA says that in general, the terms “spouse” and “marriage” in Title I of ERISA and in related department regulations should be read to include same-sex couples legally married in any state or foreign jurisdiction that recognizes such marriages, regardless of where they currently live.

The EBSA guidance follows the publication by the WHD of guidance on the effect of the Windsor decision on the family leave responsibilities of employers covered by the FMLA to employees involved in same-sex domestic partnership relationships in Fact Sheet #28F: Qualifying Reasons for Leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act published by the WHD earlier in August. In that guidance, WHD updated its definition of “spouse” for purposes of the FMLA to mean “husband or wife as defined or recognized under state law for purposes of marriage in the state where the employee resides, including “common law” marriage and same-sex marriage.”

The Windsor decision and these new pieces of related guidance reflect the evolving nature of marriage and family increasingly incorporated into federal and state employment and employee benefit law. While the Labor Department promises that additional guidance on the Defense of Marriage Act will be forthcoming the future, the new guidance makes clear that employers should review their existing employment and employee benefit plans in light of the Windsor decision and evolving precedent. Employers, employee benefit plans, their sponsors, fiduciaries and administrators should not assume that existing definitions will have the intended effect or be compliant. Rather, they should assess the existing language in light of the decision and the evolving guidance and make appropriate adjustments as necessary to ensure that their plans properly document the desired treatment in accordance with the evolving guidance and precedent. In doing so, employers also should review other definitions of dependent, kin, family and related concepts to ensure they are up to date with the FMLA, the Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act, the Defense of Marriage Act-related guidance and other current regulations.

For Help or More Information

Other Resources

If you found this of interest, you may also be interested in the following recent publications by Ms. Stamer published by Solutions Law Press, Inc.:

Comments Off on Review Benefit Plan, FLMA & Other Family-Related Policies In Light Of Labor Department Same-Sex Marriage Guidance | Employee Benefits, Employers, ERISA, family leave, Fiduciary Responsibility, Health Plans, Human Resources, Insurance, Leave, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Uncategorized, Wage & Hour | Tagged: Affordable Care Act, DOMA, Employee Benefits, ERISA, Exchange Notice, FMLA, Health Plans, Model NOtices, same-sex marriage, Section 18B, Windsor | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

CMS Hosts Webinar Celebrating National Health IT Week 9/16-20

September 13, 2013

In celebration of the third annual National Health IT Week is September 16-20, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) will host several webinars and launching new eHealth tools and resources that it intends to help providers participate in eHealth programs. These programs may be of interest to providers as well as payers who are interested in what providers are doing to use eHealth tools.

The eHealth Provider Webinar will be held on Thursday, September 19^th from 12:00 p.m. to 1:30 p.m. ET. CMS plans to present an overview of the eHealth programs and its eHealth initiative—an initiative that aligns health IT and electronic standards programs on:

Administrative Simplification
eRx Incentive Program
ICD-10
Quality Measurement

A portion of the webinar will also be dedicated to Q&A.

Registration Information

Space is limited. Register now to secure your spot for the eHealth Provider Webinar. Once registration is complete, you will receive a follow-up email with step-by-step instructions on how to log-in to the webinar. Listserv messages are sent prior to each webinar session with registration information.

If you’d like to view past webinars, the PowerPoint presentations and recordings can now be accessed on the Resources page of the eHealth website. For more information about CMS’ eHealth Initiatives, visit the CMS eHealth website for the latest news and updates on CMS’ eHealth initiatives.

For Help or More Information

If you need help understanding or dealing with these eHealth or other health and health benefit programs, or with other employee benefit, human resources, insurance, health care matters or related documents or practices, please contact the author of this update, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer.

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 about 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, HR.com, Insurance Thought Leadership, Solutions Law Press, Inc. and other 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 of interest, you may also be interested in the following recent publications by Ms. Stamer published by Solutions Law Press, Inc. including:

Comments Off on CMS Hosts Webinar Celebrating National Health IT Week 9/16-20 | Data Security, Employee Benefits, ERISA, Fiduciary Responsibility, Health Plans, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Uncategorized | Tagged: Affordable Care Act, e-health, Employee Benefits, ERISA, Exchange Notice, Health IT, Health Plans, Model NOtices, Section 18B | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

New DOL Guidance Makes Many Employers Rethink Giving FLSA 18B Exchange Notices

September 12, 2013

But Informal Agency Communications Suggest Don’t Be Too Quick To Assume No Consequences For Not Giving Notice

Employer and union group health plan sponsors and insurers of group and individual health plans who have struggled to complete and send the new employer notice (Exchange Notice) to employees required by Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) Section 18B by the October 1, 2013 deadline set by the U.S. Department of Labor Employee Benefit Security Administration (EBSA) should contact their legal counsel to discuss the advisability of sending the Exchange Notice in light of a new informal guidance posted and distributed by EBSA yesterday (September 11, 2013) here titled “FAQ On Notice of Coverage Options.” While many employers are reading the guidance in the new FAQ On Notice of Coverage Options as justification for not sending the notice, some EBSA representatives asked about the FAQ are cautioning that its provisions does not mean that there is no consequence for not sending an Exchange Notice. In the face of these conflicting messages, employers under pressure to decide what Exchange Notice, if any to send by October 1, 2013 are more confused than ever.

Exchange Notice Requirement Under 18B Due October 1

To promote awareness among employees of the option scheduled to take effect on January 1, 2014 under ACA to obtain health coverage through their state’s Marketplace, ACA amended the FLSA to require each FLSA-covered employer to give each employee a notice about the option to enroll in health coverage through a Marketplace and certain other information required by new Section 18B of the FLSA.

Although the Labor Department’s Wage & Hour Division usually interprets and administers the FLSA, EBSA as the agency with primary authority over health and other employee benefit plan regulation has taken the lead in interpreting and implementing FLSA Section 18B and issuing its implementing guidance.

In the EBSA interim guidance implementing Section 18B published in Technical Release 2013-02 and later communications and guidance prior to September 11, 2013, EBSA construes Section 18B as requiring that each employer covered by the FLSA “must” provide each employee at the time of hiring a written notice that meets the requirements of Section 18B to inform the employee:

Of the existence of the Marketplace (referred to in the statute as the Exchange) including a description of the services provided by the Marketplace, and the way the employee may contact the Marketplace to request assistance;
If the employer plan’s share of the total allowed costs of benefits provided under the plan is less than 60 percent of such costs, that the employee may be eligible for a premium tax credit under section 36B of the Internal Revenue Code (the Code) if the employee purchases a qualified health plan through the Marketplace; and
If the employee purchases a qualified health plan through the Marketplace, the employee may lose the employer contribution (if any) to any health benefits plan offered by the employer and that all or a portion of such contribution may be excludable from income for Federal income tax purposes.

According to Technical Release 2013-02, an employer covered by the FLSA must give each employee notice under FLSA Section 18B whether the employer offers coverage, whether a particular employee qualifies for health coverage, if any, offered by the employer, or both.

Since publishing Technical Release 2013-02, EBSA also continuously told employers Section 18B “requires” their timely delivery of Exchange Notices in Model Notices that the Labor Department said it published to help employers prepare their Exchange Notices to comply with Section 18B’s requirement to provide the Exchange Notice. See Model Notice For Employers Who Offer A Health Plan To Some or All Employees; Model Notice for Employers Who Do Not Offer A Health Plan; and COBRA Model Election Notice. Indeed, the Model Notice For Employers Who Offer A Health Plan To Some or All Employees reinforced this message by specifically delineating the employer’s completion of the last portion of the form by the employer as “optional.” Likewise, the responses shared by EBSA representatives in response to questions from employers and others about Section 18B and the Model Notices caused employers to believe that employers faced liability if they didn’t timely give an Exchange Notice to their employees by the October 1, 2013 deadline established by the Labor Department.

9/11/13 FAQ On Notice of Coverage Options Not Necessarily Mean No Consequence For Not Giving Notice

In the face of the previous zealous efforts by the EBSA telling employers about their obligations under Section 18B and urging them to comply, EBSA’s announcement in its September 11, 2013 FAQ on Notice of Coverage Options is creating a stir among employers and their advisors. The FAQ on Notice of Coverage Option and the responses of EBSA representatives to questions about its interpretation and effect are confusing to say the least.

In the FAQ on Notice of Coverage Options, the EBSA responds “No.” to the sole question addressed by the FAQ: “Can an employer be fined for failing to provide employees with notice about the Affordable Care Act’s new Health Insurance Marketplace?”

EBSA representatives asked on the morning of September 12, 2013 about the FAQ on Notice of Coverage Options stated that while employers “should” and EBSA “encourages” employers to in fact provide the Exchange Notices, EBSA does not view employers as subject to any penalty under “ERISA” (emphasis added) for not providing an Exchange Notice in accordance with Section 18B of the FLSA.

On the other hand, statements made by other EBSA officials responding to questions about the implications of the FAQ on Notice of Coverage Options on the afternoon of September 12, 2013 raise concerns about reading the FAQ to mean that there is no consequence for an employer’s failure to provide the Exchange Notice. These EBSA officials cautioned that employers should not interpret the statement in the FAQ on Notice of Coverage Options there is no penalty under ERISA for not providing the Exchange Notice as meaning that there will be no adverse consequence if an employer does not provide an 18B Exchange Notice to its employees. On the contrary, these EBSA officials caution that EBSA may view the Exchange Notice as a required disclosure about the plan, which could trigger audit or other enforcement activity.

EBSA representatives also are declining to comment on whether not providing the Exchange Notice might trigger penalties or other liabilities from other agencies. When asked whether employers failing to provide an Exchange Notice could face penalties imposed by the Department of Labor Wage & Hour division under the FLSA, the Internal Revenue Service under Section 8928 or other provisions of the Internal Revenue Code, the Department of Health & Human Services under the Public Health Services Act, plaintiffs’ in a private cause of action brought under ERISA or the FLSA, or otherwise, EBSA representatives declined to comment about the potential implications of an employer’s failure to provide an Exchange Notice in accordance with FLSA Section 18B under laws administered or construed by other agencies. EBSA representatives instead referred these inquiries for response to the applicable enforcement agency.

The author has contacted and is awaiting reply from the Department of Labor Wage & Hour Division and the Departments of Treasury and Health & Human Services on their position, if any, on the potential liability of an employer for failing to timely deliver and Exchange Notice under the laws and rules subject to that agency’s jurisdiction. Stay tuned for any future updates.

Consult With Qualified Counsel About What To Do & Document Analysis

The ambiguities created by the EBSA’s release of the FAQ on Notice of Coverage Options make it more necessary than ever that employers obtain documented advice from qualified legal counsel about responding to the requirements of Section 18B of the FLSA.

Because the preparation and distribution of an Exchange Notice by necessity involves an employer in making statements about its employee benefit plans, employers generally should use care to prudently craft each statement in any Exchange Notice to fit the actual terms of the applicable health plan to which it relates to manage fiduciary liability and other potential liabilities potentially arising from sending an inaccurate or misleading the Exchange Notice. See Employers Beware! DOL-Model FLSA Section 18B Exchange Notice Requires Tailoring! Furthermore, depending on the size of the employer’s workforce, an employer generally must invest significant time and money to prepare and distribute the Exchange Notice to its employees.

In light of the EBSA’s position in FAQ on Notice of Coverage Options, employers may want to consult experienced legal counsel about whether to provide the Exchange Notice after all pending further guidance from the Employee Benefit Security Administration or other relevant agencies. If and to the extent that an employer has or in the future does provide the Exchange Notice, employers also should consult with counsel on the appropriate tailoring of the content of the Exchange Notice. Whether or not the employer elects to provide the Exchange Notice, however, employers and the plan fiduciaries, administrators and insurers that administer the employer’s health plan will want to ensure that the plan administrator or other appropriate named fiduciary of its health plan is timely preparing and distributing the Summary of Benefits and Communications (SBC), 60-day prior notice of material plan amendments reducing coverage or service, summary plan description and host of other notices required with respect to the health plan by ERISA and other applicable laws, See e.g. Impending 10/1 Exchange Notice & Other New Notice Deadlines Cut Time Short For Employers To Finalize 2014 Health Plan Terms & Contracts.

In connection with these and other upcoming 2013 health plan preparations, employers and applicable health plan fiduciaries, insurers, and service providers should work together to ensure that plan terms and practices are carefully updated to meet new rules, as well as to tighten long-standing terms to promote enforceability and minimize fiduciary and other exposures. All communications about the plan generally should both match as closely as possible the language contained in the official plan documents, as well as accurately identify the relevant named fiduciary and its role on the matters addressed, notify reads of the retained rights of the plan sponsor to amend the plan, and contain other appropriate disclaimers and disclosures.

For Help or More Information

Other Resources

If you found this of interest, you may also be interested in the following recent publications by Ms. Stamer published by Solutions Law Press, Inc. including:

Comments Off on New DOL Guidance Makes Many Employers Rethink Giving FLSA 18B Exchange Notices | Employee Benefits, Employers, ERISA, Fiduciary Responsibility, Health Plans, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Uncategorized, Wage & Hour | Tagged: Affordable Care Act, Employee Benefits, ERISA, Exchange Notice, Health Plans, Model NOtices, Section 18B | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Tell HHS What You Think About Obamacare & Other Rules

September 9, 2013

Health plans and their employer or union sponsors, health insurers, health care providers and others concerned about the regulatory and enforcement activities of the Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) can make their concerns known by speaking up now. Share your input on the draft HHS strategic plan that will guide HHS’ regulatory and enforcement agenda for the next 4 years.

The sweeping reforms of the Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act have granted HHS unprecedented power over employer and other health plans, insurers and individual Americans as well as the health care providers HHS traditionally has primarily regulated. Employers, health insurers, individuals and others concerned about the regulations HHS has issued already or those regulations and enforcement actions that it may take in the future should not miss the invaluable opportunity to share their concerns with HHS as it prepares its new strategic plan.

Every 4 years, HHS updates its strategic plan, which describes its work to address complex, multifaceted, and ever-evolving health and human service issues, including:

Health Care
Research and Innovation
Prevention and Wellness

HHS is inviting public input on the draft HHS Strategic Plan for FY 2014-2018. The comment period is open until October 15, 2013. Individuals or organizations wishing to respond to this invitation can read the HHS Strategic Plan FY 2014-2018 (Draft) and submit your comments several ways including:

Submit your comments online here
Via Email to: strategicplanning@hhs.gov
Via Fax: (202) 690-8252
U.S. Mail (not recommended as security screening results in significant delay.

For Help or More Information

Other Resources

If you found this of interest, you may also be interested in the following recent publications by Ms. Stamer published by Solutions Law Press, Inc.:

Comments Off on Tell HHS What You Think About Obamacare & Other Rules | Employee Benefits, Employers, ERISA, Fiduciary Responsibility, Health Plans, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Uncategorized, Wage & Hour | Tagged: Affordable Care Act, Employee Benefits, ERISA, Exchange Notice, Health Plans, Model NOtices, Section 18B | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Employers Beware! DOL-Model FLSA Section 18B Exchange Notice Requires Tailoring!

September 5, 2013

Employers considering using model notices published by the Department of Labor Employee Benefit Security Administration (DOL) here to prepare the notice (“Exchange Notice”) that the Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act (ACA) requires employers to give employees beginning October 1, 2014 about the new option created by to get health coverage beginning January 1, 2014 through the Health Insurance Exchange or “Marketplaces” should use care to tailor the notices to fit their plan design and terms.

DOL published the Model Notices in conjunction of its publication of interim guidance implementing the Exchange Notice requirements in Technical Release No. 2013-02 on May 8, 2013. While DOL says it intended for the Model Notices to help employers to prepare their Exchange Notices, the Technical Release No. 2013-02 and Model Notices have raised as many questions as they answer.

The actual content that FLSA Section 18B expressly requires that employers to provide in their Exchange Notices is relatively limited. Section 18B only expressly requires that the Exchange Notice:

Inform employees of coverage options, including information about the existence of the new Marketplace as well as contact information and description of the services provided by a Marketplace;
Inform the employee that the employee may be eligible for a premium tax credit under section 36B of the Code if the employee purchases a qualified health plan through the Marketplace; and
Include a statement informing the employee that if the employee purchases a qualified health plan through the Marketplace, the employee may lose the employer contribution (if any) to any health benefits plan offered by the employer and that all or a portion of such contribution may be excludable from income for Federal income tax purposes. At minimum, this generally requires that the Exchange Notice distributed by an employer must inform the employee.

