Employer | | Page 2

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, 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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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

OSHA Raises Silica Safety Requirements

March 25, 2016

U.S. employers engaged in businesses that could expose workers to silica dust should begin preparing to comply a new final rule (Silica Rule) that requires employers to improve protections for workers exposed to respirable silica dust announced by the U.S. Department of Labor Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) that OSHA intends to curb lung cancer, silicosis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and kidney disease in America’s workers by limiting their exposure to respirable crystalline silica. Employers whose workers could be exposed to silica will need to update their practices to comply with the new standards set in the Silica Rule as soon as possible and no later than the applicable compliance deadline set in the Silica Rule.

The new Silica Rule is written as two standards, one for construction and one for general industry and maritime. Among other things, it generally will require that by as early as June 23, 2017, covered employers improve worker protection against silica exposures by:

Reducing the permissible exposure limit for crystalline silica to 50 micrograms per cubic meter of air, averaged over an eight-hour shift.
Requiring employers to use engineering controls (such as water or ventilation) and work practices to limit worker exposure; provide respiratory protection when controls are not able to limit exposures to the permissible level; limit access to high exposure areas; train workers; and provide medical exams to highly exposed workers.
Providing greater certainty and ease of compliance to construction employers – including many small employers – by including a table of specified controls they can follow to be in compliance, without having to monitor exposures.
Staggering compliance dates to ensure employers have sufficient time to meet the requirements, e.g., extra time for the hydraulic fracturing (fracking) industry to install new engineering controls and for all general industry employers to offer medical surveillance to employees exposed between the PEL and 50 micrograms per cubic meter and the action level of 25 micrograms per cubic meter.

Employers covered by the construction standard have until June 23, 2017 to comply with most requirements. Employers covered by the general industry and maritime standard have until June 23, 2018 to comply with most requirements; additional time is provided to offer medical exams to some workers and for hydraulic fracturing employers to install dust controls to meet the new exposure limit.

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 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.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc. ™

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

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

Comments Off on OSHA Raises Silica Safety Requirements | Brokers, compliance, Corporate Compliance, employee, Employer, Employers, Employment, HR, Human Resources, Insurance, insurers, Internal Controls, mine safety, mining, MSHA, occupational safety, OSHA, Safety, Worker, Workforce | Tagged: dust, Employer, Occupational health, occupational safety, OSHA, Safety, Silica, worker safety | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

DOL “Persuader Rule” Changes Broaden Employer & Consultant Anti-Union Contract Disclosure Duties

March 23, 2016

By: Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

The Obama Administration is moving forward on yet another effort to empower union organizing efforts and disempower employer efforts to fight union organization efforts by changing its regulations implementing the “persuader rule” of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA) to expand the circumstances under which the Labor Department’s “persuader rule” requires employers to disclose arrangements made with consultants to assist the employer to oppose union efforts by filing the Form LM-10 (employer report) and consultants providing anti-union services to file the Form LM-20 (agreement and activities report). See DOL persuader rule Fact Sheet, Overview/Summary and a Question and Answers. Employers, consultants and others involved in labor-management relations management or training will want to review and update their risk management and compliance practices in light of this impending change.

Current U.S. Department of Labor Office of Labor-Management Standards (Labor Department) regulations implementing Section 203 of the Labor-Management Reporting Disclosure Act (LMRDA) generally require employers and labor relations consultants to with the U.S. Department of Labor’s Office of Labor-Management Standards (OLMS) a Form LM-10 Employer Report, Form LM-20 Agreement and Activities Report, and Form LM-21 Receipts and Disbursements Report whenever the employer and the consultant enter into an agreement or arrangement for the consultant directly to undertake activities with either of the following objectives:

To persuade employees about exercising their rights to organize and bargain collectively or
To supply an employer with certain information concerning the activities of employees or a labor organization in connection with a labor dispute involving the employer.

Employer Report Form LM-10

Specifically, Labor Department Regulations generally require employers to report by filing with the Labor Department the Form LM-10 if they make certain expenditures or engage in certain activities, including entering into agreements or arrangements with any third party consultant, to persuade employees concerning their collective bargaining or organizing rights or to obtain certain information. Employers currently are not required to file Form LM-10 reports covering attendance at union avoidance seminars, though consultants who present at these seminars must file LM-20 reports, however. The Form LM-10 must be signed by the president and the treasurer or corresponding principal officers of the reporting employer, or by the sole proprietor, as appropriate. Employers also should be aware that Labor Department rules also require employers to report other items not related to persuader activities or expenditures on Form LM-10. Pursuant to LMRDA Section 203(a), employers must also file the Form LM-10 to report certain payments to unions and individuals affiliated with unions, including any officer, employee, shop steward, or agent of a labor organization. There are exceptions to the filing requirements, and these are noted in the Form LM-10 instructions. The Form LM-10 report must be filed electronically within 90 days after the end of the employer’s fiscal year. Employers are required to file only one Form LM-10 report each fiscal year covering all instances of reportable activity even if, for example, activity occurs at multiple locations or the employer enters into more than one consultant agreement

Consultant Report Form LM-20 and 21

In addition to the employer reporting requirements, Labor Department implementing rules for Section 203(b) requires any person, including a labor relations consultant, to file a report, Form LM-20, to disclose agreements or arrangements with any employer pursuant to which the person undertakes activities with the intent to persuade employees concerning their collective bargaining or organizing rights or to obtain certain information. The required LM-20 report is due within 30 days after entering into a reportable agreement, except for reports covering union avoidance seminars, which are due 30 days after the conclusion of the seminar. Such individuals or organizations must file a separate Form LM-20 for each agreement or arrangement they make with an employer, and attach a copy of any written agreement. The report must be signed by the president and the treasurer or corresponding principal officers of the consultant firm or, if the filer is self-employed, by the individual consultant.

Broadening Of Actions Subject To Persuader Rule

Presently, the Labor Department generally only required reporting of an employer-consultant agreement only if the consultant communicated directly to the workers. Under the new “persuader rule” scheduled for publication in the March 24, 2016 Federal Register, however, the Labor Department will expand the duty to report to include both direct communications and other “indirect” activities by a consultant to assist an employer with anti-union efforts.

As amended by the persuader rule, Labor Department regulations generally will require employers and their consultants to file the Form LM-10 employer report and the Form LM-20 agreement and activities report disclosing an anti-union employer-consultant agreement whenever a consultant engages “any actions, conduct, or communications that are undertaken with an object, explicitly or implicitly, directly or indirectly, to affect an employee’s decisions regarding his or her representation or collective bargaining rights.” The final persuader rule scheduled for publication on March 24, 2016 also will provide that consultant activities that trigger reporting include direct contact with employees with an object to persuade them as well as the following categories of indirect consultant activity:

Planning, directing, or coordinating activities undertaken by supervisors or other employer representatives, including meetings and interactions with employees;
Providing materials or communications for dissemination to employees;
Conducting a union avoidance seminar for supervisors or other employer representatives; and
Developing or implementing personnel policies, practices, or actions for the employer.

Prepare To Meet Broadened Requirements

Following its publication in the March 24, Federal Register, the persuader rule is scheduled to take effect on April 25, 2016 and apply to arrangements, agreements, and payments made on or after July 1, 2016.

The Labor Department’s final adoption of the persuader rule tomorrow comes despite widespread criticism by employers, management consultants and many management legal counsels as overly broad and potentially infringing on management’s attorney-client privilege rights with respect to advice provided by legal counsel to management. As a result of these and other concerns, most commentators expect the changes to the persuader rule to face widespread challenges in the courts.

Whether or not these challenges materialize, employers as well as consultants and legal counsel involved in anti-union organization efforts will need to carefully evaluate the revised reporting requirements to take into account the persuader rule’s expansion to the reporting requirements. Employers anticipating potential union activity or training and the lawyers and labor consultants and labor-management educators providing or offering services will want to carefully evaluate the changes and modify practices in light of the impending changes to the rule.

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.

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:

41614421-modified-one-way-signs-indicating-management-and-labor

Comments Off on DOL “Persuader Rule” Changes Broaden Employer & Consultant Anti-Union Contract Disclosure Duties | Employer, Employers, Human Resources, Labor Management Relations, Management, NLRA, Risk Management, Uncategorized, Union, Union, Union certification, Union elections | Tagged: Employer, HR, Human Resources, Labor, Management, Training, Union | 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

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

September 28, 2015

Oil and gas service giant Halliburton, has agreed to pay $18,293,557 to 1,016 employees nationwide to settle charges by the U.S. Department of Labor Wage and Hour Division (DOL) resulting from an investigation conducted as part of an ongoing, multi-year compliance initiative by the DOL targeting oil and gas industry employers in the Southwest and Northeast as part of the Obama Administration’s tough Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) enforcement stance against employers generally. One of the largest FLSA settlements in years, the investigation and resulting settlement with Haliburton illustrates the growing need for all employers generally, and oil and gas industry employers specifically to reexamine the defensibility of their worker classifications, wage, overtime and documentation practices under the FLSA and other minimum wage and overtime laws. With wage and hour and other FLSA and resulting judgements and penalties rising, oil and gas industry and other U.S. employers need to protect themselves and their leaders against growing FLSA exposures by tightening payroll classification, wage and hour pay and recordkeeping and other practices as well as take other steps to prepare their organizations to defend against potential DOL or private claims.

One of the world’s largest providers of products and services to the energy industry, Halliburton employs more than 70,000 employees, representing 140 nationalities in more than 80 countries worldwide. According to DOL, the new settlement stems from Halliburton’s failure to pay overtime to more than 1000 employees working in 28 job positions that Halliburton characterized as “exempt” which DOL says did not qualify for salaried treatment. DOL claims that its investigators found Halliburton violated the FLSA by incorrectly categorizing and failing to pay overtime to more than 1000 employees working as field service representatives, pipe recovery specialists, drilling tech advisors, perforating specialists and reliability tech specialists when they worked more than 40 hours in a workweek. As is often the case when a company misclassifies workers, DOL also charged Halliburton with failing to keep accurate records of hours worked by these employees.

The FLSA requires that covered, non-exempt employees be paid at least the federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour for all hours worked, plus time and one-half their regular rates, including commissions, bonuses and incentive pay, for hours worked beyond 40 per week. Employers must maintain accurate time and payroll records of all time worked by non-exempt employees as well as able to prove that workers treated as salaried actually in fact qualify as exempt under the FLSA.

Simply paying an employee a salary does not necessarily mean the employee is not eligible for overtime. While the FLSA provides an exemption from both minimum wage and overtime pay requirements for individuals employed in bona fide executive, administrative, professional and outside sales positions, as well as certain computer employees, employer relying on these exemptions currently must be prepared to prove employees are treated and paid as exempt by the employer earn at least $455 per week and also meet all requirements of the specific tests regarding their job duties required by DOL regulations to qualify for payment on a salary basis.

In response to certain long-standing industry practices that it views as prohibited by the FLSA, DOL has included oil and gas industry and a broad range of other employers among the industries that DOL is specifically targeting for investigation and enforcement of minimum wage, overtime and other FLSA violations as well as educational outreach to employers and employees in the industry. Beyond employers directly engaged in oil and gas production, the DOL says its industry enforcement initiative also focuses on a broad range of other related businesses including trucking, lodging, water and stone haulers, staffing companies and others — that support oil and gas industry operation.

The heightened emphasis on DOL investigation, enforcement and educational outreach create significant risks for businesses and their leaders. Settlements like the Halliburton settlement are painful for any employer and Halliburton is not the first industry leader caught by the DOL. Other DOL investigations target a broad range of other long standing and widely used industry practices. In 2014, for instance, a DOL investigation resulted in Shell Oil Co. and Motiva Enterprises LLC, which markets Shell gasoline and other products, agreeing to pay $4,470,764 in overtime back wages to 2,677 current and former chemical and refinery employees to settle DOL charges that the companies violated FLSA overtime provisions by not paying workers for the time spent at mandatory pre-shift meetings and failing to record the time spent at these meetings. In addition to paying backpay, Shell and Motiva committed to retrain managers, payroll personnel and human resources personnel on the FLSA’s requirements including the importance of requiring accurate recording and pay for all hours worked with emphasis on pre-and post-shift activities. See Shell Oil/Motiva Enterprises $4.5M FLSA Overtime Backpay Settlement Reminder To Pay Workers Properly , the DOL’s educational outreach to employees spells trouble for oil and gas industry and related employers that violate the FLSA.

Along with the direct investigation and enforcement activities by DOL, DOL’s educational outreach also are adding fuel to private litigation and demands based on alleged wage and hour, overtime and other FLSA and state minimum wage and overtime laws. Already a substantial concern following a reported 432% increase between 1994 and 2013, FLSA continued to rise in 2014 for the seventh year in a row. According to the Federal Judicial Center, a record 8,126 FLSA cases were filed between April 1, 2013 and March 31, 2014, a nearly 5 percent increase over the prior year’s period. See Record number of federal wage and hour lawsuits filed under the Fair Labor Standards Act; Wage and Hour Claims Among Top Threats to U.S. Employers. These risks promise to soar even higher of the Obama Administration is successful in its recently announced plan to increase the minimum weekly wage an employee must earn to meet the threshold test for classification as exempt and tighten other FLSA exemption requirements. See, e.g. Obama Administration Proposal Would Extend FLSA Minimum Wage & Overtime Requirements To 5 Million+ Workers.

Beyond recognizing and managing their business’ organizational exposures, business leaders also need to recognize the potential personal liability exposures that aggressive worker classification, wage and hour and overtime practices may create for members of management. With plaintiff’s and their attorneys increasingly are adding executives to the list of defendants named in their FLSA collective action claims, management should view appropriate FLSA compliance and risk management as critical to manage their own as well as their business’ liabilities. See U.S. Businesses & Their Leaders Face Rising FLSA Collective Action Liability Risks.

Furthermore, the risks and consequences of misclassification generally aren’t limited to wages. FLSA and other worker classifications usually have carryover implications on health and other employee benefit plans and their compliant administration. These risks are particularly acute for health plans, where the Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act (ACA) relies upon FLSA based hours and characterizations to determine the effect of its “employer pay or play” shared responsibility payment rules, default enrollment rules and various other requirements. As a result, employers as well as plan fiduciaries, insurers, and administrators also generally will want to evaluate the defensibility of an employer’s treatment of an employee as exempt or otherwise excludable for purposes of these and other key benefit rules, as well as the potential implications of these characterization on the plan, its administration and exposure.

Of course since liability insurers issuing employment practices, officers and director, fiduciary and other liability coverage often are exposed to defense and judgment costs and judgments resulting from challenged practices, carriers also generally should consider these rapidly expanding exposures and the advisability of taking steps to mitigate these risks.

Employers, Plans & Liability Insurers Should Strengthen Practices For Defensibility

Because of these and other significant risks, businesses and their management leaders should act quickly to review and document the defensibility of their existing practices for classifying and compensating workers under existing Federal and state wage and hour laws and take other actions to minimize their potential liability under applicable wages and hour laws. Steps advisable as part of this process include, but are not necessarily limited to:

Require all workers – whether exempt or non-exempt – to record and report all hours worked as a backstop against potential reporting and other liabilities in the event a worker is reclassified, as well as to capture critical data about hours worked by salaried or other non-hourly workers the business may need to mitigate ACA employer shared responsibility and other risks and liabilities.
Critically evaluate the defensibility of the characterization of each position current classified as exempt to assess its continued sustainability and retain documentation showing these efforts and justification of the use of that characterization;
Audit characterization of workers obtained from staffing, employee leasing, independent contractor and other arrangements and implement contractual and other oversight arrangements to minimize risks that these relationships could create if workers are recharacterized as employed by the employer receiving these services;
Review the characterization of on-call and other time demands placed on employees to confirm that all compensable time is properly identified, tracked, documented, compensated and reported;
Review of existing practices for tracking compensable hours and paying non-exempt employees for compliance with applicable regulations and to identify opportunities to minimize costs and liabilities arising out of the regulatory mandates;
If the audit raises questions about the appropriateness of the classification of an employee as exempt, self-initiation of proper corrective action after consultation with qualified legal counsel;
Review of existing documentation and record keeping practices for hourly as well as exempt employees;
Explore available options and alternatives for calculating required wage payments to non-exempt employees;
Re-engineer of work rules and other practices to minimize costs and liabilities as appropriate in light of the regulations and enforcement exposures;
Carefully review and contract with subcontractors, staffing and leasing, and other parties supplying workers to require compliance with and the provisions of supporting records and documentation needed to prove compliance with applicable FLSA wage, overtime, and documentation requirements, the ability to access critical documentation and cooperation in the event the DOL or private litigation challenges the treatment of these contractors’ employees as employees of the business or make other claims of liability, suitable indemnification, and other safeguards against potential imputed liability claims for actions of contractors;
Trace and evaluate results and implications on these characterizations on health and other employee benefit plan rights and potential liabilities resulting in the event of recharacterization;
Evaluate and secure appropriate employment practices, fiduciary liability and other liability protection to help ensure the availability of coverage for potential claims and litigation; and
More.

For Help With Investigations, Policy Updates Or Other Needs

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 28 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 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.

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 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. Best-known for her extensive work helping health care, insurance and other highly regulated entities manage both general employment and management concerns and their highly complicated, industry specific corporate compliance, internal controls and risk management requirements, Ms. Stamer’s clients and experience also include a broad range of other businesses. 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 also 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.

She also currently or previously served as an Editorial Advisory Board Member for human resources, employee benefit and other management focused publications of BNA, HR.com, Employee Benefit News, InsuranceThoughtLeadership.com and many other prominent publications. Ms. Stamer also regularly serves on the faculty and planning committees for symposia of LexisNexis, the American Bar Association, ALIABA, the Society of Employee Benefits Administrators, the American Law Institute, ISSA, HIMMs, and many other prominent educational and training organizations and conducts training and speaks on these and other management, compliance and public policy concerns.

Ms. Stamer also is active in the leadership of a broad range of other professional and civic organizations. For instance, Ms. Stamer presently serves on an American Bar Association (ABA) Joint Committee on Employee Benefits Council representative; Vice President of the North Texas Healthcare Compliance Professionals Association; Immediate Past Chair of the ABA RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Committee, its current Welfare Benefit Plans Committee Co-Chair, on its Substantive Groups & Committee and its incoming Defined Contribution Plan Committee Chair and Practice Management Vice Chair; Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group and a current member of its Healthcare Coordinating Council; current Vice Chair of the ABA TIPS Employee Benefit Committee; the former Coordinator and a Vice-Chair of the Gulf Coast TEGE Council TE Division; on the Advisory Boards of InsuranceThoughtLeadership.com, HR.com, Employee Benefit News, and many other publications. She also previously served as a founding Board Member and President of the Alliance for Healthcare Excellence, as a Board Member and Board Compliance Committee Chair for the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas; the Board President of the early childhood development intervention agency, The Richardson Development Center for Children; Chair of the Dallas Bar Association Employee Benefits & Executive Compensation Committee; a member of the Board of Directors of the Southwest Benefits Association. For additional information about Ms. Stamer, see 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:

Comments Off on DOL Schools Halliburton With $18M+ Overtime Settlement; Other Employers & Executives Should Take Note | Employer, Exempt, FLSA, Non-Exempt, Overtime, Pay, Salaried, Worker, Worker Classification | Tagged: Compensation, Employer, Employment Practices Liability, FLSA, Human Resources, Minimum Wage, Officer & Director, Oil & Gas, Overtime | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

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

August 21, 2015

Employers sponsoring health plans and members of their management named as plan fiduciaries or otherwise having input or oversight over the health plan 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 obligate 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.

Employers, Insurers & Plan Fiduciaries Face Big Risks From Out-Of-Pocket Limit & Other 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.

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.

Of course, health insurance issuers, administrative service providers, brokers and consultants also face risks when health programs they sell or help administer are not properly designed, documented or administered in compliance with federal health plan rules. Since ACA generally extends the duty to comply with its out-of-pocket and many other reforms directly to insurers, insurers that issue non-compliant group or individual health plans generally risk direct liability for violations. Even where the violation doesn’t trigger direct liability for an insurer, third party or other administrative services provider, broker or consultant to an employer or fiduciary of a noncompliant health plan, these vendors generally need to be concerned about liability risks under a variety of theories. When the involvement includes discretionary involvement in the plan administration, of course, the vendor or advisor could face liability for breach of fiduciary duty under ERISA as ERISA defines fiduciary functionally. Even when not a fiduciary, however, insurance, administrative services or other plan vendors and consultants also should keep in mind that employers and fiduciaries that incur unexpected excise tax or other liability for an improperly designed or administered plan are likely to look to the consultants and brokers, administrative or other services or other vendors or advisors they relied on to help design or administer the group health plan. As a consequence, such vendors and consultants should use care to advise, and appropriately document their efforts to fully inform their clients and the appropriateness of their actions both to promote and preserve the client relationship and to guard against potential malpractice, deceptive marketing, breach of contract or other claims that unhappy employers or fiduciaries are likely to lodge against advisors or vendors who the employer or fiduciary relied upon to help design or properly document or administer the group health plan. Ensuring that clients obtain proper legal advice and review both helps mitigate liability for the client and, when done with sufficient timeliness to prevent or mitigate a compliance problem, the legal and relationship risks of the broker or consultant or other vendor that foreseeably often follow when a plan sponsor or fiduciary gets nailed for a noncompliant plan.

When working to manage risks, all parties should recognize the potential benefits of proper involvement of legal counsel in the process. While sponsoring 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.

Since the Form 8928 self-reporting and $100 per day excise tax penalty against employers sponsoring plans violating the out-of-pocket maximum and many other federal health care reforms became effective in 2014, time is of the essence. 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. Accordingly, employers and fiduciaries should not expect relief for current or 2014 violations to come from Congress anytime soon. What they can expect, however, is enforcement to accelerate. resident 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. Consequently, employer and other group health plan sponsors, their management, fiduciaries and vendors should move quickly to assess 2014 and current compliance and take corrective action as needed as quickly as possible.

Allowable Out-Of-Pocket Limit Amounts For 2014-2016

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 Harder Than Might Seem

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.

Such risk management steps generally might include:

Having their plan document reviewed and updated as necessary to comply with the out-of-pocket maximum and other federal health plan rules;
Using care in when selecting and contracting with plan insurers or other vendors, by credentialing the vendor and its practices, including provisions requiring insurers, administrators and other group health plan vendors 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
Work with qualified legal counsel experienced with these matters to help structure, conduct and document compliance efforts and learn what steps should be taken to prevent or quickly mitigate compliance concerns and contain risks and seeking advice promptly about remediation of risks in the event a compliance concern arises.

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 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 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 Sponsoring Employers Face Excise Taxes, Other Liabilities Unless Health Plans Comply With ACA Out-Of-Pocket & Other Federal Rules | ACA, Affordable Care Act, Cafeteria Plans, COBRA | Tagged: 401(k), 6039D, Affordable Care Act, benefit denial, co-payment, Copay, copayment, Corporate Compliance, deductible, EBSA, Employee, Employer, Fiduciary Liability, group health plan, Group Health plans, Health Care Reform, Health Plan, Health Plans, Insurance, insured, IRS, out-of-pocket maximum, participants, Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, self-insured, third party administrator | 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 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

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

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

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

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

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.

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, 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

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

July 27, 2015

Employers sponsoring group health plan coverage now or in 2014, check the adequacy of your insurer or third party administrator’s claims and appeals processes and notices. Employers that sponsor group health plans that violated certain health care reform mandates for claims and appeals imposed by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) will face a duty to pay an excise tax of $100 per violation per day under the expanded Form 8928 filing requirements made applicable to employers providing health plan coverage after 2013 under the Internal Revenue Code (Code), as well undermine the enforceability of claims and appeals decisions under Section 502(b) and trigger penalties of $125 per day ($1000 per day in the case of Department of Labor enforcement actions) against the plan administrator under Section 502(c) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).

Insurers and third party administrators providing claims and appeals services also should be concerned. Not only could these vendors face liability under ERISA, employer hit with fees almost certainly will look to the vendors responsible for performing these services for indemnification or other relief. Fixing past problems and preventing new violations is key to mitigating risks for all parties.

Because of the potential legal risks under the Code and ERISA, employers evaluating compliance to determine whether to file a Form 8928 generally should consult with legal counsel about whether and how best to structure and conduct the health plan compliance review to preserve distinctions between their business operations and fiduciary activities performed on behalf of the plan, as well as any opportunities to use attorney-client privilege, work product or other evidentiary rules to mitigate their risks and exposures.

Even before ACA, ERISA already required that group health plans and their plan administrators and fiduciary comply with a long list of highly technical rules when processing and administering claims and appeals and notifying plan members about these activities. The ACA claims and appeals rules covered by the Form 8928 filing and excise tax rules are additional notice and procedural safeguards imposed upon group health plans in addition to these long-standing ERISA claims and appeals procedures. As implemented by current Department of Labor Regulations, these ACA claims and appeals procedures require that group health plans (other than grandfathered plans) both comply with:

All of the pre-existing ERISA claims and appeals rules; and
Notify members or their beneficiaries of their rights to and provide for independent review of coverage rescission decisions and medical judgment-based claims denials in accordance with detailed rules set forth in the Labor Department Regulations; and
Comply with tighter procedural and notice standards for processing claim and appeals imposed by ACA in accordance with the detailed rules set forth in the Labor Department Regulations.

While most employers that sponsor group health plans historically have assumed that the insurers or other health plan vendors hired to administer their programs have designed and administer claims and appeals in compliance with these mandates, the processes and notices of many health plan insurers and self-insured plan claims and appeals vendors typically fall far short of meeting the requirements of even the pre-existing ERISA claims and appeals requirements as implemented by Labor Department Regulations since 2001, much less the additional independent review and other ACA claims and appeals requirements.

Post-2013 deficiencies in the practices of many insurers and other health plan vendors’ claims and appeals processes and notifications now leave many employers exposed to significant excise tax penalties. While under ERISA, group health plans and their responsible plan administrator or other applicable named fiduciary, not the sponsoring employer, generally bear the responsibility and liability for administering the group health plan in accordance with ACA’s claims and appeals and the other group health plan requirements covered by Form 8928, the Code’s extension of the Form 8928 filing requirement and imposition of significant excise taxes against employers that sponsor group health plans that violate these requirements is designed to give businesses sponsoring group health plans meaningful incentives to take steps to ensure that their group health plan is properly designed and administered by its insurers and fiduciaries to comply with the listed requirements.

Under Code Section 6039D, businesses sponsoring group health plans are required to self-assess and pay excise taxes of up to $100 per day for each uncorrected violation of a specified list of federal health plan mandates by filing a Form 8928 when the business files its corporate or partnership tax return for the applicable taxable year. Before 2014, the Form 8928 filing requirement applied to a fairly narrow set of requirements. Beginning with 2014, however, ACA added the ACA claims and appeals rules as well as a long list of other ACA requirements to the health plan violations subject to Form 8928 disclosures and excise taxes. If a business sponsored a health plan that violated the ACA claims and appeals rules or any other health plan rule subject to the Form 8928 filing requirement in 2014 or thereafter, the business should take prompt, well-documented actions to self-correct the violation or timely must file the required Form 8929 and pay the applicable $100 per violation per day excise tax since proof of good faith efforts to maintain compliance, proof of self-correction, or both may mitigate these excise tax and other Form 8928 liability as well as associated ERISA exposures. Likewise, during the current and future years after 2013, businesses offering group health plan coverage to their employees also will want to monitor their health plan’s compliance with the federal group health plan rules covered by Form 8929 reporting to avoid or mitigate these risks going forward.

Since federal group health plan violations that trigger the Form 8928 requirement of a sponsoring employer also generally create potential exposures for the ERISA exposures for the group health plan, parties acting as the “plan administrator” or other “fiduciary” role with respect to the plan or both under ERISA, the group health plan and its plan administrator or other responsible fiduciary (sometimes, but not always the employer or a member of its management), the group health plan, and those parties acting as the plan administrator or fiduciary responsible for administering the plan in compliance with those requirements also will want to be prepared to demonstrate that prudent steps are taken to administer the group health plan in accordance with the applicable mandates, including prudently to investigate and redress any suspected concerns identified in connection with the employer’s Form 8928 filing analysis. Under ERISA, for instance, the group health plan’s failure to strictly comply with any one of the highly technical claims or appeals procedural or notification requirements of ACA can give the affected plan member or its assignee the ability to sue the group health plan without the need to fulfill otherwise applicable appeals or other procedures that otherwise might apply under the group health plan’s claims and appeals procedures as well as have other adverse consequences for the group health plan or its fiduciaries, may heightened the burdens of proof the plan or its fiduciaries must meet to sustain denial determinations, or both. In addition, where the ACA violation included a failure to comply with ACA’s claims or appeals notification requirements, the violation also could provide the basis for the plan member to ask a court to order the plan administrator to pay the plan member up to $125 per day per violation plus attorneys’ fees and enforcement costs, the basis for the Department of Labor to penalize the plan administrator up to $1025 per day per violation per plan member, or both. While technically these ERISA exposures generally run specifically to the plan or the party serving as its plan administrator or responsible fiduciary, the employer frequently ultimately pays for these liabilities either because:

The plan documentation names the sponsoring business as the plan administrator or named fiduciary responsible for these actions;
The vendor agreement between the sponsoring business and the insurer or other service provider that the business hired to perform these duties requires the sponsoring business to indemnify the vendor for these liabilities; or
Both.

While the sponsoring business and parties serving as the plan administrator or other fiduciaries of the plan all have potential legal risk if the plan is not administered in accordance with the ACA claims and appeals procedures or other requirements covered by the Form 8928 filing requirements, all parties need to be mindful of the distinctions between the Form 8928 and other exposures that a sponsoring employer bears under the Code as compared to the ERISA fiduciary responsibility and other duties imposed upon the plan and its fiduciaries under ERISA. Maintenance of proper separation between these roles and appropriate structuring of communications between the sponsoring business with the plan and its fiduciaries and vendors is important to minimize the risk that the sponsoring business unintentionally will create or broaden the fiduciary liability exposures of the business by unnecessarily or inappropriately exercising discretion or control over the administration of plan duties that the plan terms allocate to other parties. Also, plan sponsors engaging in compliance reviews and associated discussions generally have a greater ability to use attorney-client privilege and work product than plan fiduciaries. Accordingly, businesses sponsoring their group health plans and their management generally will want to consult with qualified, experienced legal counsel for advice about whether and how to structure their Form 8928 assessments and associated risk analysis and correction discussions to promote and preserve the ability of the business, as the sponsoring employer, and its management to minimize ERISA fiduciary exposures and claim and use attorney-client privilege and work product evidentiary privileges to contain the scope of ERISA associated risks.

Going forward, businesses also will want to obtain advice of counsel about opportunities to mitigate Form 8928, ERISA and other exposures through more careful credentialing and contracting with health plan insurers and vendors, review and drafting of plan documents, summary plan descriptions and other plan materials, and other risk management and compliance processes and procedures. See Careful Selection & Contracting With Vendors Critical Part of Health Plan Renewals.

While most employers will not be able to negotiate the ideal contractual provisions and all operational violations, careful plan drafting to comply with applicable rules, vendor credentialing and contracting, and monitoring of compliance by an employer can reduce the risk and frequencies of violation and promote timely self-correction. In addition, the documented administration of these and other efforts by the employer can provide invaluable evidence to position the sponsoring employer to minimize or secure a waiver of excise taxes that otherwise might arise under the Code, pursue indemnification for liabilities the employer incurs due to the misfeasance of the insurer or vendor or both.

For Help or More Information

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

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 an practicing attorney, author, lecturer and industry and policy thought leader have resulted in her recognition as a “Top” attorney in employee benefits, labor and employment and health care law.

Board certified in labor and employment law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, a Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, 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 HIPAA and other health 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 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.

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 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 Health Insurer/Vendor’s Claims & Appeals Deficiencies Could Trigger Significant Employer Excise Tax Liability | 6039D, ACA, Appeals, Attorney-Client Privilege, Claims, Excise Taxes, Fiduciary Responsibility, Health Benefits, Health Care Reform, Internal Controls, Obamacare | Tagged: 6039D, 8928, ACA, benefits, Claims, compliance, Employer, ERISA, Excise Tax, Form 8927, Health Benefits, Health Claims, Health Plans, Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act, Risk Management, Tax | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

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

July 11, 2015

Health plans, insurers and other health plan industry service providers widespread use and reliance on internet applications to access and share protected health information when performing online enrollment, claims administration and payment, reporting, member and provider communications and a host of other key health plan functions makes it particularly important for health plans, their employer or other sponsors, fiduciaries, insurers and other vendors and their management to respond quickly to a warning from Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) Office of Civil Rights (OCR) warning to ensure applications and systems properly safeguard protected health information (PHI) as required by the Health Insurance Portability & Accountability (HIPAA) Privacy, Security & Breach Notification Rules (HIPAA Rules) and other laws made in its July 10, 2015 announcement of its latest HIPAA settlement.

The new Resolution Agreement with the Massachusetts based hospital system, St. Elizabeth’s Medical Center (SEMC) settles charges OCR made that SEMC reached HIPAA by failing to protect the security of PHI when using internet applications to access and share PHI. The Resolution Agreement also shows how complaints filed with OCR by workforce members can create additional compliance headaches for Covered Entities or their business associates while the “robust corrective action plan” imposed under the Resolution Agreement shares examples of ladder reporting and management oversight and documentation Covered Entities and business associates can expect to need to prove their organizations maintains the “culture of compliance” with HIPAA OCR expects in the event of an OCR audit or investigation.

With recent reports on massive health plan HIPAA and other data breaches fueling widespread participant and regulatory concern over identity theft and other data security, Covered Entities and their business associates should prepare to defend the adequacy of their own HIPAA and other data security practices in the event of an OCR breach investigation or audit. Accordingly, health plans and their employer or other sponsors, health plan fiduciaries, health plan vendors acting as business associates and others dealing with health plans and their management should contact legal counsel experienced in these matters for advice within the scope of attorney-client privilege about how to respond to the OCR warning and other developments to manage their HIPAA and other privacy and data security legal and operational risks and liabilities.

SEMC Resolution Agreement Overview

The SEMC Resolution Agreement settles OCR charges that SEMC violated HIPAA stemming from an OCR investigation of a November 16, 2012 complaint by SEMC workforce members and a separate data breach report SEMC separately made to OCR of a breach of unsecured electronic PHI (ePHI) stored on a former SEMC workforce member’s personal laptop and USB flash drive affecting 595 individuals. In their complaint, SEMC workers complained SEMC violated HIPAA by allowing workforce members to use an internet-based document sharing application to share and store documents containing electronic protected health information (ePHI) of at least 498 individuals without adequately analyzing the risks. OCR says its investigation of the complaint and breach report revealed among other things that:

SEMC improperly disclosed the PHI of at least 1,093 individuals;
SEMC failed to implement sufficient security measures regarding the transmission of and storage of ePHI to reduce risks and vulnerabilities to a reasonable and appropriate level; and
SEMC failed to timely identify and respond to a known security incident, mitigate the harmful effects of the security incident, and document the security incident and its outcome.

To resolve OCR’s charges, SMCS agreed to pay $218,400 to OCR and implement a “robust corrective action plan” to correct these alleged HIPAA violations. While the required settlement payment is relatively small, the Resolution Agreement’s focus security requirements for internet application and data use and sharing activities engaged in by virtually every Covered Entity and business associate make the Resolution Agreement merit the immediate attention of all Covered Entities, their business associates and their management.

SEMC HIPAA Specific Compliance Lessons For Health Plans & Business Associates

In announcing the Resolution Agreement, OCR Director Jocelyn Samuels sent a clear warning to all Covered Entities and their business associates “to pay particular attention to HIPAA’s requirements when using internet-based document sharing applications,” stating “In order to reduce potential risks and vulnerabilities, all workforce members must follow all policies and procedures, and entities must ensure that incidents are reported and mitigated in a timely manner.”

The Resolution Agreement makes clear that OCR expects health plans and other Covered Entities and their business associates to be able to show both their timely investigation of reported or suspected HIPAA susceptibilities or violations as well as to self-audit and spot test HIPAA compliance in their operations. The SEMC corrective action plan also indicates Covered Entities and business associates must be able to produce documentation and other evidence needed to show the top to bottom dedication to HIPAA compliance necessary to prove a “culture of compliance” with HIPAA permeates their organizations.

In light of OCR’s warning and expectations, Covered Entities and business associates should start by considering the advisability for their own organization to take one or more of the steps outlined in the “robust corrective action plan” included in the Resolution Agreement, starting with the specific steps the corrective action plan requires SEMC to address its internet application security concerns such as:

Conducting self-audits and spot checks of workforce members’ familiarity and compliance with HIPAA policies and procedures on transmitting ePHI using unauthorized networks; storing ePHI on unauthorized information systems, including unsecured networks and devices; removal of ePHI from SEMC; prohibition on sharing accounts and passwords for ePHI access or storage; encryption of portable devices that access or store ePHI; security incident reporting related to ePHI; and
Inspecting laptops, smartphones, storage media and other portable devices, workstations and other devices containing ePHI and other data devices and systems and their use; and
Conducting other tests and audits of security and compliance with policies, processes and procedures; and
Documenting results, findings, and corrective actions including appropriate up the ladder reporting and management oversight of these and other HIPAA compliance expectations, training and other efforts.

Broader HIPAA Compliance & Risk Management Lessons

Beyond the specific internet applications and other security of ePHI lessons in the Resolution Agreement, Covered Entities and their business associates also should be mindful of other more subtle, but equally important broader HIPAA compliance and risk management lessons provided in the Resolution Agreement and other recent OCR guidance about their overall HIPAA compliance responsibilities.

One of the most significant of these lessons is the need for proper workforce training, oversight and management. The Resolution Agreement sends an undeniable message that OCR expects Covered Entities, business associates and their leaders to be able to show their effective oversight and management of the operational compliance of their systems and members of their workforce with HIPAA policies. The SEMC corrective action plan should prompt Covered Entities and business associates to weigh the adequacy of their existing workforce training, reporting, investigation and other management processes and documentation. Meanwhile, OCR’s report that an OCR complaint made by SEMC insiders to OCR prompted its investigation also should sensitize Covered Entities and their business associates of the need to ensure that their workforce training and management processes are appropriate to position their organization both to show their processes encourage proper internal reporting and investigation of compliance concerns, as well as manage the inevitable HIPAA and other human resources retaliation and whistleblower exposures that can arise out of such reports.

The Resolution Agreement also provides insights to the internal corporate processes and documentation of compliance efforts that Covered Entities and business associates may need to show their organization has the required “culture of compliance” needed to mitigate consequences of breaches or other compliance glitches. Particularly notable are Resolution Agreement’s terms on the documentation and up the ladder reporting to management and OCR of SEMC’s self-audit and self-correction activities and management oversight and management of these activities. Like tips shared by HHS in the recently released Practical Guidance for Health Care Governing Boards on Compliance Oversight, these details in the Resolution Agreement provide invaluable tips to Boards and other leaders of Covered Entities and business associates about steps they can take to promote their ability to demonstrate their organizations have the necessary culture of HIPAA compliance OCR expects.

Health Plan HIPAA Compliance Risks & Responsibilities of Employers & Their Leaders

While HIPAA places the primary duty for complying with HIPAA on Covered Entities and business associates, health plan sponsors and their management still need to make HIPAA compliance a priority for many practical and legal reasons.

As employers forced to cope with the deluge of fears and questions of employees and other health plan members impacted by recent massive PHI breach reports shared by Blue Cross association health insurance plan giants, Anthem and Premera can attest, HIPAA data breach or other compliance reports often trigger significant financial, administrative, workforce satisfaction and other operational costs employer health plan sponsors. Inevitable employee concern about health plan data breaches undermines employee value and satisfaction of the health benefit plan as an employee benefit. These concerns also usually require employers to expend significant management and financial resources to respond to these concerns and address other employer fallout from the breach.

The costs of investigation and redress of a known or suspected HIPAA data or other breach typically far exceed the actual damages to participants resulting from the breach. While HIPAA technically does not make sponsoring employers directly responsible for these duties or the costs of their performance, as a practical matter sponsoring employers typically can expect to pay costs and other expenses that its health plan incurs to investigate and redress a HIPAA breach. For one thing, except in the all too rare circumstances where employers as plan sponsors have specifically negotiated more favorable indemnification and liability provisions in their vendor contracts, employer and other health plan sponsors usually agree in their health plan vendor contracts to pay the expenses and to indemnify health plan insurers, third party administrators, and other vendors for costs and liabilities arising from HIPAA breaches or other events arising in the course of the administration of the health plan. Since employers typically are obligated to pay health plan costs in excess of participant contributions, employers also typically would be required to provide the funding their health plan needs to cover these costs even in the absence of such indemnification agreements.

Sponsoring employers and their management also should be aware the employer’s exception from direct liability for HIPAA Rule compliance does not fully insulate the employer or its management from legal risks in the event of a health plan data breach or other HIPAA violation.

While HIPAA generally limits direct responsibility for compliance with the HIPAA Rules to a health plan or other Covered Entity and their business associates, HIPAA hybrid entity and other organizational rules and criminal provisions of HIPAA, as well as various other federal laws arguably could create liability risks for the employer. See, e.g., Cyber Liability, Healthcare: Healthcare Breaches: How to Respond; Restated HIPAA Regulations Require Health Plans to Tighten Privacy Policies and Practices; Cybercrime and Identity Theft: Health Information Security Beyond. For example, hybrid entity and other organizational provisions in the HIPAA Rules generally require employers and their health plan to ensure that health plan operations are appropriately distinguished from other employer operations in order for otherwise non-covered human resources, accounting or other employer activities to avoid subjecting their otherwise non-covered employer operations and data to HIPAA Rules. To achieve this required designation and separation, the HIPAA rules typically also require that the health plan include specific HIPAA language and the employer and health plan take appropriate steps to designate and separate health plan records and data, workforces, and operations from the non-covered business operations and records of the sponsoring employer. Failure to fulfill these requirements could result in the unintended spread of HIPAA restrictions and liabilities to other aspects of the employer’s human resources or other operations. Sponsoring employers will want to confirm that health plan and other operations and workforces are properly designated, distinguished and separated to reduce this risk.

When putting these designations and separations in place, employers also generally will want to make arrangements to ensure that their health plan includes the necessary terms and the employer implements the policies necessary for the employer to provide the certifications to the health plan that HIPAA will require that the health plan receive before HIPAA will allow health plan PHI to disclosed to the employer or its representative for the limited underwriting and other specified plan administration purposes permitted by the HIPAA Rules.

Once these arrangements are in place, employers and their management also generally will want to take steps to minimize the risk that their organization or a member of the employer’s workforce honors these arrangements and does not improperly access or use health plan PHI, systems in violation of these conditions or other HIPAA Rules. This or other wrongful use or access of health plan PHI or systems could violate criminal provisions of HIPAA or other federal laws making it a crime for any person – including the employer or a member of its workforce – from wrongfully accessing health plan PHI, electronic records or systems. Since health plan PHI records also typically include personal tax, social security information that the Internal Revenue Code, the Social Security Act and other federal laws generally would require the employer to keep confidential and to protect against improper use, employers and their management also generally should be concern about potential exposures for their organization that could result from improper use or access of this information in violation of these other federal laws. Since HIPAA and some of these other laws under certain conditions make it a felony crime to violate these rules, employer and their management generally will want to treat compliance with these federal rules as critical elements of the employer’s Federal Sentencing Guideline and other compliance programs.

Beyond the already discussed concerns, employers or members of their management also may have an incentive to promote health plan compliance with HIPAA or other health plan privacy or data security requirements to many the exposure of the employer or management or other staff to statutory, regulatory, contractual or ethical liabilities arising under ERISA, Internal Revenue Code, the Fair & Accurate Credit Transaction Act (FACTA), trade secret, insurance, disability, identity theft, cybersecurity or other federal or state laws.

For instance, health plan sponsors and management involved in health plan decisions, administration or oversight could face personal fiduciary liability risks under ERISA for failing to act prudently to ensure that the health plan compliance with HIPAA and other federal privacy and data security requirements.. ERISA’s broad functional fiduciary definition encompasses both persons and entities appointed as “named” fiduciaries and others who functionally exercise discretion or control over a plan or its administration. Consequently, the sponsoring employer and certain members of its human resources or other executive management team who functionally possess or exercise responsibility or authority over the administration of the employer’s health plan or its data or other assets, the selection or oversight of plan fiduciaries, vendors, or other workforce members its administration, or other key health plan operations risk ERISA fiduciary liability for their own failures to act prudently in carrying out HIPAA compliance or other responsibilities or to take action when they know or should know that another fiduciary is or has breached these duties. This fiduciary status and risk can occur even if the entity or individual does not is not named a named fiduciary, expressly disclaims fiduciary responsibility or does not realize it bears fiduciary status or responsibility. Since fiduciaries generally bear personal liability for their own breaches of fiduciary duty as well as potential co-fiduciary liability for fiduciary breaches committed by others that they knew or prudently should have known, most employers and members of their management will make HIPAA health plan compliance a priority to avoid or minimize these potential ERISA fiduciary exposures.

Furthermore, most employers and their management also will appreciate the desirability of taking reasonable steps to manage potential exposures that the employer or members of its management could face if their health plan or the employer violates the anti-retaliation rules of HIPAA or other laws through the adoption and administration of appropriate human resources, internal investigation and reporting, risk management policies and practices. See Employee & Other Whistleblower Complaints Common Source of HIPAA Privacy & Other Complaints.

Act To Manage HIPAA & Other Related Risks

OCR’s release of the Resolution Agreement on the heels of widespread publicity about massive health plan and other data breaches at Blue Cross health care giants, Anthem and Premera and other U.S. businesses and the potential legal and financial exposures that a HIPAA data breach or other violation could create, health plans and their sponsors, insurers, business associates, and leaders should appreciate the advisability of acting promptly to ensure that their health plans and business associates are taking appropriate steps to comply with the HIPAA Rules and manage other associated risks and liabilities. At minimum, health plans and their business associates should move quickly to conduct a documented assessment of the adequacy of their health plan internet applications and other HIPAA compliance in in light of the Resolution Agreement and other developments. Given the scope and diversity of the legal responsibilities, risks and exposures associated with this analysis, most health plan sponsors, fiduciaries, business associates and their management also will want to consider taking other steps to mitigate various other legal and operational risks that lax protection or use of health plan PHI or systems could create for their health plan, its sponsors, fiduciaries, business associates and their management. Health plan fiduciaries, sponsors and business associates and their leaders also generally will want to explore options to use indemnification agreements, liability insurance or other risk management tools as a stop gap against the costs of investigation or defense of a HIPAA security or other data breach.

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

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 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.

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 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.™

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
More Work For Employers, Benefit Plans Following SCOTUS Same-Sex Marriage Ruling
Businesses Must Confirm & Clean Up Health Plan ACA & Other Compliance Following Supreme Court’s King v. Burwell Decision
Obama Administration Devoting $1.25 Million To Find Ways To Encourage States To Force Employers To Give Paid Leave
IRS FAQ Addresses Determination Letter Program As Applied To Multiple Employer Plans
OSHA Rules Requires New Construction Industry Close Space Safeguards
2016 & 2017 Health Plan Budgets, Workplans Should Anticipate Expected Changes To SBCs
$1.4M FLSA Back Pay Award Demonstrates Worker Misclassification Risks
Discrimination Rules Create Risks For Employer Reliance On Injunction Of FMLA Rule On Same-Sex Partners’ Marital Status
Obama Executive Order’s Prohibition Of Government Contractor Sexual Orientation & Gender Identity Discrimination Creates Challenges For All US Employers
Congress Passes Joint Resolution Overturning NLRB “Quickie Election Rule”
IRS Changes Plan Correction Procedures

Comments Off on HIPAA Settlement Warns Health Plans, Sponsoring Employers & Business Associates To Manage HIPAA Risks | 105(h), ADA, ARRA, Cafeteria Plans, Civil Rights, Claims Administration, Corporate Compliance, Defined Contribution Plans, Employee Benefits, Employers, ERISA, Fiduciary Responsibility, GINA, Government Contractors, Health Plans, HIPAA, Human Resources, Mental Health, MEWA, Retaliation, Risk Management | Tagged: Breach Notification, Data Breach, Employer, ERISA, Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Fiduciary Duties, Health Plans, HIPAA, Privacy, Risk Managemnet | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

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

June 30, 2015

U.S. should brace for potentially huge increases in their federal minimum wage overtime costs and liabilities if the U.S. Department of Labor Wage and Hour Division (WHD) implements a Proposed Fair Labor Standards Act Rule Change (Proposed Rule) that would extend overtime pay rights to nearly 5 million additional workers by guaranteeing overtime pay to most salaried workers earning less than an estimated $50,440 next year. While the Proposed Rule has not yet been published in the Federal Register, the WHD released a prepublication copy for public review in connection with President Obama’s announcement of plans to implement the change yesterday.

The FLSA currently requires that covered employees be paid at least the federal minimum wage of $7.25 for all hours worked, plus time and one-half their regular rates, including commissions, bonuses and incentive pay, for hours worked beyond 40 per week. Employers also must maintain accurate time and payroll records. The FLSA provides that employers who violate the law are liable to employees for their back wages and an equal amount in liquidated damages. Liquidated damages are paid directly to the affected employees.

These FLSA rules generally apply to all common law employees other than those that the employer can prove meet the requirements of one of a limited number of exemptions to these rules. The Proposed Rule would change the requirements for one of the exemptions most commonly relied upon by employers for not paying overtime to salaried workers – the “White Collar Exemption.”

Since 1940 and last updated by the WHD while President George W. Bush was President, generally have required an employer prove that an employee meets each of three tests for one of the FLSA’s White Collar Exemptions to apply:

The employee must be paid a predetermined and fixed salary that is not subject to reduction because of variations in the quality or quantity of work performed;
The amount of salary paid must meet a minimum specified amount; and
The employee’s job duties must primarily involve executive, administrative, or professional duties as defined by the regulations.

Among other things, the Proposed Rule if adopted as presently proposed would update current WHD regulations governing which executive, administrative, and professional employees (white collar workers) qualify as exempt from the FLSA minimum wage and overtime requirements often referred to as the “White Collar Exemption”:

Immediately raise the threshold under which most salaried workers are guaranteed overtime to equal the 40th percentile of weekly earnings for full-time salaried workers. As proposed, this would raise the salary threshold from $455 a week ($23,660 a year) to a projected level of $970 a week ($50,440 a year) in 2016. WHD says nearly doubling the minimum salary threshold for a worker to qualify as exempt “minimizes the risk that employees legally entitled to overtime will be subject to misclassification based solely on the salaries they receive, without excluding from exemption an unacceptably high number of employees who meet the duties test.”;
Increase the total annual compensation requirement needed to exempt highly compensated employees (HCEs) to the annualized value of the 90th percentile of weekly earnings of full-time salaried workers ($122,148 annually); and
Establish a mechanism for automatically updating these qualifying standard salary and HCE total annual compensation requirements.

Beyond these changes, the WHD also is considering various changes to the duties test and invites suggestions for additional occupational examples in the current White Collar Exemption as well as comments on whether its regulations should require employers to take into account nondiscretionary bonuses when determining whether an employee meets the standard salary requirement.

The Administration claims that the Proposed Rule is needed to workers and their employers with greater “clarity” about when workers qualify for overtime. Employers concerned about minimum wage, overtime and other wage and hour costs should recognize that the Proposed Rule would accomplish this clarification by substantially expanding the income and number of white collar workers that entitled to be paid in accordance with the FLSA’s minimum wage and overtime rules.

Even without the adoption of the Proposed Rule, U.S. businesses already face huge and ever-growing FLSA minimum wage, overtime and recordkeeping exposures. The availability of substantial actual and punitive damages plus attorneys fees and difficulties that unprepared employers frequently encounter meeting their burdens of proof make wage and hour and overtime claims attractive lawsuits for disgruntled employees and their plaintiff’s counsel. Meanwhile, the pro-worker’s rights Obama Administration has made enforcement of these rules a high priority. Increasingly, the reach of these exposures has expanded further as plaintiffs and the WHD have challenges effectively many employers’ classification of workers as independent contractors. See $1.4M FLSA Back Pay Award Demonstrates Worker Misclassification Risks. Amid these already substantial exposures, most employers will view proposals to expand the scope of workers eligible for FLSA rights and protections as extremely concerning.

Employers concerned about the potential implications of this rule should begin reviewing the Proposed Rule in preparation of providing comments and feedback to members of Congress, the WHD through its rulemaking comment process, and the public. The deadline for commenting to the WHD will be 60 days from the date of publication of the Proposed Rule in the Federal Register.

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:

Comments Off on Obama Administration Proposal Would Extend FLSA Minimum Wage & Overtime Requirements To 5 Million+ Workers | Uncategorized | Tagged: benefits, Compensation, compliance, Earnings, Employer, Employment, exempt employee, FLSA, Hourly Employee, Human Resources, Management, Minium Wage, Overtime, salaried employee, Salary, wage and hour, Wage and Hour division, Wages, White Collar Exemption, Workforce | 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

IRS FAQ Addresses Determination Letter Program As Applied To Multiple Employer Plans

May 6, 2015

Multiple employer plans, -i.e., a plan maintained by two or more employers that don’t have sufficient overlapping ownership to be considered a single employer for purposes of the Internal Revenue Code (Code) or other laws-can be attractive options for some plan sponsors to minimize their individual costs for offering qualified deferred compensation or other employee benefit plans. Sponsors, fiduciaries and participating employers involved with these arrangements need to keep in mind, however, that these arrangements also often trigger special legal rules, exposures and operational challenges under the Internal Revenue Code (Code), the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and other laws.

One of these issues can be the scope of protection that a determination letter issued to a plan sponsor of a multiple employer plan. To help clarify some common questions about the treatment of multiple employer plans in its determination letter program, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) on March 30, 2015 published a new set of “Frequently Asked Questions” (FAQs) that provide some insights about the IRS’ current position on some of these issues, subject to the understanding that IRS does not consider its answers to frequently asked questions as appropriate for citation as legal authority. Subject to this disclaimer, the new FAQ states:

Does each adopting employer have to come in for an individual determination letter?

No, it’s not necessary for all adopting employers to apply for a determination letter on Form 5300, Application for Determination for Employee Benefit Plan. The sponsors of the plan have two choices:

Submit just for a determination letter on the plan; or
Submit for letter on the plan and a letter for each employer maintaining the plan who wants an individual letter. See Revenue Procedure 2015-6, section 10.

Are the adopting employers required to give Notice to Interested Parties if they are not coming in for individual letters?

Yes, each employer must provide notice to interested parties. The rule permitting one consolidated determination letter for a multiple employer plan does not change the “Notice to Interested Parties” requirement.

Do the employers maintaining the plan have reliance on the determination letter issued to the plan?

Yes. Revenue Procedure 2015-6, section 10, states: “An employer maintaining a multiple employer plan can rely on a favorable determination letter issued for the plan except with respect to the requirements of §§ 401(a)(4), 401(a)(26), 401(l), 410(b) and 414(s), and, if the employer maintains or has ever maintained another plan, §§ 415 and 416.”

Is a volume submitter plan’s submission cycle affected if it changes to a multiple-employer plan?

No, conversion of a volume submitter (VS) plan to a multiple-employer plan does not take the plan off of the 6-year remedial amendment cycle. A VS plan may be designed to be used as either a single-employer or as a multiple-employer plan. Conversion occurs when the adopting employer decides to allow an unrelated employer to also adopt its VS plan. Even if the employer had to modify the VS plan to allow it to be used as a multiple-employer plan, this would not remove the employer from the 6-year cycle because a multiple employer plan is not an impermissible plan type for a VS plan.

What form is used to request a determination letter for a VS plan that was modified to be a multiple-employer plan?

An employer requesting a determination letter for a VS plan that was modified for use as a multiple-employer plan should file Form 5300 (not Form 5307). The Form 5300 has to be used because the Form 5307 does not accommodate filings by multiple- employer plans. If the employer has not modified the VS plan at all, for example, because the VS plan allows for use as either a single-employer or as a multiple-employer plan, the employer has reliance on the VS advisory letter issued to the document provider and should not file for its own determination letter.

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.

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

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 IRS FAQ Addresses Determination Letter Program As Applied To Multiple Employer Plans | Uncategorized | Tagged: 401(k), defined contribution plans, employee benefit plan, Employer, IRS, multiemployer plans, plan qualification, retirement plan, Tax | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

OSHA Rules Requires New Construction Industry Close Space Safeguards

May 1, 2015

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration today issued a final rule to increase protections for construction workers in confined spaces. Compliance assistance material and additional information is available on OSHA’s Confined Spaces in Construction Web page. The new Rule imposes new safety standards for construction work in small spaces.

OSHA says manholes, crawl spaces, tanks and other confined spaces are not intended for continuous occupancy. They are also difficult to exit in an emergency. People working in confined spaces face life-threatening hazards including toxic substances, electrocutions, explosions and asphyxiation. For instance, last year two workers were asphyxiated while repairing leaks in a manhole, the second when he went down to save the first — which is not uncommon in cases of asphyxiation in confined spaces.

“In the construction industry, entering confined spaces is often necessary, but fatalities like these don’t have to happen,” said Secretary of Labor Thomas E. Perez. “This new rule will significantly improve the safety of construction workers who enter confined spaces. In fact, we estimate that it will prevent about 780 serious injuries every year.”

The rule will provide construction workers with protections similar to those manufacturing and general industry workers have had for more than two decades, with some differences tailored to the construction industry. These include requirements to ensure that multiple employers share vital safety information and to continuously monitor hazards — a safety option made possible by technological advances after the manufacturing and general industry standards were created.

“This rule will save lives of construction workers,” said Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health Dr. David Michaels. “Unlike most general industry worksites, construction sites are continually evolving, with the number and characteristics of confined spaces changing as work progresses. This rule emphasizes training, continuous worksite evaluation and communication requirements to further protect workers’ safety and health.”

The guidance reflects the growing emphasis of OSHA on construction safety. Construction employers should take steps to immediately comply with these new requirements as well as review the adequacy of their other safeguards for compliance with the ever-tightening mandates of OSHA for construction industry employers.

For Advice, Representation, Training & Other Resources

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 OSHA Rules Requires New Construction Industry Close Space Safeguards | Construction, Employer, OSHA, Safety, Workers' Compensation, Workforce | Tagged: Confined Spaces, Construction, Construction Law, Employer, Human Resources, OSHA, Real Estate, Safety, workers compensation | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

2016 & 2017 Health Plan Budgets, Workplans Should Anticipate Expected Changes To SBCs

April 28, 2015

Employer and union group health plans and health insurers should plan for the need to update their processes for preparing and distributing the Summary of Benefits & Coverage (SBC) that Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act (ACA) requires them to distribute to covered persons as part of their preparations for their 2016 plan year enrollment periods later this year and to prepare to respond to changes to the required SBC templates used to prepare their SBCs in 2017, according a recent update on proposed changes to existing SBC guidance recently released by the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and the Treasury (collectively, the Departments).

The duty to provide SBCs imposed by Public Health Service (PHS) Act section 2715, as added by ACA and incorporated by reference into the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and the Internal Revenue Code (Code), generally requires group health plans and group and individual insurers to prepare and provide a current SBC using template forms completed and provided in accordance with regulations jointly issued by the Departments..

Currently, the content, form, timing of distribution and other conditions that group health plans and health insurers currently must meet to fulfill § 2715’s SBC mandate are governed by the SBC final regulations jointly published February 14, 2012 and an accompanying document announcing the availability of templates, instructions, and related materials, as supplemented in six sets of FAQs regarding implementation of the SBC requirements. See final regulations, published at 77 FR 8668 (February 14, 2012) and guidance document published at 77 FR 8706 (February 14, 2012); Affordable Care Act Implementation FAQs Part VII available here and here; Part VIII available here and here; Part IX available here and here; Part X available here and here; Part XIV available here and here and Part XIX available here and here.

While group health plans, health insurers, their sponsors and administrators have continued to rely on this existing guidance when preparing and providing currently required SBCs, concern about the lead time required to conduct the analysis and other preparations needed to prepare the SBCs, has lead most health plans, health insurers, and their sponsors or administrators to monitor the proposals to modify current SBC guidance published by the Departments on December 30, 2014, which if adopted as originally published would require updates to the SBCs effective September 1, 2015. See here.

According to their latest update on plans to finalize these proposed changes, the Departments announced on March 30, 2015 in FAQs about Affordable Care Act Implementation (Part XXIV) that the Departments now plan to finalize changes to the regulations in the near future and for these changes to take effect for coverage that would renew or begin on the first day of the first plan year (or, in the individual market, policy year) that begins on or after January 1, 2016 (including open season periods that occur in the Fall of 2015 for coverage beginning on or after January 1, 2016).

FAQ Part XXIV also states that the Departments intend to finalizing revisions to the SBC template and associated documents. The Departments anticipate the new template and associated documents will be finalized by January 2016 and will apply to coverage that would renew or begin on the first day of the first plan year (or, in the individual market, policy year) that begins on or after January 1, 2017 (including open season periods that occur in the Fall of 2016 for coverage beginning on or after January 1, 2017).

Employer and other group health plan sponsors, individual and group health insurers and their administrators should include the expected need to respond to these anticipated updates to the SBC requirements in their planning and budgets for the 2016 and 2017 plan years and stay tuned for the Departments publication of the final rules expected later this year and updated templates thereafter.

For Help With Risk Management, Compliance & Other Management Concerns

If you need help to assess, update or defend your organization’s health or other employee benefit, human resources or other compliance and risk management processes, policies, practices or actions, please contact the author of this update, management attorney and consultant Cynthia Marcotte Stamer here or at (469) 767-8872.

Recognized as a “Top” Lawyer in Labor & Employment, Employee Benefits and Health Care law, 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, Ms. Stamer is widely recognized for her extensive, leading edge work helping employer and other plan sponsors, fiduciaries, insurers and administrators design, document, communicate, administer and defend health and other employee benefit plan designs,management manage, promote and defend health and other employee benefit plans and related human resources, insurance and other practices, policies, systems and processes.

A management attorney who helps management to promote their organizational goals by using the law and process to manage internal and external people, their performance, compensation and benefits and other operational resources and risks, Ms. Stamer has worked with a broad range of other public and private organizations with human resources, labor and employment, employee benefits, insurance and risk management, vendor and services procurement and management, contracting and policy and procedures drafting and enforcement, investigations, defense and remediation throughout her more than 27 year career.

Ms. Stamer works, publishes and speaks extensively on health and other employee benefit plan, human resources and other workforce management, reengineering, audits and investigations, internal controls and risk management, federal sentencing guideline and other enforcement resolution actions, and related matters. She also is recognized for her publications, industry leadership, workshops and presentations on these and other concerns and regularly speaks and conducts training on these matters.Her insights on these and other matters appear in the Bureau of National Affairs, Spencer Publications, the ABA, Insurance Thought Leadership, the Wall Street Journal, the Dallas Business Journal, the Houston Business Journal, and many other national and local publications.

For additional information about Ms. Stamer and her experience or to access other publications by Ms. Stamer see here or contact Ms. Stamer directly.

About Solutions Law Press

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

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

Comments Off on 2016 & 2017 Health Plan Budgets, Workplans Should Anticipate Expected Changes To SBCs | Uncategorized | Tagged: ACA, Affordable Care Act, compliance, Employer, Fiduciary Responsibility, Health Insurance, Health Plans, Plan Communications, Summary of Benefits and Communications | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Discrimination Rules Create Risks For Employer Reliance On Injunction Of FMLA Rule On Same-Sex Partners’ Marital Status

April 9, 2015

Employers covered by the Family & Medical Leave Act (FMLA) have a temporary reprieve from the obligation to comply with a change to the FMLA regulations’ definition of “spouse” that requires FMLA-covered employers to recognize certain same-sex relationships as marriages for purposes of the FMLA that had been slated to take effect on March 27, 2015 under a preliminary injunction order granted by the District Court for the Northern District of Texas in Texas v. U.S, No. 7:15-cv-00056-O, 2015 BL 84253 (N.D. Tex. Mar. 26, 2015). However the delay in the implementation of the regulation as a practical matter may present traps for unwary employers in light of federal employment discrimination law rules that prohibit employers from discriminating against employees based on sexual orientation or gender identity.

The preliminary injunction issued by Judge Reed O’Connor of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas on March 26 rule enjoins the Labor Department from enforcing a final regulation that would require employers covered by the FMLA to grant workers in legal same-sex marriages to take job-protected leave under the FMLA to care for a seriously ill spouse even if the state where the employee lives or works doesn’t recognize same-sex marriages.

The preliminary injunction resulted from a lawsuit brought by the attorney generals of Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana and Nebraska questioning the validity of change to the definition of “spouse” in DOL Regulation § 825.102 and § 825.122 to expand the definition of the term “spouse” for purposes of the FMLA to include same-sex relationships recognized as marriage under the state law of the location of the marriage celebration.

The Final Regulation redefining the term “spouse” for purposes of the FMLA is one of a host of changes to federal employment, tax, immigration and other regulations and enforcement policies announced by the Obama Administration in response to the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675, 118 FEP Cases 1417 (2013).

In Windsor, the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional and struck down Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which sought to preclude same-sex couples from being treated as married for purposes of federal law including the FMLA by restricting the definition of marriage for federal law only to relationships between persons of the opposite sex.

If and when implemented, the FMLA Final Regulation will revise the DOL’s FMLA regulations to provide that “Spouse” means

a husband or wife. For purposes of this definition, husband or wife refers to the other person with whom an individual entered into marriage as defined or recognized under state law for purposes of marriage in the State in which the marriage was entered into or, in the case of a marriage entered into outside of any State, if the marriage is valid in the place where entered into and could have been entered into in at least one State. This definition includes an individual in a same-sex or common law marriage that either:

Was entered into in a State that recognizes such marriages; or
If entered into outside of any State, is valid in the place where entered into and could have been entered into in at least one State.

According the DOL, the adoption of a place of celebration standard for determining marital status in the Final Rule ensures that all legally married employees have consistent FMLA leave rights regardless of where they live. The Department believes that this place of celebration rule will give fullest effect to the purpose of the FMLA to let employees to take unpaid, job-protected leave to care for a spouse for an FMLA-qualifying reason. Thus, whether a same-sex or other couple qualifies as married for purposes of the FMLA turns upon whether the couple is in a relationship legally recognized as a married in the state in which the ceremony was performed. However, the Final Regulation does not require employers to treat same-sex civil unions, as well as opposite-sex civil unions, as marriages and as such are not guaranteed the right to take FMLA spousal leave nor do have other protections of the Act, including from retaliation. As noted above, an employer may offer an employment benefit program or plan that provides greater family or medical leave rights to employees than the rights established by the FMLA, including voluntarily offering other types of leave for couples in civil unions. In addition, eligible employees in civil unions can take FMLA leave for their own serious health condition, for the birth of a child or the placement of a child for adoption or foster care and for bonding, to care for their child or parent with a serious health condition, and for qualifying military family leave reasons.

In Texas v. U.S., the states jointly argued that the Final Rule unlawfully interferes with state laws that prohibit same-sex marriage and bar recognition of out-of-state same-sex marriages. Explaining his finding that the states had demonstrated a substantial likelihood of prevailing on the merits on their claim that the Final Regulation violates the Full Faith & Credit Clause of the U.S. Constitution, Judge O’Conner wrote, “Congress has not delegated to the Department the power to force states defining marriages traditionally to afford benefits in accordance with the marriage laws of states defining marriage to include same-sex marriages.” Accordingly, Justice O’Conner ordered the Labor Department to stay implementation of the Final Regulation pending a decision on the merits of the states’ claims.

Even as Judge O’Connor issued his preliminary injunction, the Obama Administration was moving ahead to implement new mandates extending sweeping new protections prohibiting government contractors and subcontractors from discriminating against workers based on sexual orientation or gender identity under an Executive Order issued by President Obama that took effect April 8, 2015. See Obama Executive Order’s Prohibition Of Government Contractor Sexual Orientation & Gender Identity Discrimination Creates Challenges For All US Employers. Since the preliminary injunction issued by Judge O’Connor does not apply to that Executive Order, employers contemplating holding off granting FMLA rights to employees involved in same-sex relationships should consult with legal counsel about the potential that such delay, despite Judge O’Connor’s order, might form the basis of employment discrimination, government contracting regulation violations or both.

For Advice, Representation, Training & Other Resources

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

About Solutions Law Press

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

Comments Off on Discrimination Rules Create Risks For Employer Reliance On Injunction Of FMLA Rule On Same-Sex Partners’ Marital Status | Employers, Health Plans, HIPAA, Human Resources, Insurance | Tagged: Discrimination, DOMA, EEOC, Employee, Employer, Employment, employment law, Family Leave, FMLA, gender identity, Government Contractors, HIPAA, LGBT, OFCCP, Retaliation, same-sex, sexul preference, Whistleblower | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

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

April 8, 2015

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For Advice, Representation, Training & Other Resources

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

About Solutions Law Press

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

Congress Passess Joint Resolution Overturning NLRB “Quickie Election Rule”

March 27, 2015

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

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

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

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

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

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

For Help or More Information

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

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

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

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

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

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

IRS Changes Plan Correction Procedures

March 27, 2015

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

For Help or More Information

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

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

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

February 23, 2015

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

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

Expected topics for discussion include:

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

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

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

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

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. She not only is extensively involved in health, pension and workforce policy and regulation reform, she also helps employers, insurers, administrators and other benefit and human resources services providers and others design, implement, administer and defend innovative, pragmatic health and other employee benefit programs, products and practices.

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.

About Solutions Law Press

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

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

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

February 5, 2015

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

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

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

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

For Advice, Training & Other Resources

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

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

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

ANY STATEMENTS CONTAINED HEREIN ARE NOT INTENDED OR WRITTEN BY THE WRITER TO BE USED, AND NOTHING CONTAINED HEREIN CAN BE USED BY YOU OR ANY OTHER PERSON, FOR THE PURPOSE OF (1) AVOIDING PENALTIES THAT MAY BE IMPOSED UNDER FEDERAL TAX LAW, or (2) PROMOTING, MARKETING OR RECOMMENDING TO ANOTHER PARTY ANY TAX-RELATED TRANSACTION OR MATTER ADDRESSED HEREIN.

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

2015 Tax Standard Mileage Rates Announced

December 10, 2014

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

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

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

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

For Advice, Training & Other Resources

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

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

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

November 13, 2014

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

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

For Representation, Training & Other Resources

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

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

Vice President of the North Texas Health Care Compliance Professionals Association, Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Section and the former Board Compliance Chair of the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas, Ms. Stamer has more than 26 years experience advising health industry, insurance, technology and other clients to establish and administer compliance and risk management policies; prevent, conduct and investigate, and respond to peer review and other quality concerns; and to respond to OCR Privacy and Civil Rights, DOL, IRS, SEC, insurance department and other investigation and enforcement and other compliance, public policy, regulatory, staffing, and other operations and risk management concerns. The scribe for the American Bar Association (ABA) Joint Committee on Employee Benefits annual agency meeting with the Department of Health & Human Services Office of Civil Rights, Ms. Stamer has worked extensively with health care providers, health plans, health care clearinghouses, their business associates, employers, banks and other financial institutions, and others on risk management and compliance with HIPAA and other information privacy and data security rules, investigating and responding to known or suspected breaches, defending investigations or other actions by plaintiffs, OCR and other federal or state agencies, reporting known or suspected violations, business associate and other contracting, commenting or obtaining other clarification of guidance, training and enforcement, and a host of other related concerns. Her clients include public and private health care providers, health insurers, health plans, technology and other vendors, and others. In addition to representing and advising these organizations, she also has conducted training on Privacy & The Pandemic for the Association of State & Territorial Health Plans, as well as HIPAA, FACTA, PCI, medical confidentiality, insurance confidentiality and other privacy and data security compliance and risk management for Los Angeles County Health Department, ISSA, HIMMS, the ABA, SHRM, schools, medical societies, government and private health care and health plan organizations, their business associates, trade associations and others.

For the past four years, Ms. Stamer has served as the scribe for the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits agency meeting with OCR. Ms. Stamer also regularly works with OCR, FTC, USSS, FBI and state and local law enforcement on privacy, data security, health care, benefits and insurance and other matters, publishes and speaks extensively on medical and other privacy and data security, health and managed care industry regulatory, staffing and human resources, compensation and benefits, technology, public policy, reimbursement and other operations and risk management concerns. Her publications and insights appear in the Health Care Compliance Association, Atlantic Information Service, Bureau of National Affairs, World At Work, The Wall Street Journal, Business Insurance, the Dallas Morning News, Modern Health Care, Managed Healthcare, Health Leaders, and a many other national and local publications. For instance, Ms. Stamer for the second year will serve as the appointed scribe for the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits Agency meeting with OCR. Her insights on HIPAA risk management and compliance frequently appear in medical privacy related publications of a broad range of health care, health plan and other industry publications Among others, she has conducted privacy training for the Association of State & Territorial Health Plans (ASTHO), the Los Angeles Health Department, the American Bar Association, the Health Care Compliance Association, a multitude of health industry, health plan, insurance and financial services, education, employer employee benefit and other clients, trade and professional associations and others. You can get more information about her HIPAA and other experience here.

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

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

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

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

November 11, 2014

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

Sharing Patient Information

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

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

Treatment.

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

Public Health Activities.

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

To Or At The Direction Of A Public Health Authority.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Imminent Danger

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

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

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

Minimum Necessary Restriction Requirement

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

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

Required Internal Restrictions On Use, Access & Disclosure

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

Safeguarding Patient Information

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

Limited Waiver

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not Necessarily Just About HIPAA

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

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

Prepare For Compliance Now

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

For Representation, Training & Other Resources

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

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

Plan’s Purchase of Company Stock Triggers $6.48 Million Award Against ESOP Sponsor, Shareholder, Board Members & Trustees

November 2, 2014

A $6.48 million judgment against Direct TV satellite television installer, Bruister and Associates Inc.(BAI) its sole owner, Herbert Bruister, and other trustees of two BAI-sponsored employee stock ownership plans shows plan sponsors and trustees involved in stock purchase transactions where employee stock ownership plans commonly referred to as “ESOPs” and other employee benefit plan buy or hold investments in the stock of plan sponsors or other related businesses the risks of failing to conduct the transactions to ensure that the transactions are prudently performed and otherwise conducted in compliance with the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) fiduciary responsibility requirements.

BAI Lawsuit & Judgment Highlights

The BAI judgment stems from a Department of Labor lawsuit that charged BAI, along with BAI board members and plan trustees Bruister and Amy Smith, and plan trustee Jonda Henry engaged in prohibited transactions and breached other fiduciary duties under ERISA by causing the plans to purchase 100 percent of BAI’s shares for $24 million in three sales transactions conducted between December 2002 to December 2005.

According to court documents, Bruister, Smith and Henry, as plan fiduciaries, engaged in prohibited transactions by causing the plans to pay excessive prices for BAI stock purchased from Bruister. For each purchase, the Labor Department charged the fiduciaries used flawed valuations prepared by Matthew Donnelly and his firm, Business Appraisal Institute.

The court also found that the three fiduciaries breached their duty of loyalty from start to finish. Additionally, Bruister and his attorney David Johanson went so far as to fire the initial attorney representing the plans because that attorney was too thorough. Moreover, the court found that Bruister and Johanson exercised undue influence over Donnelly’s valuations, and that as a result, Donnelly was not sufficiently independent to provide valuations for the plans.

The court concluded that Bruister, Henry and Smith, in their role as plan fiduciaries, failed to properly represent plan participants’ interests, and that they unreasonably relied on an appraiser who so obviously lacked independence. The court reasoned, “An informed trustee would not have remained idle while the seller communicated directly with the employee stock ownership trust’s independent appraiser and financial advisor to elevate the price at the participants’ expense.”

Although Johanson was not a fiduciary, the court found his conduct worthy of comment because he both was the attorney for the seller and structured each sale. The court noted that Johanson attempted to influence the valuations in Bruister’s favor, and the testimony Johanson gave at trial did not support his denials. The court even noted that Johanson coached Donnelly during a break in his deposition to retract his testimony that Johanson represented Bruister individually. “History rebuts Johanson’s suggestion that he did not interfere with Donnelly’s valuations and raises doubts as to each of the subject transactions,” the court said.

The order requires Bruister, Smith and Henry to jointly pay $4.5 million in restitution to the plans and requires Bruister to pay an additional $1.98 million in prejudgment interest. The order also held Bruister Family LLC liable with all defendants for $885,065 and jointly liable with Bruister for $390,604.

Company Stock Investments Carry Special ERISA Risks

Purchases of company stock by an ESOP or other employee benefit plan can create a wide range of risks under ERISA’s fiduciary responsibility rules. When making investment or other decisions under an employee benefit plan, the general fiduciary duty standards of ERISA § 404 generally require plan fiduciaries to act prudently and solely in the interest of participants and beneficiaries. Meanwhile, except in certain narrow circumstances and subject to fulfillment of ERISA § 404, the prohibited transaction rules of ERISA § 406 among other things prohibits plan fiduciaries from causing the plan to engage in a transaction, if he knows or should know that such transaction is a direct or indirect:

Sale or exchange, or leasing, of any property between the plan and a party in interest;
Furnishing of goods, services, or facilities between the plan and a party in interest;
Transfer to, or use by or for the benefit of a party in interest, of any assets of the plan; or
Acquisition, on behalf of the plan, of any employer security or employer real property in violation of section 1107 (a) of this title.

As for all plan investment transactions, detailed, unbiased valuation documentation showing the prudence of any decision to invest or hold the investments of the plan in company stock is critical when determining the initial purchase or sale prices for plan transactions involving company stock. Since the sponsoring company is a party-in-interest of the plan, holding, must less using plan assets to purchase company stock or other activities resulting in the inclusion of company stock among the plan assets held by the plan creates presumptions of impropriety that impose higher than usual burdens upon the plan, its sponsor and fiduciaries to prove the appropriateness of the transaction. See e.g., Pfeil v. State Street Bank & Trust Co., 671 F.3d 585 (6th Cir. 2012). As ESOP transactions to purchase company stock inherently require a host of complicated party-in-interest and other conflict of interest concerns, these risks are particularly heightened. Employee benefit plans, their fiduciaries and sponsors the need to continuously and prudently conduct documented monitoring and evaluations evaluate and monitor the investment of plan assets in company stock,the analysis and decisions about whether to continue to keep and offer this stock under the plan, as well as the qualifications, credentials and conduct of the fiduciaries and others empowered to influence these decisions. The Labor Department’s statement in announcing the Parrot litigation sums up the messages from these cases. “Plan officials are required by law to manage the ESOP in a careful, prudent manner and to act solely to benefit the plan’s participants,” said Jean Ackerman, director of the Employee Benefit Security Administration’s (EBSA’s) San Francisco Regional Office, which. “This action underscores the department’s commitment to protect the benefits that employers promise to their employees.”

In light of these exposures, plan fiduciaries, sponsors and their management, service providers and consultants participating in these activities need to both act with care and carefully document their actions to position to defend potential challenges.

Plans, their sponsors and fiduciaries also should ensure that appropriate steps are taken in selecting the fiduciaries, management and service providers responsible for administering or overseeing the administration of their plans, the selection of vendors, and other critical details. Appropriate background checks and other credentialing should be done both at commencement and periodically. Bonding and fiduciary liability insurance should be arranged and reviewed periodically along with their activities. Documentation of these and other steps should be carefully created and preserved.

When and if a change in stock value or other event that could compromise the investment occurs, consideration should be given as to the responsibilities that such events create under ERISA. As company leaders often have dual responsibilities to both the company and the plan, it is important that the company sponsoring the plan, its management and owners learn in advance how these responsibilities impact each other so that they are aware of the issues and have a good understanding of responsibilities and options as situations evolve.

Businesses and business leaders that fail to conduct and maintain the necessary evidence that these requirements are met when involving the plan in these transactions risk significant liability.

“Plan fiduciaries have an obligation to work solely in the interest of plan participants,” said Assistant Secretary of Labor for Employee Benefits Security Phyllis C. Borzi.in the Labor Department’s October 31, 2014 announcement of the judgment. “When they fail to do so, the retirement security of workers is put in jeopardy, and we will take action to make plan participants whole.”

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 monitor or respond to evolving laws and regulations, drafting or administering programs, resolving or defending audits, investigations or disputes or other employee benefit, human resources, safety, compliance 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.

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, 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 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 Plan’s Purchase of Company Stock Triggers $6.48 Million Award Against ESOP Sponsor, Shareholder, Board Members & Trustees | ADA, Bankruptcy, Corporate Compliance, Defined Contribution Plans, Employee Benefits, Employers, ERISA, ESOP, Excise Tax, Fiduciary Responsibility, Human Resources, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, Retirement Plans, Tax, Tax Qualification | Tagged: 404, 406, defined benefit plan, Employer, ERISA, ESOP, exclusive benefit, Fiduciary Responsibility, Human Resources, pension plan, plan qualification, profit sharing plan, prohibited transaction, Prudence, Retirement Plans, Tax | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Government Contractors Get More Time To Comment On Burdens Of OFCCP Proposed Compensation Transparency Disclosure Regs

November 2, 2014

The U.S. Department of Labor’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs is giving employers that are government contractors and the subcontractors working with them more time to comment on for its proposed rule (Proposed Rule) requiring federal contractors and subcontractors to submit an annual Equal Pay Report on employee compensation to the OFCCP. The Proposed Rule is one of several proposed or adopted rules that the Obama Administration hopes will make it easier for federal regulators like OFCCP and private plaintiffs to identify potential violations of federal discrimination rules and enforce their rights under these and other rules.

Like many OFCCP rules promulgated by the Obama Administration in the post-Stimulus Bill era, the Proposed Rule both reaches many contractors that historically might not have been subject to these types of OFCCP reporting requirements and broadens the reporting obligations of government contractors under the OFCCP regulations. The Proposed Rule would apply to companies that file EEO-1 reports, with more than 100 employees, and hold federal contracts or subcontracts worth $50,000 or more for at least 30 days. Through the Equal Pay Report, OFCCP would be able to collect summary employee pay and demographic data using existing government reporting frameworks.

The Proposed Rule seeks to formally implement the directives of the presidential memorandum President Obama signed April 8 instructing the Labor Secretary to propose a rule to collect summary compensation data from federal contractors and subcontractors. The Labor Department originally published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register on Aug. 8, with a deadline to submit comments by November. 6. Under an announcement published last week, OFCCP is extending the comment period until Monday, January 5, 2015.

The Proposed Rule is one of several rule changes proposed or adopted by OFCCP and other agencies under the Obama Administration that seek to expand federal oversight and enforcement of federal employment discrimination requirements. In addition to the Proposed Rule, for instance, the OFCCP on September 17, 2014 also recently proposed Proposed Transparency Rule that would prohibit federal contractors from maintaining pay secrecy policies. The Proposed Transparency Rule would prohibit federal contractors and subcontractors from firing or otherwise discriminating against any employee or applicant for discussing, disclosing or inquiring about their compensation or that of another employee or applicant and also will face other new obligations.

Like a similar rule put forth by the National Labor Relations Board, the Proposed Transparency Rule scheduled for publication in the Federal Register on September 17, 2014 would:

Amend the equal opportunity clauses in Executive Order 11246 to afford protections to workers who talk about pay to include the nondiscrimination provision in Executive Order 13665.
Add definitions for compensation, compensation information, and essential job functions, terms which appear in the revised clauses.
Provide that contractors could use against allegations of discrimination under Executive Order 13665 one of the following two defenses as long as that defense is not based on a rule, policy, practice, agreement or other instrument that prohibits employees or applicants from discussing or disclosing their compensation or that of other employees consistent with the provisions in the equal opportunity:
- That the action was based on a legitimate workplace rule that does not violate the transparency rule; or
- That the adverse action was against an employee, who the employer entrusted with confidential compensation information of other employees or applicants as part of his or her essential job functions, for disclosing the compensation of other employees or applicants, unless the disclosure occurs in certain limited circumstances; and
- the Proposed Rule’s compensation transparency requirement; or

Add a requirement that Federal contractors to tell employees and job applicants of the nondiscrimination protection created by Executive Order 13665 using specific language dictated by the OFCCP in handbooks and manuals, and through electronic or physical postings.
In addition, OFCCP also is considering requiring government contractors that provide manager training or meetings to include nondiscrimination based on pay in their existing manager training programs or meetings while encouraging other contractors to adopt this as a best practice for minimizing the likelihood of workplace discrimination.

The deadline for comment on that Proposed Transparency Rule is in December.

Government contractors or other businesses concerned about the potential burdens of compliance with either of these proposed rules should act promptly to review and submit comments within the comment period.

For Help With Investigations, Policy Updates Or Other Needs

If you need help in conducting a risk assessment of or responding to an IRS, DOL, Justice Department, or other federal or state agencies or other private plaintiff or other legal challenges to your organization’s existing workforce classification or other labor and employment, compliance, employee benefit or compensation practices, please contact the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer here or at (469) 767-8872 .

Board Certified in Labor & Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, management attorney and consultant Ms. Stamer is nationally and internationally recognized for more than 23 years of work helping employers; employee benefit plans and their sponsors, administrators, fiduciaries; employee leasing, recruiting, staffing and other professional employment organizations; and others design, administer and defend innovative workforce, compensation, employee benefit and management policies and practices. The Chair of the American Bar Association (ABA) RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Committee, a Council Representative on the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits, Government Affairs Committee Legislative Chair for the Dallas Human Resources Management Association, past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, Ms. Stamer often has worked, extensively on these and other workforce and performance related matters. She also is recognized for her publications, industry leadership, workshops and presentations on these and other human resources concerns and regularly speaks and conducts training on these matters. Her insights on these and other matters appear in the Bureau of National Affairs, Spencer Publications, the Wall Street Journal, the Dallas Business Journal, the Houston Business Journal, and many other national and local publications. For more information about Ms. Stamer and her experience or to get access to other publications by Ms. Stamer see here or contact Ms. Stamer directly.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

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

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

THE FOLLOWING DISCLAIMER IS INCLUDED TO 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 Government Contractors Get More Time To Comment On Burdens Of OFCCP Proposed Compensation Transparency Disclosure Regs | ADA, Affirmative Action, compensation transparency, Corporate Compliance, EEOC, Employers, Executive Compensation, Government Contractors, Human Resources, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, Military Leave, Nonresident aliens, OFCCP, Rehabilitation Act, Retaliation, Risk Management, USERRA, VEVRRA, Wage & Hour | Tagged: Backpay, Employer, Employment, employment law, Fair Labor Standards Act, FLSA, FSLA, Independent Contractor, IT, Labor Department, Minimum Wage, Misclassification, Overtime, Technology, Wage & Hour, wage and hour, Worker Classification | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Encourage Workers To Review Withholding As Part Of Annual Enrollment

October 23, 2014

Still Time to Act to Avoid Surprises at Tax-Time

With the year end approaching, employers can help employees get more bank from their paycheck by encouraging the employees to review their withholding before the year end as part of their annual enrollment periods. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is recommends tax payers consider taking some of the following steps to avoid owing more taxes or getting a larger refund than necessary to bring the taxes you pay in advance closer to what you’ll owe when you file your tax return:

Adjust your withholding. If you’re an employee and you think that your tax withholding will fall short of your total 2014 tax liability, you may be able to avoid an unexpected tax bill by increasing your withholding. If you are having too much tax withheld, you may get a larger refund than you expect. In either case, you can complete a new Form W-4, Employee’s Withholding Allowance Certificate and give it to your employer. Enter the added amount you want withheld from each paycheck until the end of the year on Line 6 of the W-4 form. You usually can have less tax withheld by increasing your withholding allowances on line 5. Use the IRS Withholding Calculator tool on IRS.gov to help you fill out the form.
Report changes in circumstances. If you purchase health insurance coverage through the Health Insurance Marketplace, you may receive advance payments of the premium tax credit in 2014. It is important that you report changes in circumstances to your Marketplace so you get the proper type and amount of premium assistance. Some of the changes that you should report include changes in your income, employment, or family size. Advance credit payments help you pay for the insurance you buy through the Marketplace. Reporting changes will help you avoid getting too much or too little premium assistance in advance.
Change taxes with life events. You may need to change the taxes you pay when certain life events take place. A change in your marital status or the birth of a child can change the amount of taxes you owe. When they happen you can submit a new Form W–4 at work or change your estimated tax payment.
Be accurate on your W-4. When you start a new job you fill out a Form W-4. It’s important for you to accurately complete the form. For example, special rules apply if you work two jobs or you claim tax credits on your tax return. Your employer will use the form to figure the amount of federal income tax to withhold from your pay.
Pay estimated tax if required. If you get income that’s not subject to withholding you may need to pay estimated tax. This may include income such as self-employment, interest, or rent. If you expect to owe a thousand dollars or more in tax, and meet other conditions, you may need to pay this tax. You normally pay the tax four times a year. Use Form 1040-ES, Estimated Tax for Individuals, to figure and pay the tax.

Annual enrollment is an excellent time for employees to consider these actions, as their employee benefit elections impact on their withholding and other related tax consequences. Sharing these ideas as part of the enrollment communications can help employees get the most out of their wages and their elections.

For Help With Investigations, Policy Updates Or Other Needs

If you need help with your organization’s management,workforce classification or other labor and employment, compliance, employee benefit or compensation practices, please contact the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer here or at (469) 767-8872 .

Board Certified in Labor & Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, management attorney and consultant Ms. Stamer is nationally and internationally recognized for more than 23 years of work helping employers; employee benefit plans and their sponsors, administrators, fiduciaries; employee leasing, recruiting, staffing and other professional employment organizations; and others design, administer and defend innovative workforce, compensation, employee benefit and management policies and practices. The Chair of the American Bar Association (ABA) RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Committee, a Council Representative on the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits, Government Affairs Committee Legislative Chair for the Dallas Human Resources Management Association, past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, Ms. Stamer often has worked, extensively on these and other workforce and performance related matters. She also is recognized for her publications, industry leadership, workshops and presentations on these and other human resources concerns and regularly speaks and conducts training on these matters. Her insights on these and other matters appear in the Bureau of National Affairs, Spencer Publications, the Wall Street Journal, the Dallas Business Journal, the Houston Business Journal, and many other national and local publications. For more information about Ms. Stamer and her experience or to get access to other publications by Ms. Stamer see here or contact Ms. Stamer directly.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Comments Off on Encourage Workers To Review Withholding As Part Of Annual Enrollment | compensation transparency, Corporate Compliance, Employers, Employment Agreement, Executive Compensation, Government Contractors, Human Resources, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, Risk Management, Wage & Hour | Tagged: Backpay, CAS minimum-wage, Employer, Employment, employment law, Fair Labor Standards Act, FLSA, FSLA, government contractor, Independent Contractor, IT, Labor Department, Misclassification, OFCCP, Overtime, Technology, Wage & Hour, wage and hour, Worker Classification | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

OFCCP FAQs On Veteran Hiring & Telework Rules

October 21, 2014

Facing heightened requirements, audits and scrutiny of their compliance with federal contracting requirements under the Obama Administration, federal government contractors and their subcontractors should review the adequacy of their existing practices and documentation in light of two new Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) concerning veteran hiring requirements and telework positions published October 17, 2014, as well as other recent guidance and enforcement developments.

The October 17 FAQs include :
A FAQ located here on ways in which contractors may store self-identification information in compliance with the revised Section 503 regulations, and provides several options; and
A FAQ located here about how contractors may list jobs that are remote, full-time telework positions in compliance with VEVRAA’s mandatory job listing requirement.

Audit and enforcement of discrimination and a host of other government contractor requirements is a key enforcement and audit priority of the Obama Administration. Additionally, the Obama Administration has expanded and tightened a wide range of OFCCP and other government contracting standards, reporting, notice and other requirements as part of its efforts to promote affirmative action, prounion and other regulatory agendas, particularly in light of challenges experienced in enacting legislation implementing these policy goals given the divided control of the House versus Senate in Congress.

For Help With Investigations, Policy Updates Or Other Needs

Board Certified in Labor & Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, management attorney and consultant Ms. Stamer is nationally and internationally recognized for more than 23 years of work helping employers; employee benefit plans and their sponsors, administrators, fiduciaries; employee leasing, recruiting, staffing and other professional employment organizations; and others design, administer and defend innovative workforce, compensation, employee benefit and management policies and practices. The Chair of the American Bar Association (ABA) RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Committee, a Council Representative on the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits, Government Affairs Committee Legislative Chair for the Dallas Human Resources Management Association, past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, Ms. Stamer often has worked, extensively on these and other workforce and performance related matters. She also is recognized for her publications, industry leadership, workshops and presentations on these and other human resources concerns and regularly speaks and conducts training on these matters. Her insights on these and other matters appear in the Bureau of National Affairs, Spencer Publications, the Wall Street Journal, the Dallas Business Journal, the Houston Business Journal, and many other national and local publications. For more information about Ms. Stamer and her experience or to get access to other publications by Ms. Stamer see here or contact Ms. Stamer directly.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Comments Off on OFCCP FAQs On Veteran Hiring & Telework Rules | compensation transparency, Corporate Compliance, Employers, Employment Agreement, Executive Compensation, Government Contractors, Human Resources, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, Risk Management, Wage & Hour | Tagged: Backpay, CAS minimum-wage, Employer, Employment, employment law, Fair Labor Standards Act, FLSA, FSLA, government contractor, Independent Contractor, IT, Labor Department, Misclassification, OFCCP, Overtime, Technology, Wage & Hour, wage and hour, Worker Classification | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Shell Oil/Motiva Enterprises $4.5M FLSA Overtime Backpay Settlement Reminder To Pay Workers Properly

September 16, 2014

Shell Oil Co. and Motiva Enterprises LLC, which markets Shell gasoline and other products, will pay $4,470,764 in overtime back wages to 2,677 current and former chemical and refinery employees to settle Department of Labor (Labor Department) charges they violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The settlement with the Labor Department announced September 16, 2014 reminds businesses of the importance of properly tracking and paying workers for all compensable hours in accordance with the FLSA and other laws.

The FLSA requires that covered employees be paid at least the federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour. Workers who are not employed in agriculture and not otherwise exempt from overtime compensation are entitled to time and one-half their regular rates of pay for every hour they work beyond 40 per week. The law also requires employers to maintain accurate records of employees’ wages, hours and other conditions of employment, and it prohibits employers from retaliating against employees who exercise their rights under the law.

The settlement resolves charges made by the Labor Department’s Wage and Hour Division based on investigations at eight Shell and Motiva facilities in Alabama, California, Louisiana, Texas and Washington, which the Labor Department says found that the companies violated FLSA overtime provisions by not paying workers for the time spent at mandatory pre-shift meetings and failing to record the time spent at these meetings.

The Labor Department also says the investigations also revealed that those eight Shell Oil and Motiva refineries failed to pay workers for time spent attending mandatory pre-shift meetings. The companies required the workers to come to the meetings before the start of their 12-hour shift. Because the companies failed to consider time spent at mandatory pre-shift meetings as compensable, employees were not paid for all hours worked and did not receive all of the overtime pay of time and one-half their regular rate of pay for hours worked over 40 in a workweek. Additionally, the refineries did not keep accurate time records.

Shell, with U.S. headquarters in Houston, is an oil and natural gas producer involved in processing crude oil to manufacture energy products, including gasoline, diesel fuel, jet fuel and petroleum coke. Motiva, which is partially owned by Shell, is a leading refiner, distributor and marketer of fuels in the Eastern and Gulf Coast regions of the United States. It markets petroleum products under the Shell brand.

In addition to paying backpay, Shell and Motiva have signed settlement agreements that call for training of managers, payroll personnel and human resources personnel on the FLSA’s requirements. The training will stress the importance of requiring accurate recording and pay for all hours worked with emphasis on pre-and post-shift activities.

The settlement reflects the importance for all employers to properly classify, track and keep records of hours and compensation, and pay workers covered by the FLSA. “Employers are legally required to pay workers for all hours worked,” said U.S. Secretary of Labor Thomas E. Perez. “Whether in the international oil industry, as in this case, or a local family-run restaurant, the Labor Department is working to ensure that responsible employers do not experience a competitive disadvantage because they play by the rules.”

Employers Should Strengthen Practices For Defensibility

To minimize exposure under the FLSA, employers should review and document the defensibility of their existing practices for classifying and compensating workers under existing Federal and state wage and hour laws and take other actions to minimize their potential liability under applicable wages and hour laws. Steps advisable as part of this process include, but are not necessarily limited to:

Audit of each position current classified as exempt to assess its continued sustainability and to develop documentation justifying that characterization;
Audit characterization of workers obtained from staffing, employee leasing, independent contractor and other arrangements and implement contractual and other oversight arrangements to minimize risks that these relationships could create if workers are recharacterized as employed by the employer receiving these services;
Review the characterization of on-call and other time demands placed on employees to confirm that all compensable time is properly identified, tracked, documented, compensated and reported;
Review of existing practices for tracking compensable hours and paying non-exempt employees for compliance with applicable regulations and to identify opportunities to minimize costs and liabilities arising out of the regulatory mandates;
If the audit raises questions about the appropriateness of the classification of an employee as exempt, self-initiation of proper corrective action after consultation with qualified legal counsel;
Review of existing documentation and record keeping practices for hourly employees;
Exploration of available options and alternatives for calculating required wage payments to non-exempt employees; and
Re-engineering of work rules and other practices to minimize costs and liabilities as appropriate in light of the regulations and enforcement exposures.

Because of the potentially significant liability exposure, employers generally will want to consult with qualified legal counsel before starting their risk assessment and assess risks and claims within the scope of attorney-client privilege to help protect the ability to claim attorney-client privilege or other evidentiary protections to help shelter conversations or certain other sensitive risk activities from discovery under the rules of evidence.

For Help With Investigations, Policy Updates Or Other Needs

Board Certified in Labor & Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, management attorney and consultant Ms. Stamer is nationally and internationally recognized for more than 23 years of work helping employers; employee benefit plans and their sponsors, administrators, fiduciaries; employee leasing, recruiting, staffing and other professional employment organizations; and others design, administer and defend innovative workforce, compensation, employee benefit and management policies and practices. The Chair of the American Bar Association (ABA) RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Committee, a Council Representative on the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits, Government Affairs Committee Legislative Chair for the Dallas Human Resources Management Association, past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, Ms. Stamer often has worked, extensively on these and other workforce and performance related matters. She also is recognized for her publications, industry leadership, workshops and presentations on these and other human resources concerns and regularly speaks and conducts training on these matters. Her insights on these and other matters appear in the Bureau of National Affairs, Spencer Publications, the Wall Street Journal, the Dallas Business Journal, the Houston Business Journal, and many other national and local publications. For more information about Ms. Stamer and her experience or to get access to other publications by Ms. Stamer see here or contact Ms. Stamer directly.

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. For important information about this communication click here.

Comments Off on Shell Oil/Motiva Enterprises $4.5M FLSA Overtime Backpay Settlement Reminder To Pay Workers Properly | Corporate Compliance, Employers, Human Resources, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, Risk Management, Wage & Hour | Tagged: Backpay, Employer, Employment, employment law, Fair Labor Standards Act, FLSA, FSLA, Independent Contractor, IT, Labor Department, Minimum Wage, Misclassification, Overtime, Technology, Wage & Hour, wage and hour, Worker Classification | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

OFCCP Proposes Compensation Transparency Mandates For Government Contractors

September 16, 2014

Government contractors should brace for more employee scrutiny, employee organizing and other employee and government pressure on compensation practices if the U.S. Department of Labor’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs proceeds with plans to adopt a Proposed Rule on compensation transparency that would prohibit federal contractors from maintaining pay secrecy policies announced by the Obama Administration yesterday (September 15, 2014). Under the terms of the Proposed Rule, federal contractors and subcontractors may not fire or otherwise discriminate against any employee or applicant for discussing, disclosing or inquiring about their compensation or that of another employee or applicant and also will face other new obligations. Government contractors concerned about the potential burdens of compliance with the Proposed Rule should act promptly to review and submit comments on the Proposed Rule within 90 days of its official publication in the Federal Register tomorrow (September 17, 2014).

The Proposed Rule scheduled for publication in the Federal Register on September 17, 2014 would:

Amend the equal opportunity clauses in Executive Order 11246 to afford protections to workers who talk about pay to include the nondiscrimination provision in Executive Order 13665.
Add definitions for compensation, compensation information, and essential job functions, terms which appear in the revised clauses.
Provide that contractors could use against allegations of discrimination under Executive Order 13665 one of the following two defenses as long as that defense is not based on a rule, policy, practice, agreement or other instrument that prohibits employees or applicants from discussing or disclosing their compensation or that of other employees consistent with the provisions in the equal opportunity:
- That the action was based on a legitimate workplace rule that does not violate the transparency rule; or
- That the adverse action was against an employee, who the employer entrusted with confidential compensation information of other employees or applicants as part of his or her essential job functions, for disclosing the compensation of other employees or applicants, unless the disclosure occurs in certain limited circumstances; and
- the Proposed Rule’s compensation transparency requirement; or

Add a requirement that Federal contractors to tell employees and job applicants of the nondiscrimination protection created by Executive Order 13665 using specific language dictated by the OFCCP in handbooks and manuals, and through electronic or physical postings.
In addition, OFCCP also is considering requiring government contractors that provide manager training or meetings to include nondiscrimination based on pay in their existing manager training programs or meetings while encouraging other contractors to adopt this as a best practice for minimizing the likelihood of workplace discrimination.

For Help With Investigations, Policy Updates Or Other Needs

Board Certified in Labor & Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, management attorney and consultant Ms. Stamer is nationally and internationally recognized for more than 23 years of work helping employers; employee benefit plans and their sponsors, administrators, fiduciaries; employee leasing, recruiting, staffing and other professional employment organizations; and others design, administer and defend innovative workforce, compensation, employee benefit and management policies and practices. The Chair of the American Bar Association (ABA) RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Committee, a Council Representative on the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits, Government Affairs Committee Legislative Chair for the Dallas Human Resources Management Association, past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, Ms. Stamer often has worked, extensively on these and other workforce and performance related matters. She also is recognized for her publications, industry leadership, workshops and presentations on these and other human resources concerns and regularly speaks and conducts training on these matters. Her insights on these and other matters appear in the Bureau of National Affairs, Spencer Publications, the Wall Street Journal, the Dallas Business Journal, the Houston Business Journal, and many other national and local publications. For more information about Ms. Stamer and her experience or to get access to other publications by Ms. Stamer see here or contact Ms. Stamer directly.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Comments Off on OFCCP Proposes Compensation Transparency Mandates For Government Contractors | compensation transparency, Corporate Compliance, Employers, Employment Agreement, Executive Compensation, Government Contractors, Human Resources, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, Risk Management, Wage & Hour | Tagged: Backpay, Employer, Employment, employment law, Fair Labor Standards Act, FLSA, FSLA, Independent Contractor, IT, Labor Department, Minimum Wage, Misclassification, Overtime, Technology, Wage & Hour, wage and hour, Worker Classification | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Labor Department Adds State Unemployment Insurance To War Against Worker Misclassification

September 15, 2014

The already significant enforcement risks of employers caught misclassifying workers as independent contractors, leased employees or in some other non-employee status are set to rise more as a result of more than $10 million in grants to 19 states announced today (September 15, 2014) by the U.S. Department of Labor (Labor Department). The grants add a new wrinkle to the ever-expanding campaign waged against employers that fail to fulfill legal responsibilities with respect to employees as a result of the misclassification of workers that the Labor Department and other federal and state agencies.

Grants To Help States Employers That Underpay Unemployment Insurance Taxes Due To Misclassification

In the latest wrinkle in its ever-expanding war against employers that avoid providing rights, paying taxes or fulfilling other employer responsibilities toward certain workers misclassified by the employer as independent contractor or in other non-employee statuses, the Labor Department awarded $10,225,183 to 19 states to implement or improve worker misclassification detection and enforcement initiatives in unemployment insurance (UI) programs. For a chart showing the grant recipients and amounts announced today, see here.

“This is one of many actions the department is taking to help level the playing field for employers while workers receive appropriate rights and protections,” said U.S. Secretary of Labor Thomas E. Perez. “Today’s federal grant awards will enhance states’ ability to detect incidents of worker misclassification and protect the integrity of state unemployment insurance trust funds.”

According to the Labor Department’s announcement of the grants, states will use the funds to increase the ability of state UI tax programs to identify instances where employers improperly classify employees as independent contractors or fail to report the wages paid to workers at all. The states that were selected to receive these grants will use the funds for a variety of improvements and initiatives, including enhancing employer audit programs and conducting employer education initiatives.

While several states have existing programs designed to reduce worker misclassification, this is the first year that the Labor Department has awarded grants dedicated to this effort. The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2014 authorized this grant funding for “activities to address the misclassification of workers.

Under an innovative, “high-performance bonus” program, four states will receive a share of $2 million in additional grant funds due to their high performance or most improved performance in detecting incidents of worker misclassification. The remaining $8,225,183 was distributed to 19 states in competitive grants. The maximum grant available under the competitive grant award process was $500,000.

Broader War Against Employee Misclassification By Employers

The grants to help states detect and prosecute employer that underpay unemployment insurance contributions is part of a broader and growing campaign against employers that fail to fulfill employment, immigration, tax or other laws by misclassifying workers who by law properly should be treated as common law employees but that the employer treats as working as independent contractors, leased employees or in other non-employed capacities.

Under the Obama Administration, Labor Department, Immigration, tax and other agencies increasingly are successfully identifying and prosecuting businesses for violating the law by misclassification of certain workers as not employed by the business who under the facts and circumstances the agencies view as common law employees of the business. See.g., Boston Furs Sued For $1M For Violations Of Fair Labor Standards Act; Record $2.3 Million+ Backpay Order; Minimum Wage, Overtime Risks Highlighted By Labor Department Strike Force Targeting Residential Care & Group Homes; Review & Strengthen Defensibility of Existing Worker Classification Practices In Light of Rising Congressional & Regulatory Scrutiny; 250 New Investigators, Renewed DOL Enforcement Emphasis Signal Rising Wage & Hour Risks For Employers; Quest Diagnostics, Inc. To Pay $688,000 In Overtime Backpay; Employer Faces $2M FLSA Lawsuit For Alleged Worker Misclassification; OIG 2013 Top Management Challenges List Signals Tightening of Labor Department Enforcement; New Employee Smart Phone App New Tool In Labor Department’s Aggressive Wage & Hour Law Enforcement Campaign Against Restaurant & Other Employers; 12 Steps Every Employer With A Health Plan Should Do Now No Matter Who Wins the Election.

The rollout of new health benefit mandates as part of the sweeping reforms enacted under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) is further expanding the liability of misclassification and the risk of enforcement against employers.

Among other things, the employer mandates of ACA soon will require certain large employers either to provide health coverage meeting the requirements of ACA or pay the “employer penalty” established under Internal Revenue Code Section 4980H. While the rule now is delayed until 2015 for employers with more than 100 or more full-time and full-time equivalent employees and 2016 for employers of 50 or more full-time and full-time equivalent employees, ACA generally relies on the common law employment tests used under the FLSA and other federal and state laws determine which employers are considered large employers. It also requires employers provide other rights to workers who are considered common law employees under these rules.

Employers Should Strengthen Practices For Defensibility

Audit of each position current classified as exempt to assess its continued sustainability and to develop documentation justifying that characterization;
Audit characterization of workers obtained from staffing, employee leasing, independent contractor and other arrangements and implement contractual and other oversight arrangements to minimize risks that these relationships could create if workers are recharacterized as employed by the employer receiving these services;
Review the characterization of on-call and other time demands placed on employees to confirm that all compensable time is properly identified, tracked, documented, compensated and reported;
Review of existing practices for tracking compensable hours and paying non-exempt employees for compliance with applicable regulations and to identify opportunities to minimize costs and liabilities arising out of the regulatory mandates;
If the audit raises questions about the appropriateness of the classification of an employee as exempt, self-initiation of proper corrective action after consultation with qualified legal counsel;
Review of existing documentation and record keeping practices for hourly employees;
Exploration of available options and alternatives for calculating required wage payments to non-exempt employees; and
Re-engineering of work rules and other practices to minimize costs and liabilities as appropriate in light of the regulations and enforcement exposures.

For Help With Investigations, Policy Updates Or Other Needs

Board Certified in Labor & Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, management attorney and consultant Ms. Stamer is nationally and internationally recognized for more than 23 years of work helping employers; employee benefit plans and their sponsors, administrators, fiduciaries; employee leasing, recruiting, staffing and other professional employment organizations; and others design, administer and defend innovative workforce, compensation, employee benefit and management policies and practices. The Chair of the American Bar Association (ABA) RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Committee, a Council Representative on the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits, Government Affairs Committee Legislative Chair for the Dallas Human Resources Management Association, past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, Ms. Stamer often has worked, extensively on these and other workforce and performance related matters. She also is recognized for her publications, industry leadership, workshops and presentations on these and other human resources concerns and regularly speaks and conducts training on these matters. Her insights on these and other matters appear in the Bureau of National Affairs, Spencer Publications, the Wall Street Journal, the Dallas Business Journal, the Houston Business Journal, and many other national and local publications. For more information about Ms. Stamer and her experience or to get access to other publications by Ms. Stamer see here or contact Ms. Stamer directly.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Comments Off on Labor Department Adds State Unemployment Insurance To War Against Worker Misclassification | Corporate Compliance, Employers, Human Resources, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, Risk Management, Wage & Hour | Tagged: Backpay, Employer, Employment, employment law, Fair Labor Standards Act, FLSA, FSLA, Independent Contractor, IT, Labor Department, Minimum Wage, Misclassification, Overtime, Technology, Wage & Hour, wage and hour, Worker Classification | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Hospital To Pay $75K For Refusing To Hire Disabled Child Care Worker

March 10, 2014

Osceola Community Hospital Refused To Hire Child Care Worker With Cerebral Palsy Who Had Worked As Volunteer

Osceola Community Hospital in Sibley, Iowa will pay $75,000 and furnish other relief to settle an Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) disability discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) for its refusal to hire a child care worker with cerebral palsy. The case shows both the need for health care and other employers to have sufficient evidence to support decisions not to hire disabled workers for safety reasons as well as the potential risks that hospitals or other face when refusing to hire disabled individuals who have been allowed to work as volunteers in their organizations.

The EEOC charged a day care center operated by the hospital, Bright Beginnings of Osceola County, unlawfully failed to hire a volunteer employee into a paid position for which she was qualified because of her cerebral palsy. Although the woman who brought the charge of discrimination against the hospital already volunteered in the day care center and held a job driving a school bus, the EEOC’s investigation revealed the county refused to hire her into a paying job in the center out of an unfounded fear that her disability meant that she could not safely care for the children.

Judge Mark Bennett entered a consent decree on February, 28, 2014, resolving the brought by the EEOC in EEOC v. Osceola Community Hospital d/b/a Bright Beginnings of Osceola County, Civil Action No. 5:12-cv-4087 (N.D. Iowa, Sept. 26, 2012 that orders Osceola Community Hospital to pay $75,000 to the discrimination victim. The decree also requires the hospital to institute a policy prohibiting discrimination on the basis of disability and to distribute the policy to all of its employees. The hospital also must train its employees and report regularly to the EEOC on its compliance with the ADA.

The lawsuit provides another example to health care and other employers of their growing exposure to disability discrimination claims under the ADA. The EEOC action and lawsuit highlights the importance of employers ensuring that decisions to refuse to hire disabled workers for safety reasons are based upon appropriate evidence of actual safety concerns that prevent the worker from safely performing the assigned duties with or without reasonable accommodation.

The fact that the worker in this case had in fact worked as a volunteer likely created additional challenges in defending the decision. The use of volunteer workers in health industry businesses is a common practice that may justify special care before those organizations deny employment to a former volunteer on the basis of safety concerns associated with the disabilities of the applicant or worker both to document the reasonable basis of the safety concern and that the concern could not be adequately resolved through reasonable accommodation.

Eenforcing federal discrimination laws is a high priority of the Obama Administration. The Departments of Labor, Health & Human Services, Education, Justice, Housing & Urban Development, and others all have both increased enforcement, audits and public outreach, as well as have sought or are proposing tighter regulations.

The expanding applicability of nondiscrimination rules coupled with the wave of new policies and regulatory and enforcement actions should alert private businesses and state and local government agencies of the need to exercise special care to prepare to defend their actions against potential disability or other Civil Rights discrimination challenges under employment and a broad range of other laws.

Health care and organizations, public or private, government contractor or not, should act to ensure both that their organizations, their policies, and people in form and in action understand and comply with current disability discrimination laws and that these compliance activities are well-documented to help defend against potential charges or other challenges. Because of changing regulatory and enforcement trends, organizations and their leaders should avoid assuming the adequacy of current compliance and risk management. Most organization should reevaluate their assessments concerning whether their organization is a federal government contractor or subcontractor to minimize the risk of overlooking critical obligations.

Many organizations need to update their understanding, policies and practices in light of tightening rules and enforcement. The scope and applicability of federal nondiscrimination and other laws have been expanded or modified in recent years by the differences in perspectives of the Obama Administration from the Bush Administration, as well as statutory, regulatory, judicial precedent and enforcement changes. In addition, all organization should conduct well-documented periodic training and take other actions to monitor and enforce compliance by staff, contractors and others with whom they do business.

For Help With Compliance & Risk Management and Defense

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

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

Other Resources

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

About Solutions Law Press

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

Comments Off on Hospital To Pay $75K For Refusing To Hire Disabled Child Care Worker | ADA, Civil Rights, Disability, Disability, Discrimination, EEOC, Employers, Uncategorized | Tagged: ADA, Disability Discrimination, EEOC, Employer, Health Care | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

OFCCP Posts Additional FAQs on the Implementation of the VEVRAA and Section 503 Final Rules

December 26, 2013

The Office of FCCP posted a third round of Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) answering questions from contractors and the general public about provisions in the recently published Vietnam Era Veterans’ Readjustment Assistance Act (VEVRAA) and Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act (Section 503) Final Rules. These FAQs address implementation issues, such as the schedule for contractors to come into compliance with the affirmative action requirements of Subpart C of the new regulations. These latest FAQs, published on the OFCCP Web site and marked with a “NEW” banner, are part of a series of FAQs, guidance materials, and resources that OFCCP is providing to contractors and the public between now and the March 24, 2014, effective date of the new rules.

The VEVRAA FAQs are available here. The Section 503 FAQs are available here.

For Assistance or More Information

If you have questions or need help with these or 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. Her widely respected publications and programs include more than 25 years of publications on health plan contracting, design, administration and risk management including a “Managed Care Contracting Guide” published by the American Health Lawyers Association and numerous other works on vendor contracting. 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 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.

Recent examples of these publications include:

For important information about this communication click here.

Comments Off on OFCCP Posts Additional FAQs on the Implementation of the VEVRAA and Section 503 Final Rules | 105(h), ADA, Affordable Care Act, Corporate Compliance, Disability, E-Verify, EEOC, EEOC, Employee Benefits, Employers, Employment Tax, ERISA, Health Plans, HIPAA, Human Resources, Insurance, Labor Management Relations, OFCCP, Rehabilitation Act, Retaliation, Safety, Unemployment Benefits, Unemployment Insurance | Tagged: Employer, employment law, ERISA, Grants, Job Corps, Labor Department, OSHA, Workforce Investment | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

OFCCP Posts Additional FAQs on the Implementation of the VEVRAA and Section 503 Final Rules

December 26, 2013

The Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) posted a third round of Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) answering questions from contractors and the general public about provisions in the recently published Vietnam Era Veterans’ Readjustment Assistance Act (VEVRAA) and Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act (Section 503) Final Rules. These FAQs address implementation issues, such as the schedule for contractors to come into compliance with the affirmative action requirements of Subpart C of the new regulations. These latest FAQs, published on the OFCCP Web site and marked with a “NEW” banner, are part of a series of FAQs, guidance materials, and resources that OFCCP is providing to contractors and the public between now and the March 24, 2014, effective date of the new rules.

The VEVRAA FAQs are available at here. The Section 503 FAQs are available at here

For Assistance or More Information

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. Her widely respected publications and programs include more than 25 years of publications on health plan contracting, design, administration and risk management including a “Managed Care Contracting Guide” published by the American Health Lawyers Association and numerous other works on vendor contracting. 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 Helpful Resources & Other Information

Recent examples of these publications include:

For important information about this communication click here.

Comments Off on OFCCP Posts Additional FAQs on the Implementation of the VEVRAA and Section 503 Final Rules | 105(h), ADA, Affirmative Action, Affordable Care Act, Corporate Compliance, Disability, EEOC, EEOC, Employers, Employment Tax, ERISA, Government Contractors, Health Plans, HIPAA, Human Resources, Insurance, Labor Management Relations, Military Leave, OFCCP, Rehabilitation Act, Retaliation, Safety, Unemployment Benefits, Unemployment Insurance | Tagged: Employer, Military Leave, Veterans Righs | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Employer Faces $2M FLSA Lawsuit For Alleged Worker Misclassification

December 26, 2013

Health Care Reform Adds Fuel To Enforcement Fire

Employers must ensure they can defend their treatment of workers as as independent contractors or otherwise exempt from wage and hour and overtime requirements and take other steps to manage wage and hour risks that can arise under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and other laws to when caught misclassifying workers. That’s the clear message the U.S. Department of Labor (Labor Department) is sending to employers by filing lawsuits against employers like the one it recently announced against Wang’s Partner Inc., doing business as Hibachi Grill and Supreme Buffet in Jonesboro, and its owner, Shu Wang, to recover $1,997,726 in back wages and liquidated damages for 84 employees.

The FLSA requires that covered employees be paid at least the federal minimum wage of $7.25 for all hours worked, plus time and one-half their regular rates, including commissions, bonuses and incentive pay, for hours worked beyond 40 per week. The requirements generally apply to any workers that the employer who receives its services cannot prove is not its common law employee or an exempt employee within the meaning of the FLSA. In general, “hours worked” includes all time an employee must be on duty, or on the employer’s premises or at any other prescribed place of work, from the beginning of the first principal work activity to the end of the last principal activity of the workday. Additionally, the law requires that accurate records of employees’ wages, hours and other conditions of employment be maintained. These requirements generally apply for all workers who the facts and circumstances reflect are common law employees and otherwise do not qualify as exempt employees under the FLSA. Violations of these requirements can result significant backpay and other damage awards to private plaintiffs, backpay and penalties assessments or settlements from Labor Department suits, and, if the violation is found willful, criminal liability.

Wang’s Partner Inc. Suit

The lawsuit against Want’s Partner Inc. shows employers the importance of avoiding improperly classifying workers as independent contractors for purposes of the FLSA. Employers that inappropriately classify workers as independent contractors often fail to maintain appropriate time and other records, pay minimum wage and overtime and violate other FLSA requirements. In general, a business receiving services of a worker generally bears the burden of providing that the worker is not its common law employee under the applicable facts and circumstances test applicable under the FLSA.

As in many other enforcement areas, the Labor Department Wage and Hour Division in recent years has stepped up its scrutiny of employer relationships with workers treated as independent contractors. The Labor Department and many other agencies increasingly view the misclassification of workers as something other than employees, such as independent contractors, as a serious problem for affected employees, employers and to the entire economy. According to the Labor Department, misclassified employees are often denied access to critical benefits and protections, such as family and medical leave, overtime, minimum wage and unemployment insurance and other rights. The Labor Department also says employee misclassification also generates substantial losses to state and federal treasuries, and to the Social Security and Medicare funds, as well as to state unemployment insurance and workers compensation funds. To address these and other concerns, the Labor Department has joined other agencies like the Internal Revenue Service increasingly is challenging employers’ treatment of workers as exempt from FLSA and other legal obligations as independent contractors or otherwise.

The lawsuit in the Northern District of Georgia against Wang’s Partner, Inc. illustrates this trend. One of the growing number of lawsuits and other enforcement actions resulting from this trend, the suit shows the significant exposures that an employer risks by misclassifying workers as independent contractors or otherwise exempt from the FLSA. The Labor Department says an investigation revealed that Wang’s Partner Inc. misclassified workers as independent contractors and engaged in numerous violations of the FLSA. The Labor Department seeks $1,997,726 in back wages and liquidated damages for 84 employees.

The Labor Department says investigators from the division’s Atlanta district office found that the employer misclassified servers as independent contractors, failed to pay servers and kitchen staff at least the federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour and failed to pay overtime compensation at time and one-half employees’ regular rates for hours worked beyond 40 in a work week. Additionally, the employer did not maintain accurate records of hours worked and wages paid.

In announcing the Wang’s Partner Inc. lawsuit, the Labor Department warned employers against similar misclassification of workers. “The U.S. Department of Labor is committed to ensuring that all workers receive the wages to which they are legally entitled,” said Secretary of Labor Thomas E. Perez. “We will not stand by while employers use business models that hurt workers, their families and law-abiding employers. This lawsuit illustrates that the department will use every enforcement tool necessary to resolve cases where employees are unlawfully treated as independent contractors, and vulnerable workers are not paid the minimum wage.”

FLSA Violations Generally Costly; Enforcement Rising

The Labor Department’s prosecutions against employers arising from misclassification of workers document the Labor Department is acting in accordance with this warning. In recent years, misclassification of workers increasingly has become an element in its FLSA and other enforcement actions. According to the Labor Department, misclassified employees are often denied access to critical benefits and protections, such as family and medical leave, overtime, minimum wage and unemployment insurance and other rights. The Labor Department also says employee misclassification also generates substantial losses to state and federal treasuries, and to the Social Security and Medicare funds, as well as to state unemployment insurance and workers compensation funds. To address these and other concerns, the Labor Department has joined other agencies like the Internal Revenue Service increasingly is challenging employers’ treatment of workers as exempt from FLSA and other legal obligations as independent contractors or otherwise.Whether due to mischaracterization of workers as independent contractors or as common law employees that qualify as exempt under the FLSA rules, the Labor Department increasingly is acting on its promise to go after employers that violate the FLSA based on worker misclassifications.

In 2012, for instance, First Republic Bank paid $1,009,643.93 in overtime back wages for 392 First Republic Bank employees in California, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New York and Oregon after the Labor Department found the San Francisco-based bank wrongly classified the employees as exempt from the FLSA’s overtime and recordkeeping requirements, resulting in violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act’s overtime and record-keeping provisions. The Labor Department announced the settlement resulting in the payment on November 27, 2012.

The settlement came after an investigation by the Labor Department’s Wage and Hour Division found that the San Francisco-based bank wrongly classified the employees as exempt from overtime, resulting in violations of the FLSA’s overtime and record-keeping provisions.

In announcing the settlement with First Republic Bank, the Labor Department warned employers to confirm the appropriateness of their classification of workers. “It is essential that employers take the time to carefully assess the FLSA classification of their workforce,” said Secretary of Labor Hilda L. Solis in the Labor Department’s announcement of the settlement. “As this investigation demonstrates, improper classification results in improper wages and causes workers real economic harm.”

The Wang’s Partner Inc and First Republic Bank enforcement actions are not unique. The Labor Department and private plaintiffs alike regularly target employers that use aggressive worker classification or other pay practices to avoid paying minimum wage or overtime to workers. Under the Obama Administration, DOL officials have made it a priority to enforce overtime, record keeping, worker classification and other wage and hour law requirements. See e.g., Boston Furs Sued For $1M For Violations Of Fair Labor Standards Act; Record $2.3 Million+ Backpay Order; Minimum Wage, Overtime Risks Highlighted By Labor Department Strike Force Targeting Residential Care & Group Homes; Review & Strengthen Defensibility of Existing Worker Classification Practices In Light of Rising Congressional & Regulatory Scrutiny; 250 New Investigators, Renewed DOL Enforcement Emphasis Signal Rising Wage & Hour Risks For Employers; Quest Diagnostics, Inc. To Pay $688,000 In Overtime Backpay.

In an effort to further promote compliance and enforcement of these rules, the Labor Department is using smart phone applications, social media and a host of other new tools to educate and recruit workers in its effort to find and prosecute violators. See, e.g. New Employee Smart Phone App New Tool In Labor Department’s Aggressive Wage & Hour Law Enforcement Campaign Against Restaurant & Other Employers. As a result of these effort, employers violating the FLSA now face heightened risk of enforcement from both the Labor Department and private litigation.

Health Care Reform Adds Risks, Fuels More Enforcement

Among other things, the employer mandates of ACA, now delayed until 2015, generally will require employers of 50 or more full-time employees either to provide health coverage meeting the requirements of ACA or pay the “employer penalty” established under Internal Revenue Code Section 4980H. While the rule now is delayed until 2015, the employment data for 2014 will be used to determine what employees that an employer must take into account for purposes of this rule. ACA generally relies on the common law employment tests used under the FLSA to make this determination. It also requires employers provide other rights to workers who are considered common law employees under these rules.

Employers Should Strengthen Practices For Defensibility

Audit of each position current classified as exempt to assess its continued sustainability and to develop documentation justifying that characterization;
Audit characterization of workers obtained from staffing, employee leasing, independent contractor and other arrangements and implement contractual and other oversight arrangements to minimize risks that these relationships could create if workers are recharacterized as employed by the employer receiving these services;
Review the characterization of on-call and other time demands placed on employees to confirm that all compensable time is properly identified, tracked, documented, compensated and reported;
Review of existing practices for tracking compensable hours and paying non-exempt employees for compliance with applicable regulations and to identify opportunities to minimize costs and liabilities arising out of the regulatory mandates;
If the audit raises questions about the appropriateness of the classification of an employee as exempt, self-initiation of proper corrective action after consultation with qualified legal counsel;
Review of existing documentation and record keeping practices for hourly employees;
Exploration of available options and alternatives for calculating required wage payments to non-exempt employees; and
Re-engineering of work rules and other practices to minimize costs and liabilities as appropriate in light of the regulations and enforcement exposures.

For Help With Investigations, Policy Updates Or Other Needs

Board Certified in Labor & Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, management attorney and consultant Ms. Stamer is nationally and internationally recognized for more than 23 years of work helping employers; employee benefit plans and their sponsors, administrators, fiduciaries; employee leasing, recruiting, staffing and other professional employment organizations; and others design, administer and defend innovative workforce, compensation, employee benefit and management policies and practices. The Chair of the American Bar Association (ABA) RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Committee, a Council Representative on the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits, Government Affairs Committee Legislative Chair for the Dallas Human Resources Management Association, past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, Ms. Stamer often has worked, extensively on these and other workforce and performance related matters. She also is recognized for her publications, industry leadership, workshops and presentations on these and other human resources concerns and regularly speaks and conducts training on these matters. Her insights on these and other matters appear in the Bureau of National Affairs, Spencer Publications, the Wall Street Journal, the Dallas Business Journal, the Houston Business Journal, and many other national and local publications. For more information about Ms. Stamer and her experience or to get access to other publications by Ms. Stamer see here or contact Ms. Stamer directly.