The proposed language and content of the Model Notices proposed by the DOL does well beyond these minimum requirements.

Since DOL published Technical Release No. 2013-02 and the Model Notices, employers have struggled to determine exactly DOL considers the required content, logistics and other details of the Exchange Notice. Technical Release 2013-02 quite clearly states that employers are not required to use the Model Notices to prepare the Exchange Notice for their health plans. Technical Release 2013-02 also clearly indicates that the content proposed in the Model Notice goes beyond the minimum required content necessary to satisfy Section 18B and not all of the language proposed in the Model Notices is “required.” Figuring out what language is mandatory and what is option, however, is unclear. The majority of these questions and concerns are not resolved by the newly-released FAQs about the Affordable
Care Act Implementation Part XVI (FAQ XVI) published by DOL on September 4, 2013, discussing the appropriateness of allowing third parties to distribute the notice on behalf of an employer.

Furthermore, much of the proposed language in the Model Notices also raises concerns for employers, health plan fiduciaries and service providers. Among other things, certain language in the Model Notices raises the risk that using the Model Notices without appropriate changes might cause the Exchange Notice to:
Communicate significantly more information than the minimum information expressly required by FLSA Section 18B;
Incorporate speculative statements about the future eligibility of an employee for coverage or benefits that could compel the health plan or the employer to provide coverage to an employee or dependent in the future even through that individual does not meet applicable plan terms as in effect at that time;
Misrepresent plan information or otherwise confuse or mislead employees about the plan terms or the implications of the offered coverage on the rights of the employee to obtain a subsidy for enrolling in health coverage through the Marketplace in lieu of enrolling in employer coverage;
Provide misleading information about the parties authorized to interpret plan terms or make other determinations about the plan that could spread fiduciary liability to employers or their management, service providers or others not appointed to serve as named fiduciaries of the plan;
Inappropriately misrepresent the role, responsibility and authority of the employer, service providers or other parties in relation to critical plan responsibilities; and/or
Undermine the employer’s ability to modify or amend the plan in the future.

Since the Technical Release makes use of the language in the Model Notices optional, these and other issues in the language raise concerns raise concerns for employers and their health plan fiduciaries that using the Model Notice without tailoring their Exchange Notice to fit the applicable health plan could expose named fiduciaries, the employer or both to potential fiduciary liability exposures under the fiduciary responsibility rules of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). While FAQ XVI only expressly answers a narrow set of questions about the Exchange Notice, the warning included the FAQ XVI from DOL that DOL expects the Exchange Notice to properly disclose the authority and role of the employers, plan fiduciaries and service providers under the health plan appears to affirm that DOL expects employers and health plan fiduciaries to tailor the notice as prudently necessary accurately to reflect plan terms and other included information.

Consequently, while employers should ensure that they meet the October 1, 2013 deadline to begin providing the Exchange Notices, they also must use care to ensure that the Exchange Notices provided are properly drafted to accurately reflect the plan terms, fiduciary allocations and other material information and incorporate other appropriate disclaimers and safeguards not included in the Model Notices.

Employers needing help with preparing the Exchange Notice or other Affordable Care Act compliance and risk management challenges are encouraged to contact the author of this article, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, who has extensive experience aiding employers, insurers and others with these and other related matters.

Editors Note: The formatting issues in this article are the result of technical difficulties that we are working with the WordPress blog service provider to address. Thank you for your understanding.

For Help or More Information

Other Resources

If you found this of interest, you may also be interested in the following recent publications by Ms. Stamer published by Solutions Law Press, Inc.:

Comments Off on Employers Beware! DOL-Model FLSA Section 18B Exchange Notice Requires Tailoring! | Employee Benefits, Employers, ERISA, Fiduciary Responsibility, Health Plans, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Uncategorized, Wage & Hour | Tagged: Affordable Care Act, Employee Benefits, ERISA, Exchange Notice, Health Plans, Model NOtices, Section 18B | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Group Health Plans &No-Fault & Worker’s Comp Ruled Primary Plans When Coordinating With Medicare Advantage Plans

May 9, 2013

Group health plans and liability, no-fault and worker’s compensation insurers should confirm they are properly coordinating benefits with Medicare Advantage organizations (MAOs) to avoid a private cause of action for double damages to recover amounts under the Medicare Secondary Payer Act (MSP Act) in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s denial of certiorari on an appeal of the Third Circuit’s decision in In Re Avandia Marketing Sales Practices GlaxoSmithKline LLC v. Human Medical Plans, Inc. (Glaxo). The Supreme Court’s decision denying certiorari reported here lets stand a Third Circuit decision that the private right of action provision in the MSP Act, set forth at 42 U.S.C. 1395y(b)(3), gives Humana a private cause of action as a primary plan against GSK to recover the double damage award.

MSP Act Secondary Payor Rules Require Proper Coordination

The MSP Act contains specific rules about when and how group health plans, automobile and liability insurance, no fault insurance policies and amounts recovered from tort actions are coordinated with benefits under the Medicare Statute. The MSP Act’s Secondary Payor Rules require group health plans, automobile and liability insurance and no fault insurance policies to treat their coverage as the “primary plan” for purposes of coordinating their coverage with the benefits provided under the Medicare Statute under certain conditionsbenefits face double damage for improperly coordinating their benefits and coverage with those provided under the Medicare Statute. The MSP Act generally dictates the conditions under which these coverages are primary to benefits provided under the Medicare Statute and obligates primary plans and individuals receiving judgment or settlements that include payment for medical expenses for which benefits were received under the Medicare Statute to repay Medicare. Violation of these rules exposes the applicable plan to double damages and other costs of recovery.

Glaxo On MA Plan MSP Act Rights

In Glaxo, the Third Circuit ruled that MAOs can sue primary plans under the MSP Act for double damages when a primary plan fails to appropriately reimburse the MAO as a secondary payor.

In Glaxo, Humana Medical Plan Inc. and Humana Insurance Company (collectively, Humana) sued GlaxoSmithKline LLC and GlaxoSmithKline PLC (collectively, GSK) for reimbursement of expenses Humana incurred from injuries its MA members sustained from use of GSK’s type 2 diabetes drug, Avandia. GSK has paid more than $460 million to Avandia patients settle patient claims that Avandia patients sustained heart attacks, strokes or other injuries from taking the drug. In the settlement, GSK reserved monies to reimburse the Medicare Trust Fund for payments it made to cover the costs of treatment for the Medicare fee-for-service (FFS) enrollees’ Avandia-related injuries but did not set aside funds for reimbursement to MAOs. Humana sued GSK for reimbursement, claiming that GSK has a primary plan obligation under the MSP Act to reimburse Humana as a secondary payor.

The Supreme Court’s decision not to review the appeal from this Third Circuit decision means that in the Third Circuit (and perhaps other jurisdictions), MAOs can pursue an action for double damages under the Medicare Secondary Payor Act against a group health plan, no-fault carrier or worker’s compensation insurer that fails to fulfill its obligation as a primary plan to reimburse Medicare conditional payments paid by the MAO.

The Third Circuit’s decision in Glaxo is distinguishable from the Ninth Circuit’s position on a similar issue in Parra v. PacifiCare of Arizona, Inc. (PacifiCare), where the 9^th Circuit ruled PacifiCare did not have a private right of action under the MA statute or under 42 U.S.C. 1395y(b)(3)(A) against the surviving family members for amounts recovered in a wrongful death action since that provision of the MSP Act only applies in cases where a primary plan fails to reimburse an insurer as a secondary payor.

Proper identification and payment of claims and settlements in coordination with MAOs and their Plans is important because improper coordination may expose a group health plan or other primary payer to double damage liability, attorneys fees’ and other costs.

In light of Glaxo, group health plans and their administrators, and group health insurers, worker’s compensation insurers, and liability insurers should ask if asking Medicare beneficiares if they are or have been enrolled in a MA plan when paying or processing claims and if so, act proactively to ensure that payments under their programs are properly processed and paid to take into account responsibilities under the Medicare Secondary Payer rules. Determination and handling these types of payments and settlements likely will require special handling because the Medicare Secondary Payer system currently doesn’t distinguish MA Plans as primary plans. Accordingly, group health plans and the fiduciaries and administrators involved in their administration will want to take proper steps to identify claims that may involve individuals covered by MA Plans in a manner that allows the group health plan to track and distinguish the coverage provided by the MA Plan from other insurance coverage as needed to comply with the MSP Act.

For Help or More Information

If you need help with the MSP Act or with reviewing and updating, administering or defending your group health or other employee benefit, human resources, insurance, health care matters or related documents or practices, please contact the author of this update, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer.

Extensively published and a popular speaker on HIPAA and other data security matters, Ms. Stamer works extensively with health care providers, health plans, employers, insurance and financial services, technology and other clients on privacy, data seurity and other privacy and cybercrime concerns. She also serves as the Scribe for the ABA JCEB Agency Techical Sessions Meetings with the Office of Civil Rights which occur each May in Washington, D.C.

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:

For important information about this communication click here. 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 Group Health Plans &No-Fault & Worker’s Comp Ruled Primary Plans When Coordinating With Medicare Advantage Plans | Employee Benefits, Employers, ERISA, Excise Tax, Health Plans, Human Resources, Insurance, Tax, Uncategorized | Tagged: Affordable Care Act, annual limits, Business Associate, Coordination of Benefits, Covered Entity, Employee Benefits, ERISA, Health Insurance, Health Plans, HIPAA, Isurance, Medicare, MSP Act, Personal Health Information, PHI, Privacy, RE, SBC, Summary of Benefits and Communications | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Changing Plan Years Won’t Extend Health Plan’s Affordable Care Act Annual Limit Waiver Eligibility

May 6, 2013

Employer and other group health plan sponsors, insurers, fiduciaries and administrators should brace to cope with difficulties in upcoming 2014 health plan enrollment challenges in light of sweeping health plan changes, process and system disruptions complicated by incomplete and delayed guidance, and other changes arising from the rollout of the Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act (ACA), particularly with the deadline to provide ACA-required Summary of Benefits and Coverage (SBC) disclosures by the first day of the annual enrollment period for the 2014 plan year rapidly approaching.

Confusion and indecision about health plan choices is a common challenge for employees and participants that historically has plagued efforts by employer and other group health plans, their sponsors, administrators and insurers to efficiently conduct annual enrollment. Sweeping health plan changes and other simultaneous changes to the U.S. health care system resulting from the reforms enacted as part of ACA promise to add significant complexity and confusion to the process.

Recent polls confirm that American workers generally are unfamiliar and confused about ACA, its status and its implications for them. See Kaiser Tracing Poll: April 2013 ; See also Kaiser Foundation Poll Finds Confusion Over ACA Abounds With Open Enrollment Six Months Away.

Amid this confusion, employer and other group health plans and insurers are struggling to finalize decisions and begin preparations as a result in delays in guidance, delayed or slow implementation of exchanges, and other challenges arising in response to the ACA reforms that obstruct plan sponsor decision-making and health plan’s ability to implement these decisions. Much guidance group health plans, their sponsors and insurers need to make decisions and implement arrangements is only now emerging, and that in largely late-breaking and/or transitional form. These delays, in turn, are making group health plans, their sponsors, insurers, fiduciaries and administrators ability to finalize arrangements and contracts, amend plan documents, prepare newly required Summary of Benefits & Coverage (SBC) disclosures (required to be distributed by first day of enrollment period), summary plan descriptions (SPDs), enrollment materials and other communications and processes. With SBCs due to be distributed by the first day of any enrollment period for 2014, the time to prepare is running extremely short. Deadline To Send ACA Summary of Benefits & Coverage Adds Pressure To Finalize 2014 Plan Designs As Agencies Add MEC & MV Disclosures To SBC.

In the face of these challenges, Federal regulators are looking to shift many of the burdens of dealing with enrollment difficulties on employers and insurers. See Insurers Prepare, Reluctantly, To Help With Obamacare Enrollment.

While employer and other plan sponsors, insurers, fiduciaries and administrators may not have all of the information and rules they might need or ideally like to finalize all arrangements and documents, they generally must get moving on those preparations that they can begin now to allow adequate time to deal with late-breaking guidance and finalize other arrangements. To minimize the risk of running outof time and to allow time to smooth out confusion and other arrangements, employer and other health plans, their sponsors, insurers, fiduciaries and administrators should get started preparing draft contracts, plan amendments or restatements, draft SBC, SPD and other enrollment and coverage materials and processes to position themselves to be able to timely finalize and launch these arrangements.

For Help or More Information

If you need help with the SBC or other 2014 health plan decision-making or preparation, or with reviewing and updating, administering or defending your group health or other employee benefit, human resources, insurance, health care matters or related documents or practices, please contact the author of this update, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer.

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:

Comments Off on Changing Plan Years Won’t Extend Health Plan’s Affordable Care Act Annual Limit Waiver Eligibility | Employee Benefits, Employers, ERISA, Excise Tax, Health Plans, Human Resources, Insurance, Tax, Uncategorized | Tagged: Affordable Care Act, annual limits, Employee Benefits, ERISA, Health Insurance, Health Plans, Isurance, RE, SBC, Summary of Benefits and Communications | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Former White House Cybersecurity Coordinator Schmidt, Stamer & Others Share Key HIPAA & Other Privacy & Data Security Insights 5/21 In LA

May 3, 2013

Former White House Cybersecurity Coordinator Howard Schmidt and Solutions Law Press, Inc. editor attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer are two of an impressive lineup of leaders scheduled to share key HIPAA & other privacy and data security compliance and risk management strategies at the Healthcare HITECH Privacy and Security Summit at the Fifth Annual Information Security Summit on May 21 in Los Angeles.

The Healthcare HITECH Privacy and Security Summit will bring together leaders in Privacy and Security within government and private industry for a day of collaboration, networking and presentations by leading Privacy and Security professionals sharing who HIPAA covered entities and business associates need to know to comply with new HITECH rules and OCR investigations.

Solutions Law Press, Inc. editor attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer will help lay the foundation for the workshop by briefing participants on changes made to HIPAA rules by the new Omnibus HIPAA Rulemaking changes that the Office of Civil Rights (OCR) plans to start enforcing in September, 2013.

With the rapidly approaching and privacy and data breach penalties and enforcement rising, health care providers, health plans, health care clearinghouses and their business associates must get moving to update business associate contracts, policies and notices and processes to meet changing HIPAA rules while managing ongoing compliance and risks.

Stamer Speaks On Latest HIPAA Privacy, Security, Breach Notification & Enforcement Rules & Developments

Armed with the latest insights from serving as the scribe for the ABA JCEB annual agency meeting with the Office of Civil Rights (OCR), Ms. Stamer, a practicing attorney and widely published author and speaker, will discuss required changes and other recommended steps and strategies that covered entities and their business associates should take to maintain HIPAA compliance and manage HIPAA and other related risks in light of the Omnibus HIPAA Rulemaking changes, new OCR guidance for health care providers about disclosures to avert threats to health or safety, recent audit and enforcement activities and other changing risks and responsibilities including:

The latest on OCR’s regulatory guidance, audit and investigation and enforcement rules, actions and strategies and their implications on covered entities and business associates;
Changes to breach notification rules and their implications on covered entities and their business associates;
Practical implications of new rules on who is covered and their responsibilities;
Required and recommended updates to policies, business associate and other agreements, privacy notices and other HIPAA compliance arrangements;
Effective training and other risk management strategies;
Planning for, investigating and mitigating PHI privacy breaches and other compliance concerns under new rules other selected events; and
Other selected strategies for coordinating HIPAA and other privacy and data breach responsibilities and risk management; and
Participant questions.

For a complete agenda, to register, to get details on sponsorship or for other information, see here.

For Help or More Information

If you need help with the HIPAA, Affordable Care Act or other 2014 health plan compliance, risk management or defense, or with reviewing and updating, administering or defending your group health or other employee benefit, human resources, insurance, health care matters or related documents or practices, please contact the author of this update, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer.

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:

Comments Off on Former White House Cybersecurity Coordinator Schmidt, Stamer & Others Share Key HIPAA & Other Privacy & Data Security Insights 5/21 In LA | Employee Benefits, Employers, ERISA, Excise Tax, Health Plans, Human Resources, Insurance, Tax, Uncategorized | Tagged: Affordable Care Act, annual limits, Business Associate, Covered Entity, Employee Benefits, ERISA, Health Insurance, Health Plans, HIPAA, Isurance, Personal Health Information, PHI, Privacy, RE, SBC, Summary of Benefits and Communications | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Strengthen Health Plan Privacy Compliance & Risk Management Using Lessons From New OCR Provider & Consumer Tools

April 30, 2013

Get More Key Information By Participating in 5/21 Workshop In LA

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office for Civil Rights (OCR) has developed an array of new tools to educate consumers and health care providers about the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) Privacy and Security Rules.

Many consumers are unfamiliar with their rights under the HIPAA Privacy Rule. With that in mind, OCR has posted a series of factsheets, also available in eight languages, to inform consumers about their rights under the HIPAA Privacy Rule. These materials are available on OCR’s website here.

The fact sheets compliment a set of seven consumer-facing videos released earlier this year on OCR’s YouTube channel. An additional video, The HIPAA Security Rule, has been designed for providers in small practices and offers an overview of how to establish basic safeguards to protect patient information and comply with the Security Rule’s requirements. The videos are available on the HHS OCR YouTube Channel at here.

OCR has also launched three modules for health care providers on compliance with various aspects of the HIPAA Privacy and Security Rules, available at Medscape.org:

Patient Privacy: A Guide for Providers at here;
HIPAA and You: Building a Culture of Compliance here; and
Examining Compliance with the HIPAA Privacy Rule here.

The Medscape modules offer free Continuing Medical Education (CME) credits for physicians and Continuing Education (CE) credits for health care professionals.

Although the materials are primarily consumer and provider focused, health plans and their sponsors, fiduciaries, administrators, business associates and others in the health plan workforce should review and incorporate the materials and principles contained in these materials as part of their own HIPAA compliance efforts. With the deadline to comply with recent amendments to the HIPAA rules in September, 2013 and enforcement and penalties rising, the insights and resources provided these rules can help strengthen compliance efforts.

Participate In 5/21 Workshop In LA To Get Other Key Information Needed To Update Compliance & Risk Management

With the September 23, 2013 enforcement date of the new Omnibus HIPAA Rulemaking changes rapidly approaching and privacy and data breach penalties and enforcement rising, health care providers, health plans, health care clearinghouses and their business associates must get moving to update business associate contracts, policies and notices and processes to meet changing HIPAA rules while managing ongoing compliance and risks.

Armed with the latest insights from serving as the scribe for the ABA JCEB annual agency meeting with the Office of Civil Rights (OCR), attorney and author Cynthia Marcotte Stamer will discuss required changes and other recommended steps and strategies that covered entities and their business associates should take to maintain HIPAA compliance and manage HIPAA and other related risks in light of the Omnibus HIPAA Rulemaking changes, new OCR guidance for health care providers about disclosures to avert threats to health or safety, recent audit and enforcement activities and other changing risks and responsibilities including:

The latest on OCR’s regulatory guidance, audit and investigation and enforcement rules, actions and strategies and their implications on covered entities and business associates;
Changes to breach notification rules and their implications on covered entities and their business associates;
Practical implications of new rules on who is covered and their responsibilities;
Required and recommended updates to policies, business associate and other agreements, privacy notices and other HIPAA compliance arrangements;
Effective training and other risk management strategies;
Planning for, investigating and mitigating PHI privacy breaches and other compliance concerns under new rules other selected events; and
Other selected strategies for coordinating HIPAA and other privacy and data breach responsibilities and risk management; and
Participant questions.

To register, review the agenda, get details on sponsorship or for other information, see here.

For Help or More Information

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:

Comments Off on Strengthen Health Plan Privacy Compliance & Risk Management Using Lessons From New OCR Provider & Consumer Tools | Employee Benefits, Employers, ERISA, Excise Tax, Health Plans, Human Resources, Insurance, Tax, Uncategorized | Tagged: Affordable Care Act, annual limits, Business Associate, Covered Entity, Employee Benefits, ERISA, Health Insurance, Health Plans, HIPAA, Isurance, Personal Health Information, PHI, Privacy, RE, SBC, Summary of Benefits and Communications | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Changing Plan Years Won’t Extend Health Plan’s Affordable Care Act Annual Limit Waiver Eligibility

April 29, 2013

Changing plan years won’t extend the period that a group health plan or group or individual health insurance policy can qualify for a waiver of the annual limitation restrictions (Annual Limit Rule) of the Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act (Affordable Care Act) according to new guidance issued by the US Departments of Health & Human Services (HHS), Treasury (IRS) and Labor (DOL)(collectively, the Agencies) on April 29, 2013.

PHS §2711 as amended by the Affordable Care Act generally prohibit nongrandfathered group health plans and health insurance issuers offering group or individual health insurance coverage from imposing lifetime or annual limits on the dollar value of essential health benefits within the meaning of Affordable Care Act § 1302(b) but allow ‘‘restricted annual limits’’ with respect to essential health benefits for plan years (in the individual market, policy years) beginning before January 1, 2014 (hereafter, the Annual Limit Rule).

Interim regulations (IFR) implementing this Annual Limit Rule allowed the Secretary of HHS temporarily to waive compliance with the Annual Limit Rule for certain group health plans that showed that compliance with the IFR would result in a significant decrease in access to benefits or a significant increase in premiums and timely applied for and received a waiver in accordance with guidance established by HHS. See 26 CFR 54.9815-2711T; 29 CFR 2590.715-2711; 45 CFR 147.126. For a listing of relevant guidance, see here.

While HHS no longer allows new applications for waivers, certain group health plans previously timely applied and qualified to for waiver of compliance for the Annual Limit Rule for their group health plan for the plan or policy year in effect when the plan or issuer applied for the waiver. Many of these group health plans later extended and currently continue to qualify for relief from the obligation to comply with the Annual Limit Rule based on extensions of that waiver.

According to FAQs About Affordable Care Act Implementation (Part XV), changes in plan or policy years made subsequent to the application for an Affordable Care Act Annual Limitation waiver do not extend the expiration date of a waiver.

In the FAQ, the Agencies state changes in plan or policy years made after the waiver is obtained and while a waiver remains in effect do not change the termination date of an otherwise applicable waiver. Rather, Annual Limit Rule waivers are granted based on the date of the plan or policy year in effect when the initial application was submitted regardless of whether the plan or issuer later amends its plan or policy year. That said, the FAQ confirms that waiver recipients may end the waiver at any time prior to its otherwise applicable approved expiration date.

The Guidance nixes hopes of many group health plans and insurers that obtained waivers that they could extend temporarily their ability to avoid complying with the Annual Limit Rule by cutting short their current plan or policy year so as as to cause a new plan year to start before January 1, 2014. The idea suggested by some was that starting a plan year mid-year during 2013 would push back the start of the first plan or policy year beginning after December 31, 2013, and thereby delay the deadline for complying with the Annual Limit Rule until a later day in 2014. Today’s Guidance makes clear that the Agencies do not intend to allow such delays. Therefore, group health plans and health insurance issuers with current waivers should be ready to begin complying with the Annual Limit Rule no later than the date that their existing waiver is scheduled to expire and budget accordingly.

For Help or More Information

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:

Deadline To Send ACA Summary of Benefits & Coverage Adds Pressure To Finalize 2014 Plan Designs As Agencies Add MEC & MV Disclosures To SBC

April 25, 2013

Employer and union group health plan sponsors and insurers of group and individual health plans (Health Plans) agonizing over 2014 health plan design decisions need to keep in mind that impending deadlines to update and deliver required Summary of Benefits and Communications (SBC) disclosures mandated by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Affordable Care Act) shorten the time to finalize decisions including new requirements to disclose whether the Affordable Health Plan-covered Health Plans provide “minimum essential coverage” (MEC) and “minimum value” within the meaning of the Affordable Care Act.

The Affordable Care Act’s requirement that Health Plans distribute updated SBCs before the beginning of the enrollment period for coverage to be provided in 2014 creates added urgency and pressure for Health Plans and their employer and other sponsors to finalize and implement their decisions on their Health Plans 2014 plan designs and coverages to allow adequate lead time to prepare and deliver the required SBCs for 2014.

The Departments of Health & Human Services (HHS), Labor (DOL) and Treasury (IRS)(collectively, the Agencies) announced April 23, 2013 that SBCs for periods of coverage after December 31, 2013 must disclose if the Health Plans provide MEC and minimum value. Health Plans, their sponsors, fiduciaries, and insurers generally will need to update their Health Plans’ SBCS to include these disclosures as well as to incorporate other changes necessary to accurately disclose other plan design changes made to post-December 31, 2013 coverage before the enrollment period begins. Plan sponsors planning changes to their health plans must allow sufficient lead time to finalize plan designs and contracts, amend plan documents, make MEC and minimum value determinations, and then timely update and distribute the SBC in accordance with the SBC rules. This means that most plan sponsors of Health Plans have much less time than historically used to finalize their decisions.

ACA SBC Mandate Overview

As amended by the Affordable Care Act amended the Public Health Services Act (PHS) § 2715, Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) § 715 and the Internal Revenue Code (Code) §§ 9815 require that Health Plans provide a SBC and a “Uniform Glossary” that “accurately describes the benefits and coverage under the applicable plan or coverage” in a way that meets the format, content and other detailed SBC standards set for the Affordable Care Act as implemented by the Departments regulatory guidance.

The Summary of Benefits and Coverage and Uniform Glossary Final Regulation (Final Regulation) implementing this requirement published February 14, 2012 generally requires Health Plans at specified times including before the first offer of coverage under the Plan as well as following certain material changes to the Plan. For Health Plans providing group health plan coverage, FAQs About Affordable Care Act Implementation (Part VII)[*] set the deadline for Health Plan to deliver a SBC as follows, while at the same time indicating that the Departments would not impose penalties on plans and issuers “working diligently and in good faith” to provide the required SBC content in an appearance consistent with the Final Regulations:

To covered persons enrolling or re-enrolling in an open enrollment period (including late enrollees and re-enrollees) as the first day of the first open enrollment period that begins on or after September 23, 2012; and
For individuals enrolling in coverage other than through an open enrollment period (including individuals who are newly eligible for coverage and special enrollees) as the first day of the first plan year that begins on or after September 23, 2012. See FAQs About Affordable Care Act Implementation (Part VIII).

The Final Regulation and other existing guidance generally dictates that Health Plans follow a required template for providing the SBC and accompanying glossary. When publishing the Final Regulation, the Departments also published the required SBC template form (2013 SBC Template) and instructions for Health Plans to use to prepare and provide the required SBC for coverage beginning before January 1, 2014 and promised updated guidance and templates for use in providing SBCs for post-2013 coverage. While the Agencies clarified certain other details about the SBC rules, they did not materially change the required content or form of the 2013 SBC Template until their April 23, 2013 release of FAQs About Affordable Care Act Implementation (Part XIV). See e.g. FAQs About Affordable Care Act Implementation Part IX and Part X.

FAQ Part XIV Updates To SBC

FAQs About Affordable Care Act Implementation (Part XIV) published April 23, 2013 announces the updated required 2014 SBC Template that the Agencies are requiring to SBCs for periods of health coverage from January 1, 2014 to December 31, 2014. Along with the 2014 SBC Template, the Agencies also published 2014 Sample Completed SBC, which provides an example of a SBC completed for a hypothetical health plan prepared by the Agencies.

The 2014 SBC Template updates the 2013 SBC Template and Sample Completed Template to add information the Agencies believe individuals eligible for Health Plan coverage should know in light of the impending implementation of the individual shared responsibility requirements of Internal Revenue Code (Code) § 5000A and the employer shared responsibility rules of Code § 4980H commonly called the Affordable Care Act’s “pay-or-play” rules. These were the “penalty” provisions that the Supreme Court ruled are taxes last Summer.

Rationale For SBC Changes

Beginning in 2014, Code § 4980H generally requires employers of 50 or more full-time employees to pay a penalty if the employer fails to offer a group health plan providing MEC and meeting the “minimum value” requirements of the Affordable Care Act. Code § 36B(c)(2)(C)(ii) provides that an employer-sponsored Health Plan provides MV if the ratio of the share of total costs paid by the Health Plan relative to the total costs of covered services is no less than 60% of the anticipated covered medical spending for covered benefits paid by a group health plan for a standard population, computed in accordance with the plan’s cost-sharing, and divided by the total anticipated allowed charges for covered benefits provided to a standard population is no less than 60%. See Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act: Standards Related to Essential Health Benefits, Actuarial Value, and Accreditation Regulation. HHS has published a MV Calculator for use in calculating this percentage.

Meanwhile, Code § 5000A generally imposes a penalty tax on individuals that fail to maintain enrollment in “minimum essential coverage” (MEC) within the meaning of Code § 5000A(f) and not otherwise exempt under Code § 5000A(d).

SBC Changes Required By FAQs XIV In Response To Pay-Or-Play Rules

Since choosing to enroll in an employer-sponsored health plan providing MEC is one of the options that individuals can choose to avoid incurring the individual penalty under Code § 5000A, the Agencies feel that the SBC should disclose whether the offered Health Plan provides MEC and provides the requisite Minimum Value. Accordingly, the 2014 SBC Template requires that the SBC disclose if the Health Plan provides MEC and meets Minimum Value. The Agencies did not make any changes to the uniform glossary, Instructions for Completing the SBC, “Why This Matters” language, or to the coverage examples for the SBC.

In general, the SBC requires that Health Plans update their existing SBCs to make the following disclosures for post-December 31, 2013 periods of coverage:

”Does this Coverage Provide Minimum Essential Coverage?

The Affordable Care Act requires most people to have health care coverage that qualifies as “minimum essential coverage.” This plan or policy [does/does not] provide minimum essential coverage.

Does this Coverage Meet the Minimum Value Standard?

In order for certain types of health coverage (for example, individually purchased insurance or job-based coverage) to qualify as minimum essential coverage, the plan must pay, on average, at least 60 percent of allowed charges for covered services. This is called the “minimum value standard.” This health coverage [does/does not] meet the minimum value standard for the benefits it provides.”

Health Plans will need to finalize plan designs and conduct the necessary analysis to decide the correct way to complete this language, then update SBCs to be provided for post-December 31, 2013 periods of coverage to include the required language appropriately completed based on the findings. Where the design of the 2014 SBC is too advanced already to do this, the Guidance allows Health Plans to provide the required language by sending the language in a supplemental SBC communication. However, most Health Plans will want to avoid the added cost and expense of the printing and distribution of this notification.

Other SBC Requirement Clarifications in FAQs XIV

While the 2014 SBC Template remains unchanged other than for the additional required statements about the MEC and minimum essential coverage, FAQs XIV does provide various other helpful clarifications about how to complete the 2014 SBC Template about the applicability of lifetime and annual limits in light of the Affordable Care Act’s restrictions on these limitations.

In addition, FAQs XIV also continues for another year the guidance in:

Affordable Care Act Implementation FAQs Part VIII, Q2 (regarding the Departments’ basic approach to implementation of the SBC requirements during the first year of applicability) for another year;
Affordable Care Act Implementation FAQs Part IX, Q1 regarding the circumstances in which an SBC may be provided electronically and associated enforcement relief;
Affordable Care Act Implementation FAQs Part IX, Q8 (regarding penalties for failure to provide the SBC or uniform glossary);
Affordable Care Act Implementation FAQs Part IX, Q9 (regarding the coverage examples calculator); and related information related to use of the coverage examples calculator;
Affordable Care Act Implementation FAQs Part IX, Q10 (regarding an issuer’s obligation to provide an SBC with respect to benefits it does not insure); and
Affordable Care Act Implementation FAQs Part IX, Q13 (regarding expatriate coverage);
Current enforcement relief about the Special Rule contained in the Instruction Guides for Group and Individual Coverage and about Medicare Advantage Plans contained in Affordable Care Act Implementation FAQs Part X, Q1
Continues Affordable Care Act Implementation FAQs Part VIII, Q5 regarding use of carveout arrangements “until further guidance is issued.”
Extends to September 23, 2014 existing relief for plans and issuers with respect to an insured health insurance product is not being actively marketed where the health insurance issuer has not actively marketed the product at any time on or after September 23, 2012 provided the SBC is provided for that product no later than September 23, 2014; and
The anti-duplication rule for student group health coverage in the Final SBC regulations.