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. For important information about this communication click here.

Comments Off on Employer Faces $2M FLSA Lawsuit For Alleged Worker Misclassification | Corporate Compliance, Employers, Human Resources, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, Risk Management, Wage & Hour | Tagged: Backpay, Employer, Employment, employment law, Fair Labor Standards Act, FLSA, FSLA, Independent Contractor, IT, Labor Department, Minimum Wage, Misclassification, Overtime, Technology, Wage & Hour, wage and hour, Worker Classification | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

OIG 2013 Top Management Challenges List Signals Tightening of Labor Department Enforcement

December 26, 2013

Employers should expect heighten scrutiny and enforcement in the labor law areas identified in the “2013 Top Management Challenges Facing the Department List” recently published by the U.S. Department of Labor Office of Inspector General. Employers can expect to see the Labor Department and its component agencies acting to tighten oversight and enforcement in these areas in response to the OIG list.

For 2013, the OIG identified the following as the most serious management and performance challenges facing the Department:

Protecting the Safety and Health of Workers
Protecting the Safety and Health of Miners
Improving Performance Accountability of Workforce Investment Act Grants
Ensuring the Effectiveness of the Job Corps Program
Reducing Improper Payments
Ensuring the Security of Employee Benefit Plan Assets
Securing and Protecting Information Management Systems
Ensuring the Effectiveness of Veterans’ Employment and Training Service Programs

In the report accompanying the OIG list, the OIG presents the challenge, the OIG’s assessment of the Department’s progress in addressing the challenge, and what remains to be done. These top management challenges are intended to identify and help resolve serious weaknesses in areas that involve substantial resources and provide critical services to the public. Typically, the identification of an area of concern by the OIG prompts tightening of processes and enforcement.

For Assistance or More Information

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. Her widely respected publications and programs include more than 25 years of publications on health plan contracting, design, administration and risk management including a “Managed Care Contracting Guide” published by the American Health Lawyers Association and numerous other works on vendor contracting. 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 Helpful Resources & Other Information

Recent examples of these publications include:

For important information about this communication click here.

Comments Off on OIG 2013 Top Management Challenges List Signals Tightening of Labor Department Enforcement | 105(h), ADA, Affordable Care Act, Corporate Compliance, Disability, E-Verify, EEOC, EEOC, Employee Benefits, Employers, Employment Tax, ERISA, Health Plans, HIPAA, Human Resources, Insurance, Labor Management Relations, OFCCP, Rehabilitation Act, Retaliation, Safety, Unemployment Benefits, Unemployment Insurance | Tagged: Employer, employment law, ERISA, Grants, Job Corps, Labor Department, OSHA, Workforce Investment | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

DOL Sues PBI Bank For Alleged Fiduciary Breach In Sale of ESOP Stock

December 26, 2013

Labor Department files suit to restore losses to the Miller’s Health Systems Employee Stock Ownership Plan

Bank or other plan trustees and fiduciaries of Employee Stock Ownership Plans or other employee benefit plans holding company stock, sponsoring employers and their management should heed the new Perez v. PBI Bank, Inc. lawsuit filed by the U.S. Department of Labor of the importance of not running afoul of the fiduciary responsibility rules of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act when conducting business sales, bankruptcies or other corporate business transactions involving stock or other plan assets.

The U.S. Department of Labor filed the PBI Bank, Inc. in U.S. District Court to recover losses to the Miller’s Health Systems, Inc., Employee Stock Ownership Plan. The suit alleges that PBI Bank, Inc., the trustee of the plan, authorized the purchase of company stock for $40 million, an amount far in excess of the fair market value of the stock. The suit also alleges that PBI Bank approved financing for the transaction at an excessive interest rate. Miller’s Health is a Warsaw-based company that manages long-term care and assisted-living facilities. The lawsuit also seeks to remove PBI as a fiduciary and service provider of the plan and to permanently bar it from serving as a fiduciary or service provider to ERISA-covered plans in the future.

ERISA’s fiduciary responsibility rules generally require trustees and other fiduciaries of employee stock ownership or other employee benefit plans to act prudently and for the exclusive benefit of participants and beneficiaries and abstain from self-dealing or prohibited transactions involving the plan. Fiduciaries that violate these rules risk personal liability for damages incurred by the plan, restoration of profits realized from prohibited transactions or other fiduciary breaches, as well as attorneys fees and other costs as well as disqualification from serving as a fiduciary for employee benefit plans and other potential civil or criminal relief.

The PBI Bank, Inc. case highlights how these risks can arise when a trustee or other fiduciary is asked to approve the sale of company stock held as a plan asset of an employee stock ownership or other employee benefit plan.

An investigation by the Chicago Regional Office of the department’s Employee Benefits Security Administration focused on a September 2007 stock purchase. The suit alleges that PBI violated ERISA by imprudently and disloyally approving the purchase of stock by the plan. The suit seeks to require PBI to restore all losses suffered by the ESOP, plus interest. As of September 30, 2012, the ESOP had 2,939 participants and assets of $12,848,000.

At the time of the stock purchase, Miller’s Health managed 31 long-term care facilities under the name of Miller’s Mary Manor and 10 assisted living facilities under the name Miller’s Senior Living. Miller’s Health also operated Theracare, Inc., an Indiana corporation, which primarily provided physical and occupational therapy and speech-language pathology to residents in Miller’s Health facilities.

After conducting its investigation, the department concluded that, as a result of the design of the transaction and the fiduciary breaches of PBI, the stock purchase was not for the primary benefit of participants and did not promote employee ownership in Miller’s Health. As a result, the department concluded that PBI was responsible and liable for violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

When announcing the lawsuit, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Employee Benefits Security Phyllis C. Borzi said, “Fiduciaries must act with undivided loyalty to plan participants. When it comes to ESOP stock purchases, they must ensure that the plan receives full value for its money.”

The PBI Bank suit highlights the challenges that trustees and other fiduciaries often face when dealing with employee stock ownership or other employee benefit plans holding stock of the sponsoring company. Valuation, purchase, sale, and other decisions about the stock fall within the prudence, exclusive benefit and other fiduciary responsibility rules of ERISA. These duties attach when the stock is purchased and continue thereafter as long as the stock remains a plan asset. Additionally sales or other transactions which result in the sale or other disbursement of the stock as asset of the plan, as well as a decision to continue to hold the stock during market or value changes also trigger these responsibilities.

A trustee or other fiduciary exercising discretion or control in name or functionally generally must be prepared to prove not only that its actions are prudent, but also that the value of the stock and other actions involving the plan and its assets were made for the exclusive benefit of the plan and its participants and beneficiaries. Because of the special issues and perception of potential conflict of interest that often inherently arise when a trustee or other fiduciary makes or influences decisions involving stock held by an employee stock ownership or other ERISA-covered plan, fiduciaries involved in these transactions should exercise particular care to act, and document appropriate evidence that he or it complied with these and other fiduciary requirements.

For Assistance or More Information

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. Her widely respected publications and programs include more than 25 years of publications on health plan contracting, design, administration and risk management including a “Managed Care Contracting Guide” published by the American Health Lawyers Association and numerous other works on vendor contracting. 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 Helpful Resources & Other Information

Recent examples of these publications include:

For important information about this communication click here.

Comments Off on DOL Sues PBI Bank For Alleged Fiduciary Breach In Sale of ESOP Stock | 105(h), Affordable Care Act, Corporate Compliance, Employee Benefits, Employers, Employment Tax, ERISA, Health Plans, HIPAA, Human Resources, Insurance, Unemployment Benefits, Unemployment Insurance | Tagged: breach of fiduciary duty, employee stock ownership plan, Employer, ESOP, Fiduciary Responsibility, trustee | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Agencies Proposes To Treat Certain EAP, Dental and Vision Only Plans As ACA & HIPAA Excepted Benefits

December 26, 2013

February 24, 2014 is the deadline for interested employers, health insurers and plans, administrators and others to comment on proposed changes to rules defining what arrangements qualify as “excepted benefits” for purposes of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) eligibility, nondiscrimination and other portability mandates and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) health coverage reform mandates jointly published December 24, 2013 by Internal Revenue Service (IRS) , the Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA), and the Health and Human Services Department (HHS)(collectively the “Agencies”).

The Proposed Amendments To Excepted Benefits Regulation (Proposed Rule) published by the Agencies jointly in the December 24, 2013 Federal Register would add certain employee assistance programs (EAPs) and certain vision and dental only plans as excepted benefits for purposes of HIPAA and ACA and make certain other changes to the excepted benefits definition . The Proposed Regulations would also provide added options for employees and employers in connection with ACA.

The definition of “excepted benefits” is critical for employers and insurers as HIPAA and ACA exempt from certain of their mandates arrangements that qualify as excepted benefits under the Agencies rules. Since the passage of the Affordable Care Act, ambiguities and confusion have persisted about when and if certain arrangements qualify as excepted benefits. Since HIPAA took effect, widespread abuse, debate and confusion about the treatment of certain mini-med and certain other benefit plans as excepted benefits prompted the Agencies to publish additional guidance. Despite this guidance, many continue to debate the treatment of certain of these and other arrangements. As the effective date of ACA’s employer and individual mandates and Heath Insurance Exchange premium tax credits, employers, employees and other stakeholders expressed concerns that the past HIPAA definition of excepted health benefits needed updating to prevent undesirable consequences for employees offered these arrangements.

The Proposed Regulations would amend current regulations to treat certain EAPs as excepted benefits, effective immediately. EAPs are typically free programs offered by employers that can provide wide-ranging benefits to address circumstances that might otherwise adversely affect employees’ work and health. Benefits may include short-term substance abuse or mental health counseling or referral services, as well as financial counseling and legal services. Under the Proposed Regulations, EAPs would be considered excepted benefits if the program is free to employees and does not provide significant benefits in the nature of medical care or treatment. As excepted benefits, EAPs would be exempt from private insurance market reforms, and EAP coverage would not make individuals ineligible for a premium tax credit under ACA for enrolling in qualified health plans through the Health Insurance Marketplaces created by ACA.

Similarly, under the Proposed Regulations, vision and dental benefits provided by employers on a self-insured basis would be able to qualify as excepted benefits effective immediately under the conditions specified in the Proposed Regulations, even if they do not require contributions from employees. Insured vision and dental benefits, as well as self-insured vision and dental coverage that requires employee contributions, already qualify as excepted benefits.

The proposal to treat EAPs and stand alone dental and vision benefits require that the arrangements meet the specific requirements set forth in the Proposed Regulations. For instance, to keep benefits like dental benefits and vision benefits from coming under ACA mandates, an employer must offer the benefits separately from any group health plan and charge a separate premium for the excepted benefits.

Effective for plan years starting in 2015, the Proposed Regulations also would treat as excepted benefits certain limited coverage provided by plan sponsors that “wraps around” an individual market policy. The “wraparound” coverage would be available to employees for whom the plan sponsor’s primary group health coverage is not affordable and who instead get coverage through a nongrandfathered individual market policy. The wraparound coverage would provide extra benefits or broader networks, and may also reduce cost sharing. The proposal in the Proposed Regulations would not allow the wraparound coverage to substitute for employment-based coverage. The value of the wraparound coverage could not exceed 15 percent of the value of the primary coverage offered by the plan sponsor, which the Proposed Regulations would require to be affordable for at least the majority of employees.

The Obama administration may create a new type of benefit program for employers that send some workers to the individual exchanges to get health coverage.

A “limited wraparound plan” would give employers a way to beef up the benefits of some workers who get their coverage from an individual exchange rather than enrolling in the employer’s group health plan.

Some employers provide dental and vision plans along with health plans, without charging workers extra. The employers complained that they might have to start collecting small premiums just to keep their dental and vision plans from becoming PPACA plans.

The federal agencies have proposed letting employers keep the self-insured dental and vision benefits out from under PPACA without having to collect separate premiums.

The federal agencies also have made good on previous promises to clarify the rules stating how sponsors of employee assistance plans can keep the EAPs from becoming PPACA plans.

In the section on limited wraparound plans, the agencies talk about strategies for keeping the plans from giving employers a way to drop their group health plans and send all workers to the individual health insurance exchanges.

To offer a wraparound plan, an employer would have to offer a good group health plan. The employer could offer the wraparound plan benefits only to workers who bought “qualified health plan” coverage from an exchange because they found that the group health coverage was unaffordable.

An employer could use a wraparound plan to give workers with QHP coverage benefits similar to what workers in the group health plan have.

The cost of the wraparound coverage would have to be 15 percent or less of the cost of the group health coverage.

Speak Up On The Proposed Changes

Employers, health plan fiduciaries and administrators, health insurers, and others concerned about the scope and effect of the excepted benefit definition should review the proposed changes as soon as possible and provide comments to encourage tailoring the definition optimally. Input on the proposed changes and other feedback on the definition of excepted benefits and its effect on health care coverage or other health care coverage or reform concerns should be carefully prepared and submitted to the Agencies as well as where appropriate, with Congress. In addition , we also encourage you and others to help understand the rules and their implications by sharing your thoughts on these and other concerns in the Coalition For Responsible Health Care Policy linkedin group. The Coalition for Responsible Health Care Policy is a group hosted by Solutions Law Press, Inc. hosts to provides a resource that concerned Americans can use to share, monitor and discuss the Health Care Reform law and other health care, insurance and related laws, regulations, policies and practices and options for promoting access to quality, affordable healthcare through the design, administration and enforcement of these regulations.

For Assistance or More Information

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. Her widely respected publications and programs include more than 25 years of publications on health plan contracting, design, administration and risk management including a “Managed Care Contracting Guide” published by the American Health Lawyers Association and numerous other works on vendor contracting. 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 Helpful Resources & Other Information

Recent examples of these publications include:

For important information about this communication click here.

Comments Off on Agencies Proposes To Treat Certain EAP, Dental and Vision Only Plans As ACA & HIPAA Excepted Benefits | 105(h), Affordable Care Act, Corporate Compliance, Employee Benefits, Employers, Employment Tax, ERISA, Health Plans, HIPAA, Human Resources, Insurance, Unemployment Benefits, Unemployment Insurance | Tagged: Affordable Care Act, Employer, employer shared responsibility, exchanges, HIE, reporting, Worker Classification | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

1/1/14 Exchange Enrollment Deadline Extended As Enrollment Still Lags

December 24, 2013

With enrollment in the new Federal and State Health Insurance Exchanges, which the Obama Administration calls “Marketplaces” lagging and Americans attempting to use the Federal and state Exchange enrollment platforms continuing to experience technical “glitches,” the Obama Administration is extending again the deadline for Americans who want to get health coverage offered through the Exchanges to begin January 1, 2014.

The Administration quietly revised the Exchange enrollment page at Healthcare.gov to instructs visitors that Americans who weren’t able to enroll in an insurance plan by December 23 because of problems you had using HealthCare.gov and want coverage that starts January 1, 2014 to contact the Marketplace Call Center at 1-800-318-2596 (available 24/7; closed December 25. TTY: 1-855-889-4325).

Are you concerned about health care coverage or other health care issues or policy concerns? Join the discussion and share your input by joining Project COPE: Coalition for Patient Empowerment here.

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

Sharing and promoting the use of practical practices, tools, information and ideas that patients and their families, health care providers, employers, health plans, communities and policymakers can share and offer to help patients, their families and others in their care communities to understand and work together to better help the patients, their family and their professional and private care community plan for and manage these needs is the purpose of Project COPE, The Coalition on Patient Empowerment & It’s Affiliate, the Coalition on Responsible Health Policy.

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

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

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

For Assistance or More Information

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. Her widely respected publications and programs include more than 25 years of publications on health plan contracting, design, administration and risk management including a “Managed Care Contracting Guide” published by the American Health Lawyers Association and numerous other works on vendor contracting. 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 Helpful Resources & Other Information

Recent examples of these publications include:

For important information about this communication click here.

Comments Off on 1/1/14 Exchange Enrollment Deadline Extended As Enrollment Still Lags | 105(h), Affordable Care Act, Corporate Compliance, Employee Benefits, Employers, Employment Tax, ERISA, Health Plans, HIPAA, Human Resources, Insurance, Unemployment Benefits, Unemployment Insurance | Tagged: Affordable Care Act, Employer, employer shared responsibility, exchanges, HIE, reporting, Worker Classification | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Businesses Performing Income, Payroll Tax Duties For Employers Confirm Compliance With Updated IRS Procedures

December 14, 2013

Payroll, staffing employee leasing and other businesses that provide workers, staffing, payroll or other related services and the businesses that use these services should review their status to determine if the service provider might be considered to act as the “agent” of their client businesses for purposes of the withholding of income taxes from wages and/or the collection, reporting and payment of income and employment taxes on behalf of another employer business and if so, their responsibilities as agents for these purposes under Revenue Procedure 2013-39

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) recently released Revenue Procedure 2013-39. It describes and updates the procedure for requesting the IRS authorize a person to act as agent under section 3504 of the Internal Revenue Code (Code) and §31.3504-1 of the Employment Tax Regulations for purposes of Chapters 21, 22, 24, and 25 of the Code. Special instructions are also set forth for agents authorized to perform acts for purposes of Chapter 23 of the Code.

Chapters 21, 22, 23, 24, and 25 of the Code impose obligations on employers with regard to employment taxes. Specifically, Chapter 21 imposes Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) tax, Chapter 22 imposes Railroad Retirement Tax Act (RRTA) tax, Chapter 23 imposes Federal Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA) tax. Meanwhile, Chapter 24 imposes Collection of Income Tax at Source on Wages (income tax withholding), and Chapter 25 provides general provisions on employment taxes.

While these Code provisions generally impose these obligations on the common law employer of the employee with respect to whose wages the taxes arise, Section 3504 of the Code authorizes the Secretary to issue regulations to authorize a fiduciary, agent, or other person (“agent”) who has the control of, receives, has custody of, disposes of, or pays the wages of an employee or group of employees, employed by one or more employers, to perform certain specified acts required of employers. Under section 3504, all provisions of law (including penalties) applicable with respect to an employer are applicable to the agent and stay applicable to the common law employer. Accordingly, both the agent and employer are liable for the employment taxes and penalties associated with violations of these requirements.

In addition to updating the procedures generally applicable for parties to act as agents of employers for purposes of income and payroll taxes generally, the Revenue Procedure also sets forth special rules for agents dealing with home health workers as well as certain other special circumstances.

Businesses that could be considered to act as agents of another business should carefully review their status to determine whether their organization could be considered an agent for purposes of these rules either because they openly perform these responsibilities as a declared agent in accordance with current IRS procedures, or because the facts and circumstances under which their business acts as an employee leasing, staffing, professional employment organization (PEO) create a risk that workers treated as employed by the service provider could in fact be recharacterized on audit as common law employees of the customer.

Beyond the employer responsibilities under existing income and employment tax rules, proper classification also may have implications on the parties responsibilities under the employer shared responsibility rules of Code Section 4980H. In Notice 2013-54, the IRS stated that the IRS might be willing to recognize health coverage provided by a staffing, employee leasing or other firm to a worker where the facts and circumstances reflect that the common law employer of the worker in fact is the customer of the staffing company as coverage provided by the common law employer. In comments made at an American Bar Association Joint Tax and RPTE Meeting this Fall, however, IRS representatives also commented that they contemplated that this ability would be limited to situations where the staffing entity or other service provider registers as the agent of the customer which was the common law employer of the workers. Businesses must await further clarifying guidance about whether and how the IRS ultimately implements these rules.

For Assistance or More Information

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. Her widely respected publications and programs include more than 25 years of publications on health plan contracting, design, administration and risk management including a “Managed Care Contracting Guide” published by the American Health Lawyers Association and numerous other works on vendor contracting. 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 Helpful Resources & Other Information

Recent examples of these publications include:

For important information about this communication click here.

Comments Off on Businesses Performing Income, Payroll Tax Duties For Employers Confirm Compliance With Updated IRS Procedures | 105(h), Affordable Care Act, Corporate Compliance, Employee Benefits, Employers, Employment Tax, ERISA, Health Plans, HIPAA, Human Resources, Insurance, Unemployment Benefits, Unemployment Insurance | Tagged: Affordable Care Act, Employer, employer shared responsibility, Employment Tax, Income Tax, reporting, Withholding, Worker Classification | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

IRS To Tax Health Insurers On Assessments To Cover ACA Section 9010 Annual Fee

December 10, 2013

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) plans to tax insurers in the business of providing health insurance on individuals in the U.S. (Health Insurers) on amounts that the health insurer collects from policyholders to offset a new annual fee that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) imposes on these insurers.

Section 9010 of ACA imposes an annual fee on insurers as part of its funding provisions. In response to this new obligation, Health Insurers generally are passing along all or part of the expense of paying the mandated annual fee on to customers through various means.

According to Internal Revenue Service guidance scheduled for official publication on December 16, 2013, the IRS will require Health Insurers to include amounts collected by the insurer to offset the annual fee cost in income for purposes of determining federal tax liability. Revenue Ruling 2013-27 says that the IRS will require a Health Insurer to include in its gross income amounts it collects from policyholders to offset the cost of the annual fee imposed under ACA Section 9010.

Health insurers will need to take into account that the IRS plans to tax the collected amounts when doing financial forecasting and to make proper arrangements to track, report and pay applicable taxes resulting from the collection of these amounts.

For Assistance or More Information

If you have questions or need help with these or 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. Her widely respected publications and programs include more than 25 years of publications on health plan contracting, design, administration and risk management including a “Managed Care Contracting Guide” published by the American Health Lawyers Association and numerous other works on vendor contracting. 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 Helpful Resources & Other Information

Recent examples of these publications include:

For important information about this communication click here.

Comments Off on IRS To Tax Health Insurers On Assessments To Cover ACA Section 9010 Annual Fee | Employee Benefits, Employers, Health Plans, HIPAA, Human Resources, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act | Tagged: ACA, Affordable Care Act, Compensation, Employer, expense reimbursement, Fringe Benefits, health care reformhealth-plans, Health Insurer, health reform, Insurer, IRS 132, medical expense, Mileage, moving expense | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

2014 Standard Mileage Rates Announced

December 10, 2013

Businesses should review the updated optional standard mileage rates and maximum standard automobile costs for purposes of claiming certain automobile allowances during 2014 recently released by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to determine and make the necessary arrangements to communicate and implement any changes in the rates that their business plans to use to reimburse employees and others for mileage.

Notice 2013-80, which is scheduled for official publication in Internal Revenue Bulletin 2013-52 on December 23, 2013, provides the optional 2014 standard mileage rates for taxpayers to use in computing the deductible costs of operating an automobile for business, charitable, medical or moving expense purposes. This notice also provides the amount taxpayers must use in calculating reductions to basis for depreciation taken under the business standard mileage rate, and the maximum standard automobile cost that may be used in computing the allowance under a fixed and variable rate (FAVR) plan. The IRS released an advanced copy of the Notice on December 6, 2013.

Many businesses reimburse employees and other service providers for mileage and other automobile expenses under policies that use these IRS standard rates to calculate the reimbursement amounts. Reimbursement of employees based on these rate is not required. Because reimbursements in excess of the standard rates can create income tax recordkeeping and reporting challenges for the employer, the employee or both, however, most businesses use standard mileage reimbursement rates set at or below the IRS optional standard rates. Businesses facing financial or other challenges may want to reevaluate whether to continue to reimburse mileage and if so, the rate of reimbursement to use to do so.

When communicating with employees about the businesses’ policies for reimbursing business and moving expense mileage, businesses should take care to ensure that employees understand differences in the mileage reimbursement rates that apply to different categories of expenses. As an added service to employees, many human resources departments also may want to consider alerting employees to consult their tax advisor or take other steps to properly understand and retain documentation of mileage not only for business expense reimbursement, but also medical and moving purposes. The availability of this information can be helpful to empower workers and their families to understand and take proper advantage of rules for deducting these expenses even when the employer or its health plan does not reimburse the employee for the expenses.

In addition to reimbursements for workers, businesses also should consider the potential effects of the adjustments in the IRS optional standard mileage rates on the amounts they may bill their customers for mileage expenses as well as the amount that they should expect that their vendors and service providers may bill the business for mileage expenses under contracts that provide for reimbursement of those expenses. Businesses whose contracts with vendors or customers provide for reimbursement of mileage expenses using rates based on the IRS’ optional standard mileage rates should evaluate the effect of the announced adjustments on those mileage obligations to ensure that mileage expenses are properly anticipated, billed and paid.

For Assistance or More Information

If reviewing or negotiating your vendor agreements, or 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. Her widely respected publications and programs include more than 25 years of publications on health plan contracting, design, administration and risk management including a “Managed Care Contracting Guide” published by the American Health Lawyers Association and numerous other works on vendor contracting. 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 Helpful Resources & Other Information

Recent examples of these publications include:

For important information about this communication click here.

Comments Off on 2014 Standard Mileage Rates Announced | Employee Benefits, Employers, Health Plans, HIPAA, Human Resources, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act | Tagged: Compensation, Employer, Employers, expense reimbursement, Fringe Benefits, Health Plans, IRS 132, medical expense, Mileage, moving expense | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

New Final FLSA Rule Gives Home Workers Minimum Wage, Overtime, Other FLSA Protections

September 18, 2013

Health care and other parties employing or otherwise engaging the services of home care workers should review and update their policies and practices for scheduling, tracking hours worked and paying these workers to ensure that they comply by January 1, 2015 with a new final rule announced by the U.S. Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division today (September 18, 2013). Today’s announcement of the regulatory changes means employers of home care workers can expect to see costs rise and also will join most other U.S. businesses that must worry about getting caught in minimum wage and overtime enforcement traps.

New Home Care Worker Rules Effective January 2015

Under the new final rule, the Labor Department extends the Fair Labor Standards Act’s minimum wage and overtime protections to most of the nation’s direct care workers who provide essential home care assistance to elderly people and people with illnesses, injuries, or disabilities beginning January 1, 2015.

The new final rule generally will require that the approximately two million home care workers such as home health aides, personal care aides, and certified nursing assistants will qualify for minimum wage and overtime. Employers engaging these services also generally will need to keep records and comply with other FLSA requirements with respect to these workers as well.

In anticipation of the rollout of these new protections, the Labor Department is kicking off a public outreach campaign to educate home care workers and their employers about the rule change. The Department will be hosting five public webinars during the month of October and has created a new, dedicated web portal here with fact sheets, FAQs, interactive web tools, and other materials.

The Labor Department’s focus on home workers is an extension of its expanded regulation and enforcement efforts targeting a broad range of health care industry employers. Home care and other health industry employers should act to manage their rising exposures to minimum wage, overtime and other federal and state wage and hour law risks.

The impending change in the treatment of home care workers is part of a larger commitment by the Obama Administration to both expansion and enforcement of the FLSA’s minimum wage and overtime provisions, and a specific program targeting employers in health care and related services industries.

The Obama Administration since taking office has conducted an aggressive campaign seeking to significantly increase the minimum wage under the FLSA and expand other protections. Along with this proactive regulatory agenda, the Obama Administration also specifically is aggressively targeting health care and other caregiver businesses in its enforcement and audit activities. See, e.g. Home health care company in Dallas agrees to pay 80 nurses more than $92,000 in back wages following US Labor Department investigation; US Department of Labor secures nearly $62,000 in back overtime wages for 21 health care employees in Pine Bluff, Ark.; US Department of Labor initiative targeted toward increasing FLSA compliance in New York’s health care industry; US Department of Labor initiative targeted toward residential health care industry in Connecticut and Rhode Island to increase FLSA compliance; Partners HealthCare Systems agrees to pay 700 employees more than $2.7 million in overtime back wages to resolve U.S. Labor Department lawsuit; US Labor Dnda epartment sues Kentucky home health care provider to obtain more than $512,000 in back wages and damages for 22 employees; and Buffalo, Minn.-based home health care provider agrees to pay more than $150,000 in back wages following US Labor Department investigation.

Violation of wage and hour laws exposes health care and other employers to significant back pay awards, substantial civil penalties and, if the violation is found to be willful, even potential criminal liability. Because states all have their own wage and hour laws, employers may face liability under either or both laws. Coupled with these and other enforcement efforts against health and other caregiver businesses, today’s announcement reflects enforcement risks will continue to rise for employers of home care workers.

In light of the proposed regulatory changes and demonstrated willingness of the Labor Department and private plaintiffs to bring actions against employers violating these rules, health care and others employing home care workers should take well-documented steps to manage their risks. These employers should both confirm the adequacy of their practices under existing rules, as well as evaluate and begin preparing to respond to the proposed modifications to these rules. In both cases, employers of home care or other health care workers are encouraged to critically evaluate their classification or workers, both with respect to their status as employees versus contractor or leased employees, as well as their characterization as exempt versus non-exempt for wage and hour law purposes. In addition, given the nature of the scheduled frequently worked by home care givers, their employers also generally should pay particular attention to the adequacy of practices for recordkeeping.

Of course, the home care and health care industry are not the only industries that need to worry about FLSA enforcement. The Obama Administration is very aggressive in its enforcement of wage and hour and overtime laws generally. For instance, First Republic Bank recently paid $1,009,643.93 in overtime back wages for 392 First Republic Bank employees in California, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New York and Oregon after the Labor Department found the San Francisco-based bank wrongly classified the employees as exempt from the FLSA’s overtime and recordkeeping requirements, resulting in violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act’s overtime and record-keeping provisions. The Labor Department announced the settlement resulting in the payment on November 27, 2012. The settlement resulted from an investigation by the Labor Department that found the San Francisco-based bank wrongly classified the employees as exempt from overtime, resulting in violations of the FLSA’s overtime and record-keeping provisions.

The FLSA requires that covered, nonexempt employees be paid at least the federal minimum wage of $7.25 for all hours worked, plus time and one-half their regular rates, including commissions, bonuses and incentive pay, for hours worked beyond 40 per week. Employers also are required to maintain accurate time and payroll records.

While the FLSA provides an exemption from both minimum wage and overtime pay requirements for individuals employed in bona fide executive, administrative, professional and outside sales positions, as well as certain computer employees, job titles do not determine the applicability of this or other FLSA exemptions. In order for an exemption to apply, an employee’s specific job duties and salary must meet all the requirements of the department’s regulations. To qualify for exemption, employees generally must meet certain tests regarding their job duties and be paid on a salary basis at not less than $455 per week.

Investigators found that First Republic Bank failed to consider the FLSA’s criteria that allow certain administrative and professional employees to be exempt from receiving overtime pay. In fact, the employees were entitled to overtime compensation at one and one-half times their regular rates for hours worked over 40 in a week. Additionally, the bank failed to include bonus payments in nonexempt employees’ regular rates of pay when computing overtime compensation, in violation of the act. Record-keeping violations resulted from the employer’s failure to record the number of hours worked by the misclassified employees.

“It is essential that employers take the time to carefully assess the FLSA classification of their workforce,” said Secretary of Labor Hilda L. Solis in the Labor Department’s announcement of the settlement. “As this investigation demonstrates, improper classification results in improper wages and causes workers real economic harm.”

FLSA Violations Generally Costly; Enforcement Rising

The enforcement record of the Labor Department confirms that employers that improperly treat workers as exempt from the FLSA’s overtime, minimum wage and recordkeeping requriements run a big risk. The Labor Deprtment and private plaintiffs alike regularly target employers that use aggressive worker classification or other pay practices to avoid paying minimum wage or overtime to workers. Under the Obama Administration, DOL officials have made it a priority to enforce overtime, record keeping, worker classification and other wage and hour law requirements. See e.g., Boston Furs Sued For $1M For Violations Of Fair Labor Standards Act; Record $2.3 Million+ Backpay Order; Minimum Wage, Overtime Risks Highlighted By Labor Department Strike Force Targeting Residential Care & Group Homes; Review & Strengthen Defensibility of Existing Worker Classification Practices In Light of Rising Congressional & Regulatory Scrutiny; 250 New Investigators, Renewed DOL Enforcement Emphasis Signal Rising Wage & Hour Risks For Employers; Quest Diagnostics, Inc. To Pay $688,000 In Overtime Backpay. In an effort to further promote compliance and enforcement of these rules, the Labor Department is using smart phone applications, social media and a host of other new tools to educate and recruit workers in its effort to find and prosecute violators. See, e.g. New Employee Smart Phone App New Tool In Labor Department’s Aggressive Wage & Hour Law Enforcement Campaign Against Restaurant & Other Employers. As a result of these effort, employers violating the FLSA now face heightened risk of enforcement from both the Labor Department and private litigation.

Employers Should Strengthen Practices For Defensibility

Audit of each position current classified as exempt to assess its continued sustainability and to develop documentation justifying that characterization;
Audit characterization of workers obtained from staffing, employee leasing, independent contractor and other arrangements and implement contractual and other oversight arrangements to minimize risks that these relationships could create if workers are recharacterized as employed by the employer receiving these services;
Review the characterization of on-call and other time demands placed on employees to confirm that all compensable time is properly identified, tracked, documented, compensated and reported;
Review of existing practices for tracking compensable hours and paying non-exempt employees for compliance with applicable regulations and to identify opportunities to minimize costs and liabilities arising out of the regulatory mandates;
If the audit raises questions about the appropriateness of the classification of an employee as exempt, self-initiation of proper corrective action after consultation with qualified legal counsel;
Review of existing documentation and record keeping practices for hourly employees;
Exploration of available options and alternatives for calculating required wage payments to non-exempt employees; and
Re-engineering of work rules and other practices to minimize costs and liabilities as appropriate in light of the regulations and enforcement exposures.

For Help With Investigations, Policy Updates Or Other Needs

Board Certified in Labor & Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, management attorney and consultant Ms. Stamer is nationally and internationally recognized for more than 23 years of work helping employers; employee benefit plans and their sponsors, administrators, fiduciaries; employee leasing, recruiting, staffing and other professional employment organizations; and others design, administer and defend innovative workforce, compensation, employee benefit and management policies and practices. The Chair of the American Bar Association (ABA) RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Committee, a Council Representative on the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits, Government Affairs Committee Legislative Chair for the Dallas Human Resources Management Association, past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, Ms. Stamer often has worked, extensively on these and other workforce and performance related matters. She also is recognized for her publications, industry leadership, workshops and presentations on these and other human resources concerns and regularly speaks and conducts training on these matters. Her insights on these and other matters appear in the Bureau of National Affairs, Spencer Publications, the Wall Street Journal, the Dallas Business Journal, the Houston Business Journal, and many other national and local publications. For more information about Ms. Stamer and her experience or to get access to other publications by Ms. Stamer see here or contact Ms. Stamer directly.

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. For important information about this communication click here.

Comments Off on New Final FLSA Rule Gives Home Workers Minimum Wage, Overtime, Other FLSA Protections | Corporate Compliance, Employers, Human Resources, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, Risk Management, Wage & Hour | Tagged: Backpay, Employer, Employment, employment law, Fair Labor Standards Act, FSLA, IT, Labor Department, Minimum Wage, Technology, Wage & Hour, wage and hour, Worker Classification | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

IRS Releases Updated Healthcare Law Online Resources Publication

August 1, 2013

The Internal Revenue Service’s updated IRS Healthcare Law Online Resources publication provides a helpful list of resources for employers and individuals to use to get access to laws, regulations and other information about the Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act (ACA) and its implementing rules and regulations. The resource publication issued as Department of Treasury Publication 5093 (6-2013), Catalog Number 63920H presents as follows:

For Help or More Information

ACA and other federal group health plan rules are complex and ever-evolving. 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 or with other employee benefits, human resources, health care or insurance matters, please contact the author of this update, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer.

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

Other Resources

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

About Solutions Law Press

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

Comments Off on IRS Releases Updated Healthcare Law Online Resources Publication | Bankruptcy, Corporate Compliance, Employee Benefits, Employers, ERISA, Fiduciary Responsibility, Health Plans, Mental Health, Mental Health Parity, Professional Liability, Retirement Plans, Risk Management, Tax | Tagged: Affordable Care Act, Employer, Health Care Reform, Health Insurance, Health Plan, internal revenue service, Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Use New Government Health Care Reform Resources With Care

July 22, 2013

While large employers are getting an additional year to collect data and make other preparations to comply with the “pay-or-play” rules in the shared responsibility provisions of new Internal Revenue Code Section 4980H under the extension announced by the Administration in early July, all employers still have much to do stay on top of the developing rules and make the arrangements necessary to prepare to comply with the current and 2014 federal health plan mandates of the Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act (ACA) and other federal laws.

As the Departments of Health & Human Services, Labor and Treasury continue to refine and roll out guidance implementing these rules, the agencies recently released various updated resources discussing these evolving rules. Among others, Publication 5093, Healthcare Law Online Resources, lists ACA resources from the IRS, the Departments of Health & Human Services and Labor, and the Small Business Administration. Meanwhile, IRS.gov and HealthCare.gov also have new ACA webpages.

While these updated resources are intended by the agencies to help acquaint businesses with ACA’s requirements, businesses and the insurers and administrators that offer health benefit services need to keep in mind that these resources have risk and limitations. As the agencies are continuing to refine the rules, these resources often do not reflect the most current or emerging guidance or status of rules. Additionally, government provided explanations, model forms and resources often incorporate provisions or interpretations that are biased against the interests of the businesses, or contain other provisions that may not fully inform the business to all of its options. Furthermore, because of limitations in jurisdiction and other constraints, guidance issued by an agency or agency that reflects that certain approaches may satisfy the requirements of the rules specifically addressed by the guidance often do not disclose or adequately communicate potential concerns with certain types of actions under other applicable requirements.

For instance, model exchange notices published by the Department of Labor this Spring to assist employers to provide the notifications about federal exchange coverage options that ACA requires employers distribute by October 1 contain many provisions beyond the content actually required to meet the notice requirements. The Labor Department in announcing the model notices indicated that its model language includes discretionary provisions which the Department thought some employers might want to include to minimize questions from employees about employer provided benefits that employees interested in pursuing subsidized coverage could be expected to need to apply for subsidies. While as of now, exchanges and subsidies still are scheduled to come on line January 1, 2014, the Obama Administration extended the employer “pay-or-play” mandate of Code Section 4980 and its associated employer reporting requirements, as well as has established that it does not plan to verify eligibility for subsidies requested by individuals enrolling in exchanges in 2014. Given this, most employers will want to consider carefully the specific content that they wish to include in the exchange notice as they prepare the notice in anticipation of its distribution in October.Accordingly, all businesses dealing with these issues are encouraged to arrange for comprehensive advice from qualified legal counsel familiar with these requirements and other related human resources, health care, insurance and employee benefit issues.

For Help With Compliance, Risk Management, Investigations, Policy Updates Or Other Needs

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

Nationally recognized for her extensive work, publications and leadership on HIPAA and other privacy and data security concerns, Ms. Stamer has extensive experience representing, advising and assisting health care providers, health plans, their business associates and other health industry clients to establish and administer medical and other privacy and data security, employment, employee benefits, and to handle other compliance and risk management policies and practices; to investigate and respond to OCR and other enforcement and other compliance, public policy, regulatory, staffing, and other operations and risk management concerns. She regularly designs and presents HIPAA and other risk management, compliance and other training for health plans, employers, health care providers, professional associations and others.

A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, State Bar of Texas and American Bar Association, Vice President of the North Texas Health Care Compliance Professionals Association, the Former Chair of the ABA RPTE Employee Benefit & Compensation Group and current Co-Chair of its Welfare Benefit Committee, Vice Chair of the ABA TIPS Employee Benefit Committee, an ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits Council Representative, Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Section and the former Board Compliance Chair of the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas, Ms. Stamer serves as the scribe for the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits agency meeting with OCR. Ms. Stamer also regularly works with OCR and other agencies, publishes and speaks extensively on medical and other privacy and data security, health and managed care industry regulatory, staffing and human resources, compensation and benefits, technology, public policy, reimbursement and other operations and risk management concerns. Her publications and insights on HIPAA and other data privacy and security concerns appear in the Health Care Compliance Association, Atlantic Information Service, Bureau of National Affairs, World At Work, The Wall Street Journal, Business Insurance, the Dallas Morning News, Modern Health Care, Managed Healthcare, Health Leaders, and a many other national and local publications. For instance, Ms. Stamer for the third year will serve in 2013 as the appointed scribe for the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits Agency meeting with OCR. Her insights on HIPAA risk management and compliance often appear in medical privacy related publications of a broad range of health care, health plan and other industry publications Among others, she has conducted privacy training for the Association of State & Territorial Health Plans (ASTHO), the Los Angeles Health Department, SHRM, HIMMS, the American Bar Association, the Health Care Compliance Association, a multitude of health plan, insurance and financial services, education, employer employee benefit and other clients, trade and professional associations and others. You can get more information about her HIPAA and other experience here.

In addition to this extensive HIPAA specific experience, Ms. Stamer also is recognized for her experience and skill aiding clients with a diverse range of other employment, employee benefits, health and safety, public policy, and other compliance and risk management concerns.

For help with these or other compliance concerns, to ask about compliance audit or training, or for legal representation on these or other matters please contact Ms. Stamer at (469) 767-8872 or via e-mail here.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

“Pay Or Play” Reprieve Still Leaves Employers Facing Challenging 2014 Health Care Reform Deadlines

Comments Off on Use New Government Health Care Reform Resources With Care | Corporate Compliance, Employers, GINA, Health Plans, HIPAA, Human Resources, Insurance, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, Privacy, Risk Management, Whistleblower | Tagged: Backpay, Employer, Employment, employment law, Fair Labor Standards Act, FSLA, IT, Labor Department, Minimum Wage, Technology, Wage & Hour, wage and hour, Worker Classification | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

OCR Warns Others Learn From WellPoint’s $1.7 M HIPAA Settlement

July 12, 2013

WellPoint $1.7 M HIPAA Settlement Expensive Lesson On HIPAA Risks Of Leaving PHI Too Accessible In Web-Based Applications

As health plans and health care organizations increasingly jump on the Web-based application bandwagon, managed care company WellPoint Inc. (WellPoint) is learning a $1.7 million lesson about the importance of ensuring Web-based applications and portals that allow access to members or other consumers protected health information (PHI) have the administrative, technical and other security safeguards required by the Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act (HIPAA) Privacy and Security rules.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office of Civil Rights (OCR) announced late yesterday (July 11, 2013) that WellPoint has agreed to pay $1.7 million to settle OCR charges that WellPoint violated the HIPAA Security Rule and left the electronic protected health information (ePHI) of 612,402 individuals accessible to unauthorized individuals over the Internet by failing to implement appropriate administrative and technical safeguards in its Web-based applications. See WellPoint HIPAA Settlement Press Release.

Web-based application use is increasingly popular among health plans and their wellness programs, as well as health care providers. Employers and health plans use them both in plan administration and offer them to members to use as member tools. Health care providers use them for health care operations, as well as patient engagement and communication tools. The WellPoint settlement illustrates that managed care and other health insurers, health plans and their employer or other sponsors, health care providers, health care clearinghouses (Covered Entities) and their business associates can’t let their enthusiasm for the ease of use of these products to compromise the security of PHI.

Rather, health plans and other Covered Entities, employer and other health plan sponsors, their business associates, and the Web and other technology developers, providers and consultants marketing products, services or other solutions should learn from WellPoint’s hard lesson by ensuring that current and future Web-based applications, portals and other information system components that are or could be used to provide access to PHI incorporate the Security Rule safeguards both when originally implemented and with each subsequent upgrade.

HIPAA Privacy, Security & Breach Notification Rules Require PHI Safeguards & Other Protections

The Breach Notification Rule added to HIPAA under the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health, or HITECH Act requires HIPAA-covered entities to notify OCR, affected individuals and the media promptly of a breach of “unsecured protected health information” (UPHI) impacting more than 500 individuals. For smaller breaches, the Breach Notification Rule still requires prompt notice to affected individuals, but allows Covered Entities to disclose the breach to OCR as part of an annual breach report and to forego notification to the media. UPHI generally includes any PHI, whether or not ePHI that is not either secured or destroyed in the way described by the Breach Notification Rules.

In addition to the Breach Notification Rule, most Covered Entities and their business associates also are subject to state laws or regulations that impose similar or additional breach notification and other standards and responsibilities on the protection of personal health or other data including required notification and other responses following a breach of the security of UPHI or other PHI.

WellPoint’s $1.7 HIPAA Security Mistake

WellPoint’s $1.7 million settlement lesson resulted from an OCR investigation started in response to a breach report WellPoint submitted to comply with the Breach Notification Rules.

According to OCR, the Breach Report indicated that security weaknesses in an online application database left the electronic protected health information (ePHI) of 612,402 individuals accessible to unauthorized individuals over the Internet.

OCR says its investigation indicated that WellPoint did not implement appropriate administrative and technical safeguards as required under the HIPAA Security Rule. According to OCR, WellPoint did not:

Adequately implement policies and procedures for authorizing access to the on-line application database;
Perform an appropriate technical evaluation in response to a software upgrade to its information systems; or
Have technical safeguards in place to verify the person or entity seeking access to electronic protected health information maintained in its application database.

As a result, OCR concluded that from October 23, 2009 until March 7, 2010, WellPoint impermissibly disclosed the ePHI of 612,402 individuals by allowing access to their ePHI maintained in the application database. This data included names, dates of birth, addresses, Social Security numbers, telephone numbers and health information.

Under the resulting WellPoint HIPAA Resolution Agreement, WellPoint must pay OCR a $1.7 million settlement payment as well as take a series of corrective actions to correct the deficiencies in its policies and practices that resulted in the reported breach to minimize future risks of breaches resulting from these deficient.

OCR Warns Learn From WellPoint’s Experience

All Covered Entities and their business associates and leaders should heed the lesson sent to them by OCR in announcing the WellPoint settlement and take appropriate steps other to ensure that appropriate policies and safeguards are adopted and applied in selecting and implementing future application or system upgrades, as well as review existing systems to ensure that the security of existing systems and applications have incorporated and apply the requisite safeguards.

OCR made clear that the WellPoint settlement is intended to send a message to Covered Entities and their business associates to ensure that these steps are appropriately taken. The settlement announcement states:

This case sends an important message to HIPAA-covered entities to take caution when implementing changes to their information systems, especially when those changes involve updates to Web-based applications or portals that are used to provide access to consumers’ health data using the Internet. Whether systems upgrades are conducted by covered entities or their business associates, HHS expects organizations to have in place reasonable and appropriate technical, administrative and physical safeguards to protect the confidentiality, integrity and availability of electronic protected health information – especially information that is accessible over the Internet.

The settlement announcement also reminds business associates that OCR will begin holding them directly accountable along with their Covered Entity clients for complying with many HIPAA requirements beginning in September, stating:

Beginning Sept. 23, 2013, liability for many of HIPAA’s requirements will extend directly to business associates that receive or store protected health information, such as contractors and subcontractors.

Take Documented Steps To Show You Hear OCR’s Messages

Covered entities and their business associates and leaders, and vendors and consultants offering services or products to them should take care to conduct careful and well-documented reviews and implement corrective actions necessary to show their applications and systems, policies and practices reflect their strong commitment and action to appropriately protect PHI in accordance with the expectations shown by the WellPoint HIPAA Resolution Agreement and other OCR settlements, OCR’s updated HIPAA regulations, and other OCR and industry information.

In addition to the guidance set forth in OCR’s Resolution Agreements with WellPoint and other Covered Entities, revisions to OCR’s Privacy and Security Rules in OCR’s 2013 restatement of its regulations here cause all Covered Entities and their business associates conduct a well-documented reassessment of the adequacy of their existing policies, systems and practices and steps taken to redress any uncovered gaps.

Among other things, the 2013 Regulations:

Revise OCR’s HIPAA regulations to reflect the HITECH Act’s amendment of HIPAA to add the contractors and subcontractors of health plans, health care providers and health care clearinghouses that qualify as business associates to the parties directly responsible for complying with and subject to HIPAA’s civil and criminal penalties for violating HIPAA’s Privacy, Security, and Breach Notification rules;
Update previous interim regulations implementing HITECH Act breach notification rules that require Covered Entities including business associates to give specific notifications to individuals whose PHI is breached, HHS and in some cases, the media when a breach of unsecured information happens;
Update interim enforcement guidance OCR previously published to implement increased penalties and other changes to HIPAA’s civil and criminal sanctions enacted by the HITECH Act;
Implement HITECH Act amendments to HIPAA that tighten the conditions under which Covered Entities are allowed to use or disclose PHI for marketing and fundraising purposes and prohibit Covered Entities from selling an individual’s health information without getting the individual’s authorization in the manner required by the 2013 Regulations;
Update OCR’s rules about the individual rights that HIPAA requires that Covered Entities to afford to individuals who are the subject of PHI used or possessed by a Covered Entity to reflect tightened requirements enacted by the HITECH Act that allow individuals to order their health care provider not to share information about their treatment with health plans when the individual pays cash for the care and to clarify that individuals can require Covered Entities to provide electronic PHI in electronic form;
Revise the regulations to reflect amendments to HIPAA made as part of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (GINA) which added genetic information to the definition of PHI protected under the HIPAA Privacy Rule and prohibits health plans from using or disclosing genetic information for underwriting purposes; and
Clarifies and revises other provisions to reflect other interpretations and information guidance that OCR has issued since HIPAA was passed and to make certain other changes that OCR found appropriate based on its experience administering and enforcing the rules.

Covered Entities were required to begin complying with most of these rule changes earlier this year. However, delayed compliance dates in the 2013 Regulations allowed Covered Entities and Business Associates to delay updates to pre-existing business associate agreements and the date that OCR would begin enforcing many of the HIPAA Rules directly against business associates to September 23, 2013.

Even without the necessity Settlements like that involving WellPoint, these 2013 Regulations make it imperative that Covered Entities to take the necessary steps to conduct an appropriate and well-documented review and update as needed their systems, policies and practices, business associate agreements, training and documentation.

With self-disclosures of breaches mandated by the Breach Notification Rules and OCR audits and enforcement rising, careful documentation of these activities and its analysis is necessary so that Covered Entities can be in a position to show OCR that the risk assessments required by the Security Rules was conducted as well as the efforts and commitment of the Covered Entity or business associate in the event of a breach investigation or audit. Yesterday’s WellPoint HIPAA announcement is just the latest in an ever-growing list of examples of the expensive consequences that can result if a Covered Entity or business associate cannot produce this documentation in response to an OCR audit or investigation. See, e.g. OCR Hits Alaska Medicaid For $1.7M+ For HIPAA Security Breach; OCR Audit Program Kickoff Further Heats HIPAA Privacy Risks; $1.5 Million HIPAA Settlement Reached To Resolve 1st OCR Enforcement Action Prompted By HITECH Act Breach Report; HIPAA Heats Up: HITECH Act Changes Take Effect & OCR Begins Posting Names, Other Details Of Unsecured PHI Breach Reports On Website; Providence To Pay $100000 & Implement Other Safeguards. In contrast, the OCR website also provides a multitude of examples showing how the ability to produce documentation and other evidence showing diligent efforts to comply has helped other covered entities that fall under OCR investigation to avoid or mitigate serious sanctions.

Coupled with statements by OCR about its intolerance, the WellPoint and other settlements provide a strong warning to covered entities of the need to carefully and appropriately manage their HIPAA encryption and other Privacy and Security responsibilities. Covered entities are urged to heed these warning by strengthening their HIPAA compliance and adopting other suitable safeguards to minimize HIPAA exposures.

In response to the 2013 Regulations and these expanding exposures, all Covered Entities should review critically and carefully the adequacy of their current HIPAA Privacy and Security compliance policies, monitoring, training, breach notification and other practices taking into consideration OCR’s investigation and enforcement actions against WellPoint and others, emerging litigation and other enforcement data; their own and reports of other security and privacy breaches and near misses; and other developments to decide if additional steps are necessary or advisable. Covered Entities and business associates should document this review in a manner that both reflects the scope and diligence of their activities including relevant considerations and decision-making about identified potential susceptibilities and reasoning about the adequacy of safeguards and other solutions.

Because this review is likely to uncover existing or past deficiencies or breaches, most covered entities and business associates will want to discuss with qualified legal counsel the planned assessment within the scope of attorney-client privilege to understand when and how to conduct the assessment to preserve options to claim attorney-client privilege to protect sensitive work product or discussions that may result in the course of the investigation within the attorney-client communication, work product or other evidentiary privileges, evaluation of the adequacy and appropriateness of the audit and resulting investigations and its documentation, and other assistance in strengthening the defensibility of compliance and risk management activities.

For Help With Compliance, Risk Management, Investigations, Policy Updates Or Other Needs

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

“Pay Or Play” Reprieve Still Leaves Employers Facing Challenging 2014 Health Care Reform Deadlines

1 Comment | Corporate Compliance, Employers, GINA, Health Plans, HIPAA, Human Resources, Insurance, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, Privacy, Risk Management, Whistleblower | Tagged: Backpay, Employer, Employment, employment law, Fair Labor Standards Act, FSLA, IT, Labor Department, Minimum Wage, Technology, Wage & Hour, wage and hour, Worker Classification | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

HIPAA Sanctions Triggered From Covered Entity Statements To Media, Workforce

June 14, 2013

Health plans, health care providers, health care clearinghouses (covered entities) and their business associates should confirm their existing policies, practices and training for communicating with the media and others comply with the Privacy Rule requirements of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) Privacy Rule in light of a Resolution Agreement with Shasta Regional Medical Center (SRMC) announced by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office of Civil Rights today (June 14, 2013).

Under the Resolution Agreement, SRMC agrees to pay $275,000 and implement a comprehensive corrective action plan (CAP) to settle an investigation that resulted when SRMC used and disclosed protected health information (PHI) of a patient to members of the media and its workforce while trying to do damage control against fraud or other allegations of misconduct involving individual patient information or circumstances. The Resolution Agreement shows how efforts to respond to press or media reports, patient or other complaints, physician or employee disputes, high profile accidents, or other events that may involve communications not typically run by privacy officers can create big exposures. While the Resolution Agreement targets a health care provider, the lessons are equally applicable to health plans and health care clearinghouses, who increasingly face their own pressure to communicate with the media and others about enforcement actions, workforce claims and other matters.

Talking Out Of Turn To Media & Others Violated HIPAA

OCR investigated SRMC after a January 4, 2012 Los Angeles Times article reported two SRMC senior leaders had met with media to discuss medical services provided to a patient. OCR’s investigation indicated that SRMC failed to safeguard the patient’s protected health information (PHI) from impermissible disclosure by intentionally disclosing PHI to multiple media outlets on at least three separate occasions, without a valid written authorization. OCR’s review also revealed senior management at SRMC impermissibly shared details about the patient’s medical condition, diagnosis and treatment in an email to the entire workforce. Further, SRMC failed to sanction its workforce members for impermissibly disclosing the patient’s records pursuant to its internal sanctions policy.

Among other things, the specific misconduct uncovered by HHS’s investigation indicated that from December 13 – 20, 2011, SRMC failed to safeguard the patient’s PHI from any impermissible intentional or unintentional disclosure on multiple occasions in connection with its response to media coverage arising from a Medicare fraud story including:

On December 13, 2011, for instance, OCR reports SRMC’s parent company sent a letter to California Watch, responding to a story about Medicare fraud. The letter described the patient’s medical treatment and provided specifics about her lab results even though SRMC did not have a written authorization from the patient to disclose this information to this news outlet.
On December 16, 2011, two of SRMC’s senior leaders also met with The Record Searchlight’s editor to discuss the patient’s medical record in detail even though SRMC did not have a written authorization from the patient to disclose this information to this newspaper.
On December 20, 2011, SRMC sent a letter to The Los Angeles Times, which contained detailed information about the treatment the patient received when, again, SRMC did not have a written authorization from the patient to disclose this information to this newspaper.

In addition, OCR found SRMC impermissibly used the affected party’s PHI when on December 20, 2011, SRMC sent an email to its entire workforce and medical staff, approximately 785-900 individuals, describing, in detail, the patient’s medical condition, diagnosis and treatment. SRMC did not have a written authorization from the patient to share this information with SRMC’s entire workforce and medical staff.

SRMC Must Correct & Pay $$275K Penalty

Under the Resolution Agreement, SRMC pays a $275,000 monetary settlement and agrees to comply with a CAP for the next year.

The CAP requires SRMC to update its policies and procedures on safeguarding PHI from impermissible uses and disclosures and to train its workforce members. The CAP also requires fifteen other hospitals or medical centers under the same ownership or operational control as SRMC to attest to their understanding of permissible uses and disclosures of PHI, including disclosures to the media.

The Resolution Agreement specifically requires that Shasta Regional Medical Center, among other things:

To update policies to include specific policies about sharing PHI with the media, members of the workforce not involved in an individual patient’s care and others to comply with HIPAA;.
To provide updated policies to OCR for approval;
To provide training documented with certification of all workforce members before allowing them to get access to PHI;

SRMC is one of several Prime Healthcare Services facilities under common ownership and control. The Resolution Agreement also requires corrective action at these commonly owned facilities including California-based Alvarado Hospital Medical Center in San Diego, Centinela Hospital Medical Center in Inglewood, Chino Valley Medical Center in Chino, Desert Valley Hospital in Victorville, Garden Grove Hospital Medical Center in Garden Grove, La Palma Intercommunity Hospital in La Palma, Paradise Valley Hospital in National City, San Dimas Community Hospital in San Dimas, Shasta Regional Medical Center in Redding, and West Anaheim Medical Center in Anaheim; Saint Mary’s Regional Medical Center in Reno, Nevada; Pennsylvania based Lower Bucks Hospital in Bristol and Roxborough Memorial Hospital in Philadelphia;and Texas-based Dallas Medical Center in Dallas, Harlingen Medical Center in Harlingen, Pampa Regional Medical Center in Pampa. Among other things, the Resolution Agreement requires that for each of these related facilities:

The CEO and Privacy Officer of each facility must give OCR a signed affidavit stating that they understand that the Privacy Rule protects an individual’s PHI is protected by Privacy Rule even if such information is already in the public domain or even though it has been disclosed by the individual; and that disclosures of PHI in response to media inquiries are only permissible pursuant to a signed HIPAA authorization; and
Ensure all members of their respective workforce are informed of this policy.

The Resolution Agreement highlights the difficulty that health care providers and other covered entities often face in properly recognizing and handling PHI in the case of fraud or other disputes. While health care providers have an understandable wish to defend themselves in the media and elsewhere in response to charges of misconduct, today’s settlement shows that improperly sharing PHI of each patient in the process will make matters much worse. It’s important to keep in mind that just omitting to mention the name or other common identifying information may not overcome this concern because information about a patient can be considered individually identifiable and to enjoy protection under HIPAA where the facts and circumstances would allow another person to know or determine who the individual is, even if the specific name, address or more common identifying information is not shared.

Furthermore, the settlement also makes clear that merely because the patient or some other party has shared the same information with the media or others does not excuse the health care provider or other covered entity or business associate from the obligation to keep confidential the PHI unless it gets proper consent or otherwise can show that an exception to HIPAA applies.

Finally, the Resolution Agreement also makes clear that OCR expects covered entities to connect their HIPAA compliance with other policies and operations and will hold covered entities and associates accountable for properly integrating, training workforce and enforcing compliance with these policies. While this means that covered entities and business associates may find themselves in the uncomfortable situation of facing unsavory reports and rumors without the ability to respond, the significant civil and even criminal penalties that can arise from violation of HIPAA make it critical that covered entities exercise discipline in responding to avoid sharing PHI improperly.

The 2013 Regulations Overview

Adding a review and update of HIPAA and other policies for communicating with the media and internally on matters that may involve use or discussions of PHI in unusual contexts outside the purview of typically HIPAA policies is a good idea while health plans and other covered entities and business associates are updating their existing policies and practices for compliance with updated Omnibus HIPAA Rules (2013 Regulations) implementing HITECH Act amendments to the Privacy and Security Rules under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA). The Rulemaking announced January 17, 2013 may be viewed here.

Since 2003, HIPAA generally has required that health care providers, health plans, health care clearinghouses and their business associates (“Covered Entities”) restrict and safeguard individually identifiable health care information (“PHI”) of individuals and afford other protections to individuals that are the subject of that information. The 2013 Regulations published today complete the implementation of changes to HIPAA that Congress enacted when it passed the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act in 2009 as well as make other changes to the prior regulations that OCR found desirable based on its experience administering and enforcing the law over the past decade.

Since passage of the HITECH Act, OCR officials have warned Covered Entities to expect an omnibus restatement of its original regulations. While OCR had issued certain regulations implementing some of the HITECH Act changes, it waited to publish certain regulations necessary to implement other HITECH Act changes until it could complete a more comprehensive restatement of its previously published HIPAA regulations to reflect both the HITECH Act amendments and other refinements to its HIPAA Rules. The 2013 Regulations published today fulfill that promise by restating OCR’s HIPAA Regulations to reflect the HITECH Act Amendments and other changes and clarifications to OCR’s interpretation and enforcement of HIPAA.

Among other things, the 2013 Regulations:

Revise OCR’s HIPAA regulations to reflect the HITECH Act’s amendment of HIPAA to add the contractors and subcontractors of health plans, health care providers and health care clearinghouses that qualify as business associates to the parties directly responsible for complying with and subject to HIPAA’s civil and criminal penalties for violating HIPAA’s Privacy, Security, and Breach Notification rules;
Update previous interim regulations implementing HITECH Act breach notification rules that require Covered Entities including business associates to give specific notifications to individuals whose PHI is breached, HHS and in some cases, the media when a breach of unsecured information happens;
Update interim enforcement guidance OCR previously published to implement increased penalties and other changes to HIPAA’s civil and criminal sanctions enacted by the HITECH Act;
Implement HITECH Act amendments to HIPAA that tighten the conditions under which Covered Entities are allowed to use or disclose PHI for marketing and fundraising purposes and prohibit Covered Entities from selling an individual’s health information without getting the individual’s authorization in the way required by the 2013 Regulations;
Update OCR’s rules about the rights that HIPAA requires that Covered Entities to afford to individuals who are the subject of PHI used or possessed by a Covered Entity to reflect tightened requirements enacted by the HITECH Act that allow individuals to order their health care provider not to share information about their treatment with health plans when the individual pays cash for the care and to clarify that individuals can require Covered Entities to provide electronic PHI in electronic form;
Revise the regulations to reflect amendments to HIPAA made as part of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (GINA) which added genetic information to the definition of PHI protected under the HIPAA Privacy Rule and prohibits health plans from using or disclosing genetic information for underwriting purposes; and
Clarifies and revises other provisions to reflect other interpretations and information guidance that OCR has issued since HIPAA was passed and to make certain other changes that OCR found appropriate based on its experience administering and enforcing the rules.

Liability & Enforcement Risks Heighten Need To Act To Review & Update Policies & Practices

The new Resolution Agreement and the growing list of others like it, as well as restated rules in the 2013 Regulations make it imperative that Covered Entities review the revised rules carefully and updated their policies, practices, business associate agreements, training and documentation to comply with the updated requirements and other enforcement and liability risks. OCR even prior to the regulations has aggressively investigated and enforced the HIPAA requirements.

OCR increasingly is imposing sanctions against a covered entity for data breaches to show the potential risks of HIPAA violations are significant and growing. OCR Hits Alaska Medicaid For $1.7M+ For HIPAA Security Breach; OCR Audit Program Kickoff Further Heats HIPAA Privacy Risks; $1.5 Million HIPAA Settlement Reached To Resolve 1st OCR Enforcement Action Prompted By HITECH Act Breach Report; HIPAA Heats Up: HITECH Act Changes Take Effect & OCR Begins Posting Names, Other Details Of Unsecured PHI Breach Reports On Website; Providence To Pay $100000 & Implement Other Safeguards.