SBC Delivery Deadline Means Time Short To Finalize 2014 Plan Designs

Employer and other health plan sponsors, insurers, administrators and others involved in 2014 Health Plan decisions and preparations must take into account the deadline for distributing the SBC before the enrollment period begins and allow adequate lead time to properly finalize their Health Plan design decisions and the analysis required to accurately prepare and deliver the SBC.

Since Health Plan design decisions must be finalized to properly prepare the newly added MEC and minimum value and other required SBC disclosures, the need to prepare and distribute the SBC by the beginning of enrollment periods for post-December 31, 2013 periods of coverage means time running short to finalize 2014 plan designs. Employer and other Health Plan sponsors and others involved in 2014 Health Plan decision-making must take into account the SBC requirements and deadlines to ensure that they allow adequate time to complete the analysis and other preparations necessary timely to prepare and distribute SBCs in respond to the design decisions ultimately elected.

For Help or More Information

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:

Comments Off on Deadline To Send ACA Summary of Benefits & Coverage Adds Pressure To Finalize 2014 Plan Designs As Agencies Add MEC & MV Disclosures To SBC | Employee Benefits, Employers, ERISA, Excise Tax, Health Plans, Human Resources, Insurance, Tax, Uncategorized | Tagged: Affordable Care Act, Employee Benefits, ERISA, Health Insurance, Health Plans, Isurance, RE, SBC, Summary of Benefits and Communications | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

IRS Witholding Calculator Can Help Avoid Over & Underwithholding

April 21, 2013

If you have employees that had too much or too little tax taken out of their paychecks, refer them to this new YouTube video about using the IRS withholding calculator at inbox:body:0000000001510000020000000800000000000000:Read#Third.

For Help With These Or Other Matters

If you need assistance in conducting a risk assessment of or responding to an IRS, Labor Department or other legal challenges to your organization’s labor and employment, employee benefit or compensation practices, please contact the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer.

Ms. Stamer has more than 24 years experience advising and representing employer, employee benefit and other clients before the Internal Revenue Service, the Department of Labor, Immigrations & Customs, and other agencies, private plaintiffs and others on worker classification and related human resources, employee benefit, internal controls and risk management matters.

A featured presenter in the recent “Worker Classification & Alternative Workforce: Employee Plans & Employment Tax Challenges” teleconference sponsored by the American Bar Association Joint Committee on Employee Benefits, Ms. Stamer also is a widely published author and highly regarded speaker on these and other employee benefit and human resources matters who is active in many other employee benefits, human resources and other management focused organizations.

A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefits Council, the immediate past Chair and current Welfare Benefit Committee Co-Chair of the American Bar Association (ABA) RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Committee, a Council Representative on the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits, the Vice Chair of the ABA TIPS Employee Benefits Committee, the Gulf States Area TEGE Council Exempt Organizations Coordinator, past-Government Affairs Committee Legislative Chair for the Dallas Human Resources Management Association, past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, and the editor and publisher of Solutions Law Press HR & Benefits Update and other Solutions Law Press Publications, 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.

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.

For important information concerning this communication click here. 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 Witholding Calculator Can Help Avoid Over & Underwithholding | 105(h), Cafeteria Plans, COBRA, Corporate Compliance, Disability, Disability Plans, Discrimination, Employee Benefits, Employers, Employment Tax, ERISA, Fair Labor Standards Act, family leave, FMLA, Government Contractors, Health Plans, HIPAA, Human Resources, I-9, Immigration, Income Tax, Insurance, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, Labor Management Relations, Leave, medical leave, Military Leave, Nonresident aliens, OSHA, Payroll Tax, Restructuring, Retirement Plans, Tax, Tax Qualification, Unemployment Benefits, Unemployment Insurance, Union, VEVRRA, Wage & Hour | Tagged: contract labor, Determination Letters, Employee, Employee Benefits, Independent Contractor, leased employee, misclassificaton, payroll tax, plan qualification, Retirement Plans, staffing, Tax, Worker Classification | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Administration Proposes To Let PBGC Board Set Premiums In Effort To Shore Up Finances

April 10, 2013

The Obama Administration again is proposing that the Board of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) get the power to set premium rates based on the financial soundness of company sponsors to shore up the agency’s finances in hopes of heading off the need for a government bailout of the agency’s liabilities.

PBGC, which insures traditional pensions offered by non-governmental employers continues to struggle for funding to meet the costs of funding its program of insuring failed private defined benefit pension plans. Always challenging, maintaining financial solvency has become particularly problematic with company failures soaring and investment returns down in the ailing economy. On November 16, 2012, the agency said its deficit increased to $34 billion, the largest in PBGC’s 38-year history.

The PBGC currently relies exclusively on premiums set by Congress and assets recovered from failed plans to operate and fund its private pension guarantee obligations. It presently doesn’t receive taxpayer dollars. Premiums, set by Congress, have historically been too low to meet the agency’s needs.

The Government Accountability Office issued a report saying Congress should consider “revising PBGC’s premium structure to better reflect the agency’s risk from individual plans and sponsors

The proposal to give the PBGC authority to determine premiums is intended to shore up the agency’s funding. “Without premium increases PBGC will be faced with requesting a taxpayer bailout or shutting down,” said PBGC Director Josh Gotbaum. “The current system punishes responsible companies by making them pay for the mistakes of others and punishes plans by raising rates just when companies can least afford it. Tha’s why administrations of both parties, and recently GAO, have supported giving PBGC what the FDIC has long had — the ability to set its own rates and to set them in ways that are fair.”

The Administration originally introduced the idea of allowing the PBGC to set its own premiums in 2012. It now has reintroduced the effort that ties premiums to company risk in its 2014 budget. Under the current proposal, the PBGC Board, which consists of secretaries of Labor, Commerce, and Treasury, with the secretary of Labor as chair, wouldn’t get the authority to set rates until 2015. The budget requires the board to perform a one-year study with a public comment period. Additionally, premium increases would be gradually phased in to give company sponsors time to prepare for the new rates.

For Help With These Or Other Matters

If you need help dealing with pension or other employee benefit funding, design or administration challenges, dealing with the PBGC, IRS, Labor Department or other agency or legal challenge to your organization’s existing employee benefit or other practices, or other workforce re-engineering, labor and employment, employee benefit or compensation practices, please contact the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer.

Ms. Stamer has more than 26 years experience advising and representing employer, employee benefit and other clients on human resources, employee benefit, internal controls and risk management matters including extensive work on workforce re-engineering and other human resources and employee benefits challenges of distressed and other companies, and related matters.

A board certified labor and employment attorney widely known for her extensive and creative knowledge and experience worker classification and other employment, employee benefits and workforce matters, Ms. Stamer works extensively with employers, employee benefit plan sponsors, insurers, administrators, and fiduciaries, payroll and staffing companies, technology and other service providers and others to develop and operate legally defensible programs, practices and policies that promote the client’s human resources, employee benefits or other management goals. Ms. Stamer also is a widely published author and highly regarded speaker on these and other employee benefit and human resources matters who is active in many other employee benefits, human resources and other management focused organizations.

A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefits Council, the immediate past Chair and current Welfare Benefit Committee Co-Chair of the American Bar Association (ABA) RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Committee, a Council Representative on the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits, the Vice Chair of the ABA TIPS Employee Benefits Committee, the Gulf States Area TEGE Council Exempt Organizations Coordinator, past-Government Affairs Committee Legislative Chair for the Dallas Human Resources Management Association, past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, and the editor and publisher of Solutions Law Press HR & Benefits Update and other Solutions Law Press Publications, 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.

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.

Comments Off on Administration Proposes To Let PBGC Board Set Premiums In Effort To Shore Up Finances | 105(h), Cafeteria Plans, COBRA, Corporate Compliance, Disability, Disability, Disability Plans, Discrimination, Employee Benefits, Employers, Employment Tax, ERISA, Fair Labor Standards Act, family leave, FMLA, Government Contractors, Health Plans, HIPAA, Human Resources, I-9, Immigration, Income Tax, Insurance, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, Labor Management Relations, Leave, medical leave, Military Leave, Nonresident aliens, OSHA, Payroll Tax, Restructuring, Retirement Plans, Tax, Tax Qualification, Unemployment Benefits, Unemployment Insurance, Union, VEVRRA, Wage & Hour | Tagged: Bankruptcy, contract labor, defined benefit, Determination Letters, distressed, Employee, Employee Benefits, Independent Contractor, leased employee, misclassificaton, payroll tax, PBGC, Pension, Pension Funding, plan qualification, Reengineering, Retirement Plans, staffing, Tax, Worker Classification | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Insured “Expatriate Plans” Get Temporary Reprieve From Affordable Care Act Compliance Thru 2015 If Meet Other Health Plan Mandates

March 13, 2013

U.S. businesses with workers working oversees and foreign businesses sending employees to work in the U.S. often overlook the need to design their expatriate health benefit and certain other welfare plans and employment practices to properly comply with applicable U.S. mandates.

“Expatriate health plans” within the meaning of the “FAQS About Affordable Care Act Implementation (Part XIII)”(the “Expat FAQ”) are not required to comply the Affordable Care Act (ACA) requirements for pre-January 1, 2016 plan years, as long as they comply with the applicable federal health plan mandates of pre-Affordable Care Act version of Title XXVII of the Public Health Service (PHS) Act and other applicable law under ERISA and the Internal Revenue Code (Code) under temporary transitional relief announced in the Expat FAQ jointly announced by the Agencies of Labor, Health and Human Services (HHS), and the Treasury (collectively, the Agencies) on March 8, 2013.

ACA & Other Federal Health Plan Rules Generally Apply To Expat Coverage

The Expat FAQ makes clear that the Agencies generally view expatriate health plans and other health benefit coverage provided by businesses subject to U.S. law for employees working outside their home country generally are subject to the mandates of ACA, as well as other federal health plan mandates. However, ERISA section 4(b)(4) may exempt from ERISA coverage “plans maintained outside the United States primarily for the benefit of persons substantially all of whom are nonresident aliens.” Similar exemptions also may be available for certain provisions of the Code or ERISA for these extra-territorial plans for nonresident aliens. For instance, for purposes of the eligibility non-discrimination rule of Code section 105(h), the Code specifies that an employer can disregard employees who are nonresident aliens and who receive no earned income (within the meaning of section 911(d)92) from the employer which constitutes income from sources within the United States within the meaning of section 861(a)(3).

Businesses should design and administer their health plans in accordance with all relevant federal health benefit regulations unless qualification for their plan for exemption is specifically verified.

Temporary Transitional ACA Relief For “Expatriate Health Plans”

While the Agencies gather further information and analyze the potential challenges expatriate plans may face in complying with the Affordable Care Act, the Expat FAQ states that for plan years beginning on or before December 31, 2015, the Agencies will treat expatriate health plans as treating the requirements of subtitles A and C of Title I of the Affordable Care Act if the plan and issuer comply with the pre-Affordable Care Act version of Title XXVII of the PHS Act, section 715 of ERISA, and section 9815 of the Code and other applicable law under ERISA and the Code including, for example, the mental health parity provisions, the HIPAA nondiscrimination provisions, the ERISA section 503 requirements for claims procedures, and any reporting and disclosure obligations under ERISA Part 1.

The Expat FAQ also confirms that the Agencies will treat coverage provided under an expatriate group health plan as a form of minimum essential coverage under section 5000A of the Code. If an individual has minimum essential coverage, the individual will not be subject to the “Individual Mandate” tax. Additionally, an employee who is offered “minimum essential coverage” by his/her employer will not be eligible for a subsidy in the Exchange if the employer coverage is “affordable” and provides “minimum value.” This means the employer will not be subject to a potential penalty under the ACA “Employer Shared Responsibility” provisions of new Code section 4980H.

Definition of “Expatriate Health Plan” Limited To Certain Insured Health Plans

Sponsors and insurers providing or administering health benefits with respect to employees working or living outside the United States are cautioned of the need to confirm that their program falls under the Expat FAQ’s definition of “expatriate health plan.” For purposes of this temporary transitional relief, the Expat FAQ defines an “expatriate health plan” as “an insured group health plan with respect to which enrollment is limited to primary insureds who reside outside of their home country for at least six months of the plan year and any covered dependents, and its associated group health insurance coverage.” The Expat FAQ confirms its definition of “expatriate health coverage” also applies for purposes of the Health Insurer Issuer Standards Related to Transitional Reinsurance Program of 45 CFR 153.400(a)(1)(iii) for plans with plan years ending on or before December 31, 2015.

This definition of expatriate health plan will not extend to all health coverage provided for employees of U.S. companies working outside the United States. Employers and administrators of self-insured health plans providing coverage for expatriate employees take note, however. Because this definition presently is limited to “insured group health plans,” it self-insured health coverage provided for expatriate employees presently do not qualify as expatriate health plans covered by the relief contained in the Expat FAQ. Likewise, the definition also does not apply to health coverage provided for employees working abroad for periods of less than six months. Sponsors, insurers and administrators of health plans providing coverage for employees of U.S. employer working outside their home countries that fall outside the Expat FAQ definition of an “expatriate health plan” should ensure that their programs timely comply with all applicable federal health plan mandates including ACA.

Agencies Invite Public Input On ACA Application To Expatriate Health Plans

The Agencies request comments on and information about the unique challenges that expatriate health plans may face in complying with provisions of the Affordable Care Act, including information about which particular types of plans face these challenges and with respect to which particular provisions of the Affordable Care Act. In anticipation of further input and analysis, the Expat FAQ speculates that potential challenges that could complicate Affordable Care Act compliance for an expatriate health plan might include:

Reconciling and coordinating the multiple regulatory regimes that apply to expatriate health plans might make it impossible or impracticable to comply with all the relevant rules at least in the near term;

Independent review organizations may not exist abroad;

It may be difficult for certain preventive services to be provided, or even be identified as preventive, when services are provided outside the United States by clinical providers that use different code sets and medical terminology to identify services.

Expatriate issuers may face challenges and delays in communicating with enrollees living abroad.

Due to the complex nature of these plans, standardized benefits disclosures can be difficult for issuers to produce.

Expatriate health plans may require additional regulatory approvals from foreign governments.

In some circumstances, it is possible that domestic and foreign law requirements conflict.

The Expat FAQ invites employers, insurers and other interested persons to provide input to the Agencies by sending their comments by May 8, 2013 to e.ohpsca-expat.ebsa@dol.gov. Sponsors, insurers and administrators should share their concerns and insights in response to this invitation.

Review and Update Plans To Manage Risks & Improve Effectiveness

Businesses providing health coverage to workers working outside of the United States should review their policies for compliance with the applicable requirements of the Affordable Care Act, to the extent applicable taking into account the Expat FAQ, as well as otherwise applicable requirements of ERISA, the Code, the PHS Act and other relevant federal laws.  When conducting this review, sponsors, administrators and insurers also should consider opportunities to manage risks, improve plan value and cost effectiveness and mitigate other legal or operational concerns.

Health coverage provided to employees of U.S. businesses working outside the United States typically are provided under policies, plans and programs pursuant to products or other arrangements that may not be designed, documented or administered to adequately comply with relevant federal health plan mandates. Beyond minimizing legal exposures that may result from overlooked compliance obligations, employer or other sponsors, administrators and insurers of these programs generally should familiarize themselves about the health care delivery systems, private and public health benefit programs, regulations and other relevant requirements and circumstances that may impact their business’ obligations to provide or contribute toward the cost of health care coverage, access to quality care by their employees and their families while working outside the United States or their home country, and legal and operational issues that may arise when employees are working oversees, transitioning between countries, have family members residing in different countries or other special circumstances.

The Expat FAQ is only one of a deluge of new guidance recently finalized or proposed by the Agencies. With the effective date of the 2014 Affordable Care Act reforms rapidly approaching, more guidance is impending. Stay tuned for additional updates about Affordable Care Act and other federal health plan rules and guidance.

For More Information Or Assistance

If you need help labor and employment, health and other employee benefit, compensation, privacy and data  other internal controls and management concerns, please contact the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer.

A board certified labor and employment attorney widely known for her extensive and creative knowledge and experience with health matters, Ms. Stamer works extensively with employers, employee benefit plan sponsors, insurers, administrators, and fiduciaries, payroll and staffing companies, technology and other service providers and others to develop and run legally defensible programs, practices and policies that promote the client’s human resources, employee benefits or other management goals.  Ms. Stamer has more than 25 years experience advising these and other clients about these matters  and representing employer, employee benefit and other clients before the Internal Revenue Service, the Department of Labor, Immigration & Customs, Justice, and Health & Human Services, the Securities and Exchange Commission, Federal Trade Commission, state labor, insurance, tax and attorneys’ general, and other agencies, private plaintiffs and others on health and other employee benefit, labor, employment and other human resources, worker classification, tax, internal controls, risk management and other legal and operational management concerns.

A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefits Council, the immediate past Chair and current Welfare Benefit Committee Co-Chair of the American Bar Association (ABA) RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Committee, a Council Representative on the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits, the Vice Chair of the ABA TIPS Employee Benefits Committee, the Gulf States Area TEGE Council Exempt Organizations Coordinator, past-Government Affairs Committee Legislative Chair for the Dallas Human Resources Management Association, past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, and the editor and publisher of Solutions Law Press HR & Benefits Update and other Solutions Law Press Publications, Ms. Stamer also is a widely published author and highly regarded speaker on these and other employee benefit and human resources matters who is active in many other employee benefits, human resources and other management focused organizations who is published and speaks extensively on worker classification and related matters. She 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.

You can learn more about Ms. Stamer and her experience, find out about upcoming training or other events, review some of her past training, speaking, publications and other resources, and register to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns from Ms. Stamer at http://www.CynthiaStamer.com.

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 http://www.solutionslawpress.com including:

Test Your Health Care Reform Knowledge On 3rd Anniversary of Reform Passage

Insured “Expatriate Plans” Get Temporary Reprieve From Affordable Care Act Compliance Thru 2015 If Meet Other Health Plan Mandates

Insured “Expatriate Plans” Get Temporary Reprieve From Affordable Care Act Compliance Thru 2015 If Meet Other Health Plan Mandates

OCR Plans To Survey Health Plans, Other Covered Entities Hit With HIPAA Audits in 2012

Businesses Urged To Strengthen Their Worker Classification Defenses As IRS, Other Agencies Step Up Audits & Enforcement

Alert Employees Claiming Qualified Adoption Expenses and Education Credits About Changed IRS Procedures

13 Employer Tips For Coping With Health Care Reform Now!

Sequester Will Cut ACA Small Businesses Health Care Tax Credits

Premier Insurance Services Pays $120,000 In Back Wages, Damages, Penalties Because Commission-Only Comp Violated Minimum Wage, Overtime Laws

OSHA Citation Of Michigan VA Reminder To Manage Workplace Safety

Labor Department Targeting Businesses Violating Overtime, Other Wage & Hour Laws

Wal-Mart Settlement Shows ADA Risks When Considering Employee Return To Work Accommodation Requests & Inquiries

HHS Releases Final Rule on Health Insurance Market, Rate Review, Pre-Existing Conditions & Other ACA Market Reform Rules

FTC, HIPAA Rules Require Health Plans & Employers Strengthen Data Security on Mobile Devices and Applications

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 click here.

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.   ©2013 Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, P.C. Non-exclusive license to republish granted to Solutions Law Press. All other rights reserved.

“Expatriate health plans” within the meaning of the “FAQS About Affordable Care Act Implementation (Part XIII)”(the “Expat FAQ”) are not required to comply the Affordable Care Act (ACA) requirements for pre-January 1, 2016 plan years, as long as they comply with the applicable federal health plan mandates of pre-Affordable Care Act version of Title XXVII of the Public Health Service (PHS) Act and other applicable law under ERISA and the Internal Revenue Code (Code) under temporary transitional relief announced in the Expat FAQ jointly announced by the Agencies of Labor, Health and Human Services (HHS), and the Treasury (collectively, the Agencies) on March 8, 2013.

ACA & Other Federal Health Plan Rules Generally Apply To Expat Coverage

The Expat FAQ makes clear that the Agencies generally view expatriate health plans and other health benefit coverage provided by businesses subject to U.S. law for employees working outside their home country generally…

View original post 2,596 more words

Comments Off on Insured “Expatriate Plans” Get Temporary Reprieve From Affordable Care Act Compliance Thru 2015 If Meet Other Health Plan Mandates | 105(h), Affordable Care Act, Claims Administration, COBRA, Corporate Compliance, Employee Benefits, Employers, ERISA, Fiduciary Responsibility, FMLA, Health Plans, HIPAA, Human Resources, I-9, Immigration, Insurance, Internal Controls, Medicare Part D, Mental Health, Mental Health Parity, Prescription Drugs, Uncategorized | Tagged: ACA, Employee Benefits, Employers, expatriate plans, Health Plans, International | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Businesses Urged To Strengthen Their Worker Classification Defenses As IRS, Other Agencies Step Up Audits & Enforcement

March 10, 2013

Businesses using non-employee workers should heed the recently announced expansion of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Voluntary Classification VCS Program (VCS Program) as yet another warning to clean up their worker classification practices and defenses for all workers performing services for the business in any non-employee capacity.

Relying upon misclassifications of workers as nonemployed service providers presents many financial, legal and operational risks for businesses. When businesses treat workers as nonemployees who render services in such a way that makes the worker likely to qualify as a common law employee, the business runs the risk of overlooking or underestimating the costs and liabilities of employing those workers. The enforcement records of the U.S. Department of Labor Wage & Hour Division contains a lengthy and ever-lengthening record of businesses subjected to expensive backpay and penalty awards because the business failed to pay minimum wage or overtime to workers determined to qualify as common law employees entitled to minimum wage and overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act. See, e.g., Employers Should Tighten Worker Classification Practices As Obama Administration Moves To Stamp Out Misclassification Abuses; $1 Million + FLSA Overtime Settlement Shows Employers Should Tighten On-Call, Other Wage & Hour Practices; Employer Charged With Misclassifying & Underpaying Workers To Pay $754,578 FLSA Back Pay Settlement.

Originally announced on September 22, 2011 in Announcement 2011-64, the VCS Program as modified by Announcement 2012-45 continues to offer businesses a carrot to reclassify as employees workers misclassified for payroll tax purposes as independent contractors, leased employees or other non-employee workers backed by the enforcement stick of the IRS’ promise to zealously impose penalties and interest against employers caught wrongfully misclassifying workers. While the IRS’s VCS Program and stepped up audits of worker classification provide a strong incentive for business to address their worker classification risks, the IRS is only one of many agencies on the alert for worker misclassification exposures. Worker misclassification also impacts wage and hour, safety, immigration, worker’s compensation, employee benefits, negligence and a host of other obligations.

All of these exposures carry potentially costly compensation, interest, and civil and in some cases even criminal penalty exposures for the businesses and their leaders. Consequently, businesses should act prudently and promptly to identify and address all of these risks and move forward holistically to manage their misclassification exposures.

Agencies charged with enforcement of these other laws as well as private plaintiffs also are on the alert for and pursing businesses for aggressive misclassification of workers in these other exposure areas. Since most businesses uniformly classify workers as either employees or non-employees for most purposes, business leaders must understand and manage the full scope of their businesses’ misclassification exposures when charting and implementing their strategy in response to the VCS Program or another voluntary compliance program, responding to an audit or other agency action, addressing a private plaintiff suit or conducting other risk management and compliance activities impacting or affected by worker classification concerns.

VCS Program Offers Limited Worker Misclassification Exposure Relief

Worker misclassification impacts a broad range of tax and non-tax legal obligations and risks well beyond income tax withholding, payroll and other employment tax liability and reporting and disclosure. A worker classification challenge or necessity determination in one area inherently prompts the need to address the worker reclassification and attendant risks in other areas.

Typically, in addition to treating a worker as a non-employee for tax purposes, a business also will treat the worker as a non-employee for immigration law eligibility to work, wage and hour, employment discrimination, employee benefits, fringe benefits, worker’s compensation, workplace safety, tort liability and insurance and other purposes.

Health Care Reform To Increase Worker Classification Risks

Businesses can look forward to these risks rising in 2014, when the “pay or play” employer shared responsibility, health plan non-discrimination, default enrollment and other new rules take effect under the Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act (ACA). Given these new ACA requirements and the government’s need to get as many workers covered as employees to make them work, as well as existing laws, IRS and other agencies are expanding staffing and stepping up enforcement against businesses that misclassify workers.

Whether and how ACA’s “pay-or-play” employer shared responsibility payment, default enrollment, insured health plan non-discrimination and other federal health plan rules apply to a business’ health plan requires a correct understanding of what workers considered employed by the business and how these workers are counted and classified for purposes of ACA and other federal health plan mandates.

ACA and other federal health plan rules decide what rules apply to which businesses or health plans based on the number of employees a business is considered to employ, their hours worked, their seasonal or other status, and other relevant classification as determined by the applicable rule. The ACA and other rules vary in the relevant number of employees that trigger applicability of the rule and how businesses must count workers to decide when a particular rule applies. Consequently, trying to predict the employer shared responsibility payment, if any under Internal Revenue Code (Code) Section 4980H or model the burden or cost of any other federal health benefit mandates requires each business know who counts and how to classify workers for each of these rules. Most of these rules start with a “common law” definition of employee then apply rules to add or ignore various workers. Because most federal health plan rules also take into account “commonly controlled” and “affiliated” businesses’ employees when determining rule coverage, businesses also may need to know that information for other related or commonly owned businesses.

For instance, when a business along with all commonly controlled or affiliated employers, if any, employ a combined workforce of 50 or more “full-time” and “full-time equivalent employees” (Large Employer) does not offer “affordable,” “minimum essential coverage” to every full-time employee and his dependents under a legally compliant health plan that provides “minimum essential value” within the meaning of ACA after 2013, the business generally should expect to pay a shared responsibility payment under Code Section 4980H for each month after 2013 that any “full-time” employee receives a tax subsidy or credit for enrolling in one of ACA’s health care exchanges. The amount of this required shared responsibility payment will be calculated under Code Section 4980H based on the plan design and coverage the employer health plan offers and the required employee contribution for employee only coverage.

If the business intends to continue to offer health coverage, it similarly will need to accurately understand which workers count as its employees for purposes of determining who gets coverage and the consequences to the business for those workers that qualify as full-time, common law employees not offered coverage.

In either case, ACA uses the common law employee test as the basis for classification of workers both to determine what businesses have sufficient full-time employees to become covered under these rules, the payment, if any, required under Code Section 4980H’s new employer shared responsibility payment requirements, as well as the workers entitled to benefit from these rules under employer sponsored health plans. Accordingly, These the already significant legal and financial consequences for employers that misclassify workers will rise significantly when ACA gets fully implemented beginning in 2014.

Consider VCP Program Relief In Context Of Other Worker Classification Risks

As part of a broader effort to get businesses properly to classify and fulfill tax and other responsibilities to workers, the IRS is offering certain qualifying businesses an opportunity to resolve payroll liabilities arising from past worker misclassifications under the VCS Program. The VCS Program settlement opportunity emerged in 2011 as worker misclassification amid rising scrutiny and enforcement by the IRS and other agencies against businesses for misclassification related violations of the Code, wage and hour, safety, discrimination, immigration and various other laws.

Touted by the IRS as providing “greater certainty for employers, workers and the government,” the VCS Program offers businesses that meet the eligibility criteria for the program the option to resolve past payroll tax liability for the misclassified workers by paying a settlement payment of just over one percent of the wages paid to the reclassified workers for the past year and by meeting other program criteria. When a business meets the VCS Program requirements, the IRS promises not to conduct a payroll tax audit or assess interest or penalties against the business for unpaid payroll taxes for the previously misclassified workers covered by the VCS Program. For more detail, see New IRS Voluntary IRS Settlement Program Offers New Option For Resolving Payroll Tax Risks Of Misclassification But Employers Also Must Manage Other Legal Risks; Medical Resident Stipend Ruling Shows Health Care, Other Employers Should Review Payroll Practices; Employment Tax Takes Center Stage as IRS Begins National Research Project , Executive Compensation Audits.

The IRS hoped the threat of much larger liability if the IRS catches their misclassification in an audit would induce businesses to settle their exposure and come into compliance by participating in the VCS Program.

Part of the low participation stemmed from restrictions incorporated into the VCS Program. Not all businesses with misclassified workers qualified to use the program. The original criteria to enter the VCS Program established in 2011 required that a business:

Be treating the workers as nonemployees;
Consistently have treated the workers in the past as nonemployees;
To have filed all required Forms 1099 for amounts paid to the workers;
Not currently be under IRS audit;
Not be under audit by the Department of Labor or a state agency on the classification of these workers or contesting the classification of the workers in court; and
To agree to extend the statute of limitations on their payroll tax liabilities from three to six years.

After only about 1000 employers used the VCS Program to voluntarily resolve their payroll tax liability for misclassified workers, the IRS modified the program in hopes of making participation more attractive to businesses in Announcement 2012-45. As modified by Announcement 2012-45, employers under IRS audit, other than an employment tax audit, now qualify for the VCS Program. Announcement 2012-45 also eliminates the requirement that employers agree to extend their statute of limitations on payroll tax liability from three to six years.

A business that meets these adjusted criteria for participation now follows the following steps to enter the VCS Program:

Files the Form 8952, Application for Voluntary Classification Settlement Program, at least 60 days before the business plans to begin treating the workers as employees;
Adjusts its worker classification practices prospectively with respect to the previously misclassified workers;
Pays the required settlement fee; and
Properly classifies workers going forward.

While these changes may make participation in the VCS Program more attractive to some employers, many employers may view use of the VCS Program as too risky because of uncertainties about the proper classification of certain workers in light of the highly fact specific nature of the determination, as well as concerns about the effect that use of the VCS Program might have on the businesses non-tax misclassification exposures for workers that would be reclassified under the VCS Program.

Uncertainties Complication Worker Classification Risk Management

One of the biggest challenges to getting businesses to change their worker classifications is getting the businesses to accept the notion that long-standing worker classification practices in fact might not be defensible.

Although existing precedent and regulatory guidance makes clear that certain long-standing worker classification practices of many businesses would not hold up if scrutinized, business leaders understandably often discount the risk because these classifications historically have continued with little or no challenge in the past.

Even when business leaders recognize that changing enforcement patterns merit reconsideration of historical worker classification practices, they may be reluctant to reclassify the workers.

The common law employment test applied to decide if a worker is an employee for payroll, income tax, employee benefit plan and other purposes under the Code often relies on a subjective, highly fact-specific analysis of the particular circumstances of the worker. Employment status typically is presumed under the common law test for purposes of the Code and most other laws. This means that the business, rather than the IRS or other agency, generally bears the burden of proving the correctness of its classification of a worker as a non-employee for purposes of these determinations.

Given the business typically bears the burden of proving a worker is not an employee, a business receiving services from workers performing services in a capacity other than as a employee should ensure that the position in structural form and operation will withstand scrutiny under the common law and other applicable tests and retain the necessary evidence to support this characterization in anticipation of a potential future audit or other challenge.

Since the business can expect to bear the burden of proving the appropriateness of a nonemployee characterization, businesses also should exercise special care to avoid relying upon overly optimistic assessment of the facts and circumstances when assessing the defensibility of their characterization of the position.

When the factual evidence creates significant questions about the defensibility of a worker’s classification as a non-employee, an employing business generally should consider reclassifying or restructuring the position to be more defensible pursuant to a process designed to mitigate or resolve risks of the prior classification. Often, it also may be desirable for the business to incorporate certain contractual, compensation and other safeguards into the worker relationship, both to support the nonemployee characterization and to minimize future reclassification challenges and exposures.