In response to the 2013 Regulations and these expanding exposures, all Covered Entities should review critically and carefully the adequacy of their current HIPAA Privacy and Security compliance policies, monitoring, training, breach notification and other practices taking into consideration OCR’s investigation and enforcement actions, emerging litigation and other enforcement data; their own and reports of other security and privacy breaches and near misses; and other developments to decide if additional steps are necessary or advisable. In response to these expanding exposures, all covered entities and their business associates should review critically and carefully the adequacy of their current HIPAA Privacy and Security compliance policies, monitoring, training, breach notification and other practices taking into consideration OCR’s investigation and enforcement actions, emerging litigation and other enforcement data; their own and reports of other security and privacy breaches and near misses, and other developments to decide if tightening their policies, practices, documentation or training is necessary or advisable.

Enforcement Actions Highlight Growing HIPAA Exposures For Covered Entities

The SRMC Resolution Agreement again shows the growing risk of enforcement that health care providers, health plans, health care clearinghouses and their business associates face as OCR continues its audits and enforcement, new Omnibus HIPAA Regulations implementing the HITECH Act amendments to HIPAA and state and federal liability grows.. See e.g., $1.5 Million HIPAA Settlement Reached To Resolve 1st OCR Enforcement Action Prompted By HITECH Act Breach Report; HIPAA Heats Up: HITECH Act Changes Take Effect & OCR Begins Posting Names, Other Details Of Unsecured PHI Breach Reports On Website.

In response to these expanding exposures, all covered entities and their business associates should review critically and carefully the adequacy of their current HIPAA Privacy and Security compliance policies, monitoring, training, breach notification and other practices taking into consideration OCR’s investigation and enforcement actions, emerging litigation and other enforcement data; their own and reports of other security and privacy breaches and near misses, and other developments to determine if additional steps are necessary or advisable.

As part of this process, covered entities should ensure they look outside the four corners of their Privacy Policies to ensure that appropriate training and clarification is provided to address media, practice transition, workforce communication and other policies and practices that may be covered by pre-existing or other policies of other departments or operational elements not typically under the direct oversight and management of the Privacy Officer such as media relations. Media relations, physician and patients affairs, outside legal counsel, media relations, marketing and other internal and external departments and consultants dealing with the media, the public or other inquiries or disputes should carefully include and coordinate with the privacy officer both to ensure appropriate policies and procedures are followed and proper documentation created and retained to show authorization, account, or meet other requirements.

For more information about HIPAA compliance and risk management tips, see here.

For Help With Compliance, Risk Management, Investigations, Policy Updates Or Other Needs

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Comments Off on HIPAA Sanctions Triggered From Covered Entity Statements To Media, Workforce | Corporate Compliance, Employers, GINA, Health Plans, HIPAA, Human Resources, Insurance, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, Privacy, Risk Management, Whistleblower | Tagged: Employer, Employment, Health Care, Health Plans, HIPAA, Hospitals, OCR, Office of Civil Rights, PHI, Privacy | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Consider OCR Technical Corrections When Updating Privacy Practices & Agreements For Omnibus Restatement of HIPAA Privacy, Security, Breach Notification & Enforcement Rules

June 6, 2013

The Department of Health & Human Services Office of Civil Rights (OCR) on June 6, 2013 released an advance copy of to Technical Corrections (Technical Corrections) to the Modifications to the HIPAA Privacy, Security, Enforcement, and Breach Notifications Rules Under the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act and the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act; Other Modifications to the HIPAA Rules; Final Rule (Omnibus Rule) previously published on January 25, 2013. Health plans, health care clearinghouses, health care providers and their business associates will want to be sure to take into account the Technical Corrections as they rush to update business associate agreements, policies, practices, training and other HIPAA compliance to comply with the Omnibus Rule changes by the September 2013 deadline.

Technical Corrections To Omnibus Rule Released

OCR published the Omnibus Rule to implement changes to the HIPAA Privacy, Security, Enforcement, and Breach Notification Rules (“the HIPAA Rules”) enacted by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act (“the HITECH Act”) and section 105 of Title I of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008, as well as to address public comment received on the interim final Breach Notification Rule and to other changes to the HIPAA Rules. The Technical Corrections are scheduled for publication in the Federal Register on June 7, 2013.

The Technical Corrections correct various typographical errors and other oversights in the Omnibus Regulations as originally published. While many of these corrections have limited material impact, certain corrections do have substantive implications. For instance, by correcting errors in references to other provisions of the Omnibus Regulations, the Technical Corrections clarify that the authority of OCR to grant an extension of time pursuant to § 160.508(c)(5) for violations before February 18, 2009 also applies to violations occurring on or after February 18, 2009, as there is for violations occurring prior to February 18, 2009.

Health plans, health care clearinghouses and their business associates will need to review and take into account the Technical Corrections as they work to review and update their policies and practices for handling and disclosing personally identifiable health care information (“PHI”) in response to the Omnibus Rule.

Get Moving To Update HIPAA Compliance For New Omnibus Rule Requirements As Amended By Technical Corrections

Covered entities and their business associates have a lot to accomplish between now and September to update their business associates and comply with other changes made by the Omnibus Rule by its September 2013 deadline. Among other things, the Omnibus Regulations:

Revise OCR’s HIPAA regulations to reflect the HITECH Act’s amendment of HIPAA to add the contractors and subcontractors of health plans, health care providers and health care clearinghouses that qualify as business associates to the parties directly responsible for complying with and subject to HIPAA’s civil and criminal penalties for violating HIPAA’s Privacy, Security, and Breach Notification rules;
Update previous interim regulations implementing HITECH Act breach notification rules that require Covered Entities including business associates to give specific notifications to individuals whose PHI is breached, HHS and in some cases, the media when a breach of unsecured information happens;
Update interim enforcement guidance OCR previously published to implement increased penalties and other changes to HIPAA’s civil and criminal sanctions enacted by the HITECH Act;
Implement HITECH Act amendments to HIPAA that tighten the conditions under which Covered Entities are allowed to use or disclose PHI for marketing and fundraising purposes and prohibit Covered Entities from selling an individual’s health information without getting the individual’s authorization in the way required by the Omnibus Regulations;
Update OCR’s rules about the individual rights that HIPAA requires that Covered Entities to afford to individuals who are the subject of PHI used or possessed by a Covered Entity to reflect tightened requirements enacted by the HITECH Act that allow individuals to order their health care provider not to share information about their treatment with health plans when the individual pays cash for the care and to clarify that individuals can require Covered Entities to provide electronic PHI in electronic form;
Revise the regulations to reflect amendments to HIPAA made as part of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (GINA) which added genetic information to the definition of PHI protected under the HIPAA Privacy Rule and prohibits health plans from using or disclosing genetic information for underwriting purposes; and
Clarifies and revises other provisions to reflect other interpretations and information guidance that OCR has issued since HIPAA was passed and to make certain other changes that OCR found appropriate based on its experience administering and enforcing the rules.

Liability & Enforcement Risks Heighten Need To Act To Review & Update Policies & Practices

The restated rules in the Omnibus Rule make it imperative that Covered Entities review the revised rules carefully and updated their policies, practices, business associate agreements, training and documentation to comply with the updated requirements and other enforcement and liability risks. OCR even prior to the regulations has aggressively investigated and enforced the HIPAA requirements. See, e.g., OCR Hits Alaska Medicaid For $1.7M+ For HIPAA Security Breach; OCR Audit Program Kickoff Further Heats HIPAA Privacy Risks; $1.5 Million HIPAA Settlement Reached To Resolve 1st OCR Enforcement Action Prompted By HITECH Act Breach Report; HIPAA Heats Up: HITECH Act Changes Take Effect & OCR Begins Posting Names, Other Details Of Unsecured PHI Breach Reports On Website; Providence To Pay $100000 & Implement Other Safeguards.

Coupled with statements by OCR about its intolerance, the HONI and other settlements provide a strong warning to covered entities of the need to carefully and appropriately manage their HIPAA encryption and other Privacy and Security responsibilities. Covered entities are urged to heed these warning by strengthening their HIPAA compliance and adopting other suitable safeguards to minimize HIPAA exposures.

All Covered Entities should review critically and carefully the adequacy of their current HIPAA Privacy and Security compliance policies, monitoring, training, breach notification and other practices taking into consideration OCR’s investigation and enforcement actions, emerging litigation and other enforcement data; their own and reports of other security and privacy breaches and near misses; and other developments to decide if additional steps are necessary or advisable. In response to these expanding exposures, all covered entities and their business associates should review critically and carefully the adequacy of their current HIPAA Privacy and Security compliance policies, monitoring, training, breach notification and other practices taking into consideration OCR’s investigation and enforcement actions, emerging litigation and other enforcement data; their own and reports of other security and privacy breaches and near misses, and other developments to decide if tightening their policies, practices, documentation or training is necessary or advisable.

For Help With Compliance, Risk Management, Investigations, Policy Updates Or Other Needs

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Comments Off on Consider OCR Technical Corrections When Updating Privacy Practices & Agreements For Omnibus Restatement of HIPAA Privacy, Security, Breach Notification & Enforcement Rules | Corporate Compliance, Employers, GINA, Health Plans, HIPAA, Human Resources, Insurance, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, Privacy, Risk Management, Whistleblower | Tagged: Backpay, Employer, Employment, employment law, Fair Labor Standards Act, FSLA, IT, Labor Department, Minimum Wage, Technology, Wage & Hour, wage and hour, Worker Classification | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Study Finds Down Economy, Not Health Care Reform Accounts For Slower Health Care Cost Increases; Projects Renewed Costs When Economy Improves

April 22, 2013

Bad economic times, and not health care reform, account for the record slowdown in U.S. health care spending, according to a new Kaiser Family Foundation study, Assessing the Effects of the Economy on the Recent Slowdown in Health Spending (Study). The Study findings call into question assertions by Obama Administration officials crediting health care reform, pressure on health plans applied by the Obama Administration officials and other regulatory and enforcement efforts with reducing the curve on health care costs.

According to Kaiser Foundation, government statistics show that the period from 2009-2011 had the slowest growth (3.9%) in health care expenditures since the government began tracking health expenditure data in 1960.

The Study that evaluated how the economy affects U.S. health spending concluded that economic factors beyond the health system explain 77 percent of the slowdown and predicts more rapid growth when the economy strengthens. Meanwhile, the Study credits only 23 percent of the slowdown in the growth of expenditures as resulting from higher deductibles and other cost-sharing or other health care system changes.

Based on these findings, the Study warns that Americans should expect health care costs to resume increasing in future years after lags resulting from the economic slowdown resolve.

“The problem of health costs is not solved and we need to be realistic that health spending increases will return to more typical levels as the economy improves,” Foundation President and CEO Drew E. Altman said. “But the analysis also shows that the economy is not the entire story, and if we could shave even a percentage point or more off annual health care spending increases, we could save trillions of dollars over the next decade.”

Researchers at the Kaiser Family Foundation prepared the Study by conducting statistical modeling and analysis of 50 years of health spending and economic trends using data on the U.S. economy and national health care expenditures data from actuaries at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services through 2011, and from the Center for Sustainable Health Spending at the Altarum Institute for 2012.

Join Discussion By Participating In Project COPE: The Coalition On Patient Empowerment & Its Coalition on Responsible Health Policy

Want to share and exchange ideals and information about health care and collaborate about opportunities to make it work? Sharing and promoting the use of practical practices, tools, information and ideas that patients and their families, health care providers, employers, health plans, communities and policymakers can share and offer to help patients, their families and others in their care communities to understand and work together to better help the patients, their family and their professional and private care community plan for and manage these needs is the purpose of Project COPE, The Coalition on Patient Empowerment & It’s Affiliate, the Coalition on Responsible Health Policy.

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.

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 on regulatory, investigatory or enforcement concerns.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Other Helpful Resources & Other Information

Recent examples of these publications include:

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.

1 Comment | 105(h), Bankruptcy, Corporate Compliance, Employee Benefits, Employers, Employment Tax, ERISA, Fair Labor Standards Act, Human Resources, I-9, Immigration, Insurance, Internal Controls, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Payroll Tax, Tax, Uncategorized | Tagged: ACA, Affordable Care Act, Employer, Health Care Reform, Health Plans, Insurance, Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act, Pay or Play, Shared Responsibility | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Justice Department Charges Employer, Pension Plan With Violating USERRA Reemployment Rights

April 17, 2013

The Justice Department’s announcement today of its filing of a lawsuit charging County Employees’ and Officers’ Annuity and Benefit Fund of Cook County (Cook Pension Plan) and Cook County with willfully violating the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA) by refusing to allow an employee to make catch up contributions to the employer’s pension plan when she returned from military leave. As the Obama Administration continues to withdraw troops from Afghanistan and other deployments, the suit is a timely reminder to employers of the importance of ensuring that their businesses properly honor the rights of returning service members under USERRA, the expanded military related medical leave rules of the Family & Medical Leave Act and other applicable laws.

USERRA & Other Reemployment Rights

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

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

Beyond these USERRA employment rights, service members taking or returning from active duty often enjoy various other employment and other protections under various other federal and state laws, many of which have been expanded in recent years. Under requirements of the Soldiers’ and Sailors’ Civil Relief Act (SSCRA), for instance, creditors including a pension plan, employer loan program or credit union generally are required to drop interest charges down to 6 percent on debt owed by those called to active duty for the period of such military service. Further, under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), the loan will not fail to be a qualified loan under ERISA solely because the interest rate is capped by SSCRA. These and other provisions of federal law often require pension and profit-sharing plans that allow plan loans to change loan terms and tailor other special treatment of participants who are on military leave.

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

Justice Department Cook County Lawsuit

The latest in a growing number of lawsuits against businesses for violating the employment and other rights of military service members brought by the Justice Department, Department of Labor and private plaintiffs, the lawsuit against Cook County and the Cook Pension Plan highlights the growing enforcement and liability risks that U.S. employers and their employee benefit plans face for failing to properly honor the rights of military service people under USERRA and other laws.

On April 17, 2013, the Justice Department sued Cook County and the Cook Pension Plan with violating USERRA by refusing to allow U.S. Army Reserve Member Latoya Hayward to lawfully contribute to her pension for the time she was serving in the armed forces.

The Justice Department complaint charges that Hayward began working for John H. Stroger Jr. Hospital, which is owned and operated by Cook County in 2008. During her employment with Stroger Hospital, Hayward was mobilized for a two year tour of duty with the Army Reserves starting on July 27, 2009. While on active service, Hayward served as a nurse case manager at Walter Reed Hospital as part of the Warrior Transition Brigade.

The Justice Department complaint alleges that when Hayward returned from duty, the County Employees’ and Officers’ Annuity and Benefit Fund of Cook County notified her not only that she was ineligible to make payments into her pension for the 90-day grace period following her active military service, but also that her employee contributions for the two-year period of her active military service would be subject to a 3 percent interest fee.

According to Hayward’s complaint, both of the County Employees’ and Officers’ Annuity and Benefit Fund of Cook County’s requirements for her participation in her employer’s pension plan violated USERRA’s pension protection provisions.

Enforcement of USERRA & Other Rights of Military Service Members Rising

In announcing the suit against Cook County and the Cook Pension Plan, Jocelyn Samuels, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division warned, “The Justice Department is committed to vigorously enforcing federal laws that protect the employment rights of our service members.”

Viewed in the context of a series of other recent suits and settlements, the suit against Cook County and the Cook Pension Plan is one of a growing number of lawsuits brought by the Justice Department, Department of Labor Department of Veterans Affairs and other government and private litigants reflects that the Obama Administration is acting on this commitment.

The Department of Labor Veterans’ Employment & Training Service (VETS) reported to Congress that in Fiscal Year (FY) 2011, VETS reviewed 1,548 new unique USERRA complaint cases, up 110 cases from those received in FY 2010. Nearly 35 percent of the complaints reviewed by VETS contained allegations of some form of employment discrimination on the basis of past, present, or future, military service, status, or obligations. An additional 25 percent of the complaints involved allegations of improper reinstatement into civilian jobs following military service. See 2011 VETS USERRA Report To Congress.

Recent litigation and settlements by the Justice Department and other agencies bear out that the Obama Administration is continuing to make enforcement of military service member rights a priority during the 2012 FY that began in October. See, e.g., Michael Sipos and Gary Smith v. FlightSafety Services Corporation, Co. Consent Decree (April 4, 2013); Mervin Jones v. Jerome County Sheriff’s Office, ID complaint (January 7, 2013); Service Members to Receive $39 Million for Violations of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act; Justice Department Settles Disability Discrimination Case Involving Disabled Veteran in Utah; Justice Department Reaches $12 Million Settlement to Resolve Violations of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act by Capital One; and Justice Department Files Complaint Against Forsyth County, North Carolina, Sheriff for Violating the Employment Rights of Army National Guard Soldier.

Given this heightened emphasis on enforcement, U.S. businesses should act to update their policies, practices, training and other compliance and risk management practices to ensure that their employment, lending, and other practices for dealing with military service members and their families are properly designed and administered to minimize the risk that their business will become one of these enforcement statistics.

For Help or More Information

If you need help reviewing and updating, administering or defending your human resources, employee benefits or other compliance and risk management practices in these or other areas, 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. As a part of this practice, Ms. Stamer extensively has worked with U.S. businesses and benefit plans to manage, prevent and resolve concerns involving the rights of military service members and others as well as spoken and written extensively on these concerns. Examples of some of her recent articles on military service members employment and other risks include her workshop and accompanying training manual, When The Military Comes Home: USERRA, VEVRRA, FMLA, COBRA, HIPAA and Beyond, New USERRA Militarty Reservist Regulations; Big Penalty for Lender Shows Risks of Violating Military Service or Vets Rights and others.

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 on regulatory, investigatory or enforcement concerns.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

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 publications available for review here including:

1 Comment | 105(h), Bankruptcy, Corporate Compliance, Employee Benefits, Employers, Employment Tax, ERISA, Fair Labor Standards Act, Human Resources, I-9, Immigration, Insurance, Internal Controls, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Payroll Tax, Tax, Uncategorized | Tagged: ACA, Affordable Care Act, Employer, Health Care Reform, Health Plans, Insurance, Military Leave, Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act, Pay or Play, Shared Responsibility, USERRA | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Administration Proposes Expanding Eligibility, Simplifying Small Employer Health Care Tax Credit

April 10, 2013

The Obama Administration’s Fiscal Year 2014 Revenue Proposals include a proposal to expand the group of employers eligible for the Small Employer Health Care Tax Credit (Health Credit) enacted as part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) retroactive to January 1, 2013. See General Explanations of the Administration’s Fiscal Year 2014 Revenue Proposals pages 39-40.

Current Law

Under long-standing provisions of the Internal Revenue Code (Code), the cost to an employer of providing health coverage for its employees is generally deductible as an ordinary and necessary business expense for employee compensation and the value of employer-provided health coverage is not subject to employer-paid Federal Insurance Contributions Act tax. Meanwhile, unless the program violates the non-discrimination rules of Internal Revenue Code §105 or the employees are offered a choice in a manner that violates Code §125, employees are generally not taxed on the premiums or the value of employer-provided health coverage for themselves, their spouses and their dependents.

As an additional inducement for small employers to provide health coverage for low-income employees, the ACA created the Health Credit. During 2010 through 2013, the maximum credit is 35 percent (25 percent for tax-exempt employers) of the employer’s contributions to the premium. For 2014 and later years, the maximum credit percentage is 50 percent (35 percent for tax-exempts). The amount of the available credit recently was reduced as part of the reductions implemented under sequester.

To qualify for the Health Credit, the Code currently limits the availability of the Health Credit to amounts paid for health coverage for employees with average annual full-time equivalent wages of no more than $50,000 (indexed beginning 2014) by an employer that employs no more than 25 full-time equivalent employees during the taxable year and pays at least 50 percent of the premium for coverage. For taxable years beginning in 2010 through 2013, the credit is available for any health insurance coverage purchased from an insurance company licensed under State law. For taxable years beginning after December 31, 2013, the credit is available only for health insurance purchased through a Health Insurance Exchange and only for a maximum coverage period of two additional consecutive taxable years, beginning with the first year in which the employer or any predecessor first offers any qualified plans to its employees through an Exchange.

While for-profit firms may claim the tax credit as a general business credit and may carry the credit back for one year and carry the credit forward for 20 years, the Health Credit only currently is available for tax liability under the alternative minimum tax. For tax-exempt organizations, the credit is refundable and is capped at the amount of income tax withholding for employees and both the employee and employer portion of the health insurance (Medicare) payroll tax.

Eligible employer contributions are limited by the amount the employer would have contributed under the State average premium. Also, the credit is phased out on a sliding scale between 10 and 25 full-time equivalent employees as well as between an average annual wage of $25,000 (indexed) and $50,000 (indexed). Because the reductions are additive, an employer with fewer than 25 full-time employees paying an average wage less than $50,000 might not be eligible for any tax credit.

Proposed Change

The proposal would expand the group of employers who are eligible for the credit to include employers with up to 50 full-time equivalent employees and would begin the phase-out at 20 full-time equivalent employees for taxable years beginning after January 31, 2012. In addition, there would be a change in the coordination of the phase-outs based on average wage and the number of employees (using a formula that is multiplicative rather than additive) so as to provide a more gradual combined phase-out.

According to the Administration, the proposal is intended to ensure that employers with fewer than 50 employees and an average wage less than $50,000 would be eligible for the credit, even if they are nearing the end of both phase-outs. The proposal would also eliminate the requirement that an employer make a uniform contribution on behalf of each employee (although applicable nondiscrimination laws will still apply), and would eliminate the limit imposed by the State average premium.

The Administration says expanding eligibility for the credit and simplifying its operation would:

Increase the utilization of the tax credit
Encourage more small employers to provide health benefits to employees and their families
Incent small employers to join an Exchange, thereby broadening the risk pool
Enhance fairness among employers
Remove complexity and potential discouragement to small employers claiming the Health Credit resulting from the uniform contribution requirement and the State premium contribution limit.

Health Care Reform Coping Steps For All Businesses

The proposal to expand the Health Credit comes as many employers continue to struggle to understand the potential implications of ACA’s health care reforms sand determine how to respond.

For tips about coping with health care reform for employers, check out 13 Employer Tips For Responding To Health Care Reform Now and other resources in the Solutions Law Press, Inc. HR & Benefits Update at www.solutionslawpress.com.

For Help or More Information

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 on regulatory, investigatory or enforcement concerns.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Other Helpful Resources & Other Information

Health Care Transparency Effectiveness & Value Depends On Data Quality, Understanding & Awareness

March 27, 2013

AHCJ Website 2012 CMS Hospital Inspection Deficiency Reports & Other Transparency Data Tool Requiring Management For Proper Use

The Association of Health Care Journalists (AHCJ) updated its website, healthcareinspectionreports.com, to include details about deficiencies cited during complaint inspections at acute-care and critical access hospitals throughout the United States since January 1, 2011 obtained from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). Because of omissions and limitations in the data, however, AHCJ is cautioning users against using the data to rank hospitals. In light of these limitations and likely limitations on consumer understanding of the methodology and meaning of the reports, health plans, employers, and other advocates of health care transparency should exercise care that appropriate steps and communications are provided to help potential users properly understand and put into context the data shared.

Transparency is highly touted as a tool by consumer driven health care advocates and others as a key tool for helping improve the quality and cost-effectiveness of patient and other health care decision-making. Proper use of information from transparency efforts, however, requires both appropriate understanding and use of data and how patients and their families make care decisions and obtain health care information.

The AHCJ resource highlights both the availability of data and the need to ensure that its quality, completeness and relevance is properly used. AHCJ publishes the reports, which historically have not been easily accessible to the general public. AHCJ cautions that the data is not necessarily complete and should not be used to rank hospitals within a state. AHCJ says data on acute-care and critical hospital access hospitals is incomplete because CMS has just begun gathering this data and releasing it in electronic format. AHCJ also says some reports are missing narrative details. Beyond that, CMS acknowledges that other reports that should appear may not. It does not include results of routine inspections or those of psychiatric hospitals or long-term care hospitals. It also does not include hospital responses to deficiencies cited during inspections. Those can be obtained by filing a request with a hospital or the U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS).AHCJ to make future iterations of this data more complete. At this time, this data should not be used to rank hospitals within a state or between states. It can be used to review issues identified at hospitals during recent inspections.

Subject to these limitations, an individual wishing to review the available data can click on a state on the map will retrieve a list of all hospitals with their violations grouped together. What the individual does with the information once they review it, however, depends upon the extent to which the individual properly understands the data, its completeness, relevance and accuracy and has the appropriate skills and ability to use this information to make better health care choices.

Information not used or used improperly may line pocketbooks of information brokers, consultants or others but does little to improve understanding or care. A key challenge to impacting care through transparency often arises because patients are unaware of the data or its proper use. When encouraging consumers and others to review and consider this and other information, however, health plans, employers, community leaders and others need to use care to help educate the potential users about the relevance, accuracy and meaning of the information.

As noted by AHCJ, for instance, omissions and limitations in the data posted means that the information shared is incomplete. The omission of responses and other relevant data creates the possibility that hospitals might be inappropriately stigmatized by the report. Furthermore, without some context to understand the rules, criteria, purposes and methodology of the reviews and corrective or other actions taken, consumers or others considering the reports may reach inappropriate conclusions about the current quality of the hospital. Accordingly, plans and employers sharing or using this information should take appropriate steps to help educate users to properly understand and use the data.

The bottom line is that transparency is only one of many tools that if properly used, can help improve quality and cost effectiveness. The availability of the reports and other information and resources intended to provide “transparency” can be helpful tools to consumers and health plans if the consumer knows it exists and properly understands the quality and meaning of the data and how to use it. See, e.g., Care Transparency: What Employers Are Missing. Consumers, health plans, and others advocating for transparency data and its use must understand the quality and the limitations on its data, the appropriateness of the conclusions drawn from the data and the relevance to the patient situation in question at the time when care is sought and how to best get the transparency information into the care process for the patient. Transparency is a tool; not a panacea.

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.

1 Comment | Employee Benefits, Employers, Employment Tax, Health Plans, HIPAA, Human Resources, Immigration, Insurance, Internal Controls, Payroll Tax | Tagged: ACA, Affordable Care Act, CMS, Employer, health care quality, Health Care Reform, Health Plans, Hospital, Hospitals, Insurance, Medicare, Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act, Pay or Play, quality., Shared Responsibility, transparency | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

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

March 21, 2013

March 21, 2013 is the 3rd Anniversary of the Affordable Care Act. With the 2014 rollout of the next round of reforms approaching, the Kaiser Family Foundation invites you to take its latest interactive quiz to test your knowledge about what’s in – and what’s not in – the health reform law and encourage your friends and family to do the same. You can compare your knowledge with others and share your results on Facebook and Twitter. The quiz also includes links to more information about specific provisions of the law.

For Help or More Information

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 on regulatory, investigatory or enforcement concerns.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Other Helpful Resources & Other Information

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

March 13, 2013

“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 that often is provided 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 Help or More Information

If you need help reviewing and updating, administering or defending your group health insurance, 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.

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.

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 on regulatory, investigatory or enforcement concerns. She also has helped to design expatriate health and other benefit programs for businesses and insurers and assisted U.S. and foreign businesses with other expatriate and multinational workforce and benefits planning and administration throughout her career.

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 and other employee benefits and human resources publications. She also is 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.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

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:

1 Comment | 105(h), Bankruptcy, Corporate Compliance, Employee Benefits, Employers, Employment Tax, ERISA, Fair Labor Standards Act, Human Resources, I-9, Immigration, Insurance, Internal Controls, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Payroll Tax, Tax, Uncategorized | Tagged: ACA, Affordable Care Act, Employer, expatriate, Health Care Reform, Health Plans, Insurance, Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act, Pay or Play, Shared Responsibility | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

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

March 10, 2013

The Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) Office of Civil Rights (OCR) wants to ask the 115 health plans, health care clearinghouses, and health care providers (covered entities) that OCR audited in 2012 for compliance with Privacy and Security Rules of the Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act (HIPAA) under its HIPAA Audit Program to share feedback about their experience. The planned survey announcement follows OCR’s recent released of restated HIPAA Privacy & Security Rules scheduled to take effect in September, 2013 and as OCR continues and expanding its HIPAA Audit Program in 2013. All together, the signs are clear that covered entities should update and strengthen their HIPAA compliance and risk management practices to withstand the tightened rules and enforcement.

OCR initiated the HIPAA Audit Program in 2012 to comply with Section 13411 of the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act’s requirement that it audit covered entity and business associate compliance with the HIPAA privacy, security, and breach notification rules. While it continues its HIPAA Audit Program in 2013, OCR also is evaluating the effectiveness of the HIPAA Audit Program audits in 2012.

To this end, OCR currently is conducting a review of the HIPAA Audit program to determine its efficacy in assessing the HIPAA compliance efforts of covered entities. As part of that review, OCR plans to ask covered entities audited under the HIPAA Audit Program in 2012 to complete an online survey about their experience. In anticipation of its conduct of the proposed surveys, OCR is inviting public comment on the burden to Covered Entities to complete the planned online survey, which OCR estimates will take two hours to complete through May 20, 2013. According to OCR, the survey will gather information on the effect of the audits on the audited entities and the entities’ opinions about the audit process. The online survey will be used to:

Measure the effect of the HIPAA Audit program on covered entities;
Gauge their attitudes towards the audit overall and in regards to major audit program features, such as the document request, communications received, the on-site visit, the audit report findings and recommendations;
Obtain estimates of costs incurred by covered entities, in time and money, spent responding to audit-related requests;
Seek feedback on the effect of the HIPAA Audit program on the day-to-day business operations; and
Assess whether improvements in HIPAA compliance were achieved as a result of the Audit program.

OCR says it will use the information, opinions, and comments collected using the online survey to produce recommendations for improving the HIPAA Audit program.

For instructions to comment or more details, see here.

For More Information Or Assistance

If you need assistance reviewing or responding to these or other health care related risk management, compliance, enforcement or management concerns, the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, may be able to help. Vice President of the North Texas Health Care Compliance Professionals Association, Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Section and the former Board Compliance Chair of the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas, Ms. Stamer has more than 25 years experience advising health industry clients about these and other matters. Ms. Stamer has extensive experience advising and assisting health care providers and other health industry clients to establish and administer compliance and risk management policies and to respond to DEA and other health care industry investigation, enforcement and other compliance, public policy, regulatory, staffing, and other operations and risk management concerns. A popular lecturer and widely published author on health industry concerns, Ms. Stamer continuously advises health industry clients about compliance and internal controls, workforce and medical staff performance, quality, governance, reimbursement, and other risk management and operational matters. Ms. Stamer also publishes and speaks extensively on health and managed care industry regulatory, staffing and human resources, compensation and benefits, technology, public policy, reimbursement and other operations and risk management concerns including a number of programs and publications on OCR Civil Rights rules and enforcement actions. Her insights on these and other related matters appear in the Health Care Compliance Association, Atlantic Information Service, Bureau of National Affairs, World At Work, The Wall Street Journal, Business Insurance, the Dallas Morning News, Modern Health Care, Managed Healthcare, Health Leaders, and a many other national and local publications. You can get more information about her health industry experience here. If you need assistance with these or other compliance concerns, wish to ask about arranging for compliance audit or training, or need legal representation on other matters please contact Ms. Stamer at (469) 767-8872 or via e-mail here.

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.

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 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.

Measure the effect of the HIPAA Audit program on covered entities;
Gauge their attitudes towards the audit overall and in regards to major audit program features, such as the document request, communications received, the on-site visit, the auditreport findings and recommendations;
Obtain estimates of costs incurred by covered entities, in time and money, spent responding to audit-related requests;
Seek feedback on the effect of the HIPAA Audit program on the day-to-day business operations; and
Assess whether improvements in HIPAA compliance were achieved as a result of the Audit program.

OCR says it will use the information, opinions, and comments collected using the online survey to produce recommendations for improving the HIPAA Audit program.

For instructions to comment or more details, see here.

For Help or More Information

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 on regulatory, investigatory or enforcement concerns.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Other Helpful Resources & Other Information

1 Comment | Employee Benefits, Employers, Employment Tax, Health Plans, HIPAA, Human Resources, Immigration, Insurance, Internal Controls, Payroll Tax | Tagged: ACA, Affordable Care Act, Employer, Health Care Reform, Health Plans, Insurance, Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act, Pay or Play, Shared Responsibility | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

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

March 8, 2013

Employers of employees who may be planning to deduct qualified adoption expenses or education credits may want to share recently released updates from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) about procedures for claiming these tax benefits.

Special Procedures for Form 8839, Qualified Adoption Expenses

The IRS is reminding tax practitioners that Form 8839, Qualified Adoption Expenses, cannot be electronically filed this year but must be mailed to the IRS. Additionally, there is no longer a requirement to attach supporting documentation to this year’s return. However, documentation must be kept as part of a taxpayer’s records. See Tax Topic 607 for additional information on the Adoption Credit and adoption assistance programs.

E-filed Tax Returns with Incomplete Forms 8863, Education Credits, Experiencing Delays

The IRS also is alerting taxpayers of changes to the Form 8863, Education Credits, for Tax Year 2012. The changes made to help taxpayers and tax preparers understand the qualifications for the American Opportunity Tax Credit may throw some unsuspecting taxpayers for a loop. Checkboxes for lines 23-26 were added to confirm basic qualifications for taxpayers claiming this credit. If these lines are left blank, the IRS is warning that there will be a delay in the processing of the taxpayer’s return. To avoid delays, taxpayers are urged to complete Form 8863 correctly.

For Help or More Information

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 on regulatory, investigatory or enforcement concerns.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Other Helpful Resources & Other Information

Comments Off on Alert Employees Claiming Qualified Adoption Expenses and Education Credits About Changed IRS Procedures | Uncategorized | Tagged: ACA, Affordable Care Act, Employer, Health Care Reform, Health Plans, Insurance, Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act, Pay or Play, Shared Responsibility | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

13 Employer Tips For Coping With Health Care Reform Now!

March 5, 2013

Since the Supreme Court’s June 28, 2012 National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius health care reform ruling upholding the “pay or play” mandates of the Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act (ACA), most business leaders, plan fiduciaries, health insurers, administrators of employment-based group health plans have accepted the need to prepare for health care reform changes taking effect in 2014.

Unfortunately, delays in the release of anticipated regulatory guidance, the development and implementation of federal and state exchanges and other regulatory and market reforms have made it difficult for many businesses to understand their obligations, options, and their associated costs.

Most business and industry leaders report frustration with the continuing lack of clarity and uncertainty about rules and costs. Meanwhile, sequester just made life (and costs) worse for many small employers whose current 2013 health plan budget depends upon plans to benefit from he Small Business Health Care Tax Credit (SBHCTC) enacted as part of ACA.

Despite these continuing uncertainties and challenges, the impending January 1, 2014 deadline for compliance doesn’t allow most businesses the luxury for waiting for clarification. To complete the necessary arrangements, businesses unfortunately must decide the direction they plan to take and start working to implement their choice despite these existing uncertainties while managing their existing health benefit programs and costs through 2013.

Small Employers Relying On Health Plan Tax Credit Should Adjust Budgets In Response To Sequester Cut

For small employers and tax-exempt employers counting on the Small Business Health Care Tax Credit (SBHCTC) enacted as part of ACA to afford health care coverage for their employees, health benefit planning needs to begin with determining and dealing with any new problems that an almost 9% cut in the 2013 SBHCTC tax credit triggered by sequester may have on the amount of the credit for the current 2013 tax year.

ACA added the SBHCTC to the Internal Revenue Code (Code) to help and encourage qualifying small businesses to provide health coverage for their employees. For tax years 2010 through 2013, the maximum credit is 35 percent for a qualifying small business employer and 25 percent for small tax-exempt employers such as charities. See IRS 3 Simple Steps Publication for help estimating the credit. An enhanced version of the credit is scheduled to increase the tax credit rate to 50 percent and 35 percent, respectively in 2014.

Many small businesses are unaware that sequester automatically cut their 2013 SBHCTC tax credit. Under the sequester requirements of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended, certain automatic budget cuts went into effect on March 1, 2013. These required cuts include an 8.7% reduction to the refundable part of the SBHCTC for otherwise qualifying small employers under Code Section 45R. As a result, qualifying employers counting on the SBHCTC credit to pay for employee health coverage need to know that this credit effectively is reduced by 8.7% percent. The sequestration reduction rate will apply until the end of the fiscal year on September 30, 2013 or intervening Congressional action, at which time the sequestration rate is subject to change.

Health Care Reform Coping Steps For All Businesses

While the sequester SBHCTC cut uniquely affects small businesses employing 25 or fewer workers, almost all businesses regardless of size are struggling to cope with the challenges of health care reform. The following steps may be helpful for many businesses working to chart a path for moving forward amid these uncertainties:

1. Know Your Workforce & Proper Worker Classifications For Purposes of Health Plan Rules

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 your company’s health plan requires a correct understanding of what workers considered employed by your business and how these workers are counted and classified for purposes of ACA and other federal health plan mandates is the first step to projecting the potential costs and liabilities of your business under Code Section 4980H.

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.

Trying to predict the employer shared responsibility payment, if any under Code Section 4980H or model the burden or cost of any other federal health benefit mandate 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.

2. Make Rough Cost Projection To Preliminarily Decide Whether To “Pay” or “Play”

Under ACA, each business retains the option not to offer any health coverage for any employee or employee groups provided the business can tolerate the resulting consequences. 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. Consequently, most businesses should project the relative cost to their business of paying the shared responsibility payment under Code Section 4980H against the cost of providing coverage to decide if it makes sense to even consider continuing to offer health coverage.

While not yet final, recently proposed Internal Revenue Service (IRS) regulations that would implement Code Section 4980H (4980H Regulations) provide a fairly good roadmap for business leaders to use to project their likely shared responsibility payment if the business assumes that the cost of offering coverage to avoid paying the shared responsibility payment will not be less than its existing health plan costs. Starting with this assumption, the 4980H Regulations provide some roadmap that the business can use to project its likely shared responsibility payment if the business fails to offer health coverage under a plan offering minimum essential coverage to each full-time employee and their dependents. Using this assumption, a businesses also can get a rough comparison of the projected cost difference per full-time employee if the offers a plan providing minimum essential coverage to all full-time employees and their dependents with minimum essential value that turns out to be “unaffordable” to some of these employees under ACA.

While refinement of the data in the time and other employment records might help a business refine these estimates, the preliminary projections made using existing data and these assumptions generally will help a business decide if it wants to go ahead under the assumption it will pay or play. If the business plans only to pay the shared responsibility payment, its efforts should focus on collecting and retaining the data needed to prove compliance and minimize its liability by planning its workforce and taking advantage of any safe harbor or other elections available to it under the 4980H Regulations for counting and classifying its workers.

3. If Business Decides To Offer Health Coverage After 2013, Decide Plan Design

If the business intends to continue to offer health coverage, the business also needs to decide the plan coverage and terms of that plan. In all cases, any health coverage offered generally must be designed so the business prudently can afford to pay benefit and administration costs of the plan and also meet all applicable mandates. The mandates applicable to the plan generally are based on the size of the employer as determined by the applicable federal rules.

Within these parameters, the business generally has the following choices:

Offer health plan that provides minimum essential coverage with minimum essential value to all full-time employees, but pay a shared responsibility payment for full-time employees electing exchange coverage whose employee only contribution would be considered “unaffordable” under ACA because it exceeds 9.5% of their wages;
Offer health plan that provides minimum essential coverage with minimum essential value to all full-time employees, and subside the cost of coverage for any low-paid workers as necessary to prevent that coverage from being unaffordable for any worker;
Offer a health plan providing minimum essential coverage to some but not all full-time employees and pay the shared responsibility payment calculated under Code Section 4980H(b) for any full-time employee that elects coverage under the exchange to whom the plan is either unaffordable or doesn’t offer minimum essential coverage; or
Some combination of these options, designed to meet the other federal health plan rules applicable for health plans offered by businesses employing that number of workers.

When making these decisions, uncertainty about the cost of coverage, the income of the workers, and which low-income employees, if any, actually will choose to enroll in the health plan versus choose to get coverage from the exchange creates some uncertainty to the predictions. As guidance continues to emerge, however, the modeling of these issues becomes increasingly more reliable. In the meantime, businesses that plan to continue to offer coverage must make their best guess to project costs and design their health programs while keeping a careful eye on the emerging guidance and market cost data.

4. Understand The Cast Of Characters & What Hat(s) (Including You) They Wear

Employers and their management rely upon many vendors and advisors and assumptions when making plan design and risk management decisions. Many times, employer and members of their management unknowingly assume significant risk because of misperceptions about these allocations of duties and operational and legal accountability. Business and plan leaders need a correct understanding of these roles and responsibilities to understand the risks and to what extent they can rely upon a vendor or advisor to properly design and administer a health plan or carry out related obligations, what risks cannot be delegated, and how to manage these risks.

Under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), any party that exercises discretion or control over health plan administration, funds or certain other matters generally is considered a plan “fiduciary.” Fiduciaries generally are personally liable for prudently and appropriately administering their health plan related responsibilities prudently in accordance with ERISA and other applicable laws and the plan terms. Knowing who is acting as a fiduciary and understanding those duties and liabilities and how to manage these risks significantly affects the exposure that an employer or member of its management risks as a result of an employer’s sponsorship in a group health plan or other employee benefit program. Also, knowing what duties come first and how to prove that the fiduciary did the right thing is key to managing risks when an individual who has fiduciary responsibilities under ERISA also is responsible for carrying out other management duties of the sponsoring employer, a vendor or elsewhere that carries duties or interests that conflict with his health plan related fiduciary duties.

Also, by not knowing who the fiduciaries are, plans and their fiduciaries often fail to confirm the eligibility of some parties serving as fiduciaries, to arrange for bonding of service providers or fiduciaries as required to comply with Title I of ERISA. Failing to properly understand when the plan sponsor, member of its management or another party is or could be a fiduciary can create unnecessary and unexpected risks and lead to reliance upon vendors who provide advice but leave the employer or a management member holding the bag for resulting liability.

A correct understanding of the risks and who bears them is critical to understand the risks, opportunities to mitigate risk through effective contracting or other outsourcing, when outsourcing does not effectively transfer risks, where to invest resources for contract, plan or process review and changes or other risk management, and where to expect costs and risks and implement processes and procedures to deal with risks that cannot be outsourced or managed.

5. Know What Rules Apply To Your Plan, The Sponsoring Employer, The Plan Its Fiduciaries & Plan Vendors & How This Impacts You & Your Group Health Plan

The requirements for health plans and the resulting liabilities have undergone continuous changes. ACA adds to an already extensive list of complicated federal rules about health plans and their administration. ACA, the Code, ERISA, the Social Security Act, the Privacy, Security, and Administrative Simplification and Breach Notification rules of the Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act (HIPAA) and various other federal laws also impose certain health plan related obligations and liabilities on health plan fiduciaries, their employer or other health plan sponsors and other parties. These ever-expanding requirements increasingly impose civil or criminal sanctions, excise tax or other liability on plan administrators or other parties for failing to maintain legally compliant plans, file required reports, give required notifications or meet other requirements. In many instances, this includes a requirement to know and self-report violations of some of these federal rules.

Since 2010, IRS regulations have required employers sponsoring group health plans not complying with mandates covered by Internal Revenue Code Section 6039D to self-report violations and pay related excise taxes. Under these regulations, the sponsoring employer (or in some cases, the insurer, HMO or third-party administrator) must report health plan compliance failures annually on IRS Form 8928 (“Return of Certain Excise Taxes Under Chapter 43 of the Internal Revenue Code”). Beyond any specific liability under ERISA or the particular law for such violations, the potential excise tax liability that can result under these provisions can be significant. For example, COBRA, HIPAA, and GINA violations typically carry excise tax liability of $100 per day per individual affected. Compliance with applicable federal group health plan mandates is critical to avoid these excise taxes as well as other federal group health plan liabilities.

6. Update Health Plan Documents, SPDs & Other Communications, Administrative Forms & Procedures, Contracts & Processes To Meet Requirements & Manage Exposures

Along with knowing what rules apply, timely updating written plan documents, communications and administration forms, administrative practices, contracts and other health plan related materials processes and procedures has never been more critical.

A tightly written plan document and other plan communications have never been more important. Federal law generally requires that health plan be established, maintained and administered in accordance with legally complaint, written plan documents and impose a growing list of standards and requirements governing the design and administration of these programs. In addition to the existing and impending ACA mandates, ERISA, the Code , the Social Security Act, federal eligibility and coverage continuation mandates of laws like the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA), the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA), the Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act, the Family & Medical Leave Act, the Genetic Information and Nondiscrimination Act (GINA), Michelle’s Law, mental health parity and other laws regulate the eligibility, coverage, administration and other design features of employment-based health plans and their administration. ACA and other laws also require that employers, health plan administrators and fiduciaries protect the privacy of data, as well as comply with claims and appeals, communication, fiduciary responsibility, bonding, record keeping, reporting and other requirements.

Failing to update documents, communications, administrative forms and processes and other materials and practices can unleash a host of exposures. ERISA requires that that all material plan terms be set forth in a written plan document. Many other federal health plan mandates require that this plan document include certain specific provisions. Beyond these mandated terms, the ability to uphold and enforce plan terms often can be hurt or hindered by the tightness or sloppiness of the plan language.

Among other things, noncompliant plan documents, communications and practices can trigger unanticipated costs and liabilities by undermining the ability to administer plan terms and conditions. They also may expose the plan, plan fiduciaries and others to lawsuits, administrative enforcement and sanctions and other enforcement liabilities.

For this purpose of deciding what and how much to do, it is critical to keep in mind the devil is in the details. Not only must the documentation meet all technical mandates, the language, its clarity and specificity, and getting the plan document to match the actual processes that will be used to administer the plan and ensuring that the plan documents and processes match the summary plan description, summary of benefits and coverage, administrative forms and documentation and other plan communications and documentation in a legally compliant way significantly impacts the defensibility of the plan terms and the expense that the plan, its sponsor and fiduciaries can expect to incur to defend it.

7. Clean Up Claims and Appeals, SPDs & Other Practices To Enhance Defensibility

Proper health plan claims and appeals plan and summary plan description language, procedures, processing, notification and documentation is critical to maintain defensible claims and appeals decisions required to enforce plan terms and manage claims denial related liabilities and defense costs. Noncompliance with these requirements may prevent health plans from defending their claims or appeals denials, expose the plan administrator and plan fiduciaries involved or responsible for these activities to penalties, prompt unnecessary lawsuits, Labor Department enforcement or both; and drive up plan administration costs.

Among other things, existing court decisions document that many plans existing plan documents, summary plan descriptions and explanations of benefits, claims and appeals investigations and documentation and notifications often need improvement to meet the basic plan document, summary plan description and reasonable claims rules of the plan document, summary plan description, fiduciary responsibility, reasonable claims and appeals procedures of ERISA and its implementing regulations. Court precedent shows that inadequate drafting of these provisions, as well as specific provisions coverage and benefit provisions frequently undermines the defensibility of claims and appeals determinations. In addition to requiring that claims be processed and paid prudently in accordance with the terms of written plan documents, ERISA also requirements that plan fiduciaries decide and administer claims and appeals in accordance with reasonable claims procedures.

Although the Labor Department updated its regulations implementing this reasonable claims and appeals procedure requirement more than 10 years ago, the Department of Labor updated its ERISA claims and appeals regulations to include detailed health plan claims and appeals requirements, many group health plans, their administrators and insurers still have not updated their health plans, summary plan descriptions, claims and appeals notification, and claims and appeals procedures to comply with these requirements.

These omissions only become more significant under ACA. The external review and other detailed additional requirements that the Affordable Care Act dictates that group health plans not grandfathered from its provisions and its provisions holding these non-grandfathered plans strictly liable for deficiencies in their claims and appeals procedures makes the need to address inadequacies even more imperative for those non-grandfathered group health plans. Inadequate attention to these concerns can force a plan to pay benefits for claims otherwise not covered as well as additional defense costs and penalties.

8. Consistency Matters: Build Good Plan, Then Follow It

Good documentation and design on the front end should minimize ambiguities in the meaning of the plan and who is responsible for doing what when.

With these tools in place, delays and other hiccups that result from confusion about plan terms, how they apply to a particular circumstance or who is responsible for doing what, when should be minimized and much more easily resolved by timely, appropriate action by the proper responsible party. This facilitation of administration and its consistency can do much to enhance the defensibility of the plan and minimize other plan related risks and costs.

9. Ensure Correct Party Carries Out Plan and Communications Plan Functions And Communications Compliant, Timely, Prudent, Provable Manner

Having the proper party perform plan related responsibilities and respond to claims and inquiries in a compliant, timely, prudent manner is another key element to managing health plan risk and promoting enforceability. Ideally, the party appointed to act as the named fiduciary for purposes of carrying out a particular function also should conduct all plan communications regarding that function in terms that makes clear its role and negates responsibility or authority of others.

When an employer or other plan sponsor goes to the trouble to appoint a committee, service provider or other party to serve as the named fiduciary then chooses to communicate about the plan anyway, the Supreme Court in FMC v. Halliday made clear it runs the risk that the plan related communications may be considered discretionary fiduciary conduct for which it may be liable as a functional fiduciary. Meanwhile, these communications by nonfiduciaries also may create binding obligations upon the plan and its named fiduciaries to the extent made by a plan sponsor or conducted by a staff member or service provider performing responsibilities delegated by the plan fiduciary.

Beyond expanding the scope of potential fiduciaries, communications conducted by nonfiduciaries also tend to create defensibility for many other reasons. For instance, allowing unauthorized parties to perform plan functions may not comport with the plan terms, and are less likely to create and keep required documentation and follow procedures necessary to promote enforceability. Also, the communications, decisions and other actions by these nonfiduciary actors also are unlikely to qualify for discretionary review by the courts because grants of discretionary authority, if any in the written plan document to qualify the decisions of the named fiduciary for deferential review by courts typically will not extend to actions by these nonfiduciary parties. Furthermore, the likelihood that the communication or other activity conducted will not comply with the fiduciary responsibility or other requirements governing the performance of the plan related functions is significantly increased when a plan sponsor, service provider, member of management, or other party not who has not been appointed or accepted the appointment act as a named fiduciary undertakes to speak or act because that party very likely does not accept or fully appreciate the potential nature of its actions, the fiduciary and other legal rules applicable to the conduct, and the potential implications for the nonfiduciary actor, the plan and its fiduciaries.

10. Clean Up Date Collection, Protection & Reporting

Existing and impending ACA and other federal mandates require that group health plans, their sponsors collect, maintain and administer is exploding. Existing eligibility mandates, for example, already require that plans have access to a broad range of personal identifying, personal health and a broad range of other sensitive information about employees and dependents who are or may be eligible for coverage under the plan.

While employers and their health plans historically have collected and retained the names, place of residence, family relationships, social security number, and other similar information about employees and their dependents, these data collection, retention and reporting requirements have and will continue to expand dramatically in response to evolving legal requirements.

Already, health plans also from time to time need employee earnings, company ownership, employment status, family income, family, medical, military, and school leave information, divorce and child custody, enrollment in Medicare, Medicaid and other coverage and a broad range of other additional information. Under the ACA, these data needs will explode to include a whole new range of information about total family income, availability and enrollment in other coverage, cultural and language affiliations, and many other items.

Collecting, retaining and deploying this information will be critical to meeting existing and new plan administration and reporting requirements. How this data collection is conducted, shared, safeguarded against misuse or other legally sensitive contact by the employer, service providers, the plan and others will be essential to mitigate exposures to federal employment and other nondiscrimination, HIPAA and other privacy, fiduciary responsibility and other legal risks and obligations.

To the extent that payroll providers, third party administrators or other outside service providers will participate in the collection, retention, or use of this data, time also should be set aside both to conduct due diligence about their suitability, as well as to negotiate the necessary contractual arrangements and safeguards to make their involvement appropriate.

Finally, given the highly sensitive nature of this data, employers, health plans and others that will collect and use this data will need to implement appropriate safeguards to prevent and monitor for improper use, access or disclosure and to conduct the necessary training to suitably protect this data.

11. Monitor, Assess Implications & Provide Relevant Input to Regulators About Emerging Requirements & Interpretive Guidance Implementing 2014 Affordable Care Act & Other Mandates.

While the Supreme Court’s decision upheld as Constitutional ACA’s individual and employer shared responsibility mandates as a tax, many opportunities to impact its mandates remain.

Beyond the highly visible, continuing and often heated debates ranging in Congress and the court of public opinion on whether Congress should change its provisions, a plethora of regulatory interpretations issued or impending release by the implementing agencies, the IRS, HHS and Labor Department, and state insurance regulators will significantly impact what requirements and costs employers, insurers, individuals and governments will bear when the law takes effect. Businesses sponsoring health plans should carefully scrutinize this regulatory guidance and provide meaningful, timely input to Congress, the regulators or both as appropriate to help influence the direction of regulatory or Congressional actions that would materially impact these burdens.

12. Help Employees & Their Families Build Their Health Care Self-Management Skills

Whether or not your company plans to continue to sponsor employee health coverage after 2014, providing training and tools to help employees and their families strengthen their ability to understand and manage their health, health care needs and benefits can pay big dividends. Beyond the financial costs to employees and employers of paying to care for a serious illness or injury, productivity also suffers while employees dealing with their own or a family member’s chronic or serious health care condition. Wellness programs that encourage and support the efforts of employees and their families to stay healthy may be one valuable component of these efforts. Beyond trying to prevent the need to cope with illness behind wellness programs, however, opportunities to realize big financial, productivity and benefit value recognition rewards also exist in the too often overlooked opportunity to provide training, education and tools that employees and their families need to better understand and self-manage care, benefits, finances and life challenges that commonly arise when dealing with their own or a family member’s illness. Providing education, tools and other resources that can help employees access, organize and effectively use health care and benefit information to manage care and the consequences of illness, their benefits and how to use them, to participate more effectively in care and care decisions, to recognize and self-manage financial, lost-time and other challenges associated with the illness not addressable or covered by health benefit programs, and other practical skills can help reduce lost time and other productivity impacts while helping employees and their families get the most out of the health care dollars spent.

13. Pack Your Parachute-Plan Your Defense & Exist Strategies

With the parade of expense and liabilities associated with health plans, businesses sponsoring health plans and the management, service providers and others involved in their establishment, continuation, maintenance or administration are well advised to pack their survival kit and develop their exit strategies to position to soften the landing in case their health plan experiences a legal or operational disaster.

Too often, while these service providers and advisors encourage plan sponsors and fiduciaries to allow the vendor to lead them or even handle on an ongoing basis plan administration services by touting their services, experience, expert systems and process and commitment to stand behind the customer when making the sale or encouraging reliance upon their advice when tough decisions are made, they rush to stand behind exculpatory and on-sided indemnification provisions in their service contracts to limit or avoid liability, demand indemnification from their customer or both when things go wrong.

While ERISA may offer some relief from certain of these exculpatory provisions under some circumstances, plan sponsors and fiduciaries should work to credential service providers and require service providers to commit to being accountable for their services by requiring contracts acknowledge all promised services and standards of quality, require vendors to commit to provide legally compliant and prudently designed and administered services that meet or exceed applicable legal requirements, to provide liability-backed indemnification or other protection for damages and costs resulting from vendor imprudence or malfeasance, to allow for contract termination if the vendor becomes unsuitable for continued use due to changing law or other circumstances and requiring the vendor to return data and other documentation critical to defend past decisions and provide for ongoing administration. Keep documentation about advice, assurances and other relevant evidence received from vendors which could be useful in showing your company’s or plan’s efforts to make prudent efforts to provide for the proper administration of the plan. When concerns arise, use care to investigate and redress concerns in a timely, measured fashion which both shows the prudent response to the concern and reflects sensitivity to the fiduciary and other roles and responsibilities of the employer sponsor and other parties involved.

Get Moving Now

Since many compliance deadlines already have past and the impending deadlines allow plan sponsors and fiduciaries limited time to finish arrangements, businesses, fiduciaries and their service providers need to get moving immediately to update their health plans to meet existing and impending compliance and risk management risks under ACA and other federal laws, decisions and regulations.

Even as businesses move forward to respond to health care reform’s challenges, their leaders should continue to give input to Congress and regulators about the need to improve the rules and reduce business uncertainty and burdens. With many regulations still in proposed or interim form and health care reform and its costs still a concern for many Congressional leaders, significant opportunity still exists to provide input to federal and state regulators on many key aspects of ACA and its relationship to other applicable laws. Businesses and other health plan sponsors, plan fiduciaries, insurers and administrators, and other vendors must stay involved and alert. Zealously monitor new developments and share timely input with Congress and regulators about existing and emerging rules that present concerns and other opportunities for improvement even as you position to respond to these rules before they become fully implemented.

For Help or More Information

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 on regulatory, investigatory or enforcement concerns.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Other Helpful Resources & Other Information

2 Comments | 105(h), Bankruptcy, Corporate Compliance, Employee Benefits, Employers, Employment Tax, ERISA, Fair Labor Standards Act, Human Resources, I-9, Immigration, Insurance, Internal Controls, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Payroll Tax, Tax, Uncategorized | Tagged: ACA, Affordable Care Act, Employer, Health Care Reform, Health Plans, Insurance, Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act, Pay or Play, Shared Responsibility | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Sequester Will Cut ACA Small Businesses Health Care Tax Credits

March 5, 2013

Even as small and other businesses are struggling to cope with rising rates and impending new rules under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), small businesses now must deal with being sideswiped by sequester.

Sequester will hurt certain small employers that were counting on the Small Business Health Care Tax Credit (SBHCTC) to afford health care coverage for their employees.

Under the sequester requirements of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended, certain automatic budget cuts went into effect on March 1, 2013. These required cuts include an 8.7% reduction to the refundable part of the SBHCTC for otherwise qualifying small employers under Internal Revenue Code § 45R. As a result, employers qualifying for the SBHCTC should expect to see an 8.7% percent reduction in the amount of reimbursement received for health premiums under the SBHCTC. The sequestration reduction rate will apply until the end of the fiscal year on September 30, 2013 or intervening Congressional action, at which time the sequestration rate is subject to change.

Aside from the effects of sequester, small and other businesses health care costs and responsibilities continue to be shaped by a deluge of new rules rolling out under ACA, the Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act (HIPAA), the Family & Medical Leave Act, and a host of other laws. Stay tuned here for more updates.

For Help With Compliance, Risk Management, Investigations, Policy Updates Or Other Needs

If you need help with other health and health plan related regulatory policy or enforcement developments, or to review or respond to these or other human resources, employee benefit, or other compliance, risk management, enforcement or management concerns, the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer may be able to help.

Nationally recognized as a knowledgable and innovative health benefit thought leader by business and government leaders for her extensive work, publications and leadership on health benefit and insurance and other related employee benefits, insurance, human resources and health care matters, Ms. Stamer has advised and defended employer and other health plan sponsors, administrators and fiduciaries, insurers, and others about benefit design, compliance, administration and defense for more than 25 years. Her work includes highly pragmatic, leading edge work helping clients to design, deploy, administer and defend catastrophic, mini-med, expatriate and medical tourism, occupational injury and 24-hour coverage, HRA, HSA HFSA and other defined contribution, Medicare Advantage, and other health plans, policies and practices to comply with the Affordable Care Act, HIPAA, ERISA, COBRA, Mental Health Parity, Internal Revenue Code, labor and employment, privacy, managed care and insurance and other federal and state laws and regulations.

In addition to her extensive legal resume, Ms. Stamer also is a highly regarded industry thought leader and author with extensive involvement in the leadership of a broad range of professional and civic organizations. For instance, Ms. Stamer is the founder and executive director of the Coalition for Responsible Health Care Policy and its PROJECT COPE; The Coalition on Patient Empowerment; a Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefits Counsel, the American Bar Association and the State Bar of Texas; Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group; the Immediate Past Chair of the ABA RPTE Employee Benefit & Other Compensation Committee and the current ABA RPTE Employee Benefit & Other Compensation Committee Welfare Benefits Committee Co-Chair; a Council Member of the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits; Vice Chair of the ABA Tort & Insurance Practice Section Employee Benefits Committee; Immediate Past Gulf States Area TEGE Council Exempt Organization Coordinator; a current or former Editorial Advisory Board Member of Insurance Thought Leadership, HR.com, Employee Benefit News, the BNA Employee Benefits CD-Rolm and various other BNA HR and Employee Benefits publications; a former national board member and Dallas Chapter President of WEB, Network of Benefits Professionals; a former Southwest Benefits Association Board Member; the past Dallas HR Government Relations Committee Chair; a former SHRM Region IV Board Member and National Consultants Forum Board Member,; past Dallas Bar Association Employee Benefits & Compensation Committee Chair, and a former Texas Association of Business State Board and Regional and Dallas Chapter Chair.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Comments Off on Sequester Will Cut ACA Small Businesses Health Care Tax Credits | Corporate Compliance, Employers, Excise Tax, Health Plans, HIPAA, Human Resources, Insurance, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, Payroll Tax, Privacy, Risk Management, Tax, Tax Credit | Tagged: ACA, Employer, Employers, Employment, Health Care Reform, Health Plans, Labor Department, PPACA, Small Business Health Care Tax Credit, wage and hour, Worker Classification | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

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

March 2, 2013

Insurance brokerage and other businesses paying commission-only compensation should review the defensibility of their payment practices in response to the agreement by Premier Insurance Services (Premier) to pay $119,570 in minimum wage and overtime back wages, liquidated damages and civil money penalties.

The settlement arises from an investigation by the U.S. Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division (DOL) that determined that the insurer willfully violated minimum wage, overtime and record-keeping provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). According to DOL, its investigators found that the commission-only pay practice used by the Colton, California-based employer at all of its locations resulted in employees being paid below the federal minimum wage and failing to receive an overtime premium for hours worked beyond 40 per week. DOL also charges that Premier failed to maintain employee time records.

The FLSA requires that covered, nonexempt employees be paid at least the federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour for all hours worked, plus time and one-half their regular rates, including commissions, bonuses and incentive pay, for hours worked beyond 40 per week. Employers also are required to maintain accurate time and payroll records.

The FLSA provides that employers who violate the law are, as a general rule, liable to employees for their back wages and an equal amount in liquidated damages. Liquidated damages are paid directly to the affected employees.

Under the settlement, Premier will pay $43,297 in minimum wage and overtime back wages due to 90 employees and an equal amount in liquidated damages. Because of the willful nature of the violations, the employer will also pay $32,976 in civil money penalties.

Premier also signed a settlement agreement with the Labor Department in which it committed to implement a timekeeping system to document employees’ hours worked, assure payment of at least the federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour and accurately determine and pay overtime.

The Premier settlement follows DOL’s settlement of a related case last year after investigators discovered similar violations involving Upland, California-based Speedlane Insurance Services. This company was owned and operated by a close relative of Premier’s owner. That investigation resulted in $200,000 in back wages due to 96 employees.

The DOL’s announcement of the settlements alerts employers of the need to ensure that commission-based compensation meet FLSA requirements.