Consider Importance of Attorney-Client Privilege As Risk Management Tool

Because of the broad reaching and potentially significant liability exposures arising from misclassification, business leaders generally should work to ensure that their risk analysis and decision-making discussion is conducted in a way that positions these discussions for protection under attorney-client privilege and attorney work product privilege.

The availability of the attorney-client and other evidentiary privilege to help shield the investigation and associated decision-making is particularly important because of the potentially significant civil and even criminal liability exposures that often arise from worker misclassification under various relevant laws.

The interwoven nature of the tax and non-tax risks merits particular awareness by business leaders of the need to use care in deciding the outside advisors and consultants that will help in the evaluation of the risks and structuring of solutions. With the VCS Program and other tax exposures in the limelight, businesses can expect that their accounting and other consultant advisors will recommend and even offer to lead the review. While appropriately structured involvement by these non-legal consultants can be a valuable tool, the blended nature of the misclassification exposures means that the evidentiary privileges that accountants often assert to help shield their tax related discussions from discovery in certain federal tax prosecutions are likely to provide inadequate protection against discovery given the broad non-tax related exposures inherent in the misclassification problem. For this reason, business leaders are urged to require that any audits and other activities by these non-legal consultants to evaluate or mitigate these exposures be engaged and conducted whenever possible within attorney-client privilege to protect and promote the ability to assert evidentiary protections against disclosure and discovery of sensitive discussions. Accordingly, while businesses definitely should incorporate appropriate tax advisors into the evaluation process, most businesses before commencing meaningful discussions with or engaging assessments by their accounting firm or other non-attorney tax advisor will want to engage counsel and coordinate their accounting and other non-attorney tax advisors” involvement and activities through qualified legal counsel to protect and maximize the ability to conduct the analysis of their risks and options within the protection of attorney-client privilege.

For Help With These Or Other Matters

If you need assistance in conducting a risk assessment of or responding to an IRS, Labor, HHS, DOJ, ICE, private claim or other legal challenges to your organization’s existing workforce classification or other labor and employment, employee benefit, compensation practices, compliance, or other internal controls and management concerns, please contact the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer.

A board certified labor and employment attorney widely known for her extensive and creative knowledge and experience worker classification and other employment, employee benefits and workforce matters, Ms. Stamer has more than 25 years experience advising and representing employer, employee benefit and other clients before the Internal Revenue Service, the Department of Labor, Immigration & Customs, Justice, and Health & Human Services, the Securities and Exchange Commission, Federal Trade Commission, state labor, insurance, tax and attorneys’ general, and other agencies, private plaintiffs and others on worker classification and related human resources, employee benefit, tax, internal controls, risk management and other legal and operational management concerns.

Ms. Stamer works extensively with employers, employee benefit plan sponsors, insurers, administrators, and fiduciaries, payroll and staffing companies, technology and other service providers and others to develop and run legally defensible programs, practices and policies that promote the client’s human resources, employee benefits or other management goals.

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 including:

1 Comment | 105(h), Cafeteria Plans, COBRA, Corporate Compliance, Disability, Disability, Disability Plans, Discrimination, Employee Benefits, Employers, Employment Tax, ERISA, Fair Labor Standards Act, family leave, FMLA, Government Contractors, Health Plans, HIPAA, Human Resources, I-9, Immigration, Income Tax, Insurance, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, Labor Management Relations, Leave, medical leave, Military Leave, Nonresident aliens, OSHA, Payroll Tax, Restructuring, Retirement Plans, Tax, Tax Qualification, Unemployment Benefits, Unemployment Insurance, Union, VEVRRA, Wage & Hour | Tagged: contract labor, Determination Letters, Employee, Employee Benefits, Independent Contractor, leased employee, misclassificaton, payroll tax, plan qualification, Retirement Plans, staffing, Tax, Worker Classification | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

2013 Maximum Yearly PBGC Guaranteed Pension Benefit Amount To Increase Slightly In 2013

November 28, 2012

The yearly maximum guaranteed benefit for a 65-year-old retiree under the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) insurance program will increase to almost $57,500 in 2013, up from $56,000 in 2012. Beginning in 2013, the PBGC announced November 27, 2012 that the maximum yearly guarantee for a 65-year-old retiree is $57,477.24. The increase is not retroactive.

The slight increase in the guaranteed benefit is likely to be meaningful for the many pensioners receiving benefits under pension plans covered by the PBGC insurance program. This program insures guaranteed benefits amounts for pensioners of defined benefit plans covered by the PBGC insurance programs that are underfunded under the PBGC rules when terminated and otherwise meet program requirements. Most retirees who get their pension from PBGC — almost 85 percent — receive the full amount of their promised benefit. In some cases, retirees can receive more than the PBGC maximum guarantee.

The PBGC maximum guarantee is based on a formula prescribed by federal law. Yearly amounts are higher for people older than age 65, and lower for those who retire earlier or choose survivor benefits (see chart). If a pension plan ends in 2013, but a retiree does not begin collecting benefits until a future year, the 2013 rates still apply. For plans that terminate as a result of bankruptcy, the maximum yearly rates are guided by the limits in effect on the day the bankruptcy started, not the day the plan ended.

The following chart shows the 2013 annual and monthly maximum benefit guarantees for retirees from ages 45 to 75. The maximum amount is lower for retirees who begin getting benefits at ages below 65, reflecting the fact that younger retirees receive more monthly pension checks over a longer lifetime. The maximum amount is higher for benefits starting at ages above 65, because older retirees receive fewer monthly pension checks over their expected lifetimes.

PBGC Maximum Monthly Guarantees for 2013
Age	Annual Maximum	Monthly Maximum	Monthly Joint and 50% Survivor Maximum*
75	174,730.80	14,560.90	13,104.81
74	158,867.04	13,238.92	11,915.03
73	143,003.40	11,916.95	10,725.26
72	127,139.64	10,594.97	9,535.47
71	111,275.88	9,272.99	8,345.69
70	95,412.24	7,951.02	7,155.92
69	85,641.12	7,136.76	6,423.08
68	77,019.48	6,418.29	5,776.46
67	69,547.44	5,795.62	5,216.06
66	63,225.00	5,268.75	4,741.88
65	57,477.24	4,789.77	4,310.79
64	53,453.88	4,454.49	4,009.04
63	49,430.40	4,119.20	3,707.28
62	45,407.04	3,783.92	3,405.53
61	41,383.56	3,448.63	3,103.77
60	37,360.20	3,113.35	2,802.02
59	35,061.12	2,921.76	2,629.58
58	32,762.04	2,730.17	2,457.15
57	30,462.96	2,538.58	2,284.72
56	28,163.88	2,346.99	2,112.29
55	25,864.80	2,155.40	1,939.86
54	24,715.20	2,059.60	1,853.64
53	23,565.72	1,963.81	1,767.43
52	22,416.12	1,868.01	1,681.21
51	21,266.52	1,772.21	1,594.99
50	20,117.04	1,676.42	1,508.78
49	18,967.44	1,580.62	1,422.56
48	17,817.96	1,484.83	1,336.35
47	16,668.36	1,389.03	1,250.13
46	15,518.88	1,293.24	1,163.92
45	14,369.28	1,197.44	1,077.70
* Both spouses the same age

The PBGC insurance program is funded through insurance premiums paid by covered plans. In recent years, the number of underfunded plans has increased due to a lagging economy, declines in market performance and other factors. The demands on the PBGC insurance program prompted Congress to increase premiums, modify pension funding rules and enact various other reforms in an effort to shore up the PBGC insurance program. The PBGC also has undertaken a number of regulatory and operational reforms. Companies sponsoring plans covered by the PBGC insurance program should review their existing funding and insurance requirements to ensure that they are in compliance with existing rules and taking advantage of the most favorable opportunities under these rules. In addition, companies sponsoring defined benefit plans govered by the PBGC insurance program and/or the Internal Revenue Code and Employee Retirement Income Security Act’s minimum funding rules or entities that are part of commonly controlled or affiliated groups of companies, purchasing stock or assets from such company groups or lending to or investing in such entities should evaluate the funding status of these programs and the responsibilities and liability exposures that might impact their interests.

For additional information, see PBGC’s fact sheet “Pension Gurantees” and for information about the benefits guaranteed by the PBGC, see “Making Sense of the Maximum Insurance Benefit.”

For Help or More Information

If you need help reviewing and updating, administering or defending your employee benefit, human resources, insurance, health care matters or related documents or practices to respond to emerging health plan regulations, monitoring or commenting on these rules, defending your health plan or its administration, or other health or employee benefit, human resources or risk management concerns, please contact the author of this update, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer.

About Ms. Stamer

A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Council, 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 cutting edge health and managed care, employee benefit, human resources and related workforce, insurance and financial services, and health care matters.

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 registerto receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns see here or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at 469.767.8872 or via e-mail to cstamer@solutionslawyer.net.

About Solutions Law Press

Comments Off on 2013 Maximum Yearly PBGC Guaranteed Pension Benefit Amount To Increase Slightly In 2013 | ADA, Corporate Compliance, EEOC, Employers, GINA, Human Resources, OFCCP, Retaliation | Tagged: 401(k), Bankruptcy, defined benefit, Employee Benefits, Employers, ERISA, hardship withdrawals, Hurricane Sandy, PBGC, plan loans, retirement | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

IRS OKs Retirement Plans Allowing Plan Loans & Hardship Withdrawals To Hurricane Sandy Victims

November 23, 2012

Retirement plan fiduciaries of plans covering participants impacted by Hurricane Sandy seeking loans or hardship withdrawals received some welcome guidance from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).

The IRS announced November 16 that 401(k)s and similar employer-sponsored retirement plans can make loans and hardship distributions to victims of Hurricane Sandy and members of their families. Read News Release IR-2012-93. For more information, read Announcement 2012-44.

Plan fiduciaries dealing with requests or wishing to offer this option to participants affected by Hurricane Sandy should check this guidance along with existing plan terms and associated loan and hardship withdrawal rules to confirm that their plan terms contain all necessary provisions to use this guidance and their plan’s loan or hardship withdrawal provisions before moving forward. Assuming that the plan contains appropriate provisions and the necessary requirements are met,the guidance says plan fiduciaries can authorize these requests.

For Help or More Information

About Ms. Stamer

A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Council, 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 cutting edge health and managed care, employee benefit, human resources and related workforce, insurance and financial services, and health care matters.

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 registerto receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns see here or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at 469.767.8872 or via e-mail to cstamer@solutionslawyer.net.

About Solutions Law Press

Comments Off on IRS OKs Retirement Plans Allowing Plan Loans & Hardship Withdrawals To Hurricane Sandy Victims | ADA, Corporate Compliance, EEOC, Employers, GINA, Human Resources, OFCCP, Retaliation | Tagged: 401(k), Employee Benefits, Employers, hardship withdrawals, Hurricane Sandy, plan loans | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Agencies Release ACA Wellness, Adult Pre-Existing Condition, Essential Health Benefits Guidance; Briefing Planned

November 20, 2012

Employers and other health plan sponsors, insurers, and their administrators and service providers should consider the advisability of updating health plan cost projections, plan documents and procedures, communications and other practices in response to new and proposed guidance interpreting federal health plan rules under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) released today (November 20, 2012).

Solutions Law Press, Inc. plans will host a webex executive study group briefing to update its members and other interested persons on this new and proposed guidance on Tuesday, November 27, 2012 at Noon Central Time. Interested persons wishing details about registration for this briefing should send an e-mail here.

Guidance Released Today

Earlier today, the Departments of Labor and Health & Human Services issued guidance implementing ACA provisions that make it illegal for insurance companies to discriminate against people with pre-existing conditions, as well as guidance impacting wellness and disease management programs and the “essential health benefits” definition that plays a key role in defining the benefits package mandates applicable to exchange and other health plans and policies required to comply with ACA’s mandates. This guidance includes:

A proposed rule that, beginning in 2014, prohibits health insurance companies from discriminating against individuals because of a pre-existing or chronic condition. Under the rule, insurance companies would be allowed to vary premiums within limits, only based on age, tobacco use, family size and geography. Health insurance companies would be prohibited from denying coverage to any American because of a pre-existing condition or from charging higher premiums to certain enrollees because of their current or past health problems, gender, occupation, and small employer size or industry that the agencies intend to ensure that people for whom coverage would otherwise be unaffordable and young adults have access to a catastrophic coverage plan in the individual market. See HHS Proposed Regulation – Health Insurance Market Rules available here;
A proposed rule outlining policies and standards for coverage of essential health benefits, while giving states more flexibility to implement the Affordable Care Act. Essential health benefits are a core set of benefits that would give consumers a consistent way to compare health plans in the individual and small group markets. A companion letter on the flexibility in implementing the essential health benefits in Medicaid was also sent to states. Related to Essential Health Benefits, Actuarial Value, and Accreditation available here; and
A proposed rule implementing and expanding employment-based wellness programs that the agencies intend to promote health and help control health care spending, while prohibiting what the agencies consider unfair underwriting practices that impermissibly discriminate based on health status. See Proposed regulations here; Study available here; Fact Sheet available here.

With this guidance impacting key plan design and cost concerns, employers and other health plan sponsors, plan fiduciaries and administrators, insurers and their vendors will need to act quickly to evaluate the potential implications of this guidance in light of already existing rules and enforcement positions, their plan design and costs, and market and other factors.

Today’s Guidance Just Tip of Iceberg

The guidance published today is the first in an expected deluge of regulatory pronouncements that HHS, DOL, the Internal Revenue Service and state insurance agencies are expected to issue as the rush to finalize arrangements and guidance governing the implementation and enforcement of the ACA health care reforms scheduled to take effect and to tweek guidance on provisions already effective under the law. This guidance adds to the extensive list of previously issued guidance previously published by the Agencies since Congress passed ACA. With the election behind the US and the Supreme Court having rejected initial challenges by businesses and individuals to the employer and individual mandates last Summer, employers and insurers now must get cracking to update their programs and cost estimates to comply with both existing and new guidance while keeping a close eye out for potential changes to ACA or other federal or state health coverage laws as the new Congress is expected to continue to discuss refinements or other changes when the new Congress begins work in January 2013.

What Should Employers Do To Cope With These & Other Health Plan Mandates?

Facing the operational and financial challenges of meeting these mandates, many business leaders continue report significant concern about what they should do to respond to these requirements. For some practical steps that businesses confronting these issues should take to cope with ACA and other health plan responsibilities, check out the “12 Steps Every Employer With A Health Plan Should Do Now” article by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer in the October 26, 2012 online edition of Texas CEO Magazine. To read the full article, see here.

Clearly in light of the new guidance, employers, insurers, health plan fiduciaries and their service providers need to act quickly to familiarize themselves with the guidance and make any need adjustments to their plans, communications, practices and budgets warranted by the new guidance and remain vigilent for and prepared to do the same with other guidance and reform proposals as it is released.

Beyond responding to the new guidance and other future developments, most health plan sponsors, insurers, administrators and other fiduciaries, and their vendors also should consider conducting this specific analysis and update of their health benefit programs in the context of a broader strategy.

In her 12-Steps Article, Ms. Stamer writes, “While most employers and insurers of employment-based group health plans view with great concern radically expanded health plan responsibilities taking effect in 2014, many are failing to take steps critical to manage exposures and costs already arising from the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and other federal health plan regulations.”

In the article, Ms Stamer discusses the following 12 steps that she suggests most businesses consider to help catch up with current responsibilities and to help their business manage future costs and responsibilities:

Know The Cast Of Characters & What Hat(s) They Wear
Know What Rules Apply, and How They Affect a Group Health Plan
Review and Update Health Plan Documents to Meet Requirements and Manage Exposure
Update the Plan For Changing Compliance Requirements and Enhanced Defensibility
Consistency Matters: Build Good Plan Design, Documentation and Processes, and Follow Them
Ensure the Correct Party Carefully Communicates About Coverage and Claims in a Compliant, Timely, Prudent, Provable Manner
Prepare For ACA’s Expanded Data Gathering and Reporting Requirements
Select, Contract and Manage Vendors With Care
Help Plan Members Build Their Health Care Coping Skills With Training and Supportive Tools
Pack The Parachute and Locate The Nearest Exit Doors
Get Moving On Compliance and Risk Management Issues
Provide Input On Affordable Care Act Rules

For Help or More Information

If you need help reviewing and updating, administering or defending your group health or other employee benefit, human resources, insurance, health care matters or related documents or practices to respond to emerging health plan regulations, monitoring or commenting on these rules, defending your health plan or its administration, or other health or employee benefit, human resources or risk management concerns, please contact the author of this update, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer.

About Ms. Stamer

A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Council, 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 cutting edge health and managed care, employee benefit, human resources and related workforce, insurance and financial services, and health care matters.

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 registerto receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns see here or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at 469.767.8872 or via e-mail to cstamer@solutionslawyer.net.

About Solutions Law Press

1 Comment | ADA, Corporate Compliance, EEOC, Employers, GINA, Human Resources, OFCCP, Retaliation | Tagged: ADA, Corporate Compliance, Disability Discrimination, Employee Benefits, Employers, Employment, Health Insurance, Health Plans, Human Resources | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

12 Steps Every Employer With A Health Plan Should Do Now No Matter Who Wins the Election

October 29, 2012

Business leaders concerned about what to do to manage health benefit costs, responsibilities and liabilities over the next year and to position to cope with impending shifts in the health plan regulatory landscape ahead should check out the “12 Steps Every Employer With A Health Plan Should Do Now” article by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer in the October 26, 2012 online edition of Texas CEO Magazine.

Nationally recognized for quarter century of work advising businesses and governments about health benefit and other employee benefits and human resources matters, Ms. Stamer says regardless of who wins the Presidential election next week, employers need to get moving to deal with current health plan obligations and exposures and brace for new future challenges.

Ms. Stamer writes, “While most employers and insurers of employment-based group health plans view with great concern radically expanded health plan responsibilities taking effect in 2014, many are failing to take steps critical to manage exposures and costs already arising from the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and other federal health plan regulations.”

In the article, Ms Stamer discusses the following 12 steps that she suggests most businesses consider to help catch up with current responsibilities and to help position their business to anticipate and manage future costs and responsibilities:

Know The Cast Of Characters & What Hat(s) They Wear
Know What Rules Apply, and How They Affect a Group Health Plan
Review and Update Health Plan Documents to Meet Requirements and Manage Exposure
Update the Plan For Changing Compliance Requirements and Enhanced Defensibility
Consistency Matters: Build Good Plan Design, Documentation and Processes, and Follow Them
Ensure the Correct Party Carefully Communicates About Coverage and Claims in a Compliant, Timely, Prudent, Provable Manner
Prepare For ACA’s Expanded Data Gathering and Reporting Requirements
Select, Contract and Manage Vendors With Care
Help Plan Members Build Their Health Care Coping Skills With Training and Supportive Tools
Pack The Parachute and Locate The Nearest Exit Doors
Get Moving On Compliance and Risk Management Issues
Provide Input On Affordable Care Act Rules

For Help or More Information

About Ms. Stamer

A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Council, 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 cutting edge health and managed care, employee benefit, human resources and related workforce, insurance and financial services, and health care matters.

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 registerto receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns see here or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at 469.767.8872 or via e-mail to cstamer@solutionslawyer.net.

About Solutions Law Press

Comments Off on 12 Steps Every Employer With A Health Plan Should Do Now No Matter Who Wins the Election | ADA, Corporate Compliance, EEOC, Employers, GINA, Human Resources, OFCCP, Retaliation | Tagged: ADA, Corporate Compliance, Disability Discrimination, Employee Benefits, Employers, Employment, Health Insurance, Health Plans, Human Resources | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

NLRB’s Nailing of Bel Air Hotel Reminder RIFs, Other Reengineering & Transactions Impacting Workforce Requirement Proper Risk Management

October 5, 2012

Severance Deals Get Hotel Bel-Air Nailed By NLRB For Labor Law Violations

A National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) decision that nails Hotel Bel-Air (Hotel) for offering severance packages to unionized workers highlights one of a range of potentially costly missteps that businesses conducting reductions in force or other re-engineering risk if they fail to properly understand and manage legal requirements when designing and implementing the change.

Since labor and other workforce-related risks are long-standing, some businesses, their leaders and consultants may be tempted to assume that prior experience means these are handled. The fact specific nature of the risks and changing rules and enforcement, however, makes it critical not to be over-confident. Legal and operational mismanagement of these risks can disrupt achievement of the purpose of the change and add significant added cost and exposure for the business and its management. Proper use of qualified legal counsel as part of the process is important both to help identify and properly manage risk and to leverage attorney-client privilege to help shield sensitive communications in the planning and implementation of these activities from discovery.

Employer’s Obligations To Negotiate & Deal With Union

Once a union is recognized as the certified representative of employees in a workplace, the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) generally prohibits the employer from unilaterally changing term and conditions of employment or from going around the union to bargain directly with employees over layoffs, the effects of layoffs and other material terms and conditions of employment. As part of this responsibility, the NLRA and other federal and state laws generally require that employers provide notification to the union of planned reductions in force, plant closings or other operational changes that might impact the workforce and bargain in good faith with the union before conducting layoffs, or offering or making in work rules, compensation, severance or other benefits or other terms or conditions of employment.

In general, an employer’s duty to bargain with a union generally also continues to apply when the collective bargaining agreement between the union and the employer expires unless and until the parties reach agreement or impasse. While negotiations continue, the employer’s obligation to refrain from making unilateral changes generally encompasses a duty to refrain from implementation unless and until an overall impasse has been reached on bargaining for the agreement as a whole. See Pleasantview Nursing Home, 335 NLRB 96 (2001) citing Bottom Line Enterprises, 302 NLRB 373 (1991). The NLRB considers negotiations to be in progress, and will not find a genuine impasse to exist, until the parties are warranted in assuming that further bargaining would be “futile” or that there is “no realistic possibility that continuation of discussion . . . would be fruitful.” Saint-Gobain Abrasives, Inc., 343 NLRB 542 556 (2004).

Because the existence of impasse is a factual determination that depends on a variety of factors, including the contemporaneous understanding of the parties as to the state of negotiations, the good faith of the parties, the importance of the disputed issues, the parties’ bargaining history, and the length of their negotiations, Taft Broadcasting Co., 163 NLRB 475, 478 (1967), parties to the negotiation often do not necessarily agree when they have reached impasse. As the September 28 decision by the NLRB against the Hotel shows, employers that act unilaterally based on an overly optimistic determination of impasse suffer significant financial and other operational and legal risks for engaging in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8 of the NLRA.

NLRB Nails Hotel Bel-Air For Failing To Bargain, Offering Severance Around Union

In its September 28, 2012 Bel-Air Hotel Decision, the NLRB ruled the Hotel engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of the NLRA when it offered severance packages to laid off workers in return for the workers’ waiver of recall rights without bargaining to impasse with the union representing its workers, UNITE HERE Local 11 (Union), about the effects of the temporary shutdown.

The NLRB also ruled the Hotel engaged in unlawful direct dealing by contacting the employees about severance packages without going through the Union even though the Hotel’s contract with the union had expired when the Hotel contacted the laid off union employees to offer severance in return for waivers. As a result, the NLRB ordered the Hotel to rescind the waiver and release forms signed by the Union members and to meet and bargain with the Union on these terms.

Bel-Air Hotel Decision Background

The NLRB order against the Hotel resulted from unfair labor practice charges that the Union filed against the Hotel after the Hotel offered severance packages directly to workers in exchange for the workers’ waiver of their recall rights while the workers were laid off during the Hotel’s temporary closure for renovations in 2009.

Before the Hotel offered the severance package directly to the laid off workers, the Hotel and the Union bargained for nine months about the terms of a separation agreement and recall rights for employees who would lose their jobs during a planned 2-year shutdown of the facility for renovation. In April, 2010, the Hotel gave the Union what it said was the “last, best, and final offer” on severance pay for unit employees laid off during the temporary renovation closure. While the Union and the Hotel did talk after the Hotel made this final offer. Unfortunately, the parties did not reach an agreement before their existing collective bargaining agreement expired or before the Hotel shut down the facility for renovation. After the shutdown, the Union and the Hotel stopped formal negotiations but had some “off the record” informal communications until June. With no resolution by the end of June, the Hotel moved forward unilaterally to offer severance directly to the laid off employees as outlined in its final offer.

Although the facility was closed and the employees already laid off when the Hotel’s contract with the Union expired, the Union claimed the Hotel remained obligated to negotiate with the Union. The Union said a flurry of “off-the-record” discussions between the Hotel and the Union leading up to and after the termination showed the parties had not reached impasse. The Union also separately charged that the Hotel violated the NLRA by going around the Union to directly contact employees to offer severance payments in exchange for waiving their right to return to their jobs when the Hotel reopened after renovation.

In response to unfair labor practices charges filed by the Union, Hotel management among other things argued that the Union no longer represented the employees when it offered severance and because the parties’ contract had expired and the parties were at impasse when the Hotel made the offer.

Union Remained Representative Despite Layoff & Temporary Facilities Shutdown

The NLRB found “meritless” the Hotel’s effort to rely upon the NLRB’s decision in Sterling Processing Corp., 291 NLRB 208 (1988) to support the Hotel’s claim that it had no duty to bargain or extend the severance offers through the Union because it made the unilateral severance offer when the facility was closed and the employees were already laid off.

In Sterling, the NLRB found the employer’s unilateral modification of preclosure wages and working conditions did not violate Section 8(a)(5) of the NLRA because when the employer acted unilaterally, there were no employees for the union to represent because when the employer took its unilateral action, the employer already had permanently closed the facility and terminated all employees with no reasonable expectation of reemployment.

The NLRB ruled that the circumstances when the Hotel acted were distinguishable from Sterling because the unit employees on layoff from the Hotel retained a reasonable expectation of recall from layoff since the Hotel’s closure was only temporary and the Hotel had only laid off, and not yet discharged the employees when it made the unilateral severance offers. According to the NLRB, the terms of the severance offer evidenced the existence of an expectation of recall because under the terms of that offer, employees who accepted a severance payment waived their recall rights. See, Rockwood Energy & Mineral Corp., 299 NLRB 1136, 1139 fn. 11 (1990), enfd. 942 F.2d 169 (3d Cir. 1991)(finding that lengthy suspension of production did not relieve employer of its bargaining obligation where laid off employees had “some expectation of recall,” and distinguishing Sterling).

No Impasse Because Of Informal “Off The Record” Communications

The Hotel also separately and unsuccessfully argued that its direct offer of severance benefits to laid off employees was not an unfair labor practice because the parties had bargained to impasse before the offer was made. In response to the Union’s claim that a series of “off-the-record” exchanges between the Union and Hotel after the contract expired reflected a continuation of bargaining, the Hotel argued that an impasse existed because the Union was not engaged in good faith negotiations and there was not any possibility that the informal discussions between the Union and the Hotel would result in any fruitful change in the parties positions.

In an effort to support its position, the Hotel management argued that the Union’s negotiation behavior with other Los Angeles hotels showed the Union had a practice of “artificially extend[ing] negotiations in bad faith” that supported the Hotel’s claim that continued negotiation would be futile. The NLRB rejected this argument too. It said evidence that the Union did not bargain in good faith to string out negotiations when negotiating with other businesses as part of a campaign to coerce all hotels city wide to agree to a standard contract had no probative relevance for purposes of determining if the Hotel and the Union had bargained to impasse in their negotiations and did not prove bad faith by the Union for purposes of its negotiation with the Hotel.

Having rejected these and other Hotel arguments and evidence of impasse, the NLRB ruled that the evidence indicated that the parties continued communications had narrowed their differences before and after the Hotel made its last final offer on April 9. Given this progress, the NLRB ruled that parties’ participation in informal off the record discussions well into June were sufficient to show the existence of some possibility that continued negotiations might result in a fruitful change in the parties position sufficient to obligate the Hotel to continue to bargain with the Union.

NLRB Order Carries Heavy Cost for Bel-Air Hotel

Complying the NLRB’s orders to remedy the breach will be painful and expensive for the Hotel, particularly since by the time the order was issued, the renovation was substantially completed.

To fulfill the requirements of the Order, the Hotel must, among other things:

Bargain with the Union as the recognized and exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the employees about the effects on bargaining unit employees of the temporary shutdown of the hotel for renovation and, if an understanding is reached, embody the understanding in a signed collective bargaining agreement;
Not deal directly with bargaining unit employees about severance, waiver and release or other terms or arrangements relating to the impact of the temporary shutdown on the bargaining unit employees
Rescind the waiver and release agreements signed by individual bargaining unit employees which included the waiver of rehire rights; and
Post a NLRB-mandated written notice in the workplace for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places.

This means that the Hotel will have to work through issues about how to find positions for employees, if any, who originally agreed to waive their rehire rights who now wish to be rehired, as well as engage in expensive bargaining and the implementation of the terms of any resulting collective bargaining agreement.

Union Duties One of Many Potential HR RIF & Deal Traps

The NLRB’s prounion ruling is unsurprising. Since the Obama Administration took office, its NLRB appointments, rule changes and other activism are intended to and are promoting the strength and efforts of labor. See e.g. Labor Risks Rising For Employers Despite NLRB Loss Of Arizona Secret Ballot Challenge : HR Article by Ms. Cynthia Marcotte Stamer .

Collective bargaining responsibilities like those that resulted in the NLRB order against the Hotel are only one of many potential labor, human resources and benefits-related traps that businesses need to negotiate carefully when planning and executing layoffs or other workforce restructurings in connection with cost or other restructurings, business transactions or other activities impacting the workforce.

Some examples of other issues and risks that businesses involved in changes impacting their workforce also may need to manage include but are not limited to the need to manage discrimination, federal and state leave, whistleblower and retaliation, and other general employment-related legal risks and responsibilities; to give Worker Adjustment and Retraining Act (WARN) or state law required plant closing or other notifications to workers, unions, government officials, vendors, customers, lenders or other creditors, insurers or others; to disclose, review, modify or terminate contracts, employee benefit plan documents, communications and other materials; to modify fiduciary, officer, board or other assignments and other related insurance, indemnification, bonding and related arrangements; to comply with employee benefit and compensation related plan document, fiduciary responsibility, discrimination, communication, benefit funding or distribution, reporting and disclosure and other Employee Retirement Income Security Act, Internal Revenue Code, securities and other laws and regulations; privacy, trade secret, and other data integration, confidentiality, and information security and management concerns; Sarbanes-Oxley and other securities, accounting or related requirements; system and data integration; and many others.

Because improper handling of these or other responsibilities in connection with these responsibilities can significantly undermine the businesses’ ability to realize the financial and operational goals behind the action, as well as expose the business to potentially costly liability, businesses anticipating or conducting reductions in the force or other activities that will impact their workforce should seek advice and help from qualified legal counsel experienced with these concerns early to mitigate these concerns.

If you have any questions or need help with these or other workforce management, employee benefits or compensation matters, please do not hesitate to contact the author of this update, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer.

About The Author

Management attorney and consultant Cynthia Marcotte Stamer helps businesses, governments and associations solve problems, develop and implement strategies to manage people, processes, and regulatory exposures to achieve their business and operational objectives and manage legal, operational and other risks. Board certified in labor and employment law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, with more than 25 years human resource and employee benefits experience, Ms. Stamer helps businesses manage their people-related risks and the performance of their internal and external workforce though appropriate human resources, employee benefit, worker’s compensation, insurance, outsourcing and risk management strategies domestically and internationally. Recognized in the International Who’s Who of Professionals and bearing the Martindale Hubble AV-Rating, Ms. Stamer also is a highly regarded author and speaker, who regularly conducts management and other training on a wide range of labor and employment, employee benefit, human resources, internal controls and other related risk management matters. Her writings frequently are published by the American Bar Association (ABA), Aspen Publishers, Bureau of National Affairs, the American Health Lawyers Association, SHRM, World At Work, Government Institutes, Inc., Atlantic Information Services, Employee Benefit News, and many others. For a listing of some of these publications and programs, see here. Her insights on human resources risk management matters also have been quoted in The Wall Street Journal, various publications of The Bureau of National Affairs and Aspen Publishing, the Dallas Morning News, Spencer Publications, Health Leaders, Business Insurance, the Dallas and Houston Business Journals and a host of other publications. Chair of the ABA RPTE Employee Benefit and Other Compensation Committee, a council member of the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits, and the Legislative Chair of the Dallas Human Resources Management Association Government Affairs Committee, she also serves in leadership positions in many human resources, corporate compliance, and other professional and civic organizations. For more details about Ms. Stamer’s experience and other credentials, contact Ms. Stamer, information about workshops and other training, selected publications and other human resources related information, see here or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at 469.767.8872 or via e-mail to cstamer@solutionslawyer.net.