“Paying employees on a commission-only basis does not give employers a green light to dodge minimum wage and overtime pay requirements,” said Priscilla Garcia, director of DOL’s West Covina District Office when announcing the Premier settlement. “Premier Insurance Services knowingly violated the most basic labor laws to make a profit at the expense of their employees. This case should put other employers on notice that if they fail to pay their employees in compliance with federal law, our department will not hesitate to investigate. Employers may be found liable not only for back wages, but also for liquidated damages and other penalties.” (Emphasis added).

FLSA Violations Generally Costly; Enforcement Rising

The enforcement record of the Labor Department confirms these risks and reflects DOL’s targeting of U.S. employers that violate wage and hour laws.

Under the Obama Administration, DOL officials have made it a priority to enforce overtime, record keeping, worker classification and other wage and hour law requirements. See e.g., Boston Furs Sued For $1M For Violations Of Fair Labor Standards Act; Record $2.3 Millh ion+ Backpay Order; Minimum Wage, Overtime Risks Highlighted By Labor Department Strike Force Targeting Residential Care & Group Homes; Review & Strengthen Defensibility of Existing Worker Classification Practices In Light of Rising Congressional & Regulatory Scrutiny; 250 New Investigators, Renewed DOL Enforcement Emphasis Signal Rising Wage & Hour Risks For Employers; Quest Diagnostics, Inc. To Pay $688,000 In Overtime Backpay. In an effort to further promote compliance and enforcement of these rules, the Labor Department is using smart phone applications, social media and a host of other new tools to educate and recruit workers in its effort to find and prosecute violators. See, e.g. New Employee Smart Phone App New Tool In Labor Department’s Aggressive Wage & Hour Law Enforcement Campaign Against Restaurant & Other Employers. As a result of these effort, employers violating the FLSA now face heightened risk of enforcement from both the Labor Department and private litigation.

Employers Should Strengthen Practices For Defensibility

Audit of each position current classified as exempt to assess its continued sustainability and to develop documentation justifying that characterization;
Audit characterization of workers obtained from staffing, employee leasing, independent contractor and other arrangements and implement contractual and other oversight arrangements to minimize risks that these relationships could create if workers are recharacterized as employed by the employer receiving these services;
Review the characterization of on-call and other time demands placed on employees to confirm that all compensable time is properly identified, tracked, documented, compensated and reported;
Review of existing practices for tracking compensable hours and paying non-exempt employees for compliance with applicable regulations and to identify opportunities to minimize costs and liabilities arising out of the regulatory mandates;
If the audit raises questions about the appropriateness of the classification of an employee as exempt, self-initiation of proper corrective action after consultation with qualified legal counsel;
Review of existing documentation and record keeping practices for hourly employees;
Exploration of available options and alternatives for calculating required wage payments to non-exempt employees; and
Re-engineering of work rules and other practices to minimize costs and liabilities as appropriate in light of the regulations and enforcement exposures.

For Help With Investigations, Policy Updates Or Other Needs

Board Certified in Labor & Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, management attorney and consultant Ms. Stamer is nationally and internationally recognized for more than 23 years of work helping employers; employee benefit plans and their sponsors, administrators, fiduciaries; employee leasing, recruiting, staffing and other professional employment organizations; and others design, administer and defend innovative workforce, compensation, employee benefit and management policies and practices. The Chair of the American Bar Association (ABA) RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Committee, a Council Representative on the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits, Government Affairs Committee Legislative Chair for the Dallas Human Resources Management Association, past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, Ms. Stamer often has worked, extensively on these and other workforce and performance related matters. She also is recognized for her publications, industry leadership, workshops and presentations on these and other human resources concerns and regularly speaks and conducts training on these matters. Her insights on these and other matters appear in the Bureau of National Affairs, Spencer Publications, the Wall Street Journal, the Dallas Business Journal, the Houston Business Journal, and many other national and local publications. For more information about Ms. Stamer and her experience or to get access to other publications by Ms. Stamer see here or contact Ms. Stamer directly.

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. For important information about this communication click here.

Comments Off on Premier Insurance Services Pays $120,000 In Back Wages, Damages, Penalties Because Commission-Only Comp Violated Minimum Wage, Overtime Laws | Corporate Compliance, Employers, Human Resources, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, Risk Management, Wage & Hour | Tagged: Backpay, Employer, Employment, employment law, Fair Labor Standards Act, FSLA, IT, Labor Department, Minimum Wage, Technology, Wage & Hour, wage and hour, Worker Classification | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

OSHA Citation Of Michigan VA Reminder To Manage Workplace Safety

March 1, 2013

The U.S. Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) citation of the Battle Creek Veterans Administration Medical Center, following a safety inspection conducted in July as part of OSHA’s Federal Agency Targeting Inspection Program for seven notices of unsafe or unhealthful working conditions reminds employers that OSHA expects employers to maintain safe workplaces.

Under the Occupational Safety and Health Act, federal agencies must comply with the same safety standards as private-sector employers. According to OSHA, its inspection uncovered several repeat safety violations, as well as certain other serious safety violations.

OSHA reports that three repeat safety violations involved failing to evaluate the workplace to identify if permit-required confined spaces were present and label such spaces with danger signs; failing to adequately guard automated laundry equipment to prevent employees from entering the work area, and failing to fully guard the belt and pulley of an air compressor. To issue notices for repeat violations, OSHA must have issued at least one other notice for the same violation at one of the agency’s establishments within the same standard industrial classification code, commonly known as the SIC code. OSHA previously has cited U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs facilities in Danville and North Chicago, Illinois, and Minneapolis, Minnesota for the same safety and health violations.

The serious safety violations found included three serious safety violations for unguarded floor openings in the general repair shop; failing to inspect powered industrial trucks prior to placing them in service, and failing to remove trucks from service in need of repair. Additionally, OSHA found a circuit breaker panel was not mounted correctly. OSHA issues a serious notice when it finds a substantial probability that death or serious physical harm could result from a hazard about which the employer knew or should have known.

Beyond the repeated and serious violations, OSHA reports it also found one other-than-serious violation for failing to close unused openings on electrical cabinets and junction boxes. An other-than-serious violation is one that has a direct relationship to job safety and health, but probably would not cause death or serious physical harm.

The medical center has 15 business days from receipt of the notices to comply, request an informal conference with OSHA’s area director or appeal the notices by submitting a summary of the agency’s position on the unresolved issues to OSHA’s regional administrator.

While the medical center and other federal agencies are required to comply with the same OSHA rules as private sector employers, the VA and other federal agencies don’t face the same liabilities when cited. OSHA cannot propose monetary penalties against another federal agency for failure to comply with OSHA standards.

The risks for private sector employers is illustrated by another recent OSHA. OSHA recently cited Riddell All-American Sports Co. with eight serious violations following an OSHA investigation, which found that the company exposed workers to multiple safety and health hazards at its San Antonio facility. The violations include failing to ensure electrical equipment was free from recognized hazards, provide adequate machine guarding while employees operate industrial sewing machines and provide a fall protection program to prevent falls from the basket of a powered industrial truck. The Elyria, Ohio-based company, which employs about 25 workers in San Antonio, paints helmets for various sports. Proposed penalties total $44,000. Read the News Release.

Since private sector employers that don’t enjoy the VA’s immunity liability run much greater risks for failing to maintain workplace safety, including significant civil and in the case of a workplace death, potentially even criminal penalties, private sector hospitals and other organizations should exercise special care to ensure appropriate safety in their workplaces. “The Battle Creek Veterans Administration Medical Center failed to properly ensure the facility was in compliance with established safety and health procedures,” said Robert Bonack, director of OSHA’s Lansing Area Office. “All employers, including federal employers, are responsible for knowing what hazards exist in their facilities and taking appropriate precautions by following OSHA standards so workers are not exposed to such hazards.”

For Help With Compliance, Risk Management, Investigations, Policy Updates Or Other Needs

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Comments Off on OSHA Citation Of Michigan VA Reminder To Manage Workplace Safety | Corporate Compliance, Employers, GINA, Health Plans, HIPAA, Human Resources, Insurance, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, Privacy, Risk Management, Whistleblower | Tagged: Backpay, Employer, Employment, employment law, Fair Labor Standards Act, FSLA, Health, Hospital, IT, Labor Department, Medical Center, Minimum Wage, OSHA, Safety, Technology, Wage & Hour, wage and hour, Worker Classification | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

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

February 25, 2013

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) on February 22, 2013 released its Final Rule implementing many of the key market reform provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (the “Affordable Care Act”) applicable to non-grandfathered health plans and health insurance issuers.

The 145 page regulations and associated guidance package scheduled for official publication in the Federal Register on February 27, 2013 clarifies and implements the Affordable Care Act’s provisions relating to Guaranteed Availability and Renewability; Health Insurance Premiums; Single Risk Pool; Catastrophic Plans, Utilization Data Collection and Reporting under the Federal Rate Review Program and certain other matters.

Among other thing, the Final Regulations:

Clarify the approach HHS will use to enforce the applicable requirements of the Affordable Care Act with respect to health insurance issuers and group health plans that are nonfederal governmental plans
Amend the standards for health insurance issuers and states on reporting, utilization, and collection of data under the federal rate review program
Revise the timeline for states to propose state-specific thresholds for review and approval by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS)
Allow health insurance issuers to vary the premium rate for health insurance coverage in the individual and small group markets only based on family size, geography, and age and tobacco use within limits
Direct health insurance issuers to offer coverage to and accept every employer or individual who applies for coverage in the group and individual market, subject to certain exceptions including how these requirements inter-relate with the Affordable Care Act’s restrictions on pre-existing condition limitations and exclusions
Direct health insurance issuers to renew or continue in force coverage in the group and individual market, subject to certain exceptions
Codify the requirement that issuers maintain a single risk pool for the individual market and a single risk pool for the small group market (unless a state decides to merge the markets into a single risk pool)
Outline standards for enrollment in catastrophic plans for young adults and people who cannot otherwise afford health insurance
Amend the standards under the rate review program in 45 CFR part 154 by among other things, changing the timeline for states to propose state-specific thresholds for review and approval by CMS, requiring health insurance issuers to submit data relating to proposed rate increases in a standardized format specified by the Secretary of HHS and modifying criteria and factors for states to have an effective rate review program

Along with responding to these regulations, health insurers, group health plans and their insurers and others need to stay tuned. These regulations are just one of a deluge of regulations and other interpretations that HHS and other agencies are rolling out in the rush to meet the impending deadlines for the implementaton of the Affordable Care Act. For instance, along with this guidance, HHS along with the Internal Revenue Service and Employee Benefit Security Administration also last week issued FAQ XII, which discusses the co-pay, deductible and certain other aspects of the cost sharing limits of the Affordable Care Act. In previous weeks, the agencies also have issued or proposed regulations about waiting period, employer shared responsibility, essential health benefits, and various other elements of the rules. Additional guidance is impending.

For Help With Compliance, Risk Management, Investigations, Policy Updates Or Other Needs

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Comments Off on HHS Releases Final Rule on Health Insurance Market, Rate Review, Pre-Existing Conditions & Other ACA Market Reform Rules | Corporate Compliance, Employers, GINA, Health Plans, HIPAA, Human Resources, Insurance, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, Privacy, Risk Management, Whistleblower | Tagged: Backpay, Employer, Employment, employment law, Fair Labor Standards Act, FSLA, IT, Labor Department, Minimum Wage, Technology, Wage & Hour, wage and hour, Worker Classification | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

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

February 23, 2013

Thinking about or using mobile devices and applications in your heath care, health plan, workforce or related operations or struggling to meet the demands of employees, plan members or others to allow use of these tools? Be sure that you’ve taken appropriate steps to design, implement and manage legal responsibilities and risks associated with the development and use of these tools.

While the popularity, accessibility and cost-effectiveness of mobile devices and applications provides a strong incentive for health and other employee benefit plans, employers, their business associates, workforce members and customers to use mobile devices and applications, the use of these technologies and applications to collect, access, or use personal health care, financial, or other sensitive information presents special challenges and risks. Unfortunately, as the use of these tools proliferates, federal officials are increasingly concerned that the data security protections afforded by many of the devices and applications in use on these highly popular smart phone, tablet and other mobile devices and applications is highly lacking. See FTC Settlement With Mobile Device & App Developer Shows Developers & Businesses Need To Manage Mobile App & Data Security.

As federal regulators and law enforcement responds to growing concerns about cyber security and other risks, heath care, health plan and other businesses, their employees, customers, and other business partners jumping on the mobile device and application bandwagon, health, application bandwagon, and the device and application developers developing and offering these tools must take appropriate steps to manage the personal health, financial, and other sensitive information and data that these tools use, create, access or disclose.

Of course, most health plan sponsors, fiduciaries, administrators and service providers already recognize the need to use care when dealing with health plan data. The Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act (HIPAA) generally requires that health care providers, health plans, health care clearinghouses and their businesses associates safeguard personal health care information or “PHI” and restrict its use, access and disclosure in accordance with the extensive and highly detailed requirements of the Privacy, Security and Breach Notification Regulations of the Department of Health & Human Services Office of Civil Rights (OCR).

OCR’s collection of several multi-million dollar settlements as well as its statements in its recent restated HIPAA regulations and other OCR guidance make clear that OCR views HIPAA as imposing significant responsibilities upon covered entities and their business associates to safeguard and restrict access to PHI on mobile devices and applications. OCR’s Long-Anticipated Omnibus HIPAA Privacy, Security, Breach Notification & Enforcement Rule Tightens Privacy Requirements, Require Action; Breaches resulting from the loss or theft of unencrypted ePHI on mobile or other computer devices or systems has been a common basis of investigation and sanctions since that time, particularly since the Breach Notification rules took effect. OCR Pops Idaho Hospice In 1st HIPAA Breach Settlement Affecting < 500 Patients; Providence To Pay $100000 & Implement Other Safeguards; OCR Hits Alaska Medicaid For $1.7M+ For HIPAA Security Breach; OCR Audit Program Kickoff Further Heats HIPAA Privacy Risks; $1.5 Million HIPAA Settlement Reached To Resolve 1st OCR Enforcement Action Prompted By HITECH Act Breach Report; HIPAA Heats Up: HITECH Act Changes Take Effect & OCR Begins Posting Names, Other Details Of Unsecured PHI Breach Reports On Website. These actions and statements of OCR provide a clear warning to HIPAA-covered entities and their business associates to expect significant consequences for failing to properly encrypt and safeguard ePHI used, accessed or disclosed on mobile devices and applications.

Of course, HIPAA isn’t the only law and health plans should not be the only area of concern when employers or their health or other employee benefit plan fiduciaries and service providers are considering mobile device and application use. In addition to HIPAA’s health plan requirements concerning PHI, mobile devices and applications used in connection with employment, benefit plan, and related operations also can trigger a host of privacy, data security and other rules requiring data security and other safeguards. Federal laws like the Internal Revenue Code, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, Graham-Leech-Biliey, the Fair & Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA) or other Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Rules, state data security, data breach, identity theft or other privacy rules or both are just a few of the many and constantly expanding regulatory requirements that can apply. Depending on the nature of the data and the circumstances of the unanticipated use or disclosure, invasion of privacy or other common or statutory laws also may come into play.

With the use of these applications by consumers and business proliferates, Congress, OCR, the FTC, state regulators and others are upping the responsibilities and the liability of businesses that fail to appropriately consider and implement security in their mobile devices and applications. Following on OCR’s restatement of its HIPAA regulations, the Obama Administration’s announcement of new cyber security initiatives, and a plethora of other federal and state regulatory and enforcement actions against businesses for data security missteps, the FTC recently launched a campaign to ensure that companies secure the software and devices mobile device and application providers provide consumers.

Earlier this month, the FTC introduced Mobile App Developers: Start with Security, a new business guide that encourages app developers to aim for reasonable data security.

On June 4, 2013, the FTC also plans to host a public forum on malware and other mobile security threats in order to examine the security of existing and developing mobile technologies and the roles that various members of the mobile ecosystem can play in protecting consumers.

Along side this educational outreach, the FTC also is moving to punish businesses that fail to act responsibly to protect sensitive data. This trend is illustrated by the FTC’s announcement this week of its first settlement with a mobile device manufacturer.

FTC Charges Against HTC America

This week, the FTC announced that mobile device giant HTC American, Inc. will to settle FTC charges that the company failed to take reasonable steps to secure the software it developed for its smart phones and tablet computers and introduced security flaws that placed sensitive information about millions of consumers at risk.

A leading mobile device manufacturer in the United States, HTC America develops and manufactures mobile devices based on the Android, Windows Mobile, and Windows Phone operating systems. HTC America has customized the software on these devices in order to differentiate itself from competitors and to comply with the requirements of mobile network operators.

In its first-ever complaint against a mobile device or application developer, the FTC charged HTC America failed to incorporate and administer appropriate safeguards for personal financial and other sensitive data accessed and used in these applications when designing or customizing the software on its mobile devices. Among other things, the complaint alleged that HTC America failed to provide its engineering staff with adequate security training, failed to review or test the software on its mobile devices for potential security vulnerabilities, failed to follow well-known and commonly accepted secure coding practices, and failed to establish a process for receiving and addressing vulnerability reports from third parties.

To illustrate the consequences of these alleged failures, the FTC’s complaint details several vulnerabilities found on HTC America’s devices, including the insecure implementation of two logging applications – Carrier IQ and HTC Loggers – as well as programming flaws that would allow third-party applications to bypass Android’s permission-based security model.

Due to these vulnerabilities, the FTC charged, millions of HTC devices compromised sensitive device functionality, potentially permitting malicious applications to send text messages, record audio, and even install additional malware onto a consumer’s device, all without the user’s knowledge or consent. The FTC alleged that malware placed on consumers’ devices without their permission could be used to record and transmit information entered into or stored on the device, including, for example, financial account numbers and related access codes or medical information such as text messages received from healthcare providers and calendar entries about doctor’s appointments. In addition, malicious applications could exploit the vulnerabilities on HTC devices to gain unauthorized access to a variety of other sensitive information, such as the user’s geolocation information and the contents of the user’s text messages.

Moreover, the FTC complaint alleged that the user manuals for HTC Android-based devices contained deceptive representations, and that the user interface for the company’s Tell HTC application was also deceptive. In both cases, the security vulnerabilities in HTC Android-based devices undermined consent mechanisms that would have otherwise prevented unauthorized access or transmission of sensitive information.

HTC America Settlement

The settlement not only requires the establishment of a comprehensive security program, but also prohibits HTC America from making any false or misleading statements about the security and privacy of consumers’ data on HTC devices. Under the settlement agreement, HTC American must:

Fix vulnerabilities found in millions of HTC devices;
Establish a comprehensive security program designed to address security risks during the development of HTC devices; and
Undergo independent security assessments every other year for the next 20 years.

HTC America and its network operator partners are also in the process of deploying the security patches required by the settlement to consumers’ devices. Many consumers have already received the required security updates. The FTC is encouraging consumers using HTC America applications to apply the updates as soon as possible.

The FTC Commission vote to accept the consent agreement package containing the proposed consent order for public comment was 3-0-2, with Chairman Jon Leibowitz not participating and Commissioner Maureen Ohlhausen recused. The FTC will publish a description of the consent agreement package in the Federal Register shortly.

In accordance with FTC procedures, the settlement agreement will be subject to public comment through March 22, after which the Commission will decide whether to make the proposed consent order final. Interested parties can submit comments electronically or in paper form using instructions in the “Invitation To Comment” part of the “Supplementary Information” section. Comments in paper form should be mailed or delivered to: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Room H-113 (Annex D), 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20580. The FTC is requesting that any comment filed in paper form near the end of the public comment period be sent by courier or overnight service, if possible, because U.S. postal mail in the Washington area and at the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security precautions.

Act To Manage Mobile Application Device & Security

Given the expanding awareness, expectations and enforcement of OCR, FTC and others, health care, health plan and other industry participants deciding whether and when to use, or allow others to use mobile devices or applications to access data or carry out other activities and the mobile device or other technology developers and providers offering products or services to these organizations must get serious about security.

These and other related activities send a clear message that health care, health insurance mobile device and application users and developers must incorporate and administer appropriate processes and safeguards to protect PHI, personal financial and other sensitive data. In response to these developments, industry mobile device and application developers and the health care, health insurance and other businesses must consider carefully before deploying or allowing others to deploy or use these tools in relation to data within their operations or systems. Before and when using or permitting customers, business partners, employees or others to use tools, these organizations must ensure the adequacy of the design and security safeguards for their devices, software and applications, as well as their disclaimers and associated consumer disclosures and consents. Because of the special legal and operational expectations for these organizations, health care, health insurance and other industry provides must resist pressure to allow the use of these tools unless and until they can verify that these legal and operational requisites are fulfilled.

For Help With Compliance, Risk Management, Investigations, Policy Updates Or Other Needs

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Comments Off on FTC, HIPAA Rules Require Health Plans & Employers Strengthen Data Security on Mobile Devices and Applications | Corporate Compliance, Employers, GINA, Health Plans, HIPAA, Human Resources, Insurance, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, Privacy, Risk Management, Whistleblower | Tagged: Backpay, Employer, Employment, employment law, Fair Labor Standards Act, FSLA, IT, Labor Department, Minimum Wage, Technology, Wage & Hour, wage and hour, Worker Classification | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

3/13 JCEB Teleconference Explores Foreign Transferees: Outbound, Inbound, Equity And Treaty Issues

February 19, 2013

Cynthia Marcotte Stamer will share her insights on health and welfare benefit challenges for multinational employers as one of the featured panelists on the “Foreign Transferees: Outbound, Inbound, Equity And Treaty Issues” Teleconference hosted by the American Bar Association Joint Committee on Employee Benefits on March 13, 2013 from 10:00-11:30 a.m. Central Time.

Intended to help broad-based U.S. and European community benefits attorneys and others seeking to understand common and unique issues associated with employee transferees, granting of equity compensation and associated treaty issues, including:
Basic issues associated with transfers including granting of past service credits, vesting and distribution issues
Case studies involving employee transfers between the U.S. and the UK.
Use of international deferred compensation programs.
Unique health and welfare issues associated with international transfers.
Interesting/Global equity issues to avoid.

Moderated by Elizabeth Drigotas, PriceWaterhouseCoopers, Washington, DC, the program will feature a diverse and highly experienced group of distinguished government and private speakers including:

M. Grace Fleeman, Senior Technical Reviewer, Branch 1, (Associate Chief Counsel International)), Internal Revenue Service, U.S. Department of the Treasury, Washington, DC (invited)
Andrew C. Liazos, McDermott Will & Emery, Boston, MA
Matthew Preston, Clifford Chance, London, UK
Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, PC, Addison, TX.

To register or for additional information, see here.

About Ms. Stamer

Sought out nationally and internationally as an industry thought leader and problem solver, attorney, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer has more than 25 years experience helping domestic and foreign private and public businesses, employer and union plan sponsors, health and other employee benefit plans, associations, their fiduciaries, administrators, and vendors, group health, Medicare and Medicaid Advantage, and other insurers, governmental and community leaders and others develop, implement, administer and defend creative, legally compliant and operationally effective health and other employee benefit, employment, insurance, pension and retirement, health care, workers’ compensation and workforce plans, practices, and policies.

Recognized in International Who’s Who, the founder and Executive Director of Project COPE: The Coalition on Patient Empowerment and its affiliate, the Coalition on Responsible Health Policy; a Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefits Counsel, American Bar Association, and State Bar of Texas; Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, Immediate Past Chair of the ABA RPTE Employee Benefit & Other Compensation Committee, current ABA RPTE Employee Benefit & Other Compensation Committee Welfare Benefits Committee Co-Chair and Substantive Groups Committee Member, and a Council Member of the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits, Vice Chair of the ABA Tort & Insurance Practice Section Employee Benefits Committee, and Immediate Past Gulf States Area TEGE Council Exempt Organization Chair, Ms. Stamer helps these and other clients. to design, document, administer and defend managed care and insurance programs, processes, and products; to monitor and manage evolving regulatory, contractual and fiduciary obligations and risks; to draft, negotiate, interpret and enforce managed care and other contracts, plan documents, insurance policies, administrative services agreements, and other agreements, policies, procedures and controls; to credential, monitor and manage fiduciaries, service providers, consultants and others providing services relating to programs; to conduct and defend litigation, audits, and other enforcement actions; to deal with legislators, regulators, auditors and others; and to fulfill legal obligations, mitigate legal risks and improve operational effectiveness.

As a core focus of her practice, Ms. Stamer continuously counsels, represents and defends self-insured and insured managed care and health, disability and welfare, pension, deferred compensation and other employee benefit plans; employer, association, insurer, and other employee benefit and insurance program sponsors; plan fiduciaries, administrators, brokers, consultants and other service providers; Medicare and Medicaid Advantage and other group, individual, stop-loss and other reinsurance, fiduciary liability and other insurers; health and insurance technology and other outsourcing companies; human resources, insurance and employee benefit consulting organizations; and other insurance, employee benefit and human resources industry clients, domestic and foreign governments and others about a diverse range of employee benefit, insurance, employment, tax, regulatory, risk management, public policy and related matters.

Ms. Stamer’s health benefit experience includes extensive and highly-innovative dealings with insured and self-insured managed care, defined contribution, indemnity and other health benefit, disability, life, occupational injury, Medicare and Medicaid Advantage, and other welfare benefit and insurance plans and policies; and a wide range of other employee benefits, compensation, insurance, equity and other related arrangements. Her work includes leading edge development and use of 24-hour coverage and other occupational injury, ex-pat and other medical tourism products, HRA, HSA, HRA and other defined contribution, hi-deductible, deductible reimbursement, min-med and other limited benefit plans, 24-hour and occupational benefit, fraternal benefit and association, and other medical programs as well as a broad range of claims, appeals, audit, and other administrative processes and tools designed to promote defensibility and mitigate risks.

Along side this domestic work, Ms. Stamer also has extensive international experience. A primary drafter of the Bolivian Social Security privatization law with extensive domestic and international regulatory and public policy experience, Ms. Stamer also has worked extensively domestically and internationally on design, administration, operations, compliance, public policy and regulatory, and other challenges arising in the administration of multinational workforces and populations. Throughout her career, Ms. Stamer has advised both U.S. based businesses and foreign owned or operated businesses about design and administration of employment, employee benefit, worker’s compensation, employment tax, occupational safety, discipline and promotion, collective bargaining, recruiting, compliance, risk management and other personnel practices for multinational workforces. She has worked extensively on the design and administration of pension, severance, health and other benefit and compensation programs for their multinational workforce. She assists businesses with cross-border and domestic employment, consulting, independent contractor, subcontractor, employee leasing and other staffing and vendor agreements; multinational Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, Federal Sentencing Guidelines, and other compliance programs and practices; design, drafting, interpretation, implementation, and coordination pension, health care, severance, education, insurance, employment, tax, unemployment, disability, and other programs and requirements; represents and advises businesses, associations and government agencies before U.S. and foreign governments in connection with tax, employment, and other compliance matters, trade relationships and missions, public policy advocacy.

A widely published author and highly sought out speaker whose HR & Benefits Update has been recognized as among the “Top 50” HR Blogs To Watch, Ms. Stamer also regularly authors materials and conducts workshops and professional, management and other training on employee benefits, human resources, health care and other compliance and management topics for the ABA, Aspen Publishers, the Bureau of National Affairs (BNA), SHRM, World At Work, Insurance Thought Leadership, Government Institutes, Inc., Solutions Law Press, Inc., the Society of Professional Benefits Administrators, HealthLeaders, Managed Care Executive, CEO Magazine, Business Insurance and many other industry, professional and business publications. An Editorial Advisory Board Member of the Institute of Human Resources (IHR/HR.com), Employee Benefit News, and other publications, Ms. Stamer also regularly serves on the faculty and planning committees of a multitude of symposium and other educational programs. For more details about Ms. Stamer’s services, experience, presentations, publications, and other credentials or to inquire about arranging counseling, training or presentations or other services by Ms. Stamer, see www.CynthiaStamer.com. Ms. Stamer also is widely recognized for her regulatory and public policy advocacy, publications, and public speaking on privacy and other compliance, risk management concerns. For the past two years, Ms. Stamer has serve as the appointed scribe for the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits annual agency meeting with OCR and has lead numerous programs for the ABA and others on this topic. Her insights on HIPAA risk management and compliance frequently appear in medical privacy related publications of a broad range of health care, health plan and other industry publications Among others, she has conducted privacy training for the Association of State & Territorial Health Plans (ASTHO), the Los Angeles Health Department, the American Bar Association, the Health Care Compliance Association, a multitude of health industry, health plan, insurance and financial services, education, employer employee benefit and other clients, trade and professional associations and others.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Comments Off on 3/13 JCEB Teleconference Explores Foreign Transferees: Outbound, Inbound, Equity And Treaty Issues | Corporate Compliance, Employers, GINA, Health Plans, HIPAA, Human Resources, Insurance, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, Privacy, Risk Management, Whistleblower | Tagged: Backpay, Employer, Employment, employment law, Fair Labor Standards Act, FSLA, IT, Labor Department, Minimum Wage, Technology, Wage & Hour, wage and hour, Worker Classification | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

SLP Readers Get $400 Discount To Learn Key Health Care Reform Coping Strategies At 2/21-22 Employer Health & Human Capital Strategy Congress In Lake Mary, FL

February 5, 2013

Solutions Law Press, Inc. (SLP) readers qualify for up to a $400 discount on their registration to learn key insights from on strategies for charting the path forward to drive employee wellness, strengthen the workforce and impact global business competitiveness in the face of the impending health care reforms of the Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act from SLP Editor/Author Cynthia Marcotte Stamer and other leading employer health care decision makers at the 8^th Annual Employer Health & Human Capital Strategy Congress that the World Health Congress is hosting on February 21-22, 2013 at The Westin Lake Mary, Orlando North Conference Center in Lake Mary, Florida.

About the Program

Nationally recognized industry thought leader and attorney SLP Editor attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer will help kick off the program when she joins a panel of prominent HR leaders discussing “Assessing Alternatives and Opportunities: Defined Contribution and Exchanges-What are the Long-Term Implications on Your Human Capital Strategy” beginning at 9:30 a.m. on February 21, 2013.

Following this keynote panel, attendees also will learn other key ideas and strategies to help their organizations cope with Health Care Reform as they participate in a host of other insightful and timely presentations by dynamic team of prominent HR and other industry experts and network with other management and human resources leaders .including:

John Rother, National Coalition on Health care
Shawn Leavitt, Carlson Companies
Rebecca Mariet Lynn-Crockford, Suntrust Banks, Inc
Jo-Ann Gastin, Lockton Companies, LLC
Paul Grundy, M.D., Patient-Centered Primary Care Collaborative
Roger C. Merring, M.D., Perdue Farm Inc.
Sam Nussbaum, Wellpoint, Inc.
Benjamin H. Hoffman, M.D., GE Energy
Bruce Sherman, MD, Employers Health Coalition

For a full agenda and other details on the program, see here.

SLP Reader Registration Discount

SLP is delighted to announce that the World Health Congress is offering SLP readers the opportunity to claim a $400 discount off the otherwise applicable registration fee when registering for the program. To register and claim this discount, enter registration code “GHH925” at the designated location when registering for the program here.

About Ms. Stamer

Sought out nationally and internationally as an industry thought leader and problem solver, SLP Editor and author attorney, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer has spent more than 25 years helping private and public employers, employer and union plan sponsors, health and other employee benefit plans, associations, their fiduciaries, administrators, and vendors, group health, Medicare and Medicaid Advantage, and other insurers, governmental and community leaders and others develop, implement, administer and defend creative, legally compliant and operationally effective health and other employee benefit, employment, insurance, health care and workforce plans, policies, practices, operations and policies.

A primary drafter of the Bolivian Social Security privatization law with extensive domestic and international regulatory and public policy experience, Ms. Stamer also has worked extensively domestically and internationally on public policy and regulatory advocacy on health and other employee benefits, human resources, insurance, tax, compliance and other matters and representing clients in dealings with the US Congress, Departments of Labor, Treasury, Health & Human Services, Federal Trade Commission, HUD and Justice, as well as a state legislatures attorneys general, insurance, labor, worker’s compensation, and other agencies and regulators. Her Patient Empowerment Toolkit™, Play4Life Community Program™, and other patient empowerment, health care quality, and other industry thought leadership, advocacy and solutions have drawn the attention of business, government and community leaders for their insightfulness and practicality.

A widely published author and highly sought out speaker whose HR & Benefits Update has been recognized as among the “Top 50” HR Blogs To Watch, Ms. Stamer also regularly authors materials and conducts workshops and professional, management and other training on employee benefits, human resources, health care and other compliance and management topics for the ABA, Aspen Publishers, the Bureau of National Affairs (BNA), SHRM, World At Work, Insurance Thought Leadership, Government Institutes, Inc., Solutions Law Press, Inc., the Society of Professional Benefits Administrators, HealthLeaders, Managed Care Executive, CEO Magazine, Business Insurance and many other industry, professional and business publications. An Editorial Advisory Board Member of the Institute of Human Resources (IHR/HR.com), Employee Benefit News, and other publications, Ms. Stamer also regularly serves on the faculty and planning committees of a multitude of symposium and other educational programs. For more details about Ms. Stamer’s services, experience, presentations, publications, and other credentials or to inquire about arranging counseling, training or presentations or other services by Ms. Stamer, see www.CynthiaStamer.com or contact Ms. Stamer directly via email here or (469) 767-8872.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Comments Off on SLP Readers Get $400 Discount To Learn Key Health Care Reform Coping Strategies At 2/21-22 Employer Health & Human Capital Strategy Congress In Lake Mary, FL | Corporate Compliance, Employers, GINA, Health Plans, HIPAA, Human Resources, Insurance, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, Privacy, Risk Management, Whistleblower | Tagged: Backpay, Employer, Employment, employment law, Fair Labor Standards Act, FSLA, IT, Labor Department, Minimum Wage, Technology, Wage & Hour, wage and hour, Worker Classification | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Stamer Talks on “What the Wind Blew In: Coping with Health Care Reform: 2013 and Beyond” May 2 At 24th Annual RPTE Spring Symposia In Washington, D.C.

January 28, 2013

Cynthia Marcotte Stamer will a featured panelists discussing “What the Wind Blew In: Coping with Health Care Reform: 2013 and Beyond” on Thursday, May 2, 2013 at 24th Annual RPTE Spring Symposia at the Capital Hilton in Washington, DC. The Symposia scheduled to take place on May 2–3, 2013 will cover a broad range of timely topics on real estate, trusts and estates and other related concerns. To register, review the full agenda or get additional information about the Symposium, see here.

About Ms. Stamer

A noted Texas-based employee benefits and employment lawyer with extensive involvement in the leadership of the ABA and other professional organizations involved in employee benefits, health care and workforce matters, is nationally and internationally known for her innovative leadership and work as an attorney, consultant, policy advocate, speaker and author helping businesses, governments, and communities on health and other insurance and employee benefits, patient education and empowerment, wellness and disease management, and other programs, policies, and processes. For more than 24 years, Ms. Stamer’s legal practice has focused on advising and representing employers, insurers, health care providers, community leaders and governments about health care and employee benefits policy and process improvement, quality, performance management, education, compliance, communications, risk management, reimbursement and finance, and other related matters. In addition to her legal practice, Stamer also extensively consults and provides leadership to a broad range of clients, professional and civic organizations, and others on strategies for improving the health care system and the ability of health care providers, payers, employers, community organizations, government agencies to promote the ability of patients and their families to access cost-effective, quality, affordable health care and other resource needs. She also has worked extensively with a broad range of business and government clients on health care, pension, social security, workforce, insurance and many other related policy matters.

In addition to her service with the ABA, Ms. Stamer also is active in the leadership of a broad range of other professional and civil organizations. For instance, Ms. Stamer presently serves as Executive Director of Project COPE, the Coalition on Patient Empowerment and the Coalition for Responsible Healthcare Policy; 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 representative to the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits and Vice Chair of its Welfare Benefits Committee; Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group and a current member of its Healthcare Coordinating Council; and as the Gulf Coast TEGE Council TE Committee Coordinator. 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; on numerous seminar faculties and in many other professional and civic leadership and volunteer roles.

Author of the hundreds 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, 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. Nationally known for her work on health care reform and related matters, Ms. Stamer also regularly conducts training and speaks on these and other management, compliance and public policy concerns. For additional information about Ms. Stamer, upcoming training, publications or other materials or events, see here or contact Ms. Stamer directly via email here or (469) 767-8872.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Comments Off on Stamer Talks on “What the Wind Blew In: Coping with Health Care Reform: 2013 and Beyond” May 2 At 24th Annual RPTE Spring Symposia In Washington, D.C. | Corporate Compliance, Employers, GINA, Health Plans, HIPAA, Human Resources, Insurance, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, Privacy, Risk Management, Whistleblower | Tagged: Backpay, Employer, Employment, employment law, Fair Labor Standards Act, FSLA, IT, Labor Department, Minimum Wage, Technology, Wage & Hour, wage and hour, Worker Classification | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

IRS Will Begin Accepting Returns Claiming Education Credits By Mid-February

January 28, 2013

As preparations continue for the Jan. 30 opening of the 2013 filing season for most taxpayers, the Internal Revenue Service has announced that it beginprocessing of tax returns claiming education credits n by the middle of February.

Taxpayers using Form 8863, Education Credits, can begin filing their tax returns after the IRS updates its processing systems. Form 8863 is used to claim two higher education credits — the American Opportunity Tax Credit and the Lifetime Learning Credit.

The IRS emphasized that the delayed start will have no impact on taxpayers claiming other education-related tax benefits, such as the tuition and fees deduction and the student loan interest deduction. People otherwise able to file and claiming these benefits can start filing Jan. 30, 2013

As it does every year, the IRS reviews and tests its systems in advance of the opening of the tax season to protect taxpayers from processing errors and refund delays. The IRS discovered during testing that programming modifications are needed to accurately process Forms 8863. Filers who are otherwise able to file but use the Form 8863 will be able to file by mid-February. No action needs to be taken by the taxpayer or their tax professional. Typically through the mid-February period, about 3 million tax returns include Form 8863, less than a quarter of those filed during the year.

The IRS remains on track to open the tax season on January 30 for most taxpayers. The January 30 opening includes people claiming the student loan interest deduction on the Form 1040 series or the higher education tuition or fees on Form 8917, Tuition and Fees Deduction. Forms that will be able to be filed later are listed on IRS.gov.

For Help With Compliance, Risk Management, Investigations, Policy Updates Or Other Needs

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Comments Off on IRS Will Begin Accepting Returns Claiming Education Credits By Mid-February | Corporate Compliance, Employers, GINA, Health Plans, HIPAA, Human Resources, Insurance, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, Privacy, Risk Management, Whistleblower | Tagged: Backpay, Employer, Employment, employment law, Fair Labor Standards Act, FSLA, IT, Labor Department, Minimum Wage, Technology, Wage & Hour, wage and hour, Worker Classification | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

IRS Shares Procedures Employers Use To Claim Increased Monthly Transit Benefit Exclusion Allowed By Administrative Taxpayer Relief Act

January 28, 2013

The Administrative Taxpayer Relief Act retroactively increased monthly transit benefit limit that employers can provide to employees on a tax-free basis for 2012 from $125 per month to $240 per month. Notice 2013-8 provides a special correction procedure for employers who paid benefits in excess of $125 per month in 2012 and wish to make corrections on their fourth quarter Form 941.

Notice 2013-8 will be published in Internal Revenue Bulletin 2013-7 on February 11, 2013

For Help With Compliance, Risk Management, Investigations, Policy Updates Or Other Needs

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Comments Off on IRS Shares Procedures Employers Use To Claim Increased Monthly Transit Benefit Exclusion Allowed By Administrative Taxpayer Relief Act | Corporate Compliance, Employers, GINA, Health Plans, HIPAA, Human Resources, Insurance, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, Privacy, Risk Management, Whistleblower | Tagged: Employer, Employment, transit benefit exclusion | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Employers ACA Health Reforms Prohibit Using HRAs To Pay Individual Medical Policy Premiums & Impact Other HRA Arrangements

January 27, 2013

Since the enactment of the Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act (ACA), many employers searching for health plan solutions may have been asked to consider replacing or modifying their existing insured or self-insured group health plan with a “health reimbursement arrangement” (HRA) or other arrangement which would reimburse employees for premiums paid for individual health insurance policies. New guidance released on Thursday, January 24, 2013 indicates that such arrangements are prohibited as part of the ACA health care reforms.

“FAQS About Affordable Care Implementation (Part XI)” (FAQ) available here issued by the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services (HHS), and the Treasury (collectively, the Agencies) on January 24, 2013 sends a clear message to employers that trying to escape ACA or other federal group health plan mandates by replacing their traditional insured or group health plans or policies with health reimbursement arrangements (HRAs) or other arrangements under which the employer agrees to provide a fixed defined contribution to be used to buy or reimburses employees for buying individual health insurance generally won’t pass legal muster. The FAQ also indicates that employers sponsoring HRAs that only reimburse medical expenses, not individual health insurance premiums also need to review their arrangements to verify that those programs also comply with ACA and other applicable rules.

Concerning the use of HRAs to pay for individual health insurance policy premiums, the FAQ states that PHS Act Section 2711 generally prohibits an employer-sponsored HRA cannot be integrated with individual market coverage or with an employer plan that provides coverage through individual policies. Under ACA, employers that improperly offer arrangements that violate PHS Section 2711 or other group health plans risk exposing themselves to liability for significant unanticipated health benefit claims, as well as other penalties and costs. Therefore, employers that have or are contemplating arrangements that provide or reimburse premiums for individual health insurance coverage are urged to contact qualified legal counsel with documented experience with ACA and other group health plan requirements for advice before establishing or continuing such arrangements.

The FAQ’s guidance about the use of individual insurance policies to arrange coverage for employees is one of several issues addressed in the FAQ and part of a wave of new guidance that has and is emerging as the Obama Administration moves to full implementation of the ACA reforms. Employers, plan fiduciaries, insurers, and others involved in the design or administration of health benefit programs need to monitor carefully this emerging guidance as they move quickly to tailor their programs in response to these evolving rules. For help monitoring or responding to these evolving rules, contact the author of this update, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer.

For Help With Compliance, Risk Management, Investigations, Policy Updates Or Other Needs

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Comments Off on Employers ACA Health Reforms Prohibit Using HRAs To Pay Individual Medical Policy Premiums & Impact Other HRA Arrangements | Corporate Compliance, Employers, GINA, Health Plans, HIPAA, Human Resources, Insurance, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, Privacy, Risk Management, Whistleblower | Tagged: Backpay, Employer, Employment, employment law, Fair Labor Standards Act, FSLA, IT, Labor Department, Minimum Wage, Technology, Wage & Hour, wage and hour, Worker Classification | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Employer Deadline To Give ACA Notice of Exchange Coverage Options Delayed

January 25, 2013

The Department of Labor has extended the deadline for employers to notify employees about the existence of and their rights under the health exchanges required by new Section 18B of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), as added by Section 1512 of the Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act (ACA). The extension announced in Frequently Answered Question (FAQ) here provides a welcome temporary reprieve to employers who otherwise would have been required to notify employees by March 1, 2013.

As part of the impending implementation of ACA’s health care reform, FLSA § 18B generally requires each applicable employer provide each employee a written notice (Exchange Notice) in accordance with regulations promulgated by the Secretary of Labor:

Informing the employee of the existence of Exchanges including a description of the services provided by the Exchanges, and the way the employee may contact Exchanges 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 an Exchange; and
If the employee purchases a qualified health plan through an Exchange, 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. The Department of Labor expects that the timing for distribution of notices will be the late summer or fall of 2013, which will coordinate with the open enrollment period for Exchanges.

Before the Department’s announcement in the FAQ, the deadline for employers to begin giving employees Exchange Notices was the later of March 1, 2013 or at the time of hiring. The FAQ extends this deadline until a date to be set by the Department in future guidance, which the Department expects will require employers to distribute the notices in the late summer or fall of 2013 to coordinate with the open enrollment period for Exchanges.

According to the announcement of the delay, the Department delayed the impending March 1, 2013 deadline to give the (Exchange Notice) to better coordinate with related Health and Human Service and Internal Revenue Service efforts and to allow more time to comply and to distribute the Exchange Notices to employees at a meaningful time.

In addition to providing added time to provide the Exchange Notice, the Department also has announced that it is considering providing model, generic language that employers could use to provide the Exchange Notice. to satisfy the notice requirement. As a compliance alternative, the Department also is considering allowing employers to meet the Exchange Notice requirement by providing employees with information using the employer coverage template as discussed in the preamble to the Proposed Rule on Medicaid, Children’s Health Insurance Programs, and Exchanges: Essential Health Benefits in Alternative Benefit Plans, Eligibility Notices, Fair Hearing and Appeal Processes for Medicaid and Exchange Eligibility Appeals and Other Provisions Related to Eligibility and Enrollment for Exchanges, Medicaid and CHIP, and Medicaid Premiums and Cost Sharing (78 FR 4594, at 4641), which will be available for download at the Exchange web site as part of the streamlined application that will be used by the Exchange, Medicaid, and CHIP.

The Exchange Notice is just one of a multitude of notices and other mandates that ACA requires that employers or their health plans, insurers, or both to meet. Although the Exchange Notice gives employers a little more time to provide the Exchange Notices, employer and other health plan sponsors, fiduciaries, administrators and insurers are urged to continue to diligently move forward to update their plans, communications, processes and other arrangements to comply with existing and impending ACA mandates while keeping a watchful eye on for additional guidance that may require additional tailoring of these arrangements.

Stay tuned for updates about future guidance on complying with the notice requirement under FLSA section 18B and other developments.

For Help With Compliance, Risk Management, Investigations, Policy Updates Or Other Needs

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Comments Off on Employer Deadline To Give ACA Notice of Exchange Coverage Options Delayed | Corporate Compliance, Employers, GINA, Health Plans, HIPAA, Human Resources, Insurance, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, Privacy, Risk Management, Whistleblower | Tagged: Backpay, Employer, Employment, employment law, Fair Labor Standards Act, FSLA, IT, Labor Department, Minimum Wage, Technology, Wage & Hour, wage and hour, Worker Classification | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Hear Stamer Speak On “Coping With Health Care Reform Now” At 2/14 Dallas ICEBS Meeting

January 23, 2013

Cynthia Marcotte Stamer will share key information and practical strategies for “Coping with Health Care Reform Now” at the Dallas Chaper ICEBS Valentines Day luncheon meeting on February 14, 2012. The meeting is scheduled from 11:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m on February 14, 2012 at Haggar Clothing Company at 11511 Luna Road, Dallas, Texas . Interested persons may register or get other details at http://www.dfwiscebs.org.

With the initial debate about the Constitutionality of the Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act (ACA) decided and making a Congressional reprieve highly improbable, employer and other health plan sponsors, insurers, fiduciaries and administrators are scrambling to update plan documents, communications, processes and procedures to meet current ACA and other health plan rules, while bracing to cope with the sweeping health care reforms slated to take effect in 2014. These already daunting tasks are made more challenging by the continuing uncertainty of the constantly evolving regulations, evolving marketplace, increases in health plan costs and ever-shrinking corporate budgets.

To help health plan sponsors, fiduciaries, administrators and insurers deal with the tough business of implementation, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer will discuss practical strategies, legal updates and other information needed for to cope with health care reform now and to prepare to meet future health plan regulations and challenges including:

The Latest On Key ACA & Other Health Care Reform Regulations Such As ACA’s Requirements On Fees Employers Sponsoring Self-Insured Health Plans & Insurers Must Pay To Fund The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, Contraceptive and Other Preventive Services, Nondiscrimination, Essential Health Benefits, Internal Claims and Appeals and External Review, Medical Loss Ratios, Large Employer Automatic Enrollment, Summary of Benefits & Coverage, Culturally & Linguistically Appropriateness, Value-Based Insurance Design, Wellness Programs, Exchanges, the Employer Pay-Or-Plan Mandates, Wellness Reporting, Wellness Programs, W-2 Reporting of Employer Provided Health Coverage, Employer Plan Minimum Value & The Premium Tax Credit And Other ACA & Other Federal Health Plan Mandates;
Key Changes To HIPAA Privacy Regulations & What Health Plans & Employers Should Expect To Be Required To Do To Comply With These Changes By the September, 2013 Deadline;
What’s Happened, Happening & Likely To Happen With Exchanges;
A 12-Step Practical Process For Helping Employers Managing ACA & Other Health Plan Compliance Responsibilities & Risks; and
Tips On What To Watch For And Options For Maintaining Flexibility To Respond To Evolving Rules; and
Answer Common Questions That Health Plan Sponsors and Administrators Are Struggling With Submitted By Audience Members

Registrants are encouraged to help shape the program to reflect their questions and concerns by e-mailing their proposed questions prior to the program to cstamer@solutionslawyer.net. The program’s educational* discussion will be tailored taking into account this input with significant time set aside to share practical information and possible approaches for addressing questions and concerns of shared concern identified from this audience input.

About Ms. Stamer

A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefits Counsel, the American Bar Association & the State Bar of Texas, recognized in International Who’s Who, and Board Certified in Labor & Employment Law, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer is nationally and internationally recognized for her extensive and highly practical, solutions-oriented health plan work, advocacy, publications, programs and leadership.

For more than 25 years, Ms. Stamer has advised and represented private and public employers, employer and union plan sponsors, employee benefit plans, associations, their fiduciaries, administrators, and vendors, group health, Medicare and Medicaid Advantage, and other insurers, governments and others on health and other employee benefit, employment, insurance and health care compliance, risk management, public policy, administration and defense. Throughout her career, Ms. Stamer has worked extensively with employer and other health plan sponsors, insurers, plan administrators and other service providers, outsourcers and others to develop innovative health benefit programs and solutions and to document, administer and defend those arrangements in the mist of rising costs, evolving regulations and changing markets.

A primary drafter of the Bolivian Social Security privatization law with extensive regulatory and public policy experience, Ms. Stamer has been involved domestically and internationally as an advocate and advisor on health care, pension and Social Security, workforce and insurance reform and regulation. She presently serves as the scribe for the ABA JCEB Annual Agency Meeting with the Office of Civil Rights. She also represents clients in dealings with the US Congress, Departments of Labor, Treasury, Health & Human Services, Federal Trade Commission, HUD and Justice, as well as a state legislatures attorneys general, insurance, labor, worker’s compensation, and other agencies and regulators.

Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group and the ABA RPTE Employee Benefits Group, Ms. Stamer presently serves as Co-Chair of the ABA RPTE Section Welfare Plan Committee; Vice Chair of the ABA TIPS Employee Benefit Committee; as a Council Representative of the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits; an Editorial Advisory Board Member for the Institute of Human Resources (IHR/HR.com), Employee Benefit News and Insurance Thought Leadership; Editor and Publisher of various Solutions Law Press, Inc. publications, and previously served on the Editorial Advisor Board of the the BNA Employee Benefits CD-Rolm.

A popular and prolific author and speaker, Ms. Stamer’s Solutions Law Press, Inc. HR & Benefits Update publication was recognized as one of the Top 50 Human Resources Blogs To Watch in 2012. Ms. Stamer regularly authors materials and conducts workshops and professional, management and other training on employee benefits, human resources and related topics for the ABA, Aspen Publishers, the Bureau of National Affairs (BNA), SHRM, World At Work, Government Institutes, Inc., the Society of Professional Benefits Administrators and many other organizations. She also regularly serves on the faculty and planning committees of a multitude of symposium and other educational programs. For more details about Ms. Stamer’s services, experience, presentations, publications, and other credentials or to inquire about arranging counseling, training or presentations or other services by Ms. Stamer, see www.CynthiaStamer.com.

* Registrants are reminded that this discussion is provided for general information and educational purposes. Accordingly, registrants are reminded that the discussion does not constitute legal advice, a substitute for legal advice or establish an attorney-client or other professional relationship.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Comments Off on Hear Stamer Speak On “Coping With Health Care Reform Now” At 2/14 Dallas ICEBS Meeting | Corporate Compliance, Employers, GINA, Health Plans, HIPAA, Human Resources, Insurance, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, Privacy, Risk Management, Whistleblower | Tagged: Backpay, Employer, Employment, employment law, Fair Labor Standards Act, FSLA, IT, Labor Department, Minimum Wage, Technology, Wage & Hour, wage and hour, Worker Classification | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

BNSF OSHA Whistleblower Settlement Gives Employers Insights About Policies OSHA View As Prohibited

January 18, 2013

Review and update your policies and be careful how you handle employee reports of injury or safety concerns. That’s the message of the settlement recently announced with BNSF Railway Co. of Fort Worth, Texas (BNSF). BNSF has signed a settlement with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) to voluntarily revise several personnel policies that OSHA alleged violated the whistleblower provisions of the Federal Railroad Safety Act. The law protects railroad workers from retaliation for, among other acts, reporting suspected violations of federal laws and regulations related to railroad safety and security, hazardous safety or security conditions, and injuries.

The whistleblower provisions of the 22 statutes enforced by OSHA protect employees who report violations of various commercial motor vehicle, airline, nuclear, pipeline, environmental, railroad, public transportation, maritime, consumer product, health care reform, securities, food safety, and consumer financial reform laws and regulations.OSHA charged that BNSF Policies of assigning points to workers reporting safety violations or injuries and other practices deterred or penalized workers protected by the whistleblower provisions of the law.

The major terms of the BNSF settlement available at http://www.whistleblowers.gov/acts/bnsf_accord.html include:

Changing BNSF’s disciplinary policy so that injuries no longer play a role in determining the length of an employee’s probation following a record suspension for a serious rule violation. As of Aug. 31, 2012, BNSF has reduced the probations of 136 employees who were serving longer probations because they had been injured on-the-job.
Eliminating a policy that assigned points to employees who sustained on-the-job injuries.
Revising a program that required increased safety counseling and prescribed operations testing so that work-related injuries will no longer be the basis for enrolling employees in the program. As part of the negotiations leading up to the accord, BNSF removed from the program approximately 400 workers.
Instituting a higher level review by BNSF’s upper management and legal department for cases in which an employee who reports an on-duty personal injury is also assessed discipline related to the incident giving rise to the injury.
Implementing a training program for BNSF’s managers and labor relations and human resources professionals to educate them about their responsibilities under the FRSA. The training will be incorporated into BNSF’s annual supervisor certification program.
Making settlement offers in 36 cases to employees who filed whistleblower complaints with OSHA alleging they were harmed by one or more of the company’s previous policies.

Between August 2007, when OSHA was assigned responsibility for whistleblower complaints under FRSA, and September 2012, OSHA received 1,206 FRSA whistleblower complaints. The number of FRSA whistleblower complaints that OSHA currently receives surpasses the number of whistleblower complaints that OSHA receives under any of the other 21 whistleblower protection statutes it enforces except for Section 11(c) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970. More than 60 percent of the FRSA complaints filed with OSHA involve an allegation that a railroad worker has been retaliated against for reporting an on-the-job injury.

“Protecting America’s railroad workers who report on-the-job injuries from retaliation is an essential element in OSHA’s mission. This accord makes significant progress toward ensuring that BNSF employees who report injuries do not suffer any adverse consequences for doing so,” said Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health Dr. David Michaels. “It also sets the tone for other railroad employers throughout the U.S. to take steps to ensure that their workers are not harassed, intimidated or terminated, in whole or part, for reporting workplace injuries.”

“Ensuring that employees can report injuries or illnesses without fear of retaliation is crucial to protecting worker safety and health,” said Michaels. “If employees do not feel free to report injuries or illnesses, the employer’s entire workforce is put at risk because employers do not learn of and correct dangerous conditions that have resulted in injuries.” Read the News Release.

For Help With Investigations, Policy Updates Or Other Needs

Board Certified in Labor & Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, management attorney and consultant Ms. Stamer is nationally and internationally recognized for more than 23 years of work helping employers; employee benefit plans and their sponsors, administrators, fiduciaries; employee leasing, recruiting, staffing and other professional employment organizations; and others design, administer and defend innovative workforce, compensation, employee benefit and management policies and practices. The Chair of the American Bar Association (ABA) RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Committee, a Council Representative on the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits, Government Affairs Committee Legislative Chair for the Dallas Human Resources Management Association, past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, Ms. Stamer often has worked, extensively on these and other workforce and performance related matters. She also is recognized for her publications, industry leadership, workshops and presentations on these and other human resources concerns and regularly speaks and conducts training on these matters. Her insights on these and other matters appear in the Bureau of National Affairs, Spencer Publications, the Wall Street Journal, the Dallas Business Journal, the Houston Business Journal, and many other national and local publications. For more information about Ms. Stamer and her experience or to get access to other publications by Ms. Stamer see here or contact Ms. Stamer directly.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

New OCR HIPAA De-Identification Guidance Among Developments Covered In 12/12 HIPAA Update

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 BNSF OSHA Whistleblower Settlement Gives Employers Insights About Policies OSHA View As Prohibited | Corporate Compliance, Employers, Human Resources, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, Risk Management, Wage & Hour | Tagged: Backpay, Employer, Employment, employment law, Fair Labor Standards Act, FSLA, IT, Labor Department, Minimum Wage, OSHA, Safety, Technology, Wage & Hour, wage and hour, Whistleblower, Worker Classification | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

OCR Publishes Long-Anticipated Omnibus Restatement of HIPAA Privacy, Security, Breach Notification & Enforcement Rules

January 17, 2013

Health plans, their employer or other sponsors, insurers, fiduciaries, administrative service providers and other business associates have a lot of work to do.

Health plans, health care clearinghouses and their business associates will need to review and update their policies and practices for handling and disclosing personally identifiable health care information (“PHI”) in response to the omnibus restatement of the Department of Health & Human Services (“HHS”) Office of Civil Rights (“OCR”) of its of its regulations (the “2013 Regulations”) implementing the Privacy and Security Rules under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA). The Rulemaking announced January 17, 2013 may be viewed here.

The 2013 Regulations Overview

Among other things, the 2013 Regulations:

Revise OCR’s HIPAA regulations to reflect the HITECH Act’s amendment of HIPAA to add the contractors and subcontractors of health plans, health care providers and health care clearinghouses that qualify as business associates to the parties directly responsible for complying with and subject to HIPAA’s civil and criminal penalties for violating HIPAA’s Privacy, Security, and Breach Notification rules;
Update previous interim regulations implementing HITECH Act breach notification rules that require Covered Entities including business associates to give specific notifications to individuals whose PHI is breached, HHS and in some cases, the media when a breach of unsecured information happens;
Update interim enforcement guidance OCR previously published to implement increased penalties and other changes to HIPAA’s civil and criminal sanctions enacted by the HITECH Act;
Implement HITECH Act amendments to HIPAA that tighten the conditions under which Covered Entities are allowed to use or disclose PHI for marketing and fundraising purposes and prohibit Covered Entities from selling an individual’s health information without getting the individual’s authorization in the manner required by the 2013 Regulations;
Update OCR’s rules about the individual rights that HIPAA requires that Covered Entities to afford to individuals who are the subject of PHI used or possessed by a Covered Entity to reflect tightened requirements enacted by the HITECH Act that allow individuals to order their health care provider not to share information about their treatment with health plans when the individual pays cash for the care and to clarify that individuals can require Covered Entities to provide electronic PHI in electronic form;
Revise the regulations to reflect amendments to HIPAA made as part of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (GINA) which added genetic information to the definition of PHI protected under the HIPAA Privacy Rule and prohibits health plans from using or disclosing genetic information for underwriting purposes; and
Clarifies and revises other provisions to reflect other interpretations and information guidance that OCR has issued since HIPAA was passed and to make certain other changes that OCR found appropriate based on its experience administering and enforcing the rules.

Liability & Enforcement Risks Heighten Need To Act To Review & Update Policies & Practices

The restated rules in the 2013 Regulations make it imperative that Covered Entities review the revised rules carefully and updated their policies, practices, business associate agreements, training and documentation to comply with the updated requirements and other enforcement and liability risks. OCR even prior to the regulations has aggressively investigated and enforced the HIPAA requirements.

The commitment of OCR to enforcement most recently was demonstrated by its recent settlement with Hospice of North Idaho (HONI). On January 2, 2013, OCR announced HONI will pay OCR $50,000 to settle potential HIPAA violations that occurred in connection with the theft of an unencrypted laptop computer containing ePHI. The HONI settlement is the first settlement involving a breach of ePHI affecting fewer than 500 individuals.

While the HONI settlement marks the first settlement on a small breach, this is not the first time OCR has sought sanctions against a covered entity for data breaches involving the loss or theft of unencrypted data on a Laptop, storage device or other computer device. Rather, OCR continues to rollout a growing list of enforcement actions demonstrating the potential risks of HIPAA violations are significant and growing. OCR Hits Alaska Medicaid For $1.7M+ For HIPAA Security Breach; OCR Audit Program Kickoff Further Heats HIPAA Privacy Risks; $1.5 Million HIPAA Settlement Reached To Resolve 1st OCR Enforcement Action Prompted By HITECH Act Breach Report; HIPAA Heats Up: HITECH Act Changes Take Effect & OCR Begins Posting Names, Other Details Of Unsecured PHI Breach Reports On Website; Providence To Pay $100000 & Implement Other Safeguards.

In response to the 2013 Regulations and these expanding exposures, all Covered Entities should review critically and carefully the adequacy of their current HIPAA Privacy and Security compliance policies, monitoring, training, breach notification and other practices taking into consideration OCR’s investigation and enforcement actions, emerging litigation and other enforcement data; their own and reports of other security and privacy breaches and near misses; and other developments to decide if additional steps are necessary or advisable. In response to these expanding exposures, all covered entities and their business associates should review critically and carefully the adequacy of their current HIPAA Privacy and Security compliance policies, monitoring, training, breach notification and other practices taking into consideration OCR’s investigation and enforcement actions, emerging litigation and other enforcement data; their own and reports of other security and privacy breaches and near misses, and other developments to decide if tightening their policies, practices, documentation or training is necessary or advisable.

For Help With Compliance, Risk Management, Investigations, Policy Updates Or Other Needs

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Comments Off on OCR Publishes Long-Anticipated Omnibus Restatement of HIPAA Privacy, Security, Breach Notification & Enforcement Rules | Corporate Compliance, Employers, GINA, Health Plans, HIPAA, Human Resources, Insurance, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, Privacy, Risk Management, Whistleblower | Tagged: Backpay, Employer, Employment, employment law, Fair Labor Standards Act, FSLA, IT, Labor Department, Minimum Wage, Technology, Wage & Hour, wage and hour, Worker Classification | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

IRS Offers New Simplified Option For Businesses Claiming Home Office Deductions For Home-Based Business Owners & Workers

January 16, 2013

IRS Says Eligible Home-Based Businesses May Deduct up to $1,500; Saves Taxpayers 1.6 Million Hours A Year

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has announced a simplified option that many owners of home-based businesses and some home-based workers may use to figure their deductions for the business use of their homes.

In tax year 2010, the most recent year for which figures are available, nearly 3.4 million taxpayers claimed deductions for business use of a home (commonly referred to as the home office deduction).

The new optional deduction, capped at $1,500 per year based on $5 a square foot for up to 300 square feet, will reduce the paperwork and recordkeeping burden on small businesses by an estimated 1.6 million hours annually.

“This is a common-sense rule to provide taxpayers an easier way to calculate and claim the home office deduction,” said Acting IRS Commissioner Steven T. Miller. “The IRS continues to look for similar ways to combat complexity and encourages people to look at this option as they consider tax planning in 2013.”

The new option provides eligible taxpayers an easier path to claiming the home office deduction. Currently, the IRS generally requires a home-based business to fill out a 43-line form (Form 8829) often with complex calculations of allocated expenses, depreciation and carryovers of unused deductions. Taxpayers claiming the optional deduction will complete a significantly simplified form.

Though homeowners using the new option cannot depreciate the portion of their home used in a trade or business, they can claim allowable mortgage interest, real estate taxes and casualty losses on the home as itemized deductions on Schedule A. These deductions need not be allocated between personal and business use, as is required under the regular method.

Business expenses unrelated to the home, such as advertising, supplies and wages paid to employees are still fully deductible.

Current restrictions on the home office deduction, such as the requirement that a home office must be used regularly and exclusively for business and the limit tied to the income derived from the particular business, still apply under the new option.

The new simplified option is available starting with the 2013 return most taxpayers file early in 2014. Further details on the new option can be found in Revenue Procedure 2013-13, posted on IRS.gov. Revenue Procedure 2013-13 is effective for taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2013, and the IRS welcomes public comment on this new option to improve it for tax year 2014 and later years. There are three ways to submit comments.

E-mail to: Notice.Comments@irscounsel.treas.gov. Include “Rev. Proc. 2013-13” in the subject line.
Mail to: Internal Revenue Service, CC:PA:LPD:PR (Rev. Proc. 2013-13), Room 5203, P.O. Box 7604, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, DC 20044.
Hand deliver to: CC:PA:LPD:PR (Rev. Proc. 2013-13), Courier’s Desk, Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC, between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

The deadline for comment is April 15, 2013.

For Help With Compliance, Risk Management, Investigations, Policy Updates Or Other Needs

If you need help with these or other health benefit or other human resources, employee benefit, insurance, compensation or other compliance, risk management, enforcement or management concerns, the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer may be able to help.

Board Certified in Labor & Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, a member of the Editorial Advisory Board and expert panels of HR.com, Employee Benefit News, InsuranceThoughtLeadership.com, and Solutions Law Press, Inc., management attorney and consultant Ms. Stamer has 25 years of leading edge experience helping employers; health and other employee benefit plans and their sponsors, administrators, fiduciaries; TPAs, insurers, governments, employee leasing, recruiting, staffing and other professional employment organizations; and others design, administer and defend innovative workforce, compensation, employee benefit and management policies and practices. Her experience includes extensive work representing advising these and other clients, governmental bodies, insurance and financial services organizations, third party administrators and others to develop, design, defend and administer creative health, disability, severance and other employee benefit and compensation arrangements, products and services. She also helps these and other clients monitor, address and respond to federal, state, and international health care and insurance and other regulatory, legislative, audit and enforcement developments. Ms. Stamer has worked, extensively on these and other workforce and performance related matters. In addition to her continuous day-to-day involvement helping businesses to manage employment and employee benefit plan concerns, she also has extensive public policy and regulatory experience with these and other matters domestically and internationally. A former member of the Executive Committee of the Texas Association of Business and past Government Affairs Committee Legislative Chair for the Dallas Human Resources Management Association, Ms. Stamer served as a primary advisor to the Government of Bolivia on its pension privatization law, and has been intimately involved in federal, state, and international workforce, health care, pension and social security, tax, education, immigration, education and other legislative and regulatory reform in the US and abroad. She also is recognized for her publications, industry leadership, workshops and presentations on these and other human resources concerns and regularly speaks and conducts training on these matters. Her insights on these and other matters appear in the Bureau of National Affairs, Spencer Publications, the Wall Street Journal, the Dallas Business Journal, the Houston Business Journal, and many other national and local publications. For more information about Ms. Stamer and her experience or to get access to other publications by Ms. Stamer see here or contact Ms. Stamer directly. Ms. Stamer regularly works with agencies, publishes and speaks extensively on human resources and employee benefits, medical and other privacy and data security, health and managed care industry regulatory, staffing and human resources, compensation and benefits, technology, public policy, reimbursement and other operations and risk management concerns. Her publications and insights on HIPAA and other data privacy and security concerns appear in the Health Care Compliance Association, Atlantic Information Service, Bureau of National Affairs, World At Work, The Wall Street Journal, Business Insurance, the Dallas Morning News, Modern Health Care, Managed Healthcare, Health Leaders, and a many other national and local publications. You can get more information about her HIPAA and other experience here.

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

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ provides business and management information, tools and solutions, training and education, services and support to help organizations and their leaders promote effective management of legal and operational performance, regulatory compliance and risk management, data and information protection and risk management and other key management objectives. Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ also conducts and assists businesses and associations to design, present and conduct customized programs and training targeted to their specific audiences and needs. For additional information about upcoming programs, to explore becoming a presenting sponsor for an upcoming event, e-mail your request to info@Solutionslawpress.com These programs, publications and other resources are provided only for general informational and educational purposes. Neither the distribution or presentation of these programs and materials to any party nor any statement or information provided in or in connection with this communication, the program or associated materials are intended to or shall be construed as establishing an attorney-client relationship, to constitute legal advice or provide any assurance or expectation from Solutions Law Press, Inc., the presenter or any related parties. If you or someone else you know would like to receive future Alerts or other information about developments, publications or programs or other updates, send your request to info@solutionslawpress.com. CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE: The following disclaimer is included to comply with and in response to U.S. Treasury Department Circular 230 Regulations. ANY STATEMENTS CONTAINED HEREIN ARE NOT INTENDED OR WRITTEN BY THE WRITER TO BE USED, AND NOTHING CONTAINED HEREIN CAN BE USED BY YOU OR ANY OTHER PERSON, FOR THE PURPOSE OF (1) AVOIDING PENALTIES THAT MAY BE IMPOSED UNDER FEDERAL TAX LAW, OR (2) PROMOTING, MARKETING OR RECOMMENDING TO ANOTHER PARTY ANY TAX-RELATED TRANSACTION OR MATTER ADDRESSED HEREIN.

Comments Off on IRS Offers New Simplified Option For Businesses Claiming Home Office Deductions For Home-Based Business Owners & Workers | Corporate Compliance, Employers, GINA, Health Plans, HIPAA, Human Resources, Insurance, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, Privacy, Risk Management, Whistleblower | Tagged: Backpay, Employer, Employment, employment law, Fair Labor Standards Act, FSLA, IT, Labor Department, Minimum Wage, Technology, Wage & Hour, wage and hour, Worker Classification | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

IRS Announces Cost of Living & American Taxpayer Relief Act Income Tax Adjustments

January 16, 2013

Revenue Procedure 2013-15 provides the 2013 cost-of-living adjustments for inflation for certain items. The guidance includes adjustments to the tax tables, including items whose values were specified in the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 (ATRA), such as:

The beginning of the 39.6% income tax brackets;
The beginning income levels for the limitation on certain itemized deductions; and
The beginning income levels for the phaseout of the personal exemptions[

In addition Revenue Procedure 2013-5 modifies Revenue Procedure 2011-52 to reflect an amendment to section 132(f)(2) made by ATRA concerning qualified transportation fringe benefits. Specifically, for 2012, the monthly limitation regarding the aggregate fringe benefit exclusion amount for transit passes and transportation in a commuter highway vehicle is $240.

Revenue Procedure 2013-15 will be published in Internal Revenue Bulletin 2013-5 on January 28, 2013.

For Help With Compliance, Risk Management, Investigations, Policy Updates Or Other Needs

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Comments Off on IRS Announces Cost of Living & American Taxpayer Relief Act Income Tax Adjustments | Corporate Compliance, Employers, GINA, Health Plans, HIPAA, Human Resources, Insurance, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, Privacy, Risk Management, Whistleblower | Tagged: Backpay, Employer, Employment, employment law, Fair Labor Standards Act, FSLA, IT, Labor Department, Minimum Wage, Technology, Wage & Hour, wage and hour, Worker Classification | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Tax-Related ID Theft Growing Problem For IRS, Taxpayers

January 14, 2013

Employers and others collecting, retaining or reporting employee or other tax identification numbers or other sensitive information for tax withholding or reporting purposes should take appropriate steps to protect that information against possible identity theft or other misuse.

The wealth of sensitive personal identification information and financial records makes tax records a highly attractive source of data for identity thieves. According to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), tax-related identity theft incidents have risen significantly in recent years. Identity theft case receipts increased by more than 650 percent from FY 2008 to FY 2012. At the end of FY 2012, the IRS had almost 650,000 identity-theft cases in its inventory servicewide. The IRS reports the problem has grown worse as organized criminal actors have found ways to steal the Social Security numbers (SSNs) of taxpayers, file tax returns using those taxpayers’ names and SSNs, and obtain fraudulent tax refunds. Then, when the real taxpayer files a return claiming the refund, that return is rejected. The impact on victims is significant. More than 75 percent of taxpayers filing returns are due refunds, which average some $3,000 and are not paid until the IRS fully resolves a case.

When the IRS Commissioner testified in 2008 about identity theft before a Senate Finance Committee hearing. he stated: “My overall goal as the IRS Commissioner is that when a taxpayer [who is an identity theft victim] contacts us with an issue or concern, we have in place a seamless process that gets the issue resolved promptly.” Later that year, the IRS established an “Identity Protection Specialized Unit” (or “IPSU”), which was designed to provide centralized assistance to victims of identity theft. The National Taxpayer Advocate supported the commitment to centralized and prompt victim assistance.

Since that time, the IRS has created numerous task forces and other teams in recent years in an attempt to improve its identity theft processes, yet victims still face the same “labyrinth of procedures and drawn-out timeframes for resolution” that they faced five years ago. The IRS is instructing its employees to advise identity theft victims that it will take 180 days – half a year – to resolve their cases. Complicated cases inevitably will take longer. Thus, the IRS’s procedural changes are not providing faster relief.

The report also says the IRS has decided to reverse course and decentralize victim assistance. It recently created specialized units within each of 21 individual functions to work on identity theft cases, apparently under the belief that most identity theft cases involve a single issue that the relevant specialized unit can work most efficiently. The report expresses concern about this backtracking from a centralized approach.

The Taxpayer Advocate Service (TAS) itself handled nearly 55,000 identity theft cases in FY 2012, most of which involved multiple issues that required actions by multiple units. The report expresses concern that creation of 21 specialized units will erode the centralized role of the IPSU, require taxpayers to speak with multiple functions, increase the time it takes to resolve cases, and heighten the risk that some issues may not be addressed.

“Taxpayers need ‘one-stop shopping’ – a single point of contact they can work with to resolve all issues in their cases – and the IRS needs a ‘traffic cop’ to make sure that all units complete their actions and that parts of cases do not fall through the cracks,” Olson said. “And six months is an unacceptable period of time to expect taxpayer-victims to wait. The IRS must do more to provide the prompt and seamless assistance to identity theft victims that Commissioner Shulman promised.”

While the IRS continues to work on protecting taxpayer data against theft and investigating and resolving tax-related identity theft cases, businesses that collect, retain and report employee, contractor or other personal financial information for tax related or other purposes are urged to take steps to protect the data that they collect and retain against identity theft. Since identity theft may begin when a worker misrepresents his or her identity at the commencement of employment, many employers find it beneficial to take reasonable steps to verify the identity and veracity of the documentation that a worker presents when commencing employment. Once data is collected, businesses and others that have access to personal financial information or other data collected for tax purposes need to recognize their responsibility to safeguard that information against improper use and disclosure under the Internal Revenue Code as well as other applicable laws. If confronted with a “no-match” letter from the Social Security Administration or a complaint or other indication that a worker may have misrepresented his or her identity, or another indication of a breach of this data, businesses should contact experienced legal counsel to aid in the proper investigation of these concerns and the resolution of concerns resulting from this investigation. Where appropriate, the business may need to report its concerns to the IRS or advise a worker or other party reporting a likely identity theft of taxpayer information to the TAS or other appropriate officials.

Businesses needing assistance with investigation or mitigation of a potential theft of tax or other sensitive data, see www.cynthiastamer.com or contact attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer.

For Help With Compliance, Risk Management, Investigations, Policy Updates Or Other Needs

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Comments Off on Tax-Related ID Theft Growing Problem For IRS, Taxpayers | Corporate Compliance, Employers, GINA, Health Plans, HIPAA, Human Resources, Insurance, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, Privacy, Risk Management, Whistleblower | Tagged: Backpay, Employer, Employment, employment law, Fair Labor Standards Act, FSLA, IT, Labor Department, Minimum Wage, Technology, Wage & Hour, wage and hour, Worker Classification | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Tax Saver’s Credit Helps Low & Moderate Income Workers Save For Retirement; Possible Tool To Help Boost Their Participation In Employer Plans

January 11, 2013

As part of its continuing effort to boost retirement savings among Americans, the Internal Revenue Service is reminding low- and moderate-income workers to take steps now to save for retirement and earn a special tax credit in 2012 and the years ahead. Employers sponsoring retirement plans where low participation by low- and moderate income workers adversely impacts the ability of the plan to meet applicable nondiscrimination tests may want to consider incorporating information about the availability of the saver’s credit into their plan related communications as an added tool for helping these workers recognize the potential benefits of contributing.

The saver’s credit helps qualifying low to moderate income workers offset part of the first $2,000 workers voluntarily contribute to IRAs and to 401(k) plans and similar workplace retirement programs. Also known as the retirement savings contributions credit, the saver’s credit is available in addition to any other tax savings that apply.

The saver’s credit can be claimed by:

Married couples filing jointly with incomes up to $57,500 in 2012 or $59,000 in 2013;
Heads of Household with incomes up to $43,125 in 2012 or $44,250 in 2013; and
Married individuals filing separately and singles with incomes up to $28,750 in 2012 or $29,500 in 2013.

Eligible workers still have until April 15, 2013 to make qualifying retirement contributions and get the saver’s credit on their 2012 tax return by setting up a new individual retirement arrangement or adding money to an existing IRA. However, elective deferrals (contributions) must be made by the end of the year to a 401(k) plan or similar workplace program, such as a 403(b) plan for employees of public schools and certain tax-exempt organizations, a governmental 457 plan for state or local government employees, and the Thrift Savings Plan for federal employees. Employees who are unable to set aside money for this year may want to schedule their 2013 contributions soon so their employer can begin withholding them in January.

Like other tax credits, the saver’s credit can increase a taxpayer’s refund or reduce the tax owed. Though the maximum saver’s credit is $1,000, $2,000 for married couples, the IRS cautioned that it is often much less and, due in part to the impact of other deductions and credits, may, in fact, be zero for some taxpayers.

A taxpayer’s credit amount is based on his or her filing status, adjusted gross income, tax liability and amount contributed to qualifying retirement programs. Form 8880 is used to claim the saver’s credit, and its instructions have details on figuring the credit correctly.

In tax-year 2010, the most recent year for which complete figures are available, saver’s credits totaling just over $1 billion were claimed on more than 6.1 million individual income tax returns. Saver’s credits claimed on these returns averaged $204 for joint filers, $165 for heads of household and $122 for single filers.

The saver’s credit supplements other tax benefits available to people who set money aside for retirement. For example, most workers may deduct their contributions to a traditional IRA. Though Roth IRA contributions are not deductible, qualifying withdrawals, usually after retirement, are tax-free. Normally, contributions to 401(k) and similar workplace plans are not taxed until withdrawn.

Other special rules that apply to the saver’s credit include the following:

Eligible taxpayers must be at least 18 years of age.
Anyone claimed as a dependent on someone else’s return cannot take the credit.
A student cannot take the credit. A person enrolled as a full-time student during any part of 5 calendar months during the year is considered a student.

Certain retirement plan distributions reduce the contribution amount used to figure the credit. For 2012, this rule applies to distributions received after 2009 and before the due date, including extensions, of the 2012 return. Form 8880 and its instructions have details on making this computation.

Begun in 2002 as a temporary provision, the saver’s credit was made a permanent part of the tax code in legislation enacted in 2006. To help preserve the value of the credit, income limits are now adjusted annually to keep pace with inflation. More information about the credit is on IRS.gov.

For Help or More Information

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

1 Comment | Corporate Compliance, Employers, GINA, Human Resources, Insurance, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, Privacy, Retirement Plans, Risk Management, Whistleblower | Tagged: Backpay, Employer, Employment, employment law, Fair Labor Standards Act, FSLA, IT, Labor Department, Minimum Wage, Technology, Wage & Hour, wage and hour, Worker Classification | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Self-Insured Health Plan Sponsors, Health Insurers Brace To Pay New ACA-Imposed Fees

January 10, 2013

Employers and other self-insured group health plan sponsors and health insurers, adjust your budgets and prepare to open up your wallets to pay additional fees mandated by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“PPACA”).

Self-insured employers and health insurers generally must begin paying a new fee imposed as part of PPACA. PPACA generally requires that health insurance policy issuers and plan sponsors of self-insured health plans pay the new fee for policy and plan years ending on or after October 1, 2012, and before October 1, 2019 or policy and plan years ending on or after October 1, 2012, and before October 1, 2019. July 31, 2013 is the deadline for reporting and payment of the first fee payment required by these provisions.

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and Department of Treasury published final regulations (“Regulations”) implementing these new rules on December 6, 2012. These Regulations include many provisions that are likely to come as a surprise to many employer and other health plan sponsors. Health insurers, employers and other sponsors of self-insured health plans and others responsible for their funding and administration need to review these regulations and make other arrangements to budget for and timely report and pay this required fee.

New Fees Help Fund New Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute

PPACA amended the Internal Revenue Code (“Code”) to require the new fee to help fund the establishment and operation of the new Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (the ‘‘Institute’’) to be created by PPACA. Congress intends that the Institute will be a private, nonprofit corporation charged with conducting research to help assist patients, clinicians, purchasers, and policy-makers in making informed health decisions by advancing the quality and relevance of evidence-based medicine through the synthesis and dissemination of comparative clinical effectiveness research findings.

PPACA added new Sections 4375, 4376, and 4377 to the Code to provide a funding source for the Trust Fund. These new Code Sections impose require issuers of specified health insurance policies and plan sponsors of applicable self-insured health plans to pay the new fee by July 31, 2012 for each plan year beginning after September 30, 2012 and before October 1, 2019 to fund the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Trust Fund (the “Trust Fund”), which in turn will help pay the costs of the Institute.

Code Section 4377(c) provides that the fees imposed by sections 4375 and 4376 are treated as taxes for purposes of subtitle F of the Code (sections 6001 through 7874 that set forth the rules of federal tax procedure and administration).

Fee Amount Calculation & Payment

As amended by PPACA, the Code requires that employers sponsoring self-insured group health plans and most health insurers file a return and pay a fee equal to $1 multiplied by the average number of lives covered under the plan or policy by July 31, 2012. The amount of this fee will increase to $2 multiplied by the average number of lives for post-September 30, 2013 plan years. For post-September 30, 2014 plan years, the Code provides for further adjustments in the fee based on increases in the projected per capita amount of National Health Expenditures.

To meet this requirement, health insurers and plan sponsors must file a Form 720, Quarterly Federal Excise Tax Return along with the required payment once a year on or before July 31 of the calendar year following the last day of the policy year or plan year for which the fee is required to report and pay the fee.

Overview of ACA Rules Requiring Payment of Fee

The Code now separately assesses a fee on issuers of health insurance policies and on plan sponsors of self-insured health plans for each policy year ending on or after October 1, 2012 and before October 1, 2019. Code Section 4375 requires payment of a fee by “issuers” of “specified health insurance policies.” Code Section 4376 requires “sponsors” of self-insured health plans to pay a fee.

Each of these Code Sections basically uses the same formula to calculate the required fee owing by a health insurance issuer or a self-insured plan sponsor. The amount of the required fee due on July 31, 2013 for plan years beginning on or before October 1, 2013 will be one dollar multiplied by the average number of lives covered by the policy or plan. The fee due on July 31, 2014 for plan years beginning between October 2, 2013 and October 1, 2014 is set to increase to two dollars multiplied by the average number of lives covered under the policy. For policy or plan years ending on or after October 1, 2014, PPACA provides for additional increases in the required fee based on increases in the projected per capita amount of National Health Expenditures. See Treas. Reg. §§ 46.4375–1; Rejecting arguments that Congress only intended to require that either the insurer or the plan sponsor pay a fee annually, the Regulations construe these requirements as obligating both a self-insured health plans sponsor and an insurer to pay a separate fee annually, even if the fee is assessed upon the same lives.

The Preamble to the Regulations states that a self-insured plan sponsor must pay the fee with respect to arrangements where the plan design layers a self-insured portion of the plan with an insured portion, even though the insurer also must pay the fee with respect to the insured portion.

The fee calculation differs slightly for purposes of determining the fee a self-insured plan sponsor owes versus the fee owed by an insurer. Regardless, however, the Regulations state that for purposes of calculating these numbers, retirees and beneficiaries continuing coverage under the group medical coverage continuation rules generally count. The Preamble to the Regulations states that the IRS views retiree-only plans and COBRA coverage subject to the tax imposed under Code § 4375 and plan sponsors may be required to pay the tax under Code § 4376. Concerning retiree-only coverage, the Preamble states:

Although group health plans that have fewer than two participants who are current employees (such as retiree-only plans) are excluded from the requirements of Code chapter 100 (setting forth requirements applicable to group health plans such as portability, nondiscrimination, and market reform requirements), this exclusion does not apply to Code §§ 4375 and 4376 because these sections are in chapter 34; and
For self-insured arrangements, Code § 4376(c)(2)(A) states explicitly that an applicable self-insured health plan includes a plan established or maintained by one or more employers for the benefit of their employees or former employees.

Section 4376 Fee For Self-Insured Plan Sponsors

Applicability of Code Section 4376 Fee To Self-Insured Health Plans. The fee under Code Section 4376 applies to the plan sponsor of an applicable self-insured health plan.

Section 4376(c) defines an applicable self-insured health plan as any plan for providing accident or health coverage if any portion of the coverage is provided other than through an insurance policy, and the plan is established or maintained by either:

One or more employers for the benefit of their employees or former employees;
One or more employee organizations for the benefit of their members or former members;
Jointly by one or more employers and one or more employee organizations for the benefit of employees or former employees;
By a voluntary employees’ beneficiary association described in Code Section 501(c)(9); or
By any organization described in section 501(c)(6), or (6) if not previously described, by a multiple employer welfare arrangement (as defined in section 3(40) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”), a rural electric cooperative under ERISA Section 3(40)(B)(iv), or a rural telephone cooperative association under ERISA Section 3(40)(B)(v). See Code § 4376; Regulation §46.4376–1(a), (b)(1).

Code Section 4376(b)(1) requires that the plan sponsor of a self-insured health plan pay the required fee for self-insured health plans imposed by Section 4376(a). For this purpose, Code Section 4376(b)(2) defines a plan sponsor as:

The employer in the case of a plan established or maintained by a single employer;
The employee organization in the case of a plan established or maintained by an employee organization;
The association, committee, joint board of trustees, or other similar group of representatives of the parties who establish or maintain the plan in the case of: (1) a plan established or maintained by two or more employers or jointly by one or more employers and one or more employee organizations; (2) a multiple employer welfare arrangement; or (3) a voluntary employees’ beneficiary association described in Code Section 501(c)(9); or
The cooperative or association that establishes the plan in the case of a plan established or maintained by a rural electric cooperative or rural telephone cooperative association within the meaning of ERISA.

Regulation § 46.4376-2(b)(2) defines plan sponsor to mean the following:

The employer for a self-insured health plan established or maintained by a single employer;
The employee organization for a self-insured health plan established or maintained by an employee organization;
The joint board of trustees for a multiemployer plan within the meaning of Code §414(f));
The committee, in the case of a multiple employer welfare arrangement within the meaning of Section 3(40) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”);
The cooperative or association that establishes or maintains an applicable self-insured health plan established or maintained by a rural electric cooperative under ERISA § 3(40)(B)(iv) or rural cooperative association under ERISA 3(40)(B)(v);
The trustee, in the case of an applicable self-insured health plan established or maintained by a voluntary employees’ beneficiary association under Code § 501(c)(9) not merely serving as a funding vehicle for a plan that is established or maintained by an employer or other person;
In the case of an applicable self-insured health plan the plan sponsor of which is not previously described, the person identified by the terms of the document under which the plan is operated as the plan sponsor, or the person designated by the terms of the document under which the plan is operated as the plan sponsor for Code § 4376 purposes, provided that designation is made in writing, and that person has consented to the designation in writing, by no later than the date by which the return paying the fee under section 4376 for that plan year is required to be filed, after which date that designation for that plan year may not be changed or revoked, and provided further that a person may be designated as the plan sponsor only if the person is one of the persons establishing or maintaining the plan (for example, one of the employers that establishes or maintains the plan with one or more other employers or employee organizations); or
Where an applicable self-insured health plan sponsor is not previously and for which no identification or designation of a plan sponsor has been made under the prior paragraph the plan sponsor means, each employer that establishes or maintains the plan with respect to employees of that employer, each employee organization that establishes or maintains the plan with respect to members of that employee organization, and each board of trustees, cooperative, or association that establishes or maintains the plan.

While the fee will impact most health insurance policies and self-insured plans, the Code does exempt a few arrangements. See Code § 4376. Regulation § 46.4376-1(b)(2) construes these exemptions to include the following categories of programs:

A plan that provides benefits substantially all of which are excepted benefits for purposes of the HIPAA Portability Rules under Code § 9832(c). Pursuant to this provision, for instance, the Regulations state that a health flexible spending arrangement (health FSA) under Code § 106(c)(2)) that satisfies the requirements to be treated as an excepted benefit under Code § 9832(c) and Regulation § 54.9831–1(c)(3)(v) is not an applicable self-insured health plan. However, a health FSA that is not treated as an excepted benefit under Code § 9832(c) and Regulation § 54.9831–1(c)(3)(v) is an applicable self-insured health plan.
An employee assistance program, disease management program, or wellness program if the program does not provide significant benefits in the nature of medical care or treatment.
A plan that, as demonstrated by the facts and circumstances surrounding the adoption and operation of the plan, was designed specifically to cover primarily employees who are working and residing outside the United States (as defined in § 46.4377–1(a)(3)). See Regulation § 46.4376–1(b)(ii).

Where the same plan sponsor maintains multiple self-insured arrangements Regulation § 46.4376(b)(iii) specifies that the employer may treat two or more arrangements established or maintained by the same plan sponsor that provide accident and health coverage other than through an insurance policy and that have the same plan year as a single applicable self-insured health plan for purposes of reporting and calculating the Code § 4376 fee.

Calculation Of Self-Insured Plan Fee Under Code § 4376

Regulation § 46.4376-1 requires that a self-insured plan sponsor determine the number of covered lives for purposes of calculating the fee using on of the following methods:

The actual count method where the plan sponsor adds the totals of lives covered for each day of the plan year and divides that total by the number of days in the plan year;
The snapshot method, the plan sponsor adds the totals of lives covered on a date during the first, second, or third month of each quarter of the plan year (or more dates in each quarter if an equal number of dates is used in each quarter), and divides that total by the number of dates on which a count was made in accordance with rules set forth in the Regulations. For instance, Each date used for the second, third and fourth quarter must be within three days of the date in that quarter that corresponds to the date used for the first quarter, and all dates used must fall within the same plan year. If a plan sponsor uses multiple dates for the first quarter, the plan sponsor must use dates in the second, third, and fourth quarters that correspond to each of the dates used for the first quarter or are within three days of such corresponding dates, and all dates used must fall within the same plan year. The 30th and 31st day of a month are treated as the last day of the month for purposes of determining the corresponding date for any month that has fewer than 31 days. The number of lives covered on a designated date using this method may be determined using either the snapshot factor method or the snapshot count method set forth in the Regulations. In the snapshot factor method, the number of lives covered on a date is equal to the sum of: (1) the number of participants with self-only coverage on that date; plus (2) the number of participants with coverage other than self-only coverage on the date multiplied by 2.35. In the snapshot count method, the number of lives covered on a date equals the actual number of lives covered on the designated date. The plan sponsor must use the same method of calculating the average number of lives covered under the plan consistently for the duration of the plan year. However, a plan sponsor may use a different method from one plan year to the next.
The Form 5500 method, where the plan sponsor determines the average number of lives covered under a plan for a plan year as the result of the sum of the total participants covered at the beginning and the end of the plan year, as reported on the Form 5500 or Form 5500–SF for the applicable self-insured health plan, divided by 2. This method is only available if the Form 5500 is filed by the due date for payment of the fee. This means where a plan administrator extends filing beyond July 31, the plan sponsor cannot use this method.

The Regulations establish a special rule for lives covered solely by the fully-insured options under an applicable self-insured health plan. Under this special rule, when an applicable self-insured health plan provides accident and health coverage through fully insured options and self-insured options, the plan sponsor is permitted to disregard the lives that are covered solely under the fully-insured options in determining the lives covered taken into account for the actual count method, the snapshot method, and the Form 5500 method.

As for insured plans, the Regulations also provide special rules for determining the fee the first year the fee is in effect. Under this rule, for a plan year beginning before July 11, 2012, and ending on or after October 1, 2012, a plan sponsor may determine the average number of lives covered under the plan for the plan year using any reasonable method.

Section 4375 Fee For Insurers

The fee under Code Section 4375 generally applies to issuers of a “specified health insurance policy.” Code Section 4375(c) generally defines a specified health insurance policy as any accident or health insurance policy (including a policy under a group health plan) issued with respect to individuals residing in the United States. Code Section 4377(a)(1) defines accident and health coverage as any coverage that, if provided by an insurance policy, would cause the policy to be a specified health insurance policy under Code Section 4375. See Treas. Reg. § 46.4375–1.

Policies Subject To Fee. Regulation § 46.4377–1(a) defines a “specified health insurance policy” as “any accident and health insurance policy (including a policy under a group health plan) issued with respect to individuals residing in the United States” other than those recognized as exempt by the Regulation. The Regulation makes clear that this includes any policy that provides accident and health coverage to an active employee, former employee, or qualifying beneficiary, as continuation coverage required under the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (COBRA) or similar continuation coverage under other Federal law or state law.

However Regulation § 46.4377-1(a)(ii) exempts the following arrangements from the definition of a specified health insurance policy.

Any insurance policy if substantially all of its coverage is of excepted benefits described in Code Section 9832(c);
Any group policy issued to an employer where the facts and circumstances show that the group policy was designed and issued specifically to cover primarily employees who are working and residing outside of the United States for purposes of Regulation § 46.4377–1(a)(3);
Any stop loss or indemnity reinsurance policy; or
Any insurance policy to the extent it provides an employee assistance program, disease management program, or wellness program if the program does not provide significant benefits in the nature of medical care or treatment.

Fee Calculation. The amount of the fee an insurer must pay for a policy for a policy year under Code § 4375 is equal to the product of the average number of lives covered under the policy for the policy year, multiplied by the applicable dollar amount for that policy year.

The applicable dollar amount multiplier is $1 for the fee due on October 1, 2013; $2 for the fee due on October 1, 2014, and the adjusted amount for fees due after October 1, 2014.

Determination Of The Average Number Of Lives Covered. To determine the average number of lives covered under a specified health insurance policy during a policy year, the Regulation requires an issuer to use one of the following methods:

The actual count method, where the issuer determines the average number of lives covered under a policy for a policy year under the actual count method by adding the total number of lives covered for each day of the policy year and dividing that total by the number of days in the policy year;
The snapshot method, where the issuer determines the average number of lives covered under a policy for a policy year by adding the totals of lives covered on a date during the first, second, or third month of each quarter (or more dates in each quarter if an equal number of dates is used for each quarter), and dividing that total by the number of dates on which a count is made. Each date used for the second, third and fourth quarters must be within three days of the date in that quarter that corresponds to the date used for the first quarter, and all dates used must be within the same policy year. If an issuer uses multiple dates for the first quarter, the issuer must use dates in the second, third, and fourth quarters that correspond to each of the dates used for the first quarter or are within three days of such corresponding dates, and all dates used must be within the same policy year. The 30th and 31st day of a month are treated as the last day of the month for purposes of determining the corresponding date for any month that has fewer than 31 days (for example, if either March 30 or March 31 is used as a counting date for a calendar year policy, June 30 is the corresponding date for the second quarter);
The member months method, where the issuer determines the average number of lives covered under all policies in effect for a calendar year based on the member months (an amount that equals the sum of the totals of lives covered on prespecified days in each month of the reporting period) reported on the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (“NAIC”) Supplemental Health Care Exhibit filed for that calendar year. Under this method, the average number of lives covered under the policies in effect for the calendar year equals the member months divided by 12; or
The state form method, where an insurer not required to file NAIC annual financial statements may determine the number of lives covered under all policies in effect for the calendar year using a form filed with the issuer’s state of domicile and a method similar to the member months method if the form reports the number of lives covered in the same manner as member months are reported on the NAIC Supplemental Health Care Exhibit. See Regulation § 46.4375–1(c)(2)(i).

Issuers must use the same method of calculating the average number of lives covered under a policy consistently for the duration of the year and must use the same method of computing lives for all policies for which a liability is reported on a Form 720, “Quarterly Federal Excise Tax Return,” for a particular year. Regulation § 46.4375–1(c)(2)(ii). However, the Regulation allows an issuer that determines the average number of lives covered by using the actual count method or the snapshot method to change its method of computing the average lives covered to the snapshot method or actual count method, respectively, provided that the issuer uses the same method for computing the average lives covered for all policies for which a liability is reported on the Form 720 for that year. Regulation § 46.4375–1(c)(2).

The Regulations also impose various other special rules. For instance, the Regulations state that if the issuer elects to determine the average number of lives covered for all policies in effect during a calendar year using the member months method or the state form method, the applicable dollar amount with respect to such issuer’s policies for such calendar year is the applicable dollar amount for policy years ending on December 31 of such calendar year, except that the applicable dollar amount with respect to such an issuer’s policies for calendar year 2019 is the applicable dollar amount for policy years ending on September 30, 2019. The Regulations provide various examples of these calculations to illustrate the rules.

The Regulations also provide special rules for the first year and the last year the fee is in effect for an insurer. See Regulation § § 46.4375–1(c).

Plans, Insurers Should Evaluate Options, Plan To Pay Required Fees

The impending obligation provides yet another reason that employers and other self-insured plan sponsors, administrators, insurers, and vendors should re-evaluate their existing health plan designs and costs. Most health insurers and self-insured health plan sponsors will want not only to budget for the impending additional costs associated with these fees, but also evaluate options for mitigating their impact, as well as the costs and administrative burden of tracking and making the required filings. For instance, insurers and plan sponsors of programs subject to these new fees generally will want to evaluate which of the options for collecting the data and calculating the fees will most benefit them. Also, where plan designs used by particular employer or other plan sponsors include both insured and self-insured features, the insurer, plan sponsor and their advisors may want to consider the advisability of restructuring or redesigning plans to mitigate fees or administrative or other expenses. In all cases, parties should audit their programs to ensure that each program and its element is identified and properly taken into account to avoid inadvertent oversights resulting in penalties or other avoidable costs.

For Help With Compliance, Risk Management, Investigations, Policy Updates Or Other Needs

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Comments Off on Self-Insured Health Plan Sponsors, Health Insurers Brace To Pay New ACA-Imposed Fees | Corporate Compliance, Employers, GINA, Health Plans, HIPAA, Human Resources, Insurance, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, Privacy, Risk Management, Whistleblower | Tagged: Backpay, Employer, Employment, employment law, Fair Labor Standards Act, FSLA, IT, Labor Department, Minimum Wage, Technology, Wage & Hour, wage and hour, Worker Classification | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

1st OCR Small HIPAA Breach Settlement Shows Plans, Other Covered Entities At Risk From Small Breach Reports Too

January 3, 2013

$50K Settlement Shows Small Breach Reports Carry Enforcement Risk

Properly encrypt and protected electronic protected health information (ePHI) on laptops and in other mediums! That’s the clear message of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office of Civil Rights (OCR) in its announcement of its first settlement under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) Security Rule involving a breach of ePHI of fewer than 500 individuals by a HIPAA-covered entity, Hospice of North Idaho (HONI).

In announcing the settlement against HONI, OCR sent a clear message that OCR stands ready to penalize these health care providers, health plans, healthcare clearinghouses and their businesses associates (covered entities) when their failure to properly secure and protect ePHI on laptops or in other systems results in a breach of ePHI even when the breach affects fewer than 500 individuals.

OCR Director Leon Rodriguez reiterated OCR’s expectation that covered entities will properly encrypt ePHI on mobile or other devices in OCR’s announcement of the HONI settlement. “This action sends a strong message to the health care industry that, regardless of size, covered entities must take action and will be held accountable for safeguarding their patients’ health information.” said OCR Director Leon Rodriguez. “Encryption is an easy method for making lost information unusable, unreadable and undecipherable.”

In light of this latest clear warning, health plans and their fiduciaries, sponsors and administrators, health care providers, health care clearinghouses and their business associates should review plans, practices and data security as affecting ePHI and other protected health information on mobile and other devices.

HONI Settlement For Small Breach Notification

On January 2, 2013, OCR announced HONI will pay OCR $50,000 to settle potential HIPAA violations that occurred in connection with the theft of an unencrypted laptop computer containing ePHI. The HONI settlement is the first settlement involving a breach of ePHI affecting fewer than 500 individuals. Read the full HONI Resolution Agreement here.

OCR opened an investigation after HONI reported to HHS that an unencrypted laptop computer containing ePHI of 441 patients had been stolen in June 2010. HONI team members regularly use Laptops containing ePHI their field work. Over the course of the investigation, OCR discovered that HONI had not conducted a risk analysis to safeguard ePHI or have in place policies or procedures to address mobile device security as required by the HIPAA Security Rule. Since the June 2010 theft, HONI has taken extensive additional steps to improve their HIPAA Privacy and Security compliance program.

HIPAA Security & Breach Notification For ePHI

The HONI settlement is notable because it marks the first time OCR has sanctioned a covered entity as a result of an OCR investigation stemming from the covered entity’s report of a breach of unsecured protected health information involving fewer than 500 individuals under new breach notification rules added to HIPAA in 2009.

Under the originally enacted requirements of HIPAA, covered entities and their business associates are required to restrict the use, access and disclosure of protected health information and establish and administer various other policies and safeguards in relation to protected health information. Additionally, the Security Rules require specific encryption and other safeguards when covered entities collect, create, use, access, retain or disclose ePHI.

The Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act amended HIPAA, among other things to tighten certain HIPAA requirements, expand its provisions to directly apply to business associates, as well as covered entities and to impose specific breach notification requirements. The HITECH Act Breach Notification Rule requires covered entities to report an impermissible use or disclosure of protected health information, or a “breach,” of 500 individuals or more (Large Breach) to the Secretary of HHS and the media within 60 days after the discovery of the breach. Smaller breaches affecting less than 500 individuals (Small Breach) must be reported to the Secretary on an annual basis. Since the Breach Notification Rule took effect, OCR’s announced policy has been to investigate all Large Breaches and such investigations have resulted in settlements or other corrective action in relation to various Large Breaches. Until now, however, OCR has not made public any resolution agreements requiring settlement payments involving any Small Breaches.

Enforcement Actions Highlight Growing HIPAA Exposures For Covered Entities

While the HONI settlement marks the first settlement on a small breach, this is not the first time OCR has sought sanctions against a covered entity for data breaches involving the loss or theft of unencrypted data on a Laptop, storage device or other computer device. In fact, OCR’s first resolution agreement – reached before Congress added the HIPAA Breach Notification Rules to HIPAA – stemmed from such a breach. Providence To Pay $100000 & Implement Other Safeguards. Breaches resulting from the loss or theft of unencrypted ePHI on mobile or other computer devices or systems has been a common basis of investigation and sanctions since that time, particularly since the Breach Notification rules took effect including breaches of ePHI involving compromised health plan information. See, e.g., OCR Hits Alaska Medicaid For $1.7M+ For HIPAA Security Breach. Coupled with statements by OCR about its intolerance, the HONI and other settlements provide a strong warning to covered entities to properly encrypt ePHI on mobile and other devices.

Furthermore, the HONI settlement also adds to growing evidence of the growing exposures that health care providers, health plans, health care clearinghouses and their business associates need to carefully and appropriately manage their HIPAA encryption and other Privacy and Security responsibilities. See OCR Audit Program Kickoff Further Heats HIPAA Privacy Risks; $1.5 Million HIPAA Settlement Reached To Resolve 1st OCR Enforcement Action Prompted By HITECH Act Breach Report; HIPAA Heats Up: HITECH Act Changes Take Effect & OCR Begins Posting Names, Other Details Of Unsecured PHI Breach Reports On Website. Covered entities are urged to heed these warning by strengthening their HIPAA compliance and adopting other suitable safeguards to minimize HIPAA exposures.

In the face of rising enforcement and fines, OCR’s initiation of HIPAA audits and other recent developments, covered entities and their business associates should tighten privacy policies, breach and other monitoring, training and other practices to reduce potential HIPAA exposures in light of recently tightened requirements and new enforcement risks.

In response to these expanding exposures, all covered entities and their business associates should review critically and carefully the adequacy of their current HIPAA Privacy and Security compliance policies, monitoring, training, breach notification and other practices taking into consideration OCR’s investigation and enforcement actions, emerging litigation and other enforcement data; their own and reports of other security and privacy breaches and near misses, and other developments to decide if additional steps are necessary or advisable.

New OCR HIPAA Mobile Device Educational Tool

While OCR enforcement of HIPAA has significantly increased, compliance and enforcement of the encryption and other Security Rule requirements of HIPAA are a special focus of OCR.

To further promote compliance with the Breach Notification Rule as it relates to ePHI on mobile devices, OCR and the HHS Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC) recently kicked off a new educational initiative, Mobile Devices: Know the RISKS. Take the STEPS. PROTECT and SECURE Health Information. The program offers health care providers and organizations practical tips on ways to protect their patients’ health information when using mobile devices such as laptops, tablets, and smartphones. For more information, see here. For more information on HIPAA compliance and risk management tips, see here.

For Help With Compliance, Risk Management, Investigations, Policy Updates Or Other Needs

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

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

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

December 27, 2012

Employers should make reviewing and tightening their worker classification and pay practices a high priority in light of the continuing aggressive investigation and enforcement of minimum wage, overtime and other federal pay law violations by the U.S. Department of Labor (Labor Department) Wage and Hour Division (W&HD).

Latest Enforcement Shows Commitment

The Labor Department’s strong commitment to the investigation and enforcement of federal wage and hour law violations is reflected in its announcement of yet another wave of successful enforcement actions against a wide range of employers during December including the following:

Car Wash Employees Receive Back Wages. Labor Department officials say Genter’s Detailing Inc. in Frisco, Texas, has paid 53 detail and car wash employees $22,345, following a W&HD investigation that found the employer violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) by making illegal deductions from employees’ wages for damages to dealership vehicles, resulting in wages below the federal minimum of $7.25 per hour. The company provides car wash and detailing services to car dealerships in the Dallas-Fort Worth area, in Katy and in Austin. More Details Here.

Oklahoma Electrical Services Company Pays Back Wages. Labor Department officials report Lighthouse Electric Inc. in Tulsa, Okla., has paid $42,452 in overtime back wages to 18 current and former electricians following an investigation that found Lighthouse Electric improperly failed to pay employees for time spent traveling to and from their facility to a work site in violation of the FLSA. More Details Here.

Web-based Auto Company Violated FLSA. Labor Department Officials report Auto Cricket Corp., doing business as AutoCricket.com, has agreed to pay $76,589 in back wages to 414 employees following a W&HD investigation that found the company deducted short rest periods as non-work hours from employee totals of hours worked in violation of the FLSA. Additionally, the company paid overtime for hours worked beyond 80 during a biweekly pay period, instead of time and one-half for all hours worked over 40 in a seven-day workweek. More Details Here.

South Carolina Restaurants Pay $391,000 in Back Wages. Labor Department officials report that three San Jose Mexican restaurants, individually owned and operated by Eraclio Leon, Gregorio Leon Sr. and Antonio Leon, have agreed to pay $390,960 in back wages to 37 employees after the W&HD found the South Carolina businesses violated the FLSA by failing to properly compensate employees for all work hours. Investigators determined that tipped employees, such as servers, were paid direct wages below $2.13 per hour and kitchen staff were paid flat salaries each month. More Details Here.

San Francisco Grocer to Pay Back Wages to 25 Workers. The Labor Department announced a U.S. District Court has ordered Casa Guadalupe to pay $110,071 in overtime back wages and liquidated damages to 25 current and former employees at its three San Francisco stores. The Labor Department also assessed $11,687 in civil penalties against the employer because of the willful and repeat nature of the violations. The grocery store chain admitted not paying required overtime wages. Investigators found similar violations in 2010 that resulted in $6,496 in overtime back wages due to three workers. More Details Here.

Environment Services Company Pays Back Wages To Misclassified Environmental Scientists. The Labor Department also announced that Groundwater and Environmental Services Inc., doing business as GES, will pay $187,165 in back wages to 69 employees after the W&HD found FLSA violations resulting from the company’s misclassification of junior environmental scientists and junior baseline samplers as exempt from overtime pay. The company collects water samples from property owners in close proximity to oil and gas well drilling sites for baseline sampling surveys. The investigation was part of a Wage and Hour Division’s multiyear enforcement initiative focused on the oil and gas industry. More Details Here.

Oklahoma Manufacturer Pays $85,000 for Overtime. Labor Department officials announced Deerebuilt LLC in Ardmore, Okla., has paid $85,105 in overtime back wages to 112 current and former employees following a W&HD investigation that found that the employer paid “straight time” for all hours worked, failing to pay overtime at time and one-half employees’ regular rates of pay for hours worked beyond 40 in a workweek, as required by the FLSA. The employer paid employees for overtime hours worked on weekends with separate checks, at straight-time rates. More Details Here.

Oklahoma City Company Faulted for FLSA & Davis-Bacon Violations. The Labor Department announced that Mallett Plumbing and Utility Co. in Oklahoma City has paid $100,264 in back wages to 19 current and former plumbers after an investigation found violations of the FLSA and the Davis-Bacon Act. The W&HD says the company failed to pay workers for overtime and failed to pay prevailing wage rates and fringe benefits. A W&HD investigation found Mallett Plumbing and Utility paid straight time for all hours worked and failed to pay employees the required wages and fringe benefits applicable to the classifications of work they performed while working on building alterations and construction projects for the Health Resources and Services Administration and the Federal Aviation Administration. More Details Here.

The Christmas Light Co. Inc. According to the Labor Department, an investigation by its Dallas Wage and Hour Division office found that The Christmas Light Co. Inc. violated the FLSA by failing to pay 233 installers and removers the minimum and overtime wages and keep records required by law. The complaint filed in the Northern District of Texas seeks back wages and liquidated damages of nearly $500,000 and an injunction against future violations of the FLSA.

FLSA Violations Generally Costly; Enforcement Rising

The enforcement record of the Labor Department confirms that the Labor Department’s suit against the Christmas Light Co. Inc. lawsuit is reflective of a strong enforcement commitment targeting U.S. employers using aggressive worker classification or other pay practices to avoid paying minimum wage or overtime to workers. Under the Obama Administration, DOL officials have made it a priority to enforce overtime, record keeping, worker classification and other wage and hour law requirements. See e.g., Boston Furs Sued For $1M For Violations Of Fair Labor Standards Act; Record $2.3 Millh ion+ Backpay Order; Minimum Wage, Overtime Risks Highlighted By Labor Department Strike Force Targeting Residential Care & Group Homes; Review & Strengthen Defensibility of Existing Worker Classification Practices In Light of Rising Congressional & Regulatory Scrutiny; 250 New Investigators, Renewed DOL Enforcement Emphasis Signal Rising Wage & Hour Risks For Employers; Quest Diagnostics, Inc. To Pay $688,000 In Overtime Backpay. In an effort to further promote compliance and enforcement of these rules, the Labor Department is using smart phone applications, social media and a host of other new tools to educate and recruit workers in its effort to find and prosecute violators. See, e.g. New Employee Smart Phone App New Tool In Labor Department’s Aggressive Wage & Hour Law Enforcement Campaign Against Restaurant & Other Employers. As a result of these effort, employers violating the FLSA now face heightened risk of enforcement from both the Labor Department and private litigation.

Employers Should Strengthen Practices For Defensibility

Audit of each position current classified as exempt to assess its continued sustainability and to develop documentation justifying that characterization;
Audit characterization of workers obtained from staffing, employee leasing, independent contractor and other arrangements and implement contractual and other oversight arrangements to minimize risks that these relationships could create if workers are recharacterized as employed by the employer receiving these services;
Review the characterization of on-call and other time demands placed on employees to confirm that all compensable time is properly identified, tracked, documented, compensated and reported;
Review existing practices for tracking compensable hours and paying non-exempt employees for compliance with applicable regulations and to identify opportunities to minimize costs and liabilities arising out of the regulatory mandates;
If the audit raises questions about the appropriateness of the classification of an employee as exempt, self-initiate proper corrective action after consultation with qualified legal counsel;
Review existing documentation and record keeping practices for hourly employees;
Explore available options and alternatives for calculating required wage payments to non-exempt employees;
Consider advisability of tracking hours and activities of employees considered exempt;
Evaluate and manage risks of outsourced labor such as leased, contract or other similar “off-payroll” workers;
Re-engineerwork rules and other practices to minimize costs and liabilities as appropriate in light of the regulations and enforcement exposures; and
Consider and properly coordinate worker classification for health and other employee benefit plan eligibility and other purposes to mitigate risks from unanticipated employee benefit liabilities resulting from misclassification.

For Help With Investigations, Policy Updates Or Other Needs

Board Certified in Labor & Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, management attorney and consultant Ms. Stamer is nationally and internationally recognized for more than 23 years of work helping employers; employee benefit plans and their sponsors, administrators, fiduciaries; employee leasing, recruiting, staffing and other professional employment organizations; and others design, administer and defend innovative workforce, compensation, employee benefit and management policies and practices. The Chair of the American Bar Association (ABA) RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Committee, a Council Representative on the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits, Government Affairs Committee Legislative Chair for the Dallas Human Resources Management Association, past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, Ms. Stamer often has worked, extensively on these and other workforce and performance related matters. She also is recognized for her publications, industry leadership, workshops and presentations on these and other human resources concerns and regularly speaks and conducts training on these matters. Her insights on these and other matters appear in the Bureau of National Affairs, Spencer Publications, the Wall Street Journal, the Dallas Business Journal, the Houston Business Journal, and many other national and local publications. For more information about Ms. Stamer and her experience or to get access to other publications by Ms. Stamer see here or contact Ms. Stamer directly.

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. For important information about this communication click here.

1 Comment | Corporate Compliance, Employers, Human Resources, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, Risk Management, Wage & Hour | Tagged: Backpay, Employer, Employment, employment law, Fair Labor Standards Act, FSLA, IT, Labor Department, Minimum Wage, Technology, Wage & Hour, wage and hour, Worker Classification | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Peter Madoff 10 Sentence For Defrauding ERISA Plans Reminder Manage Plan Investment Responsibilities

December 27, 2012

Peter Madoff (Madoff), the former Chief Compliance Officer and Senior Managing Director of Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC (BLMI), was sentenced on December 20, 2012 to 10 years in prison after he pled guilty among other things, to conspiracy to commit securities fraud, tax fraud, mail fraud, ERISA fraud and falsifying records of an investment adviser.

In addition to the prison term, Madoff also was sentenced to one year of supervised release, ordered to pay a $200 special assessment, and ordered to forfeit $143.1 billion, including all of his real and personal property. This amount represents all of the investor funds paid into BLMIS from 1996 – the start of Madoff’s involvement in the conspiracy – through December 2008.

As part of the defendant’s forfeiture, the Government previously entered into a settlement with Madoff’s family that requires the forfeiture of all of his wife Marion’s and daughter Shana’s assets, and assets belonging to other family members. The surrendered assets include, among other things, several homes, a Ferrari and more than $10 million in cash and securities. Marion Madoff was left with approximately $771,733 to live on for the rest of her life.

Madoff’s Sentence Part of Continuing Actions Seeking To Rectify BLMIS Fraud

Among other things, the Superseding Information against Madoff charged that the overt acts in the conspiracy count also included, among other things, making false statements to investors about BLMIS’s compliance program and the nature and scope of its Investment Advisory business. Madoff pled guilty in June 2012. He was sentenced in Manhattan federal court by U.S. District Judge Laura Taylor Swain.

Manhattan U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara said: “Peter Madoff was a gatekeeper, who was supposed to guard against fraud, but instead enabled it – facilitating his brother Bernie’s breathtaking scheme by falsifying compliance records and lying to both regulators and clients of BLMIS. The decade he will spend in prison and the disgorgement of his assets are a just result. Our efforts to hold to account anyone and everyone who played a role in this unprecedented Ponzi scheme continue.”

According to the Superseding Information to which Madoff pled guilty and other court filings:

Madoff was employed at BLMIS from 1965 through December 2008. Beginning in 1969, he became the Chief Compliance Officer (“CCO”) and Senior Managing Director of BLMIS. In his role as CCO, Madoff created false and misleading BLMIS compliance documents, as well as false reports that were filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) that materially misstated the nature and scope of BLMIS’s Investment Advisory (“IA”) business.
As CCO, Madoff created numerous false compliance documents in which he stated that he had performed compliance reviews of the trading in the BLMIS IA business on a regular basis, when in reality, the reviews were never performed. The false statements were designed to mislead regulators, auditors, and IA clients.
In August 2006, BLMIS registered as an investment adviser with the SEC. As a registered investment adviser, on at least an annual basis, BLMIS was required to file forms with the SEC that are used as part of the oversight process of investment advisers. Madoff was integrally involved with both the SEC registration process and in the creation of the forms, known as “Forms ADV,” which were materially false and misleading. The numerous false statements in the Forms ADV created the false appearance that BLMIS’s IA business had a small number of highly sophisticated clients and far fewer assets under management than was actually the case. Madoff also misrepresented that he, as CCO, ensured that reviews of the IA trading were being performed.
From 1998 through 2008, Madoff engaged in a tax fraud scheme involving the transfer of wealth within the Madoff family in ways that allowed him to avoid paying millions of dollars in required taxes to the IRS. Most, if not all of the “wealth,” came directly or indirectly from IA client funds held at BLMIS. The schemes in which he engaged also allowed Bernard L. Madoff to evade his tax obligations.
The methods by which Madoff engaged in tax fraud included the following:
Madoff also arranged for his wife to have a “no-show” job at BLMIS from which she received between approximately $100,000 to $160,000 per year in salary, a 401(k), and health benefits to which she was not entitled.
In December 2008, when the collapse of BLMIS was virtually certain, Madoff agreed with others to send the $300 million that remained in the IA accounts to preferred employees, family members and friends. BLMIS collapsed before the funds were ever disbursed. On December 10, 2008, one day prior to BLMIS’s collapse, Madoff also withdrew $200,000 from BLMIS for his personal use.
Madoff received approximately $15,700,000 from Bernard L. Madoff and his wife, and executed sham promissory notes to make it appear that the transfers were loans, in order to avoid paying taxes;
Madoff gave approximately $9,900,000 to family members, and in order to avoid paying taxes, executed sham promissory notes to make it appear that the transfers of these funds were loans;
Madoff did not pay taxes on approximately $7,750,000 that he received from BLMIS;
Madoff received approximately $16,800,000 from Bernard L. Madoff from two sham trades, and disguised the proceeds of the trades as long-term stock transactions in order to take advantage of the lower tax rate for long-term capital gains;
Madoff charged approximately $175,000 in personal expenses to a corporate American Express card and did not report those expenses as income.

Madoff Victim Compensation Process Continues

In addition to the sentencing of Madoff, the Government has taken steps to clear the way to begin distributing assets forfeited by Peter Madoff in connection with the victim compensation process by filing a motion requesting that the Court find restitution to be impracticable, A similar motion was granted by United States Circuit Judge Denny Chin, who as a United States District Judge sentenced Bernard L. Madoff in 2009. The Department of Justice intends to return the assets forfeited as a result of the Madoff fraud to victims through the remission process.

Richard C. Breeden was retained to serve as Special Master on behalf of the Department of Justice to administer the process of compensating the victims of the Madoff fraud with the forfeited funds. A former chairman of the SEC, Mr. Breeden is Chairman of Richard C. Breeden & Co., which has been involved in (among other things) the administration and distribution of securities fraud claims since 1996. Among other things, Mr. Breeden has served as Corporate Monitor of WorldCom, Inc. and KPMG under its deferred prosecution agreement with the U.S. Attorney’s Office. Mr. Breeden also served as remission special master in connection with the fraud committed through Adelphia Communications Corporation. In April 2012, more than $728 million forfeited in connection with this Office’s investigation and prosecution of the Adelphia fraud was distributed to approximately 8,500 victims, the largest single distribution of forfeited assets to victims in Department of Justice history.

Now that a new Special Master has been retained, and given the pledge of SIPC Trustee Irving Picard and his counsel to lend their support and resources to the new Special Master for the benefit of the fraud victims, we expect the victim claims process to begin shortly. It is anticipated that victims who filed claims in the SIPA proceeding will not have to refile their claims to be eligible for remission. New information about the remission Special Master, and information about the victim claims process, will be posted on the Office’s Madoff website at http://www.justice.gov/usao/nys/vw_cases/madoff.html as soon as it becomes available, along with a link to a dedicated website Mr. Breeden’s firm will establish in connection with the remission proceedings.

Investment Advisors and Others With Discretion Over Funds Should Exercise Fiduciary Care

While the Madorf scandle represents an exceptionally large and long-standing stream of mishandling of employee benefit funds, the investigations and prosecutions also serve as a reminder of the need to carefully comply with the fiduciary responsibility and other requirements of ERISA and other laws to investment advisors and other employee benefit plan asset service providers, plan committees and fiduciaries and the plan sponsors, boards and other individuals responsible for investing or handling employee benefit monies or choosing the parties that possess and exercise that discretion.

ERISA generally requires that plan asset investments be made prudently and for the exclusive benefit of participants and beneficiaries. Service providers or others with discretionary responsibiliity or that are investment managers of plan assets must be prudently selected based on careful credentialing and other procedures. e No prohibited transactions should be permitted. Fees and other compensation must be set appropriately and properly reported in accordance with ERISA’s fee disclosure rules. The actions and performance of parties investing in plan assets and their investment performance must be reviewed and monitored prudently. Proper bonding must be maintained. Concerns and questions about these activities must be timely investigated in a prudent manner. Failure to properly conduct these and other ERISA fiduciary responsibilities can expose responsible parties to personal liability for losses, profits improperly realized, a fiduciary administrative penalties, disqualification to serve in plan fiduciary or other positions, and attorneys fees and other costs of recovery, as well as in certain cases like the Madorff fraud, criminal prosecution.

For Help or More Information

About Ms. 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 concerning regulatory, investigatory or enforcement concerns.

About Solutions Law Press

1 Comment | ADA, Corporate Compliance, EEOC, Employers, GINA, Human Resources, OFCCP, Retaliation | Tagged: defined benefit plan, Employer, ERISA, Fiduciary Responsibility, Human Resources, pension plan, plan qualification, profit sharing plan, Retirement Plans, Tax | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

ESOP, Other Employee Plan Investments In Company Stock Land Plans, Fiduciaries, Sponsors & Others In Hot Water

December 10, 2012

Companies that sponsor employee benefit plans that have purchased or own stock in their sponsor beware. Declines in the stock value of company stock purchased by employee stock ownership plans (ESOP) or other employee benefit plans in their plan sponsor have a growing number of plans and the plan sponsors, sponsoring company owners and management, plan trustees and other plan fiduciaries in hot water with the Department of Labor. ESOP or other employee plans that have purchased or allow investments in company stock and their sponsors, fiduciaries and advisors should carefully review for defensibility the current stock value, the purchase price and analysis supporting that purchase and other aspects of these investments of plan assets and take carefully documented action to prove the prudence and other appropriateness of the investment and continued retention of the investment in these assets.

Company Stock Investments Carry Special ERISA Risks

Purchases of company stock by an ESOP or other employee benefit plan can create a wide range of risks under the fiduciary responsibility rules of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). When making investment or other decisions under an employee benefit plan, the general fiduciary duty standards of ERISA § 404 generally require plan fiduciaries to act prudently and solely in the interest of participants and beneficiaries. Meanwhile, except in certain narrow circumstances and subject to fulfillment of ERISA § 404, the prohibited transaction rules of ERISA § 406 among other things prohibits plan fiduciaries from causing the plan to engage in a transaction, if he knows or should know that such transaction is a direct or indirect:

Sale or exchange, or leasing, of any property between the plan and a party in interest;
Furnishing of goods, services, or facilities between the plan and a party in interest;
Transfer to, or use by or for the benefit of a party in interest, of any assets of the plan; or
Acquisition, on behalf of the plan, of any employer security or employer real property in violation of section 1107 (a) of this title.

Stock Drops Create Rising Exposures For Plans Invested In Company Stock

Amid economic downturns or other situations where the stock value of company held by plans significantly lower than the price the plan paid for the stock, the Labor Department, plaintiffs in private lawsuits or both may bring “stock drop” or other lawsuits against the plan, its sponsor and its officers and board members, its fiduciaries and others for breach of fiduciary duties under these rules. See e.g., Enron v. Tittle, 463 F.3d 410 (5th Cir. 2006); In Re: BP p.l.c. ERISA Litig., No. 4:10-cv-4214 (S.D. Texas); Vivian v. Worldcom (N.D. Cal. 2002). Since the sponsoring company is a party-in-interest of the plan, using plan assets to purchase company stock or other activities resulting in the inclusion of company stock among the plan assets held by the plan creates presumptions of impropriety that impose higher than usual burdens upon the plan, its sponsor and fiduciaries to prove the appropriateness of the transaction. See e.g., Pfeil v. State Street Bank & Trust Co., 671 F.3d 585 (6th Cir. 2012).

The filing of stock drop cases tends to rise and fall in reflection to the economic times. Following the economic downturn in 2002, federal courts saw a surge in stop drop case challenges as well as Labor Department enforcement actions. The number of these cases dropped as the economy improved later in the decade only to rise again between 2010 and the present in response to the current economic crisis.

Tough Economic Times Fueled Stock Drops Creating Rising Risks & Enforcement

The latest economic downturn is fueling resurgence in these “stock drop” challenges. Fifteen stop drop lawsuits were filed during 2010 and 2011. Additional suits and Labor Department stop drop challenges have emerged this year.

In Griffin v. Flagstar Bancorp, Inc., No. 11-1497 (6th Cir. 2012), for instance, plaintiffs alleged various fiduciaries allegedly breached their duties under ERISA by allowing employer stock to be offered as a 401(k) plan investment option while the company was facing a precarious financial situation. The Griffin court overruled the lower court’s dismissal of the plaintiff’s lawsuit. The Court of Appeals held that the defendants offering of company stock to plan participants made ERISA’s “safe harbor” (Section 404(c)) provision for participant self-directed investments inapplicable. The Sixth Circuit ruled “[a]fter reviewing the factual allegations in the complaint – which go far beyond documenting a simple drop in stock price to recite announcements from Flagstar itself, statements by analysts and financial media publications, and actions taken by Flagstar suggesting a precarious financial situation– we must conclude that the complaint raises a plausible claim for breach of fiduciary duty.”

In addition to private class action lawsuits like Griffin, plans holding company stock, their sponsors, owners, management and fiduciaries also need to be ready to defend against investigations and enforcement by the Labor Department, which often zealously investigates and takes enforcement action against plans, their fiduciaries, sponsors, company boards and management and others for losses to plan asset values resulting due to the investment or retention of investments by their plans in company stock. See also Labor Department Backs M&I Employees In Stock-Plan Suit.