About Solutions Law Press

Comments Off on NLRB’s Nailing of Bel Air Hotel Reminder RIFs, Other Reengineering & Transactions Impacting Workforce Requirement Proper Risk Management | ADA, Corporate Compliance, EEOC, Employers, GINA, Human Resources, OFCCP, Retaliation | Tagged: ADA, Corporate Compliance, Disability Discrimination, Employee Benefits, Employers, Employment, Health Insurance, Health Plans, Human Resources, Management, NLLRB, NLRA, reductions in force, Severance, unfair labor practices, Union | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Tighten Employment Disability Risk Management As Obama Declares 12/10 National Disability Employment Awareness Month

October 1, 2012

President Obama’s declaration today (October 1, 2012) of October as National Disability Employment Awareness Month reminds business that U.S. businesses and their leaders need to tighten their disability discrimination risk management and compliance in light of the Obama Administration’s emphasis on aggressively interpreting and enforcing disability discrimination laws, rising private plaintiff lawsuits and other recent regulatory and judicial changes.

In his proclaimation today, President Obama reaffirmed his often stated commitment to the aggressive enforcement of disability laws and other efforts to promote opportunities for disabled individuals, stating:

“[My Administration remains committed to helping our businesses, schools, and communities support our entire workforce. To meet this challenge,… we are striving to make it easier to get and keep those jobs by improving compliance with Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act.

As the administration marks the month, U.S. employers and other business leaders can expect the Obama Administration will be stepping up its already aggressive outreach to disabled Americans to promote awareness of their disability law rights and tools for asserting and enforcing these rights.

Business Faces Growing Employment Disability Exposures

As part of his administration’s commitment, the Obama Administration has moved to aggressively enforce the disability and accommodations of teh Americans With Disabilities Act, Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act, and other federal disability discrimination laws. The reach and effectiveness of these efforts has been enhanced by statutory and regulatory changes that require employers to exercise greater efforts to meet their compliance obligations and manage their disability and other discrimination risks.

ADA Exposures Heightened

The ADA, for instance, generally prohibits disability discrimination and requires employers to make reasonable accommodations to employees’ and applicants’ disabilities as long as this does not pose an undue hardship. Violations of the ADA can expose businesses to substantial liability. Violations of the ADA may be prosecuted by the EEOC or by private lawsuits. Employees or applicants that can prove they were subjected to prohibited disability discrimination under the ADA generally can recover actual damages, attorneys’ fees, and up to $300,000 of exemplary damages (depending on the size of the employer).

In recent years, amendments to the original provisions of the ADA have made it easier for plaintiffs and the EEOC to establish disabled status of an individual. Businesses should exercise caution to carefully document legitimate business justification for their hiring, promotion and other employment related decisions about these and other individuals who might qualify as disabled. Provisions of the ADA Amendments Act (ADAAA) that expand the definition of “disability” under the ADA, As signed into law on September 25, 2008, the ADAAA amended the definition of “disability” for purposes of the disability discrimination prohibitions of the ADA to make it easier for an individual seeking protection under the ADA to establish that that has a disability within the meaning of the ADA. The ADAAA retains the ADA’s basic definition of “disability” as an impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities, a record of such an impairment, or being regarded as having such an impairment. However, provisions of the ADAAA that took effect January 1, 2009 change the way that these statutory terms should be interpreted in several ways. Most significantly, the Act:

Directs EEOC to revise that portion of its regulations defining the term “substantially limits;”
Expands the definition of “major life activities” by including two non-exhaustive lists: (1) The first list includes many activities that the EEOC has recognized (e.g., walking) as well as activities that EEOC has not specifically recognized (e.g., reading, bending, and communicating); and (2) The second list includes major bodily functions (e.g., “functions of the immune system, normal cell growth, digestive, bowel, bladder, neurological, brain, respiratory, circulatory, endocrine, and reproductive functions”);
States that mitigating measures other than “ordinary eyeglasses or contact lenses” shall not be considered in assessing whether an individual has a disability;
Clarifies that an impairment that is episodic or in remission is a disability if it would substantially limit a major life activity when active;
Changes the definition of “regarded as” so that it no longer requires a showing that the employer perceived the individual to be substantially limited in a major life activity, and instead says that an applicant or employee is “regarded as” disabled if he or she is subject to an action prohibited by the ADA (e.g., failure to hire or termination) based on an impairment that is not transitory and minor; and
Provides that individuals covered only under the “regarded as” prong are not entitled to reasonable accommodation.

The ADAAA also emphasizes that the definition of disability should be construed in favor of broad coverage of individuals to the maximum extent permitted by the terms of the ADA and generally shall not require extensive analysis.In adopting these changes, Congress expressly sought to overrule existing employer-friendly judicial precedent construing the current provisions of the ADA and to require the EEOC to update its existing guidance to confirm with the ADAAA Amendments. Under the leadership of the Obama Administration, the EEOC and other federal agencies have embraced this charge and have sigificantly stepped up enforcement of the ADA and other federal discrimination laws.

Recent enforcement, regulatory and other activities by the EEOC demonstrate that the EEOC is enthusiastically moving forward to exercise its regulatory and enforcement powers under these enhanced ADA provisions to tighten requirements for employers and to enforce its rules. See e.g., Leprino Foods To Pay $550K To Settle OFCCP Charge Pre-Hire Screening Test Illegally Discriminated « As EEOC Steps Up ADA Accommodation Enforcement, New DOD Apple App, Other Resources Released; Wal-Mart Settlement Shows ADA Risks When Considering Employee Return To Work Accommodation Requests & Inquiries; Employer Pays $475,000 To Settle ADA Discrimination Lawsuit Challenging Medical Fitness Testing For EMTs, Firefighters & Other Public Safety Worker’s.

Rehabilitation Act Risks For Government Contractors

Beyond the generally applicable risks applicable to all employers of more than 15 employees under the ADA, federal and state government contractors face additional responsibilities and risks.

Subject to limited exceptions, government contractors providing services or supplies on ARRA or other government funded contracts or projects must comply both with generally applicable employment discrimination requirements and special statutory and contractual nondiscrimination, affirmative action, and recordkeeping requirements applicable government contractors. For instance, federal law generally requires government contractors to comply with the special equal employment opportunity requirements of Executive Order 11246 (EO 11246); Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 503); and the Vietnam Veterans’ Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974 (VEVRAA). Pursuant to these laws, business with the federal government, both contractors and subcontractors, generally must follow a number of statutory and contractual requirements to follow the fair and reasonable standard that they not discriminate in employment on the basis of sex, race, color, religion, national origin, disability or status as a protected veteran. OFCCP generally audits and enforces these requirements. Memo to Funding Recipients: Compliance with Applicable Nondiscrimination and Equal Opportunity Statutes, Regulations, and Executive Orders.

OFCCP has made clear that it will conduct compliance evaluations and host compliance assistance events to ensure that federal contractors comply and are aware of their responsibilities under EO 11246, Section 503 and VEVRAA.

While many government contractors may be tempted to become complacent about OFCCP exposures based on reports of the OFCCP’s relatively low enforcement in the past, see Report Says OFCCP Enforcement Data Show Infrequent Veteran, Disability Bias Findings | Bloomberg BNA recent enforcement data documents OFCCP is getting much more serious and aggressive about auditing and enforcing compliance with its affirmative action and other requirements against government contractors under the Obama Administration. See, OFCCP Enforcement Data is Available on a New DOL Website. See also, Affirmative Action Update: OFCCP Enforcement Statistics Show Increase in Violations. The readiness of OFCCP to enforce its rules is illustrated by the settlement of an OFCCP action filed against federal contractor Nash Finch Co. (Nash Finch) announceed last week. Under the settlement, Nash Finch to pay $188,500 in back wages and interest and offer jobs to certain women applicants who OFCCP charged Nash rejected for the entry-level position of order selector at the company’s distribution facility in Lumberton, Minnesota. See Settlement of OFCCP Employment Discrimination Charge Reminder To ARRA, Other Government Contractors Of Heightened Enforcement Risks.

These government contractor disability discrimination risks are particularly acute where the government contractor works on or provides supplies on contacts or projects funded in whole or in part by monies provided under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (“ARRA”). When the contract or project in question receives any funding out of the $787 billion of stimulus funding provided by ARRA, special OFCCP rules applicable to ARRA funded projects necessitates that federal contractors exercise special care to understand and meet their responsibilities and manage associated exposures. See, e.g. Settlement of OFCCP Employment Discrimination Charge Reminder To ARRA, Other Government Contractors Of Heightened Enforcement Risks.

Businesses Should Act To Manage Risks

The ADAAA amendments, the Rehabilitation Act’s expanded reach, and the Obama Administration’s emphasis on enforcement make it likely that businesses generally will face more disability claims from a broader range of employees and will possess fewer legal shields to defend themselves against these claims. These changes will make it easier for certain employees to qualify and claim protection as disabled under the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, and other disability discrimination laws.

In light of these and other developments and risks, businesses generally should act cautiously when dealing with applicants or employees with actual, perceived, or claimed physical or mental impairments to minimize exposures under the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act and other laws. Management should exercise caution to carefully and appropriate the potential legal significance of physical or mental impairments or conditions that might be less significant in severity or scope, correctable through the use of eyeglasses, hearing aids, daily medications or other adaptive devices, or that otherwise have been assumed by management to fall outside the ADA’s scope.

Likewise, businesses should be prepared for the EEOC, OFCCP and the courts to treat a broader range of disabilities, including those much more limited in severity and life activity restriction, to qualify as disabling for purposes of the Act. Businesses should assume that a greater number of employees with such conditions are likely to seek to use the ADA as a basis for challenging hiring, promotion and other employment decisions. For this reason, businesses generally should tighten job performance and other employment recordkeeping to enhance their ability to demonstrate nondiscriminatory business justifications for the employment decisions made by the businesses.

Businesses also should consider tightening their documentation regarding their procedures and processes governing the collection and handling records and communications that may contain information regarding an applicant’s physical or mental impairment, such as medical absences, worker’s compensation claims, emergency information, or other records containing health status or condition related information. The ADA generally requires that these records be maintained in separate confidential files and disclosed only to individuals with a need to know under circumstances allowed by the ADA.

As part of this process, businesses also should carefully review their employment records, group health plan, family leave, disability accommodation, and other existing policies and practices to comply with, and manage exposure under the new genetic information nondiscrimination and privacy rules enacted as part of the Genetic Information and Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) signed into law by President Bush on May 21, 2008. Effective November 21, 2009, Title VII of GINA amends the Civil Rights Act to prohibit employment discrimination based on genetic information and restricts the ability of employers and their health plans to require, collect or retain certain genetic information. Under GINA, employers, employment agencies, labor organizations and joint labor-management committees face significant liability for violating the sweeping nondiscrimination and confidentiality requirements of GINA concerning their use, maintenance and disclosure of genetic information. Employees can sue for damages and other relief like currently available under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other nondiscrimination laws. For instance, GINA’s employment related provisions include rules that will:

Prohibit employers and employment agencies from discriminating based on genetic information in hiring, termination or referral decisions or in other decisions regarding compensation, terms, conditions or privileges of employment;
Prohibit employers and employment agencies from limiting, segregating or classifying employees so as to deny employment opportunities to an employee based on genetic information;
Bar labor organizations from excluding, expelling or otherwise discriminating against individuals based on genetic information;
Prohibit employers, employment agencies and labor organizations from requesting, requiring or purchasing genetic information of an employee or an employee’s family member except as allowed by GINA to satisfy certification requirements of family and medical leave laws, to monitor the biological effects of toxic substances in the workplace or other conditions specifically allowed by GINA;
Prohibit employers, labor organizations and joint labor-management committees from discriminating in any decisions related to admission or employment in training or retraining programs, including apprenticeships based on genetic information;
Mandate that in the narrow situations where limited cases where genetic information is obtained by a covered entity, it maintain the information on separate forms in separate medical files, treat the information as a confidential medical record, and not disclosure the genetic information except in those situations specifically allowed by GINA;
Prohibit any person from retaliating against an individual for opposing an act or practice made unlawful by GINA; and
Regulate the collection, use, access and disclosure of genetic information by employer sponsored and certain other health plans.

These employment provisions of GINA are in addition to amendments to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), the Public Health Service Act, the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, and Title XVIII (Medicare) of the Social Security Act that are effective for group health plan for plan years beginning after May 20, 2009.

If you have any questions or need help reviewing and updating your organization’s employment and/or employee practices in response to the Rehabilitation Act, ADA, GINA or other applicable laws, or if we may be of assistance with regard to any other workforce management, employee benefits or compensation matters, please do not hesitate to contact the author of this update, Board Certified Labor and Employment Attorney and Management Consultant Cynthia Marcotte Stamer at 469..

About The Author

Management attorney and consultant Cynthia Marcotte Stamer helps businesses, governments and associations solve problems, develop and implement strategies to manage people, processes, and regulatory exposures to achieve their business and operational objectives and manage legal, operational and other risks. Board certified in labor and employment law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, with more than 25 years human resource, employee benefits and management experience, Ms. Stamer helps businesses manage their people-related risks and the performance of their internal and external workforce though appropriate human resources, employee benefit, worker’s compensation, insurance, outsourcing and risk management strategies domestically and internationally. Recognized in the International Who’s Who of Professionals and bearing the Martindale Hubble AV-Rating, Ms. Stamer also is a highly regarded author and speaker, who regularly conducts management and other training on a wide range of labor and employment, employee benefit, human resources, internal controls and other related risk management matters. Her writings frequently are published by the American Bar Association (ABA), Aspen Publishers, Bureau of National Affairs, the American Health Lawyers Association, SHRM, World At Work, Government Institutes, Inc., Atlantic Information Services, Employee Benefit News, and many others. For a listing of some of these publications and programs, see here. Her insights on human resources risk management matters also have been quoted in The Wall Street Journal, various publications of The Bureau of National Affairs and Aspen Publishing, the Dallas Morning News, Spencer Publications, Health Leaders, Business Insurance, the Dallas and Houston Business Journals and a host of other publications. Chair of the ABA RPTE Employee Benefit and Other Compensation Committee, a council member of the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits, and the Legislative Chair of the Dallas Human Resources Management Association Government Affairs Committee, she also serves in leadership positions in numerous human resources, corporate compliance, and other professional and civic organizations. For more details about Ms. Stamer’s experience and other credentials, contact Ms. Stamer, information about workshops and other training, selected publications and other human resources related information, see here or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at 214.270.2402 or via e-mail here.

Other Helpful Resources & Other Information

If you found these updates of interest, you also be interested in one or more of the following other recent articles published in this electronic Solutions Law publication available for review here including:

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.

For important information concerning this communication click here. If you do not wish to receive these updates in the future, send an e-mail with the word “Remove” in the Subject to support@solutionslawyer.net.

Comments Off on Tighten Employment Disability Risk Management As Obama Declares 12/10 National Disability Employment Awareness Month | ADA, Affirmative Action, Corporate Compliance, Disability, Disability, Disability Plans, EEOC, EEOC, Employers, FMLA, GINA, Government Contractors, Human Resources, Labor Management Relations, OFCCP, Retaliation, USERRA, VEVRRA | Tagged: ADA, Corporate Compliance, Disability Discrimination, Employee Benefits, Employers, Employment, Health Insurance, Health Plans, Human Resources | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Email Subscription

Pages

Recent Posts

Archives

Share this blog

Solutions Law Press HR & Benefits Update