Labor Department Suits Show Particular Risks For ESOPs

Over the past year, the Labor Department has been particularly aggressive in taking action when the value of company stock purchased or held by employee stock purchase plans or “ESOPS” drops significantly.

Rembar

For instance, the purchase by the Rembar Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan (“Rembar Plan”) of all the stock of its sponsor, Rembar Inc. has landed the trust company that served as the Plan’s independent fiduciary and Rembar Inc.’s owner and Chief Executive Officer in hot water.

The Labor Department is suing Rembar Inc.’s Chief Executive Officer and owner, Frank Firor, First Bankers Trust Services Inc. and the Rembar Plan to recover losses that the Labor Department charges Rembar Plan participants suffered because the Rembar Plan paid too much when it purchased all of the stock of Rembar Inc.

Rembar Inc. manufactures and distributes precision parts made from refractory metals. The Labor Department lawsuit alleges that, in June 2005, First Bankers Trust Services allowed the Rembar Plan to purchase 100 percent of the company’s stock from Firor and Firor’s relatives for $15.5 million. A Labor Department investigation found that First Bankers Trust Services failed to comply with its duty to understand the valuation report that set the purchase price, identify and question assumptions in the report, and verify that the conclusions in the report were consistent with the company’s financial data. As a result of First Bankers Trust Services’ failure to comply with its fiduciary duties, the Labor Department claims the Rembar Plan overpaid for the stock and suffered losses. The suit seeks, among other things, to recover jointly from First Bankers Trust Services and Firor all losses suffered by the Rembar Plan.

Maran

Similarly, the Labor Department also has filed an ERISA stock drop lawsuit against the Maran Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan (Maran Plan), First Bankers Trust Services Inc. and others to recover losses suffered by participants.

According to the pleadings, First Bankers Trust Services was hired as an independent fiduciary and trustee in connection with the company’s ESOP to decide whether, and at what price, to purchase shares of Maran Inc. from majority shareholders. The suit charges First Bankers Trust Services violated ERISA in 2006 when it approved the ESOP’s purchase of 49 percent of the outstanding stock of Maran Inc. for about $71 million, which was more than the fair market value. The Labor Department claims that as a result of the purchase of overvalued stock, the Maran Plan participants suffered significant losses. The suit seeks to recover all losses and have First Bankers Trust Services enjoined from serving as a fiduciary to ESOP plans.

Parrot

Likewise, the Labor Department in April sued in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California seeking to recover losses suffered by participants in the Parrot Cellular Employee Stock Ownership Plan (Parrot Plan).

The suit names as a defendant Dennis Webb, the principal owner of Entrepreneurial Ventures Inc. (EVI), which operates Parrot Cellular telephone retail stores in northern and central California, and is the sponsor of the Parrot Plan; EVI executives Matthew Fidiam and J. Robert Gallucci; Consulting Fiduciaries Inc., an Illinois company that served as the independent fiduciary and investment manager for the Parrot Plan in 2002 when the Parrot Plan bought 90 percent of EVI stock.

According to the pleadings, the Parrot Plan paid for more than $28 million to buy approximately 90 percent of EVI’s stock in 2002. Around the same time as the stock purchase, EVI also set aside $4 million pursuant to a deferred compensation agreement with Webb and entered into a second executive compensation agreement with Webb for $12 million.

The Labor Department charges defendants allegedly violated ERISA by rejecting their fiduciary duties of loyalty and prudence to the plan, engaging in self-dealing, permitting or engaging in prohibited transactions, and failing to monitor the performance of the plan’s appraiser when they caused or permitted the Parrot Plan to purchase EVI stock for more than fair market value. The suit also charges that Webb enriched himself by millions of dollars at the expense of the plan and its participants because a reasonable value for the company as of November 2002 was far less than the amounts the Parrot Plan paid for the stock and the total deferred compensation agreements entered into with Webb.

In addition to seeking the recovery of all losses to the Parrot Plan resulting from the above violations, the Labor Department’s suit seeks the disgorgement of unjust profits from Webb that he received from the two deferred compensation agreements and from his sale of EVI stock to the Parrot Plan.

Plans, Sponsors and Fiduciaries Must Act Continously To Manage Risks

These and other actions send a stong message for ESOP and other employee benefit plans, their fiduciaries and sponsors about the need to continuously and prudently evaluate and monitor the investment of plan assets in company stock,the analysis and decisions about whether to continue to keep and offer this stock under the plan, as well as the qualifications, credentials and conduct of the fiduciaries and others empowered to influence these decisions. The Labor Department’s statement in announcing the Parrot litigation sums up the messages from these cases. “Plan officials are required by law to manage the ESOP in a careful, prudent manner and to act solely to benefit the plan’s participants,” said Jean Ackerman, director of EBSA’s San Francisco Regional Office, which conducted the investigation. “This action underscores the department’s commitment to protect the benefits that employers promise to their employees.” Plan fiduciaries, sponsors and their management, service providers and consultants participating in these activities need to both act with care and carefully document their actions to position to defend potential challenges.

For Help or More Information

About Ms. Stamer

About Solutions Law Press

Comments Off on ESOP, Other Employee Plan Investments In Company Stock Land Plans, Fiduciaries, Sponsors & Others In Hot Water | ADA, Corporate Compliance, EEOC, Employers, GINA, Human Resources, OFCCP, Retaliation | Tagged: 404, 406, defined benefit plan, Employer, ERISA, exclusive benefit, Fiduciary Responsibility, Human Resources, pension plan, plan qualification, profit sharing plan, Prudence, Retirement Plans, Tax | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Confirm Qualified Plans Updated By Reviewing Against 2012 Required Plan Qualification Requirements Change List

December 9, 2012

Qualified plan sponsors, fiduciaries, administrators and advisors and other service providers should review the 2012 Cumulative List of Changes in Plan Qualification Requirements (2012 Cumulative List) in Notice 2012-76 to identify any required or recommended changes to promote continued fulfillment of applicable qualification requirements.

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) publishes a cumulative list annually to guide plan sponsors and practitioners submitting qualifed plan determination letter applications for plans during the upcoming year. The 2012 Cumulative Listinforms plan sponsors of issues the Service has specifically identified for review in determining whether a plan filing in Cycle C has been properly updated. Specifically, the 2012 Cumulative List reflects law changes under the Pension Protection Act of 2006 (PPA ’06), Pub. L. 109-280; the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans’ Care, Katrina Recovery and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act, 2007, Pub. L. 110-28; the Heroes Earnings Assistance and Relief Tax Act of 2008 (HEART Act), Pub. L. 110-245; the Worker, Retiree, and Employer Recovery Act of 2008 (WRERA), Pub. L. 110-458; the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 (SBJA), Pub. L. 111-240; the Preservation of Access to Care for Medicare Beneficiaries and Pension Relief Act of 2010 (PRA 2010), Pub. L. No. 111-192; and the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21), Pub. L. 112-141.

The 2012 Cumulative List sets forth guidance and regulations implementing these requirements and provides certain model amendment language. 2012 Retirement Plan Notices are published here.

The IRS intends that the 2012 Cumulative List will be used by plan sponsors and practitioners submitting determination letter applications for plans during the period beginning February 1, 2013 and ending January 31, 2014. In order to be qualified, a plan must comply with all relevant qualification requirements, not just those on the 2012 Cumulative List including those enacted or effective after publication of the 2012 Cumulative List. The list of changes in the Cumulative List does not extend the deadline for amending a qualified plan to comply with any statutory, regulatory, or guidance changes.

Plans using 2012 Cumulative List will primarily be single employer individually designed defined contribution plans and single employer individually designed defined benefit plans that are in Cycle C, and § 414(d) governmental plans (including governmental multiemployer or governmental multiple employer plans) that choose to file during Cycle C. Generally an individually designed plan is in Cycle C if the last digit of the employer identification number of the plan sponsor is 3 or 8. In addition, the 2012 Cumulative List will be used by sponsors of defined benefit pre-approved plans (that is, defined benefit plans that are master and prototype (M&P) or volume submitter (VS) plans) for the second submission under the remedial amendment cycle described in Rev. Proc. 2007-44.

The IRS issued Notice 2012-76 in conjunction with the determination letter program for individually designed plans eligible for Cycle C. The IRS is scheduled to accept determination letter applications for Cycle C individually designed plans from February 1, 2013 to January 31, 2014. In addition, the Service will start accepting opinion and advisory letter applications for defined benefit pre-approved plans beginning on February 1, 2013. The 12-month submission period for non-mass submitter sponsors and practitioners, word-for-word identical adopters, and M&P minor modifier placeholder applications will end on January 31, 2014. The 9-month submission period for mass submitters will end on October 31, 2013.

For Help or More Information

About Ms. 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 concerning regulatory, investigatory or enforcement concerns.

Recognized in Who’s Who In American Professionals and both an American Bar Association (ABA) and a State Bar of Texas Fellow, Ms. Stamer serves on the Editorial Advisory Board of Employee Benefits News, the editor and publisher of Solutions Law Press HR & Benefits Update and other Solutions Law Press Publications, and active in a multitude of other employee benefits, human resources and other professional and civic organizations. She also is a widely published author and highly regarded speaker on these matters. Her insights on these and other matters appear in the Bureau of National Affairs, Spencer Publications, the Wall Street Journal, the Dallas Business Journal, the Houston Business Journal, Modern and many other national and local publications. You can learn more about Ms. Stamer and her experience, review some of her other training, speaking, publications and other resources, and 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 Confirm Qualified Plans Updated By Reviewing Against 2012 Required Plan Qualification Requirements Change List | ADA, Corporate Compliance, EEOC, Employers, GINA, Human Resources, OFCCP, Retaliation | Tagged: defined benefit plan, Employer, Human Resources, pension plan, plan qualification, profit sharing plan, Retirement Plans, Tax | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Bank’ $1Million Plus Overtime Settlement Shows Risks of Misapplying FLSA’s Administrative Exemption

December 1, 2012

Department of Labor (Labor Department) officials are pointing to a more than $1 million backpay settlement paid by First Republic Bank as a reminder of the risks that employers run by treating employees as exempt from minimum wage, overtime and recordkeeping requirements without confirming that the facts surrounding the employment of each employee considered exempt in fact meet every condition that the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) requires to qualify as exempt.

First Republic Bank paid $1,009,643.93 in overtime back wages for 392 First Republic Bank employees in California, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New York and Oregon after the Labor Department found the San Francisco-based bank wrongly classified the employees as exempt from the FLSA’s overtime and recordkeeping requirements, resulting in violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act’s overtime and record-keeping provisions. The Labor Department announced the settlement resulting in the payment on November 27, 2012.

FLSA Violations Generally Costly; Enforcement Rising

Employers Should Strengthen Practices For Defensibility

Audit of each position current classified as exempt to assess its continued sustainability and to develop documentation justifying that characterization;
Audit characterization of workers obtained from staffing, employee leasing, independent contractor and other arrangements and implement contractual and other oversight arrangements to minimize risks that these relationships could create if workers are recharacterized as employed by the employer receiving these services;
Review the characterization of on-call and other time demands placed on employees to confirm that all compensable time is properly identified, tracked, documented, compensated and reported;
Review of existing practices for tracking compensable hours and paying non-exempt employees for compliance with applicable regulations and to identify opportunities to minimize costs and liabilities arising out of the regulatory mandates;
If the audit raises questions about the appropriateness of the classification of an employee as exempt, self-initiation of proper corrective action after consultation with qualified legal counsel;
Review of existing documentation and record keeping practices for hourly employees;
Exploration of available options and alternatives for calculating required wage payments to non-exempt employees; and
Re-engineering of work rules and other practices to minimize costs and liabilities as appropriate in light of the regulations and enforcement exposures.

For Help With Investigations, Policy Updates Or Other Needs

Board Certified in Labor & Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, management attorney and consultant Ms. Stamer is nationally and internationally recognized for more than 23 years of work helping employers; employee benefit plans and their sponsors, administrators, fiduciaries; employee leasing, recruiting, staffing and other professional employment organizations; and others design, administer and defend innovative workforce, compensation, employee benefit and management policies and practices. The Chair of the American Bar Association (ABA) RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Committee, a Council Representative on the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits, Government Affairs Committee Legislative Chair for the Dallas Human Resources Management Association, past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, Ms. Stamer often has worked, extensively on these and other workforce and performance related matters. She also is recognized for her publications, industry leadership, workshops and presentations on these and other human resources concerns and regularly speaks and conducts training on these matters. Her insights on these and other matters appear in the Bureau of National Affairs, Spencer Publications, the Wall Street Journal, the Dallas Business Journal, the Houston Business Journal, and many other national and local publications. For more information about Ms. Stamer and her experience or to get access to other publications by Ms. Stamer see here or contact Ms. Stamer directly.

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. For important information about this communication click here.

Comments Off on Bank’ $1Million Plus Overtime Settlement Shows Risks of Misapplying FLSA’s Administrative Exemption | Corporate Compliance, Employers, Human Resources, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, Risk Management, Wage & Hour | Tagged: Backpay, Employer, Employment, employment law, Fair Labor Standards Act, FSLA, IT, Labor Department, Minimum Wage, Technology, Wage & Hour, wage and hour, Worker Classification | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Labor Department Serves The Christmas Light Co. & Its Owner With Holiday Season FLSA Lawsuit

November 30, 2012

The U.S. Department of Labor (Labor Department) kicked off the 2013 Holiday Season by filing a lawsuit against The Christmas Light Co. Inc. and owner William F. Rathburn to recover approximately $240,881 in wages and an additional amount in liquidated damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) on behalf of 233 employees who installed and removed lights for the company. Yet another in a growing list of lawsuits against U.S. employers accused of failing to comply with FLSA minimum wage and overtime rules, the lawsuit reflects the significant risks that U.S. businesses risk by failing to properly track and pay employees covered by the FLSA as required.

Holiday Season FLSA Suit Casts Shadow Over The Christmas Light Co. Inc.

According to the Labor Department, an investigation by its Dallas Wage and Hour Division office found that The Christmas Light Co. Inc. violated the FLSA by failing to pay 233 installers and removers the minimum and overtime wages and keep records required by law. The complaint filed in the Northern District of Texas seeks back wages and liquidated damages of nearly $500,000 and an injunction against future violations of the FLSA.

The Labor Department says that its investigation determined that the company violated the FLSA by paying non-exempt workers a flat rate for installing and removing Christmas lights without regard to the number of hours the employees had worked. Investigators also found that in most cases employees were paid “straight time” rather than overtime at time and one-half their regular rates for hours worked over 40 in a week, as required. Additionally, the Labor Department found that the company failed to keeprecords required by the FLSA.

The lawsuit against The Christmas Light Co. Inc. spotlights a growing emphasis by the Labor Department on investigation and enforcement of employer violations of the FLSA. “The Labor Department holds employers accountable when they do not properly pay their workers,” said Cynthia Watson, regional administrator for the Wage and Hour Division in the Southwest. “Failing to pay minimum and overtime wages is unacceptable. Such behavior robs workers of their rightful wages and undercuts those hardworking and conscientious employers who obey the law. This lawsuit demonstrates that the department will use all enforcement tools available, including litigation, to recover workers’ wages and ensure a level playing field for law-abiding employers.”

FLSA Violations Generally Costly; Enforcement Rising

Employers Should Strengthen Practices For Defensibility

Audit of each position current classified as exempt to assess its continued sustainability and to develop documentation justifying that characterization;
Audit characterization of workers obtained from staffing, employee leasing, independent contractor and other arrangements and implement contractual and other oversight arrangements to minimize risks that these relationships could create if workers are recharacterized as employed by the employer receiving these services;
Review the characterization of on-call and other time demands placed on employees to confirm that all compensable time is properly identified, tracked, documented, compensated and reported;
Review of existing practices for tracking compensable hours and paying non-exempt employees for compliance with applicable regulations and to identify opportunities to minimize costs and liabilities arising out of the regulatory mandates;
If the audit raises questions about the appropriateness of the classification of an employee as exempt, self-initiation of proper corrective action after consultation with qualified legal counsel;
Review of existing documentation and record keeping practices for hourly employees;
Exploration of available options and alternatives for calculating required wage payments to non-exempt employees; and
Re-engineering of work rules and other practices to minimize costs and liabilities as appropriate in light of the regulations and enforcement exposures.

For Help With Investigations, Policy Updates Or Other Needs

Board Certified in Labor & Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, management attorney and consultant Ms. Stamer is nationally and internationally recognized for more than 23 years of work helping employers; employee benefit plans and their sponsors, administrators, fiduciaries; employee leasing, recruiting, staffing and other professional employment organizations; and others design, administer and defend innovative workforce, compensation, employee benefit and management policies and practices. The Chair of the American Bar Association (ABA) RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Committee, a Council Representative on the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits, Government Affairs Committee Legislative Chair for the Dallas Human Resources Management Association, past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, Ms. Stamer often has worked, extensively on these and other workforce and performance related matters. She also is recognized for her publications, industry leadership, workshops and presentations on these and other human resources concerns and regularly speaks and conducts training on these matters. Her insights on these and other matters appear in the Bureau of National Affairs, Spencer Publications, the Wall Street Journal, the Dallas Business Journal, the Houston Business Journal, and many other national and local publications. For more information about Ms. Stamer and her experience or to get access to other publications by Ms. Stamer see here or contact Ms. Stamer directly.

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. For important information about this communication click here.

Comments Off on Labor Department Serves The Christmas Light Co. & Its Owner With Holiday Season FLSA Lawsuit | Corporate Compliance, Employers, Human Resources, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, Risk Management, Wage & Hour | Tagged: Backpay, Employer, Employment, employment law, Fair Labor Standards Act, FSLA, IT, Labor Department, Minimum Wage, Technology, Wage & Hour, wage and hour, Worker Classification | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Boston Hides and Furs Ltd. Sued For $1 Million For Alleged Willful FLSA Wage & Hour Law Violations

November 28, 2012

U.S. employers using aggressive worker classification or other pay practices to avoid paying overtime should heed the expensive lesson that the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) hopes to teach employer Boston Hides & Furs Ltd. and members of its management in a lawsuit filed in Boston.

Citing “knowing, deliberate and intentional” violations of federal wage and hour law, the DOL is suing Boston Hides and Furs Ltd. and company officials seeking at least $500,000 in back wages and an equal amount in liquidated damages for allegedly underpaying employees of the Chelsea wholesale animal hide business. See Solis v. Boston Hides & Furs Ltd., Anthony Andreottola, Angelo Andreottola and Antoinetta Andreottola Parisi, CV-1:12-CV-11997-MLW. The suit illustrates the significant liability that companies or their owners or management risk by failing to properly pay workers covered by the FLSA and meet other FLSA requirements.

FLSA Generally

The FLSA generally requires that an employee pay each covered employees at least the federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour as well as time and one-half their regular rates for every hour they work beyond 40 per week. When the state minimum wage is higher than the federally mandated wage, and employees work more than 40 hours in a week calculated in accordance with applicable state laws, employees paid at the minimum permissible level are entitled to overtime compensation based on the higher state minimum wage. Time credited may be determined differently under state law versus the FLSA. Employers must make sure proper crediting, record keeping and payment in time to meet both applicable requirements.

The FLSA also requires employers to keep accurate records of covered employees’ wages, hours and other conditions of employment and prohibits employers from retaliating against employees who exercise their rights under the law. Special rules also may apply to the employment of children or other special populations.

The rules generally establish a legal presumption that a worker performing services is working as a covered employee of the recipient. Unfortunately, many businesses that receive services often unintentionally incur liability because they ill-advisedly misclassify workers as performing services as independent contractors, salaried employees or otherwise exempt by failing to recognize the implications of this presumption. The presumption that a worker is a covered employee generally means that an employer that treats a worker as exempt bears bear the burden of providing that a worker is not a covered employee and keeping accurate records to show that it has properly tracked the hours of and paid each covered employee.

The FLSA provides that employers who violate the law are, as a general rule, liable to employees for back wages and an equal amount in liquidated damages. State wage and hour laws also typically provide for back pay and liquidated damage awards. Attorneys’ fees and other costs often also are recoverable. In certain instances where the violations are knowing, deliberate and intentional, violators often may risk criminal as well as civil liability.

DOL Sues Boston Hides and Furs Ltd For Knowing, Deliberate & Willful FLSA Violations

The DOL lawsuit seeks to recover more than $1 million from Boston Hides and Furs Ltd and various company officials for allegedly engaging in knowing and deliberate violations of the FLSA minimum wage, overtime and retaliation rules.

The DOL filed the lawsuit in federal court in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts after a DOL Wage & Hour Division investigation found the employer committed willful and repeated violations of the minimum wage, overtime and record-keeping provisions of the FLSA including offering for shipment or sale “hot goods” produced in violation of the law during a period spanning at least three years. The suit also asserts that the company unlawfully retaliated against several workers by firing them after they cooperated with the federal investigation.

In its complaint, the DOL claims the investigation found that 14 Boston Hides & Furs employees worked approximately 10 hours per day, six days per week processing hides and furs for shipping to tanneries. DOL says Boston Hides paid these workers a daily cash wage of $50 to $70, which amounted to an hourly pay rate far below the federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour. The employees also were not paid time and one-half the required state minimum wage of $8 applicable for those hours worked above 40 in a week. Additionally, the defendants failed to keep adequate records of the workers’ employment, work hours and pay rates, and a representative of the defendants falsely told investigators that the company’s payroll records included all employees.

The lawsuit also charges that the defendants ordered employees to hide in a nearby house when DOL Wage and Hour Division investigators first arrived at Boston Hides & Furs so they could not be interviewed. Two days after investigators subsequently interviewed the workers, the defendants fired the workers. During their employment, DOL claims company officials threatened and subjected the workers to verbally abusive treatment on an ongoing basis, particularly when they asked about their pay rates.

In addition to back wages and liquidated damages, the DOL lawsuit seeks to permanently prohibit the defendants from future FLSA violations — including a prohibition against shipping any goods handled by workers who were paid in violation of the law — and compensatory and punitive damages for the workers on account of their unlawful firing. The Wage and Hour Division also has assessed $100,000 in civil money penalties against Boston Hides & Furs Ltd. for willful violations of the FLSA.

Overtime & Other Wage & Hour Enforcement Risks Rising

Employers increasingly risk triggering significant liability by failing to properly characterize, track and pay workers for compensable time in violation of the FSLA or other laws. Unfortunately, many employers often are overly optimistic or otherwise fail to properly understand and apply FLSA rules for characterizing on-call or other time, classifying workers as exempt versus non-exempt or making other key determinations.

The potential that noncompliant employers will incur these liabilities has risen significantly in recent years. Under the Obama Administration, DOL officials have made it a priority to enforce overtime, record keeping, worker classification and other wage and hour law requirements. While all employers face heightened prosecution risks, federal officials specifically are targeting government contractors, health care, technology and certain other industry employers for special scrutiny. DOL also is using smart phone applications, social media and a host of other new tools to educate and recruit workers in its effort to find and prosecute violators. See, e.g. New Employee Smart Phone App New Tool In Labor Department’s Aggressive Wage & Hour Law Enforcement Campaign Against Restaurant & Other Employers. Meanwhile, private enforcement of these requirements by also has soared following the highly-publicized implementation of updated FLSA regulations on the classification of workers during the last Bush Administration. See Record $2.3 Million+ Backpay Order; Minimum Wage, Overtime Risks Highlighted By Labor Department Strike Force Targeting Residential Care & Group Homes; Review & Strengthen Defensibility of Existing Worker Classification Practices In Light of Rising Congressional & Regulatory Scrutiny; 250 New Investigators, Renewed DOL Enforcement Emphasis Signal Rising Wage & Hour Risks For Employers; Quest Diagnostics, Inc. To Pay $688,000 In Overtime Backpay.

Employers Should Strengthen Practices For Defensibility

Audit of each position current classified as exempt to assess its continued sustainability and to develop documentation justifying that characterization;
Audit characterization of workers obtained from staffing, employee leasing, independent contractor and other arrangements and implement contractual and other oversight arrangements to minimize risks that these relationships could create if workers are recharacterized as employed by the employer receiving these services;
Review the characterization of on-call and other time demands placed on employees to confirm that all compensable time is properly identified, tracked, documented, compensated and reported;
Review of existing practices for tracking compensable hours and paying non-exempt employees for compliance with applicable regulations and to identify opportunities to minimize costs and liabilities arising out of the regulatory mandates;
If the audit raises questions about the appropriateness of the classification of an employee as exempt, self-initiation of appropriate corrective action after consultation with qualified legal counsel;
Review of existing documentation and record keeping practices for hourly employees;
Exploration of available options and alternatives for calculating required wage payments to non-exempt employees; and
Reengineering of work rules and other practices to minimize costs and liabilities as appropriate in light of the regulations and enforcement exposures.

For Help With Investigations, Policy Updates Or Other Needs

If you need help in conducting a risk assessment of or responding to an IRS, DOL, Justice Department, PBGC, private plaintiff or other legal challenges to your organization’s existing workforce classification or other labor and employment, employee benefit or compensation practices, please contact the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer here or at (469) 767-8872 .

Board Certified in Labor & Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, management attorney and consultant Ms. Stamer is nationally and internationally recognized for more than 23 years of work helping employers; employee benefit plans and their sponsors, administrators, fiduciaries; employee leasing, recruiting, staffing and other professional employment organizations; and others design, administer and defend innovative workforce, compensation, employee benefit and management policies and practices. The Chair of the American Bar Association (ABA) RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Committee, a Council Representative on the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits, Government Affairs Committee Legislative Chair for the Dallas Human Resources Management Association, past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, Ms. Stamer often has worked, extensively on these and other workforce and performance related matters. She also is recognized for her publications, industry leadership, workshops and presentations on these and other human resources concerns and regularly speaks and conducts training on these matters. Her insights on these and other matters appear in the Bureau of National Affairs, Spencer Publications, the Wall Street Journal, the Dallas Business Journal, the Houston Business Journal, and many other national and local publications. For more information about Ms. Stamer and her experience or to get access to other publications by Ms. Stamer see here or contact Ms. Stamer directly.

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. For important information about this communication click here.

Comments Off on Boston Hides and Furs Ltd. Sued For $1 Million For Alleged Willful FLSA Wage & Hour Law Violations | Corporate Compliance, Employers, Human Resources, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, Risk Management, Wage & Hour | Tagged: Backpay, Employer, Employment, employment law, Fair Labor Standards Act, FSLA, IT, Labor Department, Minimum Wage, Technology, Wage & Hour, wage and hour, Worker Classification | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

SLP Hosts Complimentary 11/27 WEB Briefing On 11/20 ACA Wellness, Pre-Ex & Essential Benefits Guidance

November 26, 2012

Solutions Law Press, Inc. invites employer and other group health plan sponsors, fiduciaries, administrators, insurers, brokers and consultants and others involved in the design and administration of employment-based group health plans to take part in a complimentary Health Care Executive Study Group internet briefing on new and proposed guidance interpreting audit pre-existing condition limitation, wellness and disease management and essential health benefit rules of the Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act (“ACA”) published by Departments of Labor and Health & Human Services on November 20, 2012 to be conducted by attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer.

How To Participate

To take part in this complimentary 30 minute briefing, please follow the following steps:

Register here before Noon Central Daylight Time on November 27; then
Join the meeting on Tuesday, November 27, 2012 by 12:00 PM Central Standard Time by connecting over the internet at https://www2.gotomeeting.com/join/606483282
To listen to the presentation, either:
- Use your microphone and speakers (VoIP) – a headset is recommended;
- Call in using your telephone using the following:
  - Dial +1 (312) 878-3082
  - Access Code: 606-483-282
  - Audio PIN: Shown after joining the meeting
  - GoToMeeting®[*] Meeting ID: 606-483-282

Persons having questions or wishing to get more information about participation in the briefing should send an e-mail here or call (214) 452.8297.

About The November 20, 2012 ACA Guidance

The briefing with discuss highlights of the guidance that Departments of Labor and Health & Human Services issued published on November 20, 2012 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;
A proposed rule outlining policies and standards for coverage of essential health benefits and companion letter sent to states on the flexibility in implementing the essential health benefits in Medicaid; and
A proposed rule implementing and expanding employment-based wellness programs under ACA.

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.

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 complete arrangements and guidance governing the implementation and enforcement of the ACA health care reforms scheduled to take effect and to tweak guidance on provisions already effective under the law.

Attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer To Conduct Briefing

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 watch 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 author 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.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.

[*] GoToMeeting® Online Meetings Made Easy®.

1 Comment | Uncategorized | Tagged: Affordable Care Act, Employer, Employers, Essential health benefits, Health Insurance, Health Plans, Human Resources, Insurance, pre-existing conditions, Wellness Programs | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Rare Court Order Telling Union To Stop Filing Grievances Example Of Employer Risks When Caught Between Competiting Unions

November 23, 2012

A district court judge in Washington has ordered the International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU) to stop processing grievances and filing lawsuits against a competitive union, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW), and, pending the outcome of further litigation, employers assigning work of plugging in, unplugging and monitoring refrigerated shipping containers at the Port of Portland to IBEW. The litigation between the two competing unions shows how employers can get caught in risky, no-win liability exposures as a result of power battles between competing unions over the right to represent workers performing services for the employers.

The injunctive order steps from a dispute between both unions over which union is entitled to represent a group of workers. Both unions claim the work, citing various contracts and collective bargaining agreements. In August 2012, the National Labor Relations Board issued a decision concluding that the employees represented by the IBEW are entitled to the work. Despite that ruling, the ILWU and two of its locals have continued to file and process grievances against employers serving as carriers at the port, seeking lost wages for work assigned to the IBEW. The ILWU also filed a claim against the IBEW in federal court under the Labor-Management Relations Act.

In granting the petition for injunctive relief from the NLRB’s Regional Office in Seattle late Wednesday, November 22, 2012, U.S. District Judge Michael H. Simon found that, by filing grievances and seeking enforcement of subsequent awards despite the Board’s decision, the ILWU had the unlawful secondary object of pressuring shipping carriers to stop doing business with the Port of Portland. He enjoined the union from filing, processing, maintaining, prosecuting, or threatening grievances or new lawsuits in the matter against the union as well as the carrier employers. With respect to the dispute with IBEW, the court ruled that the continued filing of the grievances against the IBEW constituted an unfair labor practice because the NLRB ruling already had recognized the IBEW as the authorized representative of the covered employees performing the work.

Concerning his decisions to also bar the ILWU from suing and filing charges against the employing carriers that have been caught in the war between the two unions, the Court issued a temporary injunction pending the outcome of the litigation. The court noted that the question of whether the NLRB ruling prohibited the carrier employers from subcontracting work covered by the NLRB order could not be permanently resolved based in the facts on the record, but that the IBEW had produced sufficient evidence of likely success on merits and irreparable harm to justify the court’s issuance of a temporary injunction.

While federal courts rarely enjoin unions under the National Labor Relations Act, the federal court in this matter found in light of the NLRB ruling in favor of the other union, the court’s decision in favor of the IBEW allows the IBEW to move forward for the time being as the representative of the workers. Concurrently, the court’s decision allows the employers caught between the two unions to continue operations for the time being by assigning work to the IBEW workers unless and until the ILWU proves its entitlement to that work.

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 Board Certified Labor & Employment attorney and 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.

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

Recognized in Who’s Who In American Professionals and both an American Bar Association (ABA) and a State Bar of Texas Fellow, Ms. Stamer serves on the Editorial Advisory Board of Employee Benefits News, the editor and publisher of Solutions Law Press HR & Benefits Update and other Solutions Law Press Publications, and active in a multitude of other employee benefits, human resources and other professional and civic organizations. She also is a widely published author and highly regarded speaker on these matters. Her insights on these and other matters appear in the Bureau of National Affairs, Spencer Publications, the Wall Street Journal, the Dallas Business Journal, the Houston Business Journal, Modern and many other national and local publications. You can learn more about Ms. Stamer and her experience, review some of her other training, speaking, publications and other resources, and 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 Rare Court Order Telling Union To Stop Filing Grievances Example Of Employer Risks When Caught Between Competiting Unions | ADA, Corporate Compliance, EEOC, Employers, GINA, Human Resources, OFCCP, Retaliation | Tagged: Employer, NLRA, NLRB, unfair labor practices, Union | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

New Employee Smart Phone App New Tool In Labor Department’s Aggressive Wage & Hour Law Enforcement Campaign Against Restaurant & Other Employers

November 9, 2012

Restaurant and other U.S. employers should audit and tighten their pay and record keeping practices as the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) Wage & Hour Division’s deploys its new employee Smart Phone application and other technology tools that DOL plans to use in waging war against employers that violate the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) minimum wage, overtime and record-keeping requirements against employers.

DOL Unveils New Smart Phone Employee App & Other Tools To Promote FLSA Compliance

Under the Obama Administration, the DOL has undertaken a wide range of efforts to promote compliance with and enforce the minimum wage, overtime and other requirements of the FLSA against restaurant and other employers. As part of this enforcement and compliance campaign, DOL is developing and deploying new Smartphone applications and other tools that it hopes with help employees and DOL enforce the FLSA.

One of the newest of these tools is a new Smartphone application intended for use by employees. DOL recently has developed a Smartphone application available here that DOL intends will help employees independently track the hours they work and determine the wages their employer owes them. Available in English and Spanish, DOL reports users can track regular work hours, break times and any overtime hours for one or more employers. DOL touts the new application as allowing workers to keep their own records instead of having to rely on their employers’ records.

The new timekeeping application tool for employees is just one of several new resources that the DOL hopes will support its enforcement and compliance initiatives. For instance, the free mobile application “Eat Shop Sleep” available here from the DOL allows consumers, employees and other members of the public to check if the DOL Wage and Hour Division has investigated a hotel, restaurant or retail location and whether DOL found FLSA violations.

FLSA Wage & Hour Violations Can Carry Big Liability

The FLSA requires that covered nonexempt employees be paid at least the federal minimum wage of $7.25 for all hours worked, plus time and one-half their regular rates for hours worked beyond 40 per week. In accordance with the FLSA, an employer of a tipped employee is required to pay no less than $2.13 an hour in direct wages provided that amount plus the tips received equals at least the federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour. If an employee’s tips combined with the employer’s direct wages do not equal the minimum wage, the employer must make up the difference. Employers are required to provide employees notice of the FLSA’s tip credit provisions, to maintain accurate time and payroll records, and to comply with the act’s restrictions applying to workers under age 18.

Violation of these requirements can result in significant civil or even criminal liability. Under the FLSA’s civil remedy provisions, employers violating minimum wage or overtime requirements can be held liable for back pay plus exemplary damages, attorneys’ fees and other costs. Additional liability can arise from civil penalties imposed for record-keeping violations. If the violations are found to be knowing and willful, criminal penalties also are possible. Since such violations can qualify as a felony under the FLSA, these liabilities can extend both to the employing entity as well as owners or management officials under certain circumstances.

Under the Obama Administration, enforcement of these rules in the restaurant and other industries with low paid workforces has become a key Labor Department priority, as evidenced by recent enforcement actions that the DOL has taken against Oklahoma-based El Tequila LLC restaurants and Florida-based Domino’s Pizza franchise operator PDQ Pizza.

Lawsuit against El Tequila LLC Seeks $1M In Back pay

On October 25, the DOL announced it is suing Tulsa-based El Tequila LLC and its owner, Carlos Aguirre, for alleged violations of the FLSA’s minimum wage, overtime and record-keeping provisions which DOL claims resulted in a total of approximately $1 million in unpaid wages owed to 221 kitchen and wait staff, hosts and bussers at four restaurant locations.

DOL charges that El Tequila LLC violated the FLSA by paying FLSA-covered employees, who in some cases worked as many as 72 hours in a week, a fixed salary without overtime pay for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a week. In addition to overtime violations, DOL charges this practice resulted in minimum wage violations because employees did not always receive at least the federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour. DOL also claims investigators found that wait personnel were required to turn their tips over to management at the end of every shift, which caused their pay to fall below the minimum wage. Finally, the suit charges employer did not keep proper records as required.

The suit filed in the Northern District of Oklahoma, Tulsa Division, seeks to recover the full amount of nearly $1 million in back wages for the employees as well as an injunction prohibiting future violations of the FLSA.

Florida-Based Domino’s Pizza Franchise To Pay $371,675 Back pay Settlement

DOL’s announcement of its El Tequila LLC lawsuit follows on the heels of DOL’s October 24 announcement that Melbourne, Florida-based PDQ Pizza, doing business as Domino’s Pizza, has paid $371,675 back pay to settle DOL charges that it violated the FLSA’s overtime, minimum wage and record-keeping provisions.

According to DOL, PDQ operates Domino’s Pizza franchises in 19 locations in Palm Beach, Indian River and Brevard counties.

DOL says its Investigators found systemic violations resulting from the company’s failure to properly compensate tip-earning employees, such as delivery drivers, for all of their hours worked. Even when performing nontipped duties such as cooking, cleaning and stocking, DOL says PDQ Pizza paid the workers as if they were tipped employees, with hourly wage rates as low as $5.15 rather than the required federal minimum wage of $7.25.

DOL also charges that the employer made illegal deductions from employees’ wages for uniforms, and failed to properly calculate and compensate tipped employees for all overtime hours (those worked in excess of 40 in a week).

Finally, DOL charged the employer failed to record and designate hours worked as tipped or nontipped in order to pay employees correctly, which violates the FLSA’s record-keeping provisions.

Following the investigations, DOL reports PDQ Pizza paid all back wages owed and agreed to support future compliance with the FLSA. The company also committed to changing its timekeeping and payroll practices to ensure that all hours worked by tipped and nontipped employees are properly recorded and compensated in accordance with the FLSA.

South Carolina Ponchos Restaurants Pay $486,000 Backpay Settlement

PDQ Pizza’s settlement isn’t unusual. Earlier in October, Poncho’s Inc. – doing business as Poncho’s Mexican Restaurant I, II and III – and Papa’s and Beer Mexican Restaurant agreed to pay 85 employees a total of $485,913 in back wages under a FLSA settlement covering DOL charges of overtime, minimum wage and record-keeping violations at all four restaurant locations.

At Pancho’s Mexican Restaurant I, II and III, investigators found that employees were not properly compensated for all work hours. By reviewing payroll records and conducting employee interviews, investigators determined that tip-earning employees such as servers were made to rely primarily on tips for pay and consequently earned wages that fell below $2.13 per hour in violation of the FLSA’s minimum wage provision. Additionally, other employees such as kitchen staff were paid flat salaries each month — without regard to hours worked — that did not satisfy minimum wage or overtime pay requirements. The employer also failed to maintain accurate records of employees’ work hours and wages. As a result, 38 employees will receive a total of $414,079 in back wages.

DOL says the Papa’s and Beer Mexican Restaurant investigation revealed that the employer made impermissible deductions for uniforms and other expenses from the wages of tip-earning employees, causing their hourly wages to fall below the federal minimum wage. Additionally, other employees such as kitchen staff were paid flat salaries each month — without regard to hours worked — that did not satisfy minimum wage or overtime pay requirements. The employer also failed to record the hours worked by kitchen staff. As a result, a total of $71,834 in back wages is owed to 47 employees.

The restaurants have agreed to maintain future compliance with the FLSA by keeping accurate records of all hours worked by all employees, paying them at least the federal minimum wage, providing overtime compensation, and informing employees in advance that the tip credit will be used.

Restaurant & Other Employers Of Low-Paid Workers Face High Enforcement Risks

While the Obama Administration has made FLSA enforcement in general a priority, it is particularly targeting restaurant and certain other categories of employers who employ low-income workers for scrutiny and enforcement. “The restaurant industry employs some of our country’s lowest-paid, most vulnerable workers,” said Secretary of Labor Hilda L. Solis. “When violations of the FLSA are discovered, the Labor Department will take appropriate action to ensure workers receive the wages they have earned and to which they are legally entitled.”

The Ponchos investigations were conducted under a multiyear enforcement initiative focused on the restaurant industry in South Carolina, where widespread noncompliance with the FLSA has been found. Since the start of fiscal year 2009, the division’s Columbia District Office has concluded more than 300 investigations under the initiative, resulting in more than $2.5 million in back wages recovered for more than 2,500 workers.

“We found many low-wage employees working up to 65 hours a week without any overtime compensation and receiving pay below the federal minimum wage. Unfortunately, significant labor violations like the ones we found in this case are all too common in the restaurant industry,” said Michelle Garvey, director of the division’s Columbia office in the announcement concerning the Ponchos settlement. “We are pleased that these workers finally will be paid their rightful wages and, as demonstrated by our ongoing initiative, we will continue to investigate South Carolina restaurants to remedy violations and ensure sustained compliance with the law.”

In light of these enforcement emphasis and the growing range of tools that the Labor Department is deploying to find and prosecute FLSA violations, restaurant and other employers should use care to ensure that their practices for classifying workers as exempt or non-exempt, recording hours worked and compensating non-exempt workers comply with the FLSA and other relevant laws. When evaluating and deciding how to address potential FLSA exposures, it is critical that employers avoid the temptation to wear role tinted glasses when making wage and hour worker classification or compensable time determinations or take for granted the legal defensibility of past practices within their own or industry workforces.

Under the FSLA and applicable state wage and hour laws, employers generally bear the burden of proving that they have properly paid their employees in accordance with the FLSA. Additionally, the FLSA and most applicable state wage and hour laws typically mandate that employers maintain records of the hours worked by employees by non-exempt employees, documentation of the employer’s proper payment of its non-exempt employees in accordance with the minimum wage and overtime mandates of the FLSA, and certain other records. Since the burden of proof of compliance generally rests upon the employer, employers should take steps to ensure their ability to demonstrate that they have properly paid non-exempt employees in accordance with applicable FLSA and state wage and hour mandates and that employees not paid in accordance with these mandates qualify as exempt from coverage under the FLSA.

These mistakes can be very costly. Employers that fail to properly pay employees under Federal and state wage and hour regulations face substantial risk. In addition to liability for back pay awards, violation of wage and hour mandates carries substantial civil – and in the case of willful violations, even criminal- liability exposure. Civil awards commonly include back pay, punitive damages and attorneys’ fees.

The potential that noncompliant employers will incur these liabilities has risen significantly in recent years. Under the Obama Administration, Labor Department officials have made it a priority to enforce overtime, recordkeeping, worker classification and other wage and hour law requirements. While all employers face heightened prosecution risks, federal officials specifically are targeting government contractors, health care, technology and certain other industry employers for special scrutiny. Meanwhile, private enforcement of these requirements by also has soared following the highly-publicized implementation of updated FLSA regulations regarding the classification of workers during the last Bush Administration. See Minimum Wage, Overtime Risks Highlighted By Labor Department Strike Force Targeting Residential Care & Group Homes; Review & Strengthen Defensibility of Existing Worker Classification Practices In Light of Rising Congressional & Regulatory Scrutiny; 250 New Investigators, Renewed DOL Enforcement Emphasis Signal Rising Wage & Hour Risks For Employers; Quest Diagnostics, Inc. To Pay $688,000 In Overtime Backpay.

Employers Should Strengthen Practices For Defensibility

As a consequence, most employers should review and document the defensibility of their existing practices for classifying and compensating workers under existing Federal and state wage and hour laws and take appropriate steps to minimize their potential liability under applicable wages and hour laws. To minimize exposure under the FLSA, employers should review and document the defensibility of their existing practices for classifying and compensating workers under existing Federal and state wage and hour laws and take appropriate steps to minimize their potential liability under applicable wages and hour laws. Steps advisable as part of this process include, but are not necessarily limited to:

Audit of each position current classified as exempt to assess its continued sustainability and to develop documentation justifying that characterization;
Audit characterization of workers obtained from staffing, employee leasing, independent contractor and other arrangements and implement contractual and other oversight arrangements to minimize risks that these relationships could create if workers are recharacterized as employed by the employer receiving these services;
Review the characterization of on-call and other time demands placed on employees to confirm that all compensable time is properly identified, tracked, documented, compensated and reported;
Review of existing practices for tracking compensable hours and paying non-exempt employees for compliance with applicable regulations and to identify opportunities to minimize costs and liabilities arising out of the regulatory mandates;
If the audit raises questions about the appropriateness of the classification of an employee as exempt, self-initiation of appropriate corrective action after consultation with qualified legal counsel;
Review of existing documentation and recordkeeping practices for hourly employees;
Exploration of available options and alternatives for calculating required wage payments to non-exempt employees; and
Reengineering of work rules and other practices to minimize costs and liabilities as appropriate in light of the regulations.

Because of the potentially significant liability exposure, employers generally will want to consult with qualified legal counsel prior to the commencement of their assessment and to conduct the assessment within the scope of attorney-client privilege to minimize risks that might arise out of communications made in the course of conducting this sensitive investigation.

For Help With Investigations, Policy Updates Or Other Needs

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 existing pay, workforce classification or other labor and employment, employee benefit or compensation practices, please contact the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer here or at (469)767-8872 .

Board Certified in Labor & Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, management attorney and consultant Ms. Stamer is nationally and internationally recognized for more than 23 years of work helping employers; employee benefit plans and their sponsors, administrators, fiduciaries; employee leasing, recruiting, staffing and other professional employment organizations; and others design, administer and defend innovative workforce, compensation, employee benefit and management policies and practices. The 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, 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 HR.com editorial advisory board member, Ms. Stamer frequently has worked, extensively on these and other workforce and performance related matters. She also is recognized for her publications, industry leadership, workshops and presentations on these and other human resources concerns and regularly speaks and conducts training on these matters.Her insights on these and other matters appear in the Bureau of National Affairs, Spencer Publications, the Wall Street Journal, the Dallas Business Journal, the Houston Business Journal, and many other national and local publications. For additional information about Ms. Stamer and her experience or to access other publications by Ms. Stamer see here or contact Ms. Stamer directly.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

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 New Employee Smart Phone App New Tool In Labor Department’s Aggressive Wage & Hour Law Enforcement Campaign Against Restaurant & Other Employers | Employers, Human Resources, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, Risk Management, Wage & Hour | Tagged: Backpay, Employer, Employment, employment law, Fair Labor Standards Act, FSLA, IT, Labor Department, Minimum Wage, Technology, Wage & Hour, wage and hour, Worker Classification | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Texas Landscaper’s $106,000 In Minimum Wage & Overtime Settlement Reminds Employers To Prepare For FLSA Enforcement

October 17, 2012

Midland, Texas-based landscaper, Turf Specialties Inc. (TSI) will pay $106,818 in back wages to 70 current and former landscape workers to settle charges made by the U.S. Department of Labor Wage and Hour Division (DOL) that TSI payment of workers a fixed, bi-weekly salary violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) minimum and overtime provisions. The settlement is a reminder to landscape and other U.S. employers of the importance of insuring that their company designs and administers worker classification, salary and other wage and compensation practices and data to defend against wage and other charges and claims.

FLSA & Other Minimum Wage & Overtime Violations Risky

The FLSA requires that properly classify covered non-exempt workers and pay the workers at least the federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour for all regular hours worked, plus time and one-half their regular rates, including commissions, bonuses and incentive pay, for hours worked beyond 40 per week. Employers treating workers performing serves as exempt from the FLSA minimum wage, overtime and other rules generally bear the burden of proving that the worker either is not properly classified as a common law employee or qualifies as exempt from the FLSA requirements under one of the applicable FLSA exemptions. For non-exempt employees, the applicable employer also generally is responsible for collecting and maintaining records of hours worked and its proper payment of minimum wage and overtime in accordance with the FLSA requirements. In addition to these federal rules, employers generally also are subject to various state minimum wage and overtime requirements. Beyond the risk of enforcement by the DOL and state labor officials, employers violating these rules also generally run the risk of lawsuits brought by employees or groups of employees, seeking actual damages, attorneys fees and costs and punitive or other awards.

TSI Action Illustrates Big Risks of Misclassification Or Other FLSA Violations

The TSI settlement announced today highlights some of the risks that employers run when they get caught playing fast and loose with the FLSA or other wage and hour laws.

According to today’s announcement, a DOL investigation of TSI uncovered a series of FLSA wage and hour DOL investigators found that TSI paid the landscape employees a fixed, biweekly salary that in many workweeks amounted to less than the federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour and did not compensate the employees at time and one-half their regular rates of pay for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a particular workweek. DOL also says that TSI committed other minimum wage and overtime violations by improperly deducting from employees’ paychecks amounts for uniforms, broken tools and equipment damage. Investigators also found that several employees working as “crew leaders” were improperly classified as exempt from the FLSA’s overtime provision and consequently denied proper overtime compensation.

TSI Settlement Highlights Rising Risks

One of a growing number of costly wage and hour law settlements, the TSI settlement is a relatively small reminder of how costly a mistake employers can make by engaging in overly aggressive worker classification or pay practices. Through the settlement, TSI avoided potentially much greater fines by agreeing to pay all back wages of more than $106,000 due to the affected workers and committing to future compliance with the FLSA. It comes on the same day as another employer might not get off that lucky. Along with the TSI announcement, DOL also announced that it sued to recover $285,000 in back wages for 171 Ohio restaurant workers working under restaurants three restaurants doing business as El Rancho Grande.Highlighting the growing exposure employers generally face from the heightened Labor Department emphasis on overtime and other wage and hour law enforcement, .the settlement also demonstrates the significant risks that employers face from mischaracterizing or failing to properly pay for on-call, standby or other similar times required of non-exempt employees. Employers and others providing workforce staffing should check and tighten existing worker classification, timekeeping and classification, record keeping and other practices and take other steps to strengthen the defensibility of their practices. As the DOL and private plaintiffs become increasingly aggressive about enforcing these rules, settlements of hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars are increasingly common. See, e.g. Record $2.3 Million+ H-2A Backpay Order Plus Civil Money Penalty Reminds Businesses Employing Foreign Workers To Manage Compliance; Employer Charged With Misclassifying & Underpaying Workers To Pay $754,578 FLSA Back pay Settlement; March 21 New Deadline To Comment On Proposal To Extend Minimum Wage, Overtime Rules To In Home Care Workers; $1 Million + FLSA Overtime Settlement Shows Employers Should Tighten On-Call, Other Wage & Hour Practices; 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.

Unfortunately, many employers often are overly optimistic or otherwise fail to properly understand and apply FLSA rules for characterizing on-call or other time, classifying workers as exempt versus non-exempt or making other key determinations.

Employers wearing rose-tinted glasses when making wage and hour worker classification or compensable time determinations tend to overlook the significance of the burden of proof they can expect to bear should their classification be challenged. Under the FLSA and applicable state wage and hour laws, employers generally bear the burden of proving that they have properly paid their employees in accordance with the FLSA. Additionally, the FLSA and most applicable state wage and hour laws typically mandate that employers maintain records of the hours worked by employees by non-exempt employees, documentation of the employer’s proper payment of its non-exempt employees in accordance with the minimum wage and overtime mandates of the FLSA, and certain other records. Since the burden of proof of compliance generally rests upon the employer, employers should take steps to ensure their ability to demonstrate that they have properly paid non-exempt employees in accordance with applicable FLSA and state wage and hour mandates and that employees not paid in accordance with these mandates qualify as exempt from coverage under the FLSA.

These mistakes can be very costly. Employers that fail to properly pay employees under Federal and state wage and hour regulations face substantial risk. In addition to liability for back pay awards, violation of wage and hour mandates carries substantial civil – and in the case of willful violations, even criminal liability exposure. Civil awards commonly include back pay, punitive damages and attorneys’ fees.

The potential that noncompliant employers will incur these liabilities has risen significantly in recent years. Under the Obama Administration, Labor Department officials have made it a priority to enforce overtime, record keeping, worker classification and other wage and hour law requirements. While all employers face heightened prosecution risks, federal officials specifically are targeting government contractors, health care, technology and certain other industry employers for special scrutiny. Meanwhile, private enforcement of these requirements by also has soared after the highly publicized implementation of updated FLSA regulations on the classification of workers during the last Bush Administration. See Minimum Wage, Overtime Risks Highlighted By Labor Department Strike Force Targeting Residential Care & Group Homes; Review & Strengthen Defensibility of Existing Worker Classification Practices In Light of Rising Congressional & Regulatory Scrutiny; 250 New Investigators, Renewed DOL Enforcement Emphasis Signal Rising Wage & Hour Risks For Employers; Quest Diagnostics, Inc. To Pay $688,000 In Overtime Backpay.

Employers Should Strengthen Worker Classification & Pay Practices For Defensibility

As a result, most employers should check and document the defensibility of their existing practices for classifying and compensating workers under existing Federal and state wage and hour laws and take proper steps to minimize their potential liability under applicable wages and hour laws. To minimize exposure under the FLSA, employers should review and document the defensibility of their existing practices for classifying and compensating workers under existing Federal and state wage and hour laws and tighten processes as needed to minimize their potential liability under applicable wages and hour laws. Steps advisable as part of this process include, but are not necessarily limited to:

Audit of each that the employer treats as either contract labor, salaried or otherwise exempt to assess its continued sustainability and to develop documentation justifying that characterization;
Audit characterization of workers obtained from staffing, employee leasing, independent contractor and other arrangements and implement contractual and other oversight arrangements to minimize risks that these relationships could create if workers are recharacterized as employed by the employer receiving these services;
Review situations where the employer pays a worker salary, flat fees for weeks of work, on-call, standby, per job, per diem or other ways other than on an hourly basisto confirm that all compensable time is properly identified, tracked, documented, compensated and reported;
Review of existing practices for tracking compensable hours and paying non-exempt employees for compliance with applicable regulations and to identify opportunities to minimize costs and liabilities arising out of the regulatory mandates;
If the audit raises questions about the appropriateness of the classification of an employee as exempt, consult with qualified, experienced legal counsel about options and the advisability of corrective action;
Review of existing documentation and recordkeeping practices for hourly, salaried, and other employees and contractors to build a safety net to help mitigate exposures in the event of reclassification or other challenges;
Explore available options and alternatives for calculating required wage payments to non-exempt employees;
Reengineer work rules and other practices to minimize costs and liabilities as appropriate in light of the regulations;
Re-evaluate these arrangements periodically, as well as in the event of a challenge by a similar worker; and
Stay vigilent.

Because of the potentially significant liability exposure, employers generally will want to consult with qualified legal counsel before beginning an assessment and to conduct the assessment within the scope of attorney-client privilege to minimize risks that might arise out of communications made in the course of conducting this sensitive investigation. Because conversations among leadership, with vendors, or with accounting or other consulting service providers about worker classification, wage and other compensation arrangements typically do not enjoy the protection of attorney-client privilege, employers also should exercise caution about securing the assistance of these service providers to conduct risk audits, or when discussing concerns or possible remedies with these parties unless and until proper arrangements are made to include those discussions within the scope of attorney-client privilege or making other suitable arrangements to manage the risks of these disclosures.

For Help With Investigations, Policy Updates Or Other Needs

If you need help in conducting a risk assessment of or responding to an IRS, Labor Department or other agency or private plaintiff legal challenges to your organization’s existing workforce classification, pay or other labor and employment, employee benefit or compensation practices, please contact the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer here or at (469) 767-8872 .

Board Certified in Labor & Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, management attorney and consultant Ms. Stamer is nationally and internationally recognized for more than 23 years of work helping employers; employee benefit plans and their sponsors, administrators, fiduciaries; employee leasing, recruiting, staffing and other professional employment organizations; and others design, administer and defend innovative workforce, compensation, employee benefit and management policies and practices. A member of the Editorial Advisory Board of HR.com, the immediate past Chair of the American Bar Association (ABA) RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Committee, a Council Representative on the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits, Government Affairs Committee Legislative Chair for the Dallas Human Resources Management Association, past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, Ms. Stamer frequently has worked, extensively on these and other workforce and performance related matters. She also is recognized for her publications, industry leadership, workshops and presentations on these and other human resources concerns and regularly speaks and conducts training on these matters.Her insights on these and other matters appear in the Bureau of National Affairs, Spencer Publications, the Wall Street Journal, the Dallas Business Journal, the Houston Business Journal, and many other national and local publications. For additional information about Ms. Stamer and her experience or to access other publications by Ms. Stamer see here or contact Ms. Stamer directly.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

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 Texas Landscaper’s $106,000 In Minimum Wage & Overtime Settlement Reminds Employers To Prepare For FLSA Enforcement | Employers, Human Resources, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, Risk Management, Wage & Hour | Tagged: Backpay, Employer, Employment, employment law, Fair Labor Standards Act, FSLA, IT, Labor Department, Minimum Wage, Technology, Wage & Hour, wage and hour, Worker Classification | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Tighten Disability Discrimination Defenses As National Disability Employment Awareness Month Promises To Whip Up New Claims & Awareness

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. With the Administration expected to step up further its already substantial educational outreach to the disabled and their advocates, U.S. employers should brace for this month’s celebration to fuel even more disability discrimination claims and other activity by the disabled and their activists.

Since taking office, President Obama has make enforcing and expanding the rights of the disabled in employment and other areas a leading priority.

In his proclamation 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. See, e.g. October Is National Disability Employment Awareness Month (NDEAM).

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 the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA), 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 experienced 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 prove 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 part 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 significantly stepped up enforcement of the ADA and other federal discrimination laws.

Recent enforcement, regulatory and other activities by the EEOC show 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.

Rising 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 more 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 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.

GINA & Other Medical Information Nondiscrimination & Privacy Risks

Employers also need to use care to ensure that their hiring and other employment practices, as well as their employee benefits, workers’ compensation and wellness practices are up to date and properly managed to mitigate exposures under laws like the Genetic Information and Nondiscrimination Act (GINA), the ADA’s medical information privacy requirements, as well as the privacy and nondiscrimination rules of the Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act and other relevant federal and state laws.

Signed into law by President Bush on May 21, 2008 and in effect since November 21, 2009, for instance, Title VII of GINA amended the Civil Rights Act to prohibit employment discrimination based on genetic information and to restrict 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 now 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:

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 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. Under these HIPAA and GINA rules, health plans generally may not make certain medical inquiries or discriminate against employees or their family members based on family or individual medical history or genetic information. In addition, health plans and others are required to safeguard personal medical information and may only share that information only under very limited circumstances requiring specific documentation be in place and that the parties can prove that the access and use of that information is appropriately restricted. Violation of these and other rules can have significant civil and in some cases even criminal liabilities for companies, plans, plan fiduciaries and company officials that take part in violations of these rules.

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 have 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.

All U.S. businesses should review and tighten the adequacy of their existing compliance and risk management practices to promote and document compliance. These efforts should focus on all relevant hiring, recruitment, promotion, compensation, recordkeeping and reporting policies and practices internally, as well as those of any recruiting agencies, subcontractors or other business partners whose actions might impact on compliance.

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 appropriately assess and identify 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 management might be tempted to assume fall outside the ADA’s scope.

Likewise, businesses should be ready 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 genetic information nondiscrimination and privacy rules enacted as part of GINA, the health care privacy rules of the HIPAA, and the medical record privacy rules of the ADA. Particular care should be used when planning wellness, health risk assessment, work-related injury, family or other medical leave or related programs, all of which raise particular risks and concerns.

In the face of the rising emphasis of OFCCP, the EEOC and other federal and state agencies on these audit and enforcement activities, government contractors should exercise additional compliance and risk management efforts beyond these generally recommended steps. Among other things, these steps should include the following:

Government contractors and subcontractors should specifically review their existing or proposed contracts and involvements to identify projects or contracts which may involve federal or state contracts or funding that could trigger responsibility. In this respect, businesses should conduct well-documented inquiries when proposing and accepting contracts to ensure that potential obligations as a government contractor are not overlooked because of inadequate intake procedures. Businesses also should keep in mind that ARRA and other federal program funds often may be filtered through a complex maze of federal grants or program funding to states or other organizations, which may pass along government contractor status and liability when subcontracting for services as part of the implementation of broader programs. Since the existence of these obligations often is signaled by contractual representations in the contracts with these parties, careful review of contractual or bid specifications and commitments is essential. However, it also generally is advisable also to inquire about whether the requested products or services are provided pursuant to programs or contracts subject to these requirements early in the process.
In addition to working to identify contracts and arrangements that are covered by OFCCP or other requirements, government contractors and other businesses also should reconfirm and continuously monitor the specific reporting, affirmative action, and other requirements that apply to any programs that may be subject to OFCCP requirements to ensure that they fully understand and implement appropriate procedures to comply with these conditions as well as pass along the obligation to make similarly necessary arrangements to any subcontractors or suppliers that the government contractor involves as a subcontractor.
Throughout the course of the contract, the government contractor also should take steps to maintain and file all required reports and monitor and audit operational compliance with these and other requirements.
The organization should develop and administer appropriate procedures for monitoring and investigating potential compliance concerns and maintaining documentation of that activity. Any known potential deficiencies or complaints should be promptly investigated and redressed with the assistance of qualified counsel in a prompt manner to mitigate potential risks.
Documentation should be carefully retained and organized on a real time and continuous basis to faciliate efficiency and effectiveness in completing required reports, monitoring compliance indicators and responding to OFCCP, EEOC or private plaintiff charges as well as other compliance inquiries.
Any audit inquiries or charges should be promptly referred to qualified legal counsel for timely evaluation and response.
When available and affordable, management should consider securing appropriate employment practices liability coverage, indemnification from business partners and other liability protection and assurance to help mitigate investigagtion and defense costs.
Board members or other senior management should include periodic review of compliance in their agenda.

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 help 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 469.767.8872.

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 meet their business and operational goals 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 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 here.

Other Helpful Resources & Other Information

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 Disability Discrimination Defenses As National Disability Employment Awareness Month Promises To Whip Up New Claims & Awareness | ADA, Affirmative Action, Civil Rights, Corporate Compliance, Data Security, Disability Plans, Discrimination, EEOC, Employers, GINA, Government Contractors, VEVRRA | Tagged: ADA, Disability, Disability Discrimination, EEOC, Employer, GINA, Human Resources, Rehabilitation Act, Risk Management | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

USI Advisors Will Pay $1.27 Million To Settle Charges It Violated ERISA Fee Disclosure Requirements

August 23, 2012

USI Advisors Inc. (USI) will pay $1,265,608.70 to 13 pension plans to resolve charges it violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) by failing to properly disclose 12b-1 fees it collected off of fund investments. The complaint behind the settlement reflects the commitment of the U.S Department of Labor Employee Benefit Security Administration (EBSA) to enforcing Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) fee disclosure and other requirements against service providers to employee benefit plans. With regulations tightening, the tough economy driving greater scrutiny of plan investments, expenditures and performance, and enforcement rising, plan vendors, and the employee benefit plan sponsors and fiduciaries responsible for their engagement, compensation and oversight need to ensure the adequacy of their processes for deciding and reporting compensation, as well as the qualification, selection and oversight of vendors and fiduciaries generally.

USI Settlement

An investigation by the U.S. Department of Labor’s Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA) USI, fiduciary investment adviser made investments in mutual funds on behalf of ERISA-covered defined benefit plan clients and received 12b-1 fees from those funds. A 12b-1 fee is paid by a mutual fund out of fund assets to cover certain expenses. USI Advisors failed to fully disclose the receipt of the 12b-1 fees, and to use those fees for the benefit of the plans either by directly crediting the amounts to the plans or by offsetting other fees the plans would be obligated to pay the company.

“If you, as an investment adviser, are a fiduciary under ERISA with respect to plan investments in mutual funds, you cannot use your fiduciary authority to receive an additional fee or to receive compensation from third parties for your own personal account in transactions involving plan assets. We are very pleased that this settlement addresses the problems we identified with USI’s practices and restores funds to the plans and their participants,” said Phyllis C. Borzi, assistant secretary of labor for employee benefits security. “We are also very pleased that recently finalized fee disclosure regulations issued by the Labor Department will require fiduciaries like USI to be more transparent about the fees they receive when dealing with their plan clients.”

Under the terms of the settlement, USI Advisors has agreed not to provide bundled investment advisory and actuarial services to any ERISA-covered defined benefit plan client without first entering into a written agreement, contract or letter of understanding that specifies the services provided and whether the company or its affiliates will act as a fiduciary to those plans. USI Advisors also will provide to clients a description of all compensation and fees received, in any form, from any source, involving any investment or transaction related to them.

The alleged violations in this case occurred between 2004 and 2010. USI Advisors is a wholly owned subsidiary of USI Consulting Group, a Goldman Sachs Capital Partners Co.

The investigation conducted by EBSA as part of the agency’s Consultant/Adviser Project, highlights the need for employee benefit plan fiduciaries and vendors alike to properly identify and report all vendor compensation received by employee benefit plan investment advisors and other service providers in compliance with ERISA’s fee disclosure and other requirements. The Consultant/Adviser Project targets vendors and advisors to employee benefit plans for review, and where applicable, enforcement action when service providers violate ERISA’s requirements. EBSA has made misconduct by consultants, advisors and other service providers a priority as part of its broader emphasis on enforcement of ERISA’s fiduciary responsibility and reporting requirements.

Tightening Rules, Enforcement & Tough Times Driving Risks

The EBSA’s announcement of the USI settlement comes as it continues to move forward to strengthen the transparency of vendor compensation and other fiduciary regulations and enforcement. Just shortly before today’s announcement, EBSA recently clarified its guidance about how its rules affect 401(k) plan brokerage window arrangements in response to public feedback. Field Assistance Bulletin No. 2012-02R published July 30, 2012, modifies and replaces Q&A 30 of Field Assistance Bulletin No. 2012-02 (issued May 7, 2012) with a new Q&A 39.

EBSA’s final fee disclosure regulation[i] published on requires plan administrators to make to disclose specified information about retirement plan fees and expenses to participants and beneficiaries. The regulation requires plan administrators to give participants and beneficiaries more informationm about administrative and investment fees and expenses in their 401(k) plans.

EBSA issued Field Assistance Bulletin No. 2012-02, which provided guidance to its field enforcement personnel in question and answer format on the obligations of plan administrators under the fee disclosure regulation on May 7, 2012. In response to questions and concerns about statements in Question 30 regarding brokerage windows and other arrangements that enable plan participants and beneficiaries to select investments beyond those designated by the plan, EBSA issued Field Assistance Bulletin No. 2012-02 which supersedes Field Assistance Bulletin 2012-02 by modifying its provisions about brokerage windows and inviting more public comments for EBSA to use to consider further clarification of this guidance.

As did its predecessor, Field Assistance Bulletin No. 2012-02R specifies that while the fee disclosure regulation covers “brokerage windows,” “self-directed brokerage accounts,” and other similar plan arrangements that enable participants and beneficiaries to select investments beyond those designated by the plan, its coverage of brokerage windows is limited to the disclosure requirements in paragraph (c) of the regulation relating to plan-related information. The disclosure requirements for investment-related information in paragraph (d) of the regulation do not apply to brokerage windows, self-directed brokerage accounts, and similar arrangements or to any investment selected by a participant or beneficiary that is not designated by the plan (i.e., any investments made through the window, account, or arrangement).

Beyond meeting the technicalities of the fee disclosure requirements, plan sponsors, fiduciaries and vendors should also ensure that their selection, oversight, determination of compensation and other dealings with plan vendors and consultants meet the general fiduciary responsibility, prohibited transaction, bonding and other requriements of ERISA, as well as any applicable securities and tax requirements.

Through its participant fee disclosure and other stepped up fiduciary regulations and enforcement, EBSA is sending clear signals that it stands ready to investigate and take action against service providers or others that charge excessive fees, failure to adequately justify or appropriately disclose fees or other compensation from plan transactions, or other fiduciary protections of ERISA. In the face of these requirements, plan fiduciaries, sponsors, advisors and vendors should carefully review the appropriateness of compensation received or promised to plan vendors, as well as the adequacy of practices for identifying and reporting that compensation and the selection and oversight of the vendors receiving that compensation.

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 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.

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

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

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:

[i]See 75 FR 64910 (Oct. 20, 2010).

1 Comment | Corporate Compliance, Defined Contribution Plans, Employers, ERISA, Excise Tax, Fiduciary Responsibility, Human Resources, Income Tax, Reporting & Disclosure, Retirement Plans | Tagged: 401(k) plans, brokerage accounts, compliance, Employee Benefits, Employer, ERISA, fee disclosure regulation, Fiduciary Responsibility, Finance, Health Care Reform. Employer, Management, Plan Sponosr, Retirement Plans, Risk Managment | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Employers & Plan Fiduciaries Reminded To Confirm Credentials & Bonding For Internal Staff, Plan Fidiciaries & Vendors Dealing With Benefits

August 13, 2012

Businesses sponsoring employee benefit plans and officers, directors, employees and others acting as fiduciaries with respect to these employee benefit plans should take steps to confirm that all of the appropriate fiduciary bonds required by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended (ERISA) are in place, that all employee benefit plans sponsored are appropriately covered, and that all individuals serving in key positions requiring bonding are covered and appropriately qualified to serve in that capacity under ERISA and the terms of the bond. Adequate attention to these concerns not only is a required component of ERISA’s fiduciary compliance, it also may provide invaluable protection if a dishonesty or other fiduciary breach results in a loss or other exposure.

ERISA generally requires that every employee benefit plan fiduciary, as well as every other person who handles funds or other property of a plan (a “plan official”), be bonded if they have some discretionary control over a plan or the assets of a related trust. While some narrow exceptions are available to this bonding requirement, these exceptions are very narrow and apply only if certain narrow criteria are met. Plan sponsors and other plan fiduciaries should take steps to ensure that all of the bonding requirements applicable to their employee benefit plans are met at least annually. Monitoring these compliance obligations is important not only for the 401(k) and other retirement plans typically associated with these requirements, but also for self-insured medical and other ERISA-covered employee benefit plans. This process of credentialing persons involved with the plan and auditing bonding generally should begin with adopting a written policy requiring bonding and verification of credentials and that that appropriate bonds are in place for all internal personnel and outside service providers.

Steps should be taken to ensure that the required fiduciary bonds are secured in sufficient amounts and scope to meet ERISA’s requirements. In addition to confirming the existence and amount of the fiduciary bonds, plan sponsors and fiduciaries should confirm that each employee plan for which bonding is required is listed in the bond and that the bond covers all individuals or organizations that ERISA requires to be bonded. For this purpose, the review should verify the sufficiency and adequacy of bonding in effect for both internal personnel as well as outside service providers. In the case of internal personnel, the adequacy of the bonds should be reviewed annually to ensure that bond amounts are appropriate. Unless a service provider provides a legal opinion that adequately demonstrates that an ERISA bonding exemption applies, plan sponsors and fiduciaries also should require that third party service providers provide proof of appropriate bonding as well as to contract to be bonded in accordance with ERISA and other applicable laws, to provide proof of their bonded status or documentation of their exemption, and to provide notice of events that could impact on their bonded status. When verifying the bonding requirements, it also is a good idea to conduct a criminal background check and other prudent investigation to reconfirm the credentials and suitability of individuals and organizations serving in fiduciary positions or otherwise acting in a capacity covered by ERISA’s bonding requirements. ERISA generally prohibits individuals convicted of certain crimes from serving, and prohibits plan sponsors, fiduciaries or others from knowingly hiring, retaining, employing or otherwise allowing these convicted individuals during or for the 13-year period after the later of the conviction or the end of imprisonment, to serve as:

An administrator, fiduciary, officer, trustee, custodian, counsel, agent, employee, or

representative in any capacity of any employee benefit plan,

A consultant or adviser to an employee benefit plan, including but not limited to any entity whose activities are in whole or substantial part devoted to providing goods or services to any employee benefit plan, or
In any capacity that involves decision-making authority or custody or control of the moneys, funds, assets, or property of any employee benefit plan.

Because ERISA’s bonding and prudent selection of fiduciaries and service provider requirements, breach of its provisions carries all the usual exposures of a fiduciary breach.

Bonding exposures can arise in audit or as part of a broader fiduciary investigation.The likelihood of discovery in an audit or investigation by the Labor Department in the course of an audit is high, as review of bonding is a standard part of audits and investigations. The Employee Benefit Security Administration (EBSA) Enforcement Manual specifies in connection with the conduct of a fiduciary investigation or audit:

… the Investigator/Auditor will ordinarily determine whether a plan is in compliance with the bonding, reporting, and disclosure provisions of ERISA by completing an ERISA Bonding Checklist … These checklists will be filled out in fiduciary cases and retained in the RO workpaper case file unless violations are uncovered, developed, and reported in the ROI.

In the best case scenario, where the bonding noncompliance comes to light in the course of an EBSA audit where no plan loss resulted, the responsible fiduciary generally runs at least a risk that EBSA will assess the 20 percent fiduciary penalty under ERISA Section 502(l). If the bonding lapse comes to light in connection with a fiduciary breach that resulted in damages to the plan by a fiduciary or other party, the bonding insufficiency may be itself a breach of fiduciary duty resulting in injury to the plan and where this breach left the plan unprotected against an act of dishonesty or fiduciary breach by an individual who should have been bonded, may spread liability for the wrongful acts of the wrongdoer to a plan sponsor, member of management or other party serving in a fiduciary role who otherwise would not be liable but for definiciences in the bonding or other credentialing responsibilities.

Under ERISA Section 409, a fiduciary generally is personally liable for injuries to the plan arising from his own breach (such as failure to properly bond) or resulting from breaches of another co-fiduciary who he knew or should have known through prudent exercise of his responsibilities.

Of course, in the most serious cases, such as embezzlement or other criminal acts by a fiduciary of ERISA, the consequences can be quite dire. Knowing or intentional violation of ERISA’s fiduciary responsibilities exposes the guilty fiduciary to fines of up to $10,000, imprisonment for not more than five years, or both. Even where the violation is not knowing or willful, however, allowing disqualified persons to serve in fiduciary roles can have serious consequences such as exposure to Department of Labor penalties and personal liability for breach of fiduciary duty for damages resulting to the plan if it is established that the retention of services was an imprudent engagement of such an individual that caused the loss. When conducting such a background check, care should be taken to comply with the applicable notice and consent requirements for conducting third party conducted background checks under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and otherwise applicable law. As such background investigations generally would be conducted in such a manner as to qualify as a credit check for purposes of the FCRA, conducting background checks in a manner that violates the FCRA credit check requirements itself can be a source of significant liability.

1 Comment | Affordable Care Act, Claims Administration, Corporate Compliance, Employers, ERISA, Excise Tax, Fiduciary Responsibility, Health Plans, Human Resources, Income Tax, Patient Empowerment, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Payroll Tax, Preemption, Privacy, Reporting & Disclosure, Tax, Wellness | Tagged: compliance, Employee Benefits, Employer, Finance, Health Benefits, Health Care Reform, Health Care Reform. Employer, Health Plans, Management, Plan Sponosr, Risk Managment | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

EBSA Updates Guidance On Fee Disclosure Requirements For 401(k) Plan Brokerage Window Arrangements

August 6, 2012

U.S. Department of Labor’s Employee Benefits Security Administration recently clarified its guidance about how its rules affect 401(k) plan brokerage window arrangements in response to public feedback. Field Assistance Bulletin No. 2012-02R published July 30, 2012, modifies and replaces Q&A 30 of Field Assistance Bulletin No. 2012-02 (issued May 7, 2012) with a new Q&A 39.

New Q-39 of Field Assistance Bulletin No. 2012-02R addresses when a plan offers an investment platform that includes a brokerage window, self-directed brokerage account, or similar plan arrangement but the fiduciary did not designate any of the funds on the platform or available through the brokerage window, self-directed brokerage account, or similar plan arrangement as “designated investment alternatives” under the plan, if the brokerage account platform or the brokerage window, self-directed brokerage account, or similar plan arrangement is a designated investment alternative for purposes of the regulation. According to Field Assistance Bulletin No. 2012-02R, it is not. According to the Field Assistance Bulletin, the regulation does not require that a plan have a particular number of “designated investment alternative” (DIA), and the Bulletin does not prohibit the use of a platform or a brokerage window, self-directed brokerage account, or similar plan arrangement in an individual account plan. Rather, whether an investment alternative is a DIA for purposes of the regulation depends on whether it is specifically identified as available under the plan.

However Question 39 also cautions plan administrators and fiduciaries about the need to ensure other applicable ERISA obligations are fulfilled. Field Assistance Bulletin 2012-02R notes it does not change the 404(c) regulation or the requirements for relief from fiduciary liability under section 404(c) of ERISA or address the application of ERISA’s general fiduciary requirements to SEPs or SIMPLE IRA plans. Also, fiduciaries of such plans with platforms or brokerage windows, self-directed brokerage accounts, or similar plan arrangements that enable participants and beneficiaries to select investments beyond those designated by the plan are still bound by ERISA section 404(a)’s statutory duties of prudence and loyalty to participants and beneficiaries who use the platform or the brokerage window, self-directed brokerage account, or similar plan arrangement, including taking into account the nature and quality of services provided in connection with the platform or the brokerage window, self-directed brokerage account, or similar plan arrangement. It also notes that that a 401(k) or other individual account plan fiduciary’s failure to designate investment alternatives to avoid investment disclosures under the regulation, raises questions under ERISA section 404(a)’s general statutory fiduciary duties of prudence and loyalty.

For Help or More Information

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

Recognized in Who’s Who In American Professionals and both an American Bar Association (ABA) and a State Bar of Texas Fellow, Ms. Stamer serves on the Editorial Advisory Board of Employee Benefits News, the editor and publisher of Solutions Law Press HR & Benefits Update and other Solutions Law Press Publications, and active in a multitude of other employee benefits, human resources and other professional and civic organizations. She also is a widely published author and highly regarded speaker on these matters. Her insights on these and other matters appear in the Bureau of National Affairs, Spencer Publications, the Wall Street Journal, the Dallas Business Journal, the Houston Business Journal, Modern and many other national and local publications. You can learn more about Ms. Stamer and her experience, review some of her other training, speaking, publications and other resources, and registerto 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:

[i]See 75 FR 64910 (Oct. 20, 2010).

Federal Mandate That Employer Health Plans Must Cover 100% Of Contraceptive, Other Women’s Health Services With No Cost Sharing Now Effective

August 6, 2012

August 1 Effective Date Of Obama Administration Addition of Contraception & Other Women’s Health Services To Already Lengthy List of Prevention Services Plans Must Cover

Effective August 1, 2012, federal regulators expanded the list of prevention-related services that the Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act (Affordable Care Act) requires that non-grandfathered group health plans cover in-network at no cost to covered persons to include eight more prevention-related health services for women including coverage for the mandate to cover certain contraceptive services that has engendered much debate and opposition from various religious organizations and others.

Employers and other sponsors and insurers of group health plans should review and update their health plan documents, contracts, communications and administration practices to ensure that their health plans and policies appropriately cover these and other prevention-related services that current federal regulations mandate that group health plans (other than grandfathered plans) must cover to comply with the Affordable Care Act.

Non-Grandfathered Health Plans Must Cover Expansive List of Prevention Services

As part of the sweeping reforms enacted by the Affordable Care Act, Congress has mandated that except for certain plans that qualify as “grandfathered,” group health plans and insurers generally must pay for 100% of the cost to cover hundreds of prevention-related health care services for individuals covered under their health plans without any co-payments or other cost-sharing.identified in the services without cost sharing.

Federal regulations have mandated since 2010 that group health plans and insurers provide in-network coverage in accordance with federal regulations implementing the Affordable Care Act’s prevention-related health services mandates for more than 800 prevention-related services listed in regulations originally published in 2009. See Agencies Release Regulations Implementing Affordable Care Act Preventive Care Mandates. The Affordable Care Act gives federal authorities the power to expand or modify this list. Following publication of the original list, the Obama Administration engaged in lengthy discussion considerations about the scope of contraceptive and other women’s health services that would qualify as prevention related services including lengthy discussions and negotiations about mandates to provide contraceptive services viewed as highly controversial by many religious organizations and several other employers. See Affordable Care Act To Require Health Plans Cover Contraception & Other Women’s Health Procedures.

Obama Administration Adds Contraceptive & Other Women’s Health Services To Required List Effective 8/1/2012

The Obama Administration moved forward on its promise to add contraceptive services and a broad list of other women’s health services to the list of prevention-related health services that employer-sponsored health plans must cover without cost to employees despite objections from religious organizations and others that the contraception mandate violates the Constitution’s freedom of religion protections.

The Obama Administration’s announcement earlier this year that it intended to move forward with plans to mandate that group health plans – including those of certain employers affiliated with religious organizations to cover contraceptive counseling and other services as prevention-related services has prompted outcry and legal challenges from a broad range of religious organizations and others. See e.g., University of Notre Dame v. Sebelius; Hercules Industries, Inc. v. Sebelius. On July 27, 2012, a Colorado District Court granted a temporary injunction barring enforcement of the contraceptive coverage mandate against a small, Catholic family-owned business challenging the mandate as a violation of the Constitutional religious freedoms of its owners. See Hercules Industries, Inc. v. Sebelius.

While these and other litigants continue to challenge the contraceptive mandates, Obama Administration officials continue to voice their commitment to standby and enforce the contraceptive and other prevention-related services mandates as implemented by current regulation. Employer and other health plan sponsors and fiduciaries that do not wish to risk exposure for violating these mandates should review and update their health plan documents, summary plan descriptions and other communications, and administrative and other procedures as necessary to comply with the applicable requirements of the regulations.

For Help or More Information

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 leading health and managed care, employee benefit, human resources and related workforce, insurance and financial services, and health care matters.

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

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:

1 Comment | Affordable Care Act, Claims Administration, Corporate Compliance, Employers, ERISA, Excise Tax, Fiduciary Responsibility, Health Plans, Human Resources, Patient Empowerment, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Preemption, Privacy, Reporting & Disclosure, Tax, Wellness | Tagged: compliance, Employee Benefits, Employer, Finance, Health Care Reform. Employer, Health Plans, Management, Mandated Benefits, Plan Sponosr, preventive care, Risk Managment, Women's Health | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

12 Steps Every Employer With A Health Plan Should Do Now To Manage 2012-14 Health Plan Risks & Liabilities

August 1, 2012

August 1 marked the effective date of yet another Affordable Care Act mandate: the controversial contraceptive coverage and other women’s health preventive coverage benefits mandates. Although many mandates have taken effect over the past two years, few employer plans are adequately updated. Here’s some suggestions about what employers and fiduciaries responsible for group health plan sponsorship or administration and their vendors should do now to manage exposures arising from current Affordable Care Act and other federal health plan rules. Following the Supreme Court’s June 28, 2012 National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius ruling, most employers and insurers of employment based group health plans now are bracing to cope with radical changes in their health plan related responsibilities scheduled to take effect in 2014.

While anticipating and preparing to cope with these future changes health plan sponsors, fiduciaries, administrators and advisors need to manage the substantial and growing health plan related costs and liabilities that the sponsorship or administration of an employee health plan between now and 2014 is likely to create for their company and its management. Consequently, while planning for 2014, employers sponsoring health plans and their management, insurers, administrators and vendors must act now to update and administer their group health plans timely to comply with the requirements of the Affordable Care Act and other federal rules that have, or in coming months will, take effect pending the law’s full rollout in 2014.

For most health plans, these steps should include the following:

Know The Cast Of Characters & What Hat(s) (Including You) They Wear & Prudently Select, Contract With & Monitor Them To Manage Risks

Employers and their management rely upon many vendors and advisors and assumptions when making plan design and risk management decisions. Many times, employer and members of their management unknowingly assume significant risk because of misperceptions about these allocations of duties and operational and legal accountability. An correct understanding of these roles and responsibilities is the foundation for knowing where the risks come from, who and to what extent a business or its management can rely upon a vendor or advisor to properly design and administer a health plan or carry out related obligations, what risks cannot be delegated, and how to manage these risks.

Under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), party or parties that exercise discretion or control over health plan administration, funds or certain other matters are generally called “fiduciaries.” Fiduciaries generally are personally liable for prudently and appropriately administering their health plan related responsibilities prudently in accordance with ERISA and other applicable laws and the plan terms. Knowing who is acting as a fiduciary and understanding those duties and liabilities and how to manage these risks significantly affects the exposure that an employer or member of its management risks as a result of an employer’s sponsorship in a group health plan or other employee benefit program. Also, knowing what duties come first and how to prove that the fiduciary did the right thing is critical to managing risks when an individual who has fiduciary responsibilities under ERISA also has other responsibilities in the management of the sponsoring employer, a vendor or elsewhere that carries duties or interests that conflict with his health plan related fiduciary duties.

The plan sponsor or members of its leadership, a service provider or members of their staff generally may be a fiduciary for purposes of ERISA if it either is named as the fiduciary, it functionally exercises the discretion to be considered a fiduciary, or it otherwise has discretionary power over plan administration or other fiduciary matters. Many plan sponsors and their management unwittingly take on liability that they assume rests with an insurer or service provider because the company or members of its management are named as the plan administrator or named fiduciary with regard to duties that the company has hired an insurer or service provider to provide or allowed that service provider to disclaim fiduciary or discretionary status with regard to those responsibilities. Also, by not knowing who the fiduciaries are, plans and their fiduciaries often fail to confirm the eligibility of all parties serving as fiduciaries, to arrange for bonding of service providers or fiduciaries as required to comply with Title I of ERISA. Failing to properly understand when the plan sponsor, member of its management or another party is or could be a fiduciary can create unnecessary and unexpected risks and lead to reliance upon vendors who provide advice but leave the employer holding the bag for resulting liability.

In addition to fiduciary status, employer and other plan sponsors also need to understand the additional responsibilities and exposures that the employer bears as a plan sponsor. Beyond contractual and fiduciary liabilities, federal law increasingly imposes excise tax or other liability for failing to maintain legally compliant plans, file required reports, provide required notifications or fulfill other requirements. The Affordable Care Act, the Internal Revenue Code, the Social Security Act, the Privacy, Security, and Administrative Simplification For instance, the Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act (HIPAA) and various other federal laws also impose certain health plan related obligations and liabilities on employer or other health plan sponsors and other parties. The Internal Revenue Service interprets Internal Revenue Code § 6039D as obligating employers sponsoring health plans that violate these and certain other federal health plan rules to self-identify, self-report, and self-assess and pay excise and other taxes due under the Internal Revenue Code as a result of this non-compliance. Knowing what everyone’s roles and responsibilities are is a critical first step to properly understanding and managing health plan responsibilities and related risks.

An accurate understanding of the risks and who bears them is critical to understand the risks, opportunities to mitigate risk through effective contracting or other outsourcing, when outsourcing does not effectively transfer risks, where to invest resources for contract, plan or process review and changes or other risk management, and where to expect costs and risks and implement processes and procedures to deal with risks that cannot be outsourced or managed.

Know What Rules Apply To Your Plan, The Sponsoring Employer, The Plan Its Fiduciaries & Plan Related Vendors & How This Impacts You & Your Group Health Plan

The requirements and rules impacting health plans and their liabilities have undergone continuous changes. Amid these changing requirements, health plans, their sponsors, fiduciaries, insurers, and service providers often may not have kept their knowledge, much less their plan documents, summary plan descriptions and other communications, administrative forms and procedures and other materials and practices up to date. These requirements and their compliance and risk management significance may vary depending upon whether the reviewing or regulated party is the plan, its sponsor, fiduciary, insurer or services in some other rules; how the plans are arranged and documented, the risk and indemnification allocations negotiated among the parties, the risk tolerance of the party, and other factors. Proper understanding of these rules and their implications is critical to understand and manage the applicable risks and exposures.

Review & Update Health Plan Documents, SPDs & Other Communications, Administrative Forms & Procedures, Contracts & Processes To Meet Requirements & Manage Exposures

Timely updating written plan documents, communications and administration forms, administrative practices, contracts and other health plan related materials processes and procedures has never been more critical.

Federal law generally requires that health plan be established, maintained and administered in accordance with legally complaint, written plan documents and impose a growing list of standards and requirements governing the design and administration of these programs. In addition, ERISA, the Internal Revenue Code, the Social Security Act, federal eligibility and coverage continuation mandates of laws like the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA), the Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act, the Family & Medical Leave Act, Michelle’s Law and others require that health plan administrators or sponsors communicate plan terms and other relevant information to participants and beneficiaries.

Failing to update documents, communications, administrative forms and processes and other materials and practices can unleash a host of exposures. Among other things, noncompliant plans, communications and practices can trigger unanticipated costs and liabilities by undermining the ability to administer plan terms and conditions. They also may expose the plan, plan fiduciaries and others to lawsuits, administrative enforcement and sanctions and other enforcement liabilities.

Beyond these exposures, employers who sponsor group health plans that violate certain federal group health plan mandates have a duty to self-report certain regulatory plan failures and pay excise taxes where such failures are not corrected in a timely fashion once discovered, or are due to willful neglect. Internal Revenue Code Section 6039D imposes excise taxes for failure to comply with health care continuation (COBRA) , health plan portability (HIPAA), genetic nondiscrimination (GINA), mental health parity (MHPAEA) , minimum hospital stays for newborns and mothers (Newborns’ and Mothers’ Health Protection Act), coverage of dependent students on medically necessary leaves of absence (Michelle’s Law), health savings account (HSA) and Archer medical savings account (Archer MSA) contribution comparability and various other federal requirements incorporated into the Internal Revenue Code. Since 2010, Internal Revenue Service regulations have required employers sponsoring group health plans not complying with mandates covered by Internal Revenue Code Section 6039D to self-report violations and pay related excise taxes. Under these regulations, the sponsoring employer (or in some cases, the insurer, HMO or third-party administrator) must report health plan compliance failures annually on IRS Form 8928 (“Return of Certain Excise Taxes Under Chapter 43 of the Internal Revenue Code”) and self-assess and pay resulting excise taxes. The potential excise tax liability that can result under these provisions can be significant. For example, COBRA, HIPAA, and GINA violations typically carry excise tax liability of $100 per day per individual affected. Compliance with applicable federal group health plan mandates is critical to avoid these excise taxes as well as other federal group health plan liabilities.

For this purpose of deciding what and how much to do, it is critical to keep in mind the devil is in the details. Not only must the documentation meet all technical mandates, the language, its clarity and specificity, and getting the plan document to match the actual processes that will be used to administer the plan and ensuring that the plan documents and processes match the summary plan description, summary of benefits and coverage, administrative forms and documentation and other plan communications and documentation in a legally compliant way significantly impacts the defensibility of the plan terms and the cost that the plan, its sponsor and fiduciaries can expect to incur to defend it.

Update & Tighten Claims and Appeals Plan & SPD Language, EOBs & Other Notifications, Processes, Contracts & Other Practices For Changing Compliance Requirements & Enhanced Defensibility

Unfortunately, most group health plans, their insurers and administrators need to substantially strengthen their plan documentation; handling; timeliness; notifications and other claims denials; and other claims and other appeals processes and documentation to meet existing regulations and otherwise strengthen their defensibility. Among other things, existing court decisions document that many plans existing plan documents, summary plan descriptions and explanations of benefits, claims and appeals investigations and documentation and notifications often need improvement to meet the basic plan document, summary plan description and reasonable claims rules of the plan document, summary plan description, fiduciary responsibility, reasonable claims and appeals procedures of ERISA and its implementing regulations. Court precedent shows that inadequate drafting of these provisions, as well as specific provisions coverage and benefit provisions frequently undermines the defensibility of claims and appeals determinations. In addition to requiring that claims be processed and paid prudently in accordance with the terms of written plan documents, ERISA also requirements that plan fiduciaries decide and administer claims and appeals in accordance with reasonable claims procedures. Although the Labor Department updated its regulations implementing this reasonable claims and appeals procedure requirement more than 10 years ago, the Department of Labor updated its ERISA claims and appeals regulations to include detailed health plan claims and appeals requirements, many group health plans, their administrators and insurers still have not updated their health plans, summary plan descriptions, claims and appeals notification, and claims and appeals procedures to comply with these requirements. The external review and other detailed additional requirements that the Affordable Care Act dictates that group health plans not grandfathered from its provisions and its provisions holding these non-grandfathered plans strictly liable for deficiencies in their claims and appeals procedures makes the need to address inadequacies even more imperative for those non-grandfathered group health plans. Inadequate attention to these concerns can force a plan to pay benefits for claims otherwise not covered as well as other defense costs and penalties.

Consistency Matters: Build Good Plan Design, Documentation & Processes, Then Follow Them.

Defensible health plan administration starts with the building and adopting strong, legally compliant plan terms and processes that are carefully documented and communicated in a prudent, legally compliant way. The next key is to actually use this investment by conducting plan administration and related operations consistent with the terms and allocated responsibilities to administer the plan in a documented, legally compliant and prudent manner. Good documentation and design on the front end should minimize ambiguities in the meaning of the plan and who is responsible for doing what when. With these tools in place, delays and other hiccups that result from confusion about plan terms, how they apply to a particular circumstance or who is responsible for doing what, when should be minimized and much more easily resolved by timely, appropriate action by the proper responsible party. This facilitation of administration and its consistency can do much to enhance the defensibility of the plan and minimize other plan related risks and costs.

Ensure Correct Party Carefully Communicates About Coverage and Claims in Compliant, Timely, Prudent, Provable Manner

Having the proper party respond to claims and inquiries in a compliant, timely, prudent manner is another key element to managing health plan risk and promoting enforceability. Ideally, the party appointed to act as the named fiduciary for purposes of carrying out a particular function also should conduct all plan communications regarding that function in terms that makes clear its role and negates responsibility or authority of others. When an employer or other plan sponsor goes to the trouble to appoint a committee, service provider or other party to serve as the named fiduciary then chooses to communicate about the plan anyway, the Supreme Court in FMC v. Halliday made clear it runs the risk that the plan related communications may be considered discretionary fiduciary conduct for which it may be liable as a functional fiduciary. Meanwhile, these communications by non-fiduciaries also may create binding obligations upon the plan and its named fiduciaries to the extent made by a plan sponsor or conducted by a staff member or service provider performing responsibilities delegated by the plan fiduciary. Beyond expanding the scope of potential fiduciaries, communications conducted by nonfiduciaries also tend to create defensibility for many other reasons. For instance, allowing unauthorized parties to perform plan functions may not comport with the plan terms, and are less likely to create and preserve required documentation and follow procedures necessary to promote enforceability. Also, the communications, decisions and other actions by these non-fiduciary actors also are unlikely to qualify for discretionary review by the courts because grants of discretionary authority, if any in the written plan document to qualify the decisions of the named fiduciary for deferential review by courts typically will not extend to actions by these non-fiduciary parties. Furthermore, the likelihood that the communication or other activity conducted will not comply with the fiduciary responsibility or other requirements governing the performance of the plan related functions is significantly increased when a plan sponsor, service provider, member of management, or other party not who has not been appointed or accepted the appointment act as a named fiduciary undertakes to speak or act because that party very likely does not accept or fully appreciate the potential nature of its actions, the fiduciary and other legal rules applicable to the conduct, and the potential implications for the non-fiduciary actor, the plan and its fiduciaries.

Design and Implement Updated, Properly Secured Payroll, Enrollment, Eligibility and Other Data Collection Features To Meet New Requirements and Prepare For Added Affordable Care Act Data Gathering and Reporting Requirements.

Existing and impending Affordable Care Act mandates require that group health plans, their sponsors collect, maintain and administer is exploding. Existing eligibility mandates, for example, already require that plans have access to a broad range of personal indentifying, personal health and a broad range of other sensitive information about employees and dependents who are or may be eligible for coverage under the plan. While employers and their health plans historically have collected and retained the names, place of residence, family relationships, social security number, and other similar information about employees and their dependents, these data collection, retention and reporting requirements have and will continued to expand dramatically in response to evolving legal requirements. Already, health plans also from time to time need employee earnings, company ownership, employment status, family income, family, medical, military, and school leave information, divorce and child custody, enrollment in Medicare, Medicaid and other coverage and a broad range of other additional information. Under the Affordable Care Act, these data needs will explode to include a whole new range of information about total family income, availability and enrollment in other coverage, cultural and language affiliations, and many other items. Collecting, retaining and deploying this information will be critical to meeting existing and new plan administration and reporting requirements. How this data collection is conducted, shared, safeguarded against misuse or other legally sensitive contact by the employer, service providers, the plan and others will be essential to mitigate exposures to federal employment and other nondiscrimination, HIPAA and other privacy, fiduciary responsibility and other legal risks and obligations. To the extent that payroll providers, third party administrators or other outside service providers will participate in the collection, retention, or use of this data, time also should be set aside both to conduct due diligence about their suitability, as well as to negotiate the necessary contractual arrangements and safeguards to make their involvement appropriate. Finally, given the highly sensitive nature of this data, employers, health plans and others that will collect and use this data will need to implement appropriate safeguards to prevent and monitor for improper use, access or disclosure and to conduct the necessary training to suitably protect this data.

Monitor, Assess Implications & Provide Relevant Input to Regulators About Emerging Requirements & Interpretive Guidance Implementing 2014 Affordable Care Act & Other Mandates.

While the Supreme Court’s decision upholds the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandates, many opportunities to impact its mandates remain. Beyond the highly visible, continuing and often heated debates ranging in Congress and the court of public opinion concerning whether Congress should modify or repeal its provisions, a plethora of regulatory interpretations issued or impending release by the implementing agencies, the Internal Revenue Service, Department of Health & Human Services, Department of Labor and state insurance regulators will significantly impact what requirements and costs employers, insurers, individuals and governments will bear when the law takes effect. Businesses sponsoring health plans should carefully scrutinize this regulatory guidance and provide meaningful, timely input to Congress, the regulators or both as appropriate to help influence the direction of regulatory or Congressional actions that would materially impact these burdens.

Help Employees & Their Families Build Their Health Care Coping Skills With Training & Supportive Tools

Whether or not your company plans to continue to sponsor employee health coverage after 2014, providing training and tools to help employees and their families strengthen their ability to understand and manage their health, health care needs and benefits can pay big dividends. Beyond the financial costs to employees and employers of paying to care for a serious illness or injury, productivity also suffers while employees dealing with their own or a family member’s chronic or serious health care condition. Wellness programs that encourage and support the efforts of employees and their families to stay healthy may be one valuable part of these efforts. Beyond trying to prevent the need to cope with illness behind wellness programs, however, opportunities to realize big financial, productivity and benefit value recognition rewards also exist in the too often overlooked opportunity to provide training, education and tools that employees and their families need to better understand and self-manage care, benefits, finances and life challenges that commonly arise when dealing with their own or a family member’s illness. Providing education, tools and other resources that can help employees access, organize and effectively use health care and benefit information to manage care and the consequences of illness, their benefits and how to use them, to take part more effectively in care and care decisions, to recognize and self-manage financial, lost-time and other challenges associated with the illness not addressable or covered by health benefit programs, and other practical skills can help reduce lost time and other productivity impacts while helping employees and their families get the most out of the health care dollars spent.

Pack Your Parachute & Locate The Nearest Exit Doors

With the parade of expenses and liabilities associated with health plans, businesses sponsoring health plans and the management, service providers and others involved in their establishment, continuation, maintenance or administration are well advised to pack their survival kit and develop their exit strategies to position to soften the landing in case their health plan experiences a legal or operational disaster.

Employers and other health plan sponsors and fiduciaries typically hire and rely upon a host of vendors and advisors to design and administer their health plans. When selecting and hiring these service providers, health plan sponsors and fiduciaries are well-advised to investigate carefully their credentials as well as require the vendors to provide written commitments to stand behind their advice and services. Too often, while these service providers and advisors encourage plan sponsors and fiduciaries to allow the vendor to lead them or even handle on an ongoing basis plan administration services by touting their services, experience, expert systems and process and commitment to stand behind the customer when making the sale or encouraging reliance upon their advice when tough decisions are made, they rush to stand behind exculpatory and on-sided indemnification provisions in their service contracts to limit or avoid liability, demand indemnification from their customer or both when things go wrong. While ERISA may offer some relief from certain of these exculpatory provisions under some circumstances, plan sponsors and fiduciaries should work to credential service providers and require service providers to commit to being accountable for their services by requiring contracts acknowledge all promised services and standards of quality, require vendors to commit to provide legally compliant and prudently designed and administered services that meet or exceed applicable legal requirements, to provide liability-backed indemnification or other protection for damages and costs resulting from vendor imprudence or malfeasance, to allow for contract termination if the vendor becomes unsuitable for continued use due to changing law or other circumstances and requiring the vendor to return data and other documentation critical to defend past decisions and provide for ongoing administration. Keep documentation about advice, assurances and other relevant evidence received from vendors which could be useful in showing your company’s or plan’s efforts to make prudent efforts to provide for the proper administration of the plan. When concerns arise, use care to investigate and redress concerns in a timely, measured fashion which both shows the prudent response to the concern and reflects sensitivity to the fiduciary and other roles and responsibilities of the employer sponsor and other parties involved.

Get Moving Now On Your Compliance & Risk Management Issues.

Since many compliance deadlines already have past and the impending deadlines allow plan sponsors and fiduciaries limited time to finish arrangements, businesses, fiduciaries and their service providers need to get moving immediately to update their health plans to meet existing and impending compliance and risk management risks under the Affordable Care Act and other federal laws, decisions and regulations.

Monitor, Assess Implications & Provide Relevant Input to Regulators About Emerging Requirements & Interpretive Guidance Implementing 2014 Affordable Care Act & Other Mandates.

While the Supreme Court upheld the individual mandate, employer and other health plan sponsors, Congress continues to debate changes to the Affordable Care Act and other federal health plan rules. Meanwhile, significant opportunity still exists to provide input to federal and state regulators on many key aspects of the Affordable Care Act and its relationship to other applicable laws even as court challenges to contraceptive coverage and other specific requirements are emerging. Businesses and other health plan sponsors, plan fiduciaries, insurers and administrators, and other vendors must stay involved and alert. Zealously monitor new developments and share timely input with Congress and regulators about existing and emerging rules that present concerns and other opportunities for improvement even as you position to respond to these rules before they become fully implemented.

For Help or More Information

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

Recognized in Who’s Who In American Professionals and both an American Bar Association (ABA) and a State Bar of Texas Fellow, Ms. Stamer serves on the Editorial Advisory Board of Employee Benefits News, the editor and publisher of Solutions Law Press HR & Benefits Update and other Solutions Law Press Publications, and active in a multitude of other employee benefits, human resources and other professional and civic organizations. She also is a widely published author and highly regarded speaker on these matters. Her insights on these and other matters appear in the Bureau of National Affairs, Spencer Publications, the Wall Street Journal, the Dallas Business Journal, the Houston Business Journal, Modern and many other national and local publications. You can learn more about Ms. Stamer and her experience, review some of her other training, speaking, publications and other resources, and registerto 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 12 Steps Every Employer With A Health Plan Should Do Now To Manage 2012-14 Health Plan Risks & Liabilities | Affordable Care Act, Claims Administration, Corporate Compliance, Data Security, Employers, ERISA, Excise Tax, Fiduciary Responsibility, Health Plans, Human Resources, Income Tax, Patient Empowerment, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Payroll Tax, Preemption, Privacy, Reporting & Disclosure, Tax, Wellness | Tagged: compliance, Employee Benefits, Employer, Finance, Health Benefits, Health Care Reform, Health Care Reform. Employer, Health Plans, Management, Plan Sponosr, Risk Managment | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Essential Health Benefit Definition Built On Expensive Mandated Benefit Plan Likely To Be Expensive For Employers, States & Individuals

July 20, 2012

Learn More & Get A 2012 Health Plan Compliance Checkup at 7/24 Health Plan Update WebEx Workshop!

Concerned about how the mandates and costs of the Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act will impact your corporate and family finances following the Supreme Court’s June 28, 2012 National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius ruling upholding the constitutionality of the individual mandate of the Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act (ACA)? Businesses, individuals, states and federal and state Congressional and regulatory leaders others looking for opportunities to manage these costs should carefully scrutinize how the Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) plans to define “essential health benefits” (EHBs).

Essential Health Benefit Determinations Impact Program Designs and Costs

The definition of EHBs is pivotal to determining the benefits required to be offered by payers and purchased by individuals under the Affordable Care Act now as well as when full Affordable Care Act implementation happens in 2014. Of course, the already effective Affordable Care Act’s restrictions on lifetime and annual dollar limitations on EHBs provided under covered health plans and insurance policies already have impacted the plan designs and costs of existing coverages.

Beginning in 2014, the Affordable Care Act will require that all non-grandfathered health plans in the insured individual and small group market and certain covered state and federal programs will cover at least the EHB as defined by HHS. Although the Affordable Care Act does not directly obligate self-insured group health plans, large group market health plans, and grandfathered health plans to design their plan to provide the coverage included in the required EHB package after 3014, the EHB package design also will affect the costs of these plans by prohibiting these plans from imposing annual and lifetime dollar limits on EHBs even though the final process for determining what is an EHB for these employer-sponsored health plan purposes has yet to be finalized.

Furthermore, since the Affordable Care Act currently restricts both insured and self-insured health plans of all sizes from imposing lifetime and annual dollar limits on benefits and services listed in the Affordable Care Act as required EHBs, the statutory list of EHBs already is having significant cost implications for employers and health plans and their health plan designs. These implications will only grow as full implementation of the Affordable Care Act reform occurs in 2014. Thus, the definition of EHB and how it is a key determinant of the ultimate cost of the Affordable Care Act mandates for individuals, employers, insurers, states, the federal government and ultimately taxpayers.

HHS Guidance Promotes Benefit-Rich EHB Program Mandate For States & Individual & Small Group Insured Programs & Policies

The current approach of the HHS to determining the services and benefits for non-grandfathered individual and small group market insured plans and covered state and federal benefit programs will be skewed toward the benefit rich plan design of federal and state employee health plans and benefit mandate-laden small group insurance plans even though the majority of employer sponsored health plans are self-insured plans that contain more limited benefit packages.

The Affordable Care Act directs that the EHB reflect the scope of benefits covered by a “typical employer plan” and cover at least the following general categories of items and services: categories of items and services: ambulatory patient services; emergency services; hospitalization; maternity and newborn care; mental health and substance use disorder services, including behavioral health treatment; prescription drugs; rehabilitative and habilitative services and devices; laboratory services; preventive and wellness services and chronic disease management; and pediatric services, including oral and vision care (Listed EHB).

An overly-rich EHBs definition will require that individual and insured small group employer health plans, insurers, state Medicaid and Exchanges and the federal exchanges provide, and individuals in these programs purchase, a much richer set of benefits than is currently provided to the majority of employees under the self-insured, employer-sponsored health plans under which they are covered when most are struggling to deal with already over-extended budgets.

Although 60% or more of all employer-sponsored health plans nationwide and 82% of plans sponsored by companies employing more than 200 workers are “self-insured” health plans exempt from the obligation to provide the state mandated benefits that apply to insured plans under state insurance regulations, HHS is largely ignoring the practices of these self-insured health plans for purposes of defining the EHBs package that plans and other payers must offer as EHBs.

Unlike insured health plans, self-insured health plans generally are exempted from the obligation to comply with mandated benefits requirements of state insurance laws pursuant to the preemption provisions of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). Avoidance of the cost of providing state mandated benefits typically is one of the primary reasons that an employer chooses to offer health plan coverage on a self-insured rather than insured basis. Consequently, the care and services covered by self-insured health plans typically are less generous in many respects than those provided by state and federal employee health plans or individual or group health insurance policies regulated by state insurance law.

Even knowing that the majority of employer-sponsored coverage is provided on a self-insured basis and that federal, state, employer and individual budgets are already strained, HHS nevertheless set up the process so that practices of the government employee health programs and state-regulated insurance policies subject to a wide range of state benefit mandates will determine the EHBs package.

Both state-regulated insured health plans and federal and state employee plans generally are loaded with a long list of mandated benefits that self-insured health plans don’t provide or provide only on a more limited basis. Because self-insured plans are exempt from the duty to comply with state insurance mandated benefit regulations, the benefit package provided under a self-insured plan typically is not as extravagant as the benefit package offered by insurance plans required to comply with state benefit mandates or by the federal or state employee health insurance programs paid for with taxpayer dollars, the process ensures a richer EHB package.

More required benefits means more required costs and the required EHB package determines the benefits required. Thus, HHS’s decision to model the Affordable Care Act’s definition of EHBs upon federal and state employee health plans and insured state policies when the sponsors of those programs already are struggling to pay for the costs of the plush benefit packages dictated by law merely promises to overburden the fiscal resources of these sponsors and the individuals required to participate and contribute to these programs.

Nevertheless, driven by an administration firmly entrenched in the utopian delusions that money is no object when it comes to promising health care benefits, HHS is diligently proceeding on a path to ensure that the benefit-rich, more expensive government employee health plan/state regulated insured plan model determines the required EHBs.

Under the intended process announced by HHS Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight (CCIIO) on December 16, 2011, HHS announced that it would allow each state to decide the EHBs package on a state-by-state by choosing a “benchmark health plan” that meets HHS standards. While HHS touted the decision as allowing states significant choice, as outlined in more detail in the paragraphs that follow, in reality the parameters within which HHS will require states to exercise this choice provides little flexibility for states to control costs by adopting a limited EHB package. Furthermore, final regulations published in the July 20, 2012 Federal Register that define the data that HHS will rely upon to define and update the EHB definition going forward also layout a process that will almost certainly result in a much richer package of EHBs than what most employees covered by self-insured employer or union-sponsored health plans enjoy today.

In December 2011, HHS announced its intention to allowing states the “flexibility” to define EHB on a state by state basis provided that the state’s EHB definition meets minimum standards required by HHS. Under this approach, the benefits and services included in the benchmark health insurance plan selected by the state would be the EHBs package. States in deciding the required EHB package could modify coverage within a benefit category so long as they do not reduce the value of coverage.

To set the EHBs package for its state, HHS intend that a state will decide the benefits and services required in the EHBs package by choosing one of the following programs, (supplemented as necessary to ensure that the benchmark health plan covers each of the 10 categories of benefits listed in the Affordable Care Act) as the benchmark health insurance plan for that state:

One of the three largest small group plans in the state by enrollment;
One of the three largest state employee health plans by enrollment;
One of the three largest federal employee health plan options by enrollment; or
The largest HMO plan offered in the state’s commercial market by enrollment.

None of these options would allow for a state to elect for the EHBs package that more closely tailors the more cost-effective, less mandated benefit heavy designs more typically used in the self-insured employer-sponsored programs sponsored by more than 60% of U.S. employers offering employee health insurance coverage. Therefore, individuals covered by individual health insurance and small employers providing coverage through small group market insurance policies can expect to be required to offer a rich benefit package regardless of the state in which they are based.

Concerning which EHB package will apply when a small employer has employees or operates in multiple states, existing guidance specifies that the EHB benchmark for the State in which the insurance policy is issued would determine the EHB for all participants, regardless of the employee’s State of residence.

Individual and small group insurance plans and policies and government benefit programs required to provide essential benefits also should not anticipate that required scope of the required EHB package will narrow over time if HHS proceeds as planned.

The final rule on “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act; Data Collection To Support Standards Related to Essential Health Benefits; Recognition of Entities for the Accreditation of Qualified Health Plans” (EHB Data Rule) published on July 24, 2012 also does not take into account the practices of self-insured health plans for purposes of defining and updating EHB package.

The EHB Data Rule outlines the data that health insurers offering coverage under qualified health plans pursuant to Health Care Exchanges will be required to collect and report to HHS for HHS to use to determine the definition and update the EHBs package. This final rule also establishes a process for the recognition of accrediting entities for purposes of certification of qualified health plans.

The EHB Data Rule ignores and excludes reference to any data based on self-insured health plan coverage. Instead, in its current form the EHB Data Rule relies only collects data reported by insured plans. Reliance only upon data collected under the EHB Data Rule will further skew the plan design for all plans – insured or self-insured – to be designed in accordance with the more benefit rich mandates of governmental employee plans funded by taxpayer dollars and fully-insured group health plans forced to include a broad range of state benefit mandates in their programs. Consequently, it appears that HHS intends that self-insured employee health plans will be required to provide the same extremely benefit rich EHBs package as required in a fully-insured health plan even though ERISA section 514 bars the states from enforcing state mandates against self-insured plans.

By disregarding the practices of self-insured plans in the current process of setting expectations for the EHB package the planned HHS process for determining the EHB package provides for a much richer and more expensive benefit package than what is provided in the typical self-insured health plan offered by 60% of U.S. employers nationwide.

Implications & Action Items For Employer Plan Sponsors, Insurers, Employers, Individuals & States Concerned About Costs

Because the determination of the EHB package plays such a significant role in determining the premiums and other amounts that employers, individuals, states and taxpayers will have to expend to fund promised benefits, all parties concerned with the need to appropriately manage these and other related costs should push for HHS and the other Departments, as well as members of Congress to insist that the benefits and services treated as EHBs be carefully tailored.

As the history of state mandated benefits already demonstrates, the cost of funding the benefits promised in the program for all parties will increase the more services included in the definition of EHB. With state, employer, individual and the federal government budgets already strained in a tight economy, a utopian definition of EHBs that results in overburdening costs is a luxury that no one can avoid.

Taken together, the final regulations and HHS’s intended approach to allowing states to define essential health benefits on a state-by-state basis promises under the process established by HHS will result in the imposition of a much richer and more expensive required EHB package on individuals that is richer and more expensive than would result if the self-insured group health plan practices and data were included. As a result, states, small group market insurers and their employer customers and the individuals participating in these plans can expect to be required to pay for a more costly package of benefits than might apply if HHS had elected to use a more holistic approach to defining the EHB package that took into account the practices of self-insured employer and union-sponsored health plans.

This outcome certainly is not dictated by the language of the statute. A more balanced definition of EHBs tailored to meet the economic and budget realities of the times certainly is attainable within the current statutory framework without the need for legislative action. Indeed, given that the majority of group health plans are self-insured, many question the appropriateness of HHS’s reliance upon the practices and data of state regulated, mandated benefit laden insured health plans to define the EHB of a “typical employer plan.” Concerned employers, insurers, and individuals should urge HHS to reconsider its approach and adopt an alternative definition of EHB focused on defining essential in light of the cash-strained times.

To the extent that the existing regulators are unwilling to temper the zealousness of idealism to meet today’s budget and economic realities, employers, insurers and the individuals who will be required to bear the burden of the resulting costs should pressure Congress to act to clarify the EHB definition so as not to overburden the system.

Self-insured group health plans, large group market health plans, and grandfathered health plans also need to recognize the need to participate in the dialogue. These programs and their employer and union sponsors are still in limbo, awaiting guidance from HHS about what standards HHS will impose for purposes of determining what constitutes an EHB and how this decision will impact their costs and plan design and other implications even as the Affordable Care Act requires them to decide without guidance what EHBs are for purposes of complying with its lifetime and annual dollar limit prohibitions.

According to a “Frequently Asked Questions on Essential Health Benefits Bulletin” published by HHS earlier this year, the Departments of Labor, Treasury, and HHS still are deciding how they will determine if a self-insured group health plan, a large group market health plan, or a grandfathered group health plan used a permissible definition of EHB for purposes of meeting their responsibilities under the Affordable Care Act. HHS as indicated they are considering deeming the plan’s definition of EHB appropriate if the plan uses “a definition authorized by the Secretary of HHS (including any available benchmark option, supplemented as needed to ensure coverage of all ten statutory categories).

Regardless, until that additional guidance is forthcoming, the need to administer their group health plans in accordance with the already-effective Affordable Care Act restrictions on lifetime and annual dollar limits on EHBs means all affected group health plans that contain any annual limits on benefits, their sponsors and fiduciaries should take steps to ensure that these provisions are supported and administered using an appropriate definition of EHB supported by the necessary analysis and documentation to position the health plan to demonstrate this effort at good faith compliance until HHS issues further clarifying guidance.

Get Health Plan Compliance Check up at 7/24 Health Plan Update

Health plans, their employer and other plan sponsors, fiduciaries, administrators, brokers and consultants and other service providers are invited to get a 2012/2013 Health Plan Compliance Checkup by participating in the Health Plan Update Workshop Solutions Law Press, Inc. is hosting on July 24, 2012 as part of its 2012 Health Plan-U Coping with Health Care Reform Workshop Series beginning with the kickoff program, “2012 Health Plan Update” on July 24, 2012.

The Workshop offers the opportunity for employer and union health plans, their sponsors, fiduciaries, insurers, administrators and service providers to catch up on the latest requirements and guidelines impacting employer and union sponsored group health plans under ACA and other federal health plan regulations.

The 2012 Health Plan Update Workshop is scheduled for July 24, 2012 from 12:30 P.M.-2:30 P.M. Eastern, 11:30 A.M.-1:30 P.M. Central, 10:30 A.M-12:30 P.M. Mountain and 9:30 A.M-11:30 A.M. Pacific Time.

Participants may choose to attend the live briefing in Addison, Texas or take part via WebEx for a registration fee of $125.00. Texas Department of Insurance Continuing Education Credit and other professional certification credit may be requested by qualifying participant for an added charge.

The Coping With Healthcare Reform: 2012 Health Plan Update Workshop will cover the latest guidance on Affordable Care Act and other federal health plan regulatory changes impacting employment-based group health plans and other key information employer and other group health plan sponsors, group health plans, insurers, plan administrators, fiduciaries, brokers and advisors and others working with these plans need to understand and cope with 2012-2013 ACA and other health plan requirements including:

ACA Summary of Benefits And Communications Mandates & Their Implications On Plan Documents, SPDs & Administration
ACA Culturally and Linguistically Appropriate Mandates
ACA External & Internal Review, ERISA Claims & Appeals, & Other Federal Claim Handling Requirements: What rules apply to which plans? What to do to minimize the impact of changing requirements?
ACA “Essential Health Benefit” Rules & Their Implications For Health Plans & Their Sponsors Now & After 2014
ACA, ADA & Other Federal Health Plan Nondiscrimination Rules
ACA W-2 & Other Federal Reporting, Notice & Disclosure Requirements
ACA grandfathered plan status: Do you have it? How do you lose it? What it does for your program?
ACA, COBRA, HIPAA, GINA, FMLA, Military Leave, Michelle’s Law & Other Federal Eligibility Mandates
Preventive care coverage & wellness program rules under Affordable Care Act, GINA, ADA & other federal regulations
Mental health & substance abuse, provider choice & other benefit mandates under ACA, Mental Health Parity & other federal rules
Federal Health Plan Notice & Communication Rules
ERISA Fiduciary Responsibility, Reporting & Disclosure & Other Rules
New HIPAA Privacy Rules & Audits & How Plans & Plan Sponsors Should Respond
Consumer Driven Health Plan Communication Strategies
Tips To Help Review & Update Plans, Communications, Vendor Agreements & Processes
Expected & Proposed ACA & Other Federal Health Plan Rules
Practical Strategies For Monitoring & Responding To New Requirements & Changing Rules
Participant Questions
More

The Supreme Court’s June 28, 2012 National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius ruling upholding the health care reform law means health plans, their employer and other sponsors, fiduciaries and administrators, and insurers must quickly update their health plan documents, summary plan descriptions and other communications, administrative procedures, contracts, reporting and other arrangements to meet Affordable Care Act and other federal rules that have, or by plan year end will, take effect pending the full rollout of the law in 2014. The 2012 Health Plan Update Workshop on July 24, 2012, kicks off a series Solutions Law Press, Inc. is offering to help health plans and their leaders quickly and cost-effectively get up to speed with and respond to these requirements. Other upcoming programs offered as part of the Health Plan-U 2012 Coping With Health Care Reform Series include:

Claims & Appeals Bootcamp*
July 31, 2012
12:30 P.M.-2:00 P.M. Eastern | 11:30 A.M.-1:00 P.M. Central | 10:30 A.M-12:00 P.M. Mountain | 9:30 A.M-11:00 A.M. Pacific

HIPAA Bootcamp*
August 14, 2012
12:30 P.M.-2:30 P.M. Eastern | 11:30 A.M.-1:30 P.M. Central | 10:30 A.M-12:30 P.M. Mountain | 9:30 A.M-11:30 A.M. Pacific

Health Plan Communications Bootcamp: SBCs, SPDs & Beyond*
August 28, 2012
12:30 P.M.-2:00 P.M. Eastern | 11:30 A.M.-1:00 P.M. Central | 10:30 A.M-12:00 P.M. Mountain | 9:30 A.M-11:00 A.M. Pacific

The Workshops are designed to help health plans, their employer and other sponsors, fiduciaries, administrators, brokers and consultants and others with responsibilities for these plans quickly learn key steps that they may need to take to update and administer their health plans to meet existing and emerging ACA, Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), Internal Revenue Code (Code) and other federal mandates.

Attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer Leads Workshops

The 2012 Health Plan Update and other Coping With Healthcare Reform Workshops in the Solutions Law Press, Inc. Health Plan-U Coping With Health Care Reform Series will be lead by attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer.

A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefits Counsel, recognized in International Who’s Who, and Board Certified in Labor & Employment Law, Ms. Stamer has 25 years experience advising and representing private and public employers, employer and union plan sponsors, employee benefit plans, associations, their fiduciaries, administrators, and vendors, group health, Medicare and Medicaid Advantage, and other insurers, governmental leaders and others on health and other employee benefit. employment, insurance and related matters.

Also a well-known and prolific author and popular speaker Board Certified in Labor & Employment Law, Ms. Stamer presently serves as Co-Chair of the ABA RPTE Section Welfare Plan Committee, Vice Chair of the ABA TIPS Employee Benefit Committee, an ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits Representative, an Editorial Advisory Board Member of the Institute of Human Resources (IHR/HR.com) and Employee Benefit News, and various other publications.

A prolific author and popular speaker, Ms. Stamer regularly authors materials and conducts workshops and professional, management and other training on employee benefits, human resources and related topics for the ABA, Aspen Publishers, the Bureau of National Affairs (BNA), SHRM, World At Work, Government Institutes, Inc., the Society of Professional Benefits Administrators and many other organizations. She also regularly serves on the faculty and planning committees of a multitude of symposium and other educational programs.

For more details about Ms. Stamer’s services, experience, presentations, publications, and other credentials or to inquire about arranging counseling, training or presentations or other services by Ms. Stamer, see http://www.CynthiaStamer.com.

Registration, Continuing Education & Other Details

Register Now! The Registration Fee per course is $125.00 per person (plus an additional $10 service fee for each individual seeking Texas Department of Insurance Continuing Education Credit). Registration Fee Discounts are available for groups of three or more. Payment required via website registration required 48 hours in advance of the program to complete registration. Payment only accepted via website PayPal. No checks or cash accepted. Persons not registered at least 48 hours in advance will only participate subject to system and space availability.
Texas Department of Insurance and Other Continuing Education Credit.

All Health Plan-U Coping With Health Care Reform programs are approved to be offered for general certification credit by the Texas Department of Insurance, World At Work and HRCI education credit for the time period offered subject to fulfillment all applicable Texas Department of Insurance requirements, completion of required procedures and payment of the additional service processing fee of $10.00. The HIPAA Bootcamp program is Texas Department of Insurance-approved for 1.5 hours of General Credit and .5 Hours of Ethics Credit. The Texas Department of Insurance possesses the final authority to determine whether an individual qualifies to receive requested continuing education credit. Neither Solutions Law Press, Inc., the speaker nor any of their related parties guarantees the approval of credit for any individual or has any liability for any denial of credit. Special fees or other conditions may apply.

Cancellation & Refund Policies

In order to receive refund credit, written cancellation (either fax or e-mail) must be received at least 48 hours in advance of the meeting and are subject to a $10.00 refund processing fee. Refunds will be made within 60 days of receipt of written cancellation notice.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ provides business and management information, tools and solutions, training and education, services and support to help organizations and their leaders promote effective management of legal and operational performance, regulatory compliance and risk management, data and information protection and risk management and other key management objectives. Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ also conducts and assists businesses and associations to design, present and conduct customized programs and training targeted to their specific audiences and needs. For additional information about upcoming programs, to inquire about becoming a presenting sponsor for an upcoming event, e-mail your request to info@Solutionslawpress.com These programs, publications and other resources are provided only for general informational and educational purposes. Neither the distribution or presentation of these programs and materials to any party nor any statement or information provided in or in connection with this communication, the program or associated materials are intended to or shall be construed as establishing an attorney-client relationship, to constitute legal advice or provide any assurance or expectation from Solutions Law Press, Inc., the presenter or any related parties. If you or someone else you know would like to receive future Alerts or other information about developments, publications or programs or other updates, send your request to info@solutionslawpress.com.

CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE: The following disclaimer is included to comply with and in response to U.S. Treasury Department Circular 230 Regulations. ANY STATEMENTS CONTAINED HEREIN ARE NOT INTENDED OR WRITTEN BY THE WRITER TO BE USED, AND NOTHING CONTAINED HEREIN CAN BE USED BY YOU OR ANY OTHER PERSON, FOR THE PURPOSE OF (1) AVOIDING PENALTIES THAT MAY BE IMPOSED UNDER FEDERAL TAX LAW, OR (2) PROMOTING, MARKETING OR RECOMMENDING TO ANOTHER PARTY ANY TAX-RELATED TRANSACTION OR MATTER ADDRESSED HEREIN. If you are an individual with a disability who requires accommodation to participate, please let us know at the time of your registration so that we may consider your request

3 Comments | Uncategorized | Tagged: Affordable Care Act, Employer, Essential health benefits, group health plan, Health Insurance, health plan costs, insurance plan, Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Record $2.3 Million+ H-2A Backpay Order Plus Civil Money Penalty Reminds Businesses Employing Foreign Workers To Manage Compliance

July 10, 2012

Underpaying and failing to meet other H-2A visa program requirements for its employment of temporary foreign agricultural workers was an extremely costly mistake for Yerington, Nevada-based onion grower Peri & Sons.

Peri & Sons must pay a record total of $2,338,700 in back wages to 1,365 workers, plus a $500,000 civil money penalty to the Department of Labor for failing to properly pay foreign agricultural workers working under the H-2A visa program under a consent order entered by U.S. Department of Labor Administrative Law Judge Steven Berlin in San Francisco. The consent order announced by the Labor Department Wage and Hour Division today (July 10, 2012) reminds U.S. businesses of the need to meet compliance responsibilities when employing foreign workers and illustrates the significant risks that employers of foreign workers risk by failing to meet minimum wage and hour, overtime, vis, I-9 and other requirements for employing foreign workers.

The record back pay order stems from charges brought by the Labor Department’s Wage and Hour Division after it determined that Peri & Sons violated the FLSA and the H-2A visa program requirements by underpaying H-2A employees involved in irrigation, harvesting, packing and shipping of onions sold in grocery stores nationwide. All of the affected workers came to the U.S. from Mexico under the H-2A temporary agricultural worker visa program. In most cases, their earnings fell below the hourly wage required by the program, as well as below the federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour for a brief period of time. Investigators also found that workers were not paid for time spent in mandatory pesticide training or reimbursed for subsistence expenses while traveling to and from the U.S. Additionally, Peri & Sons did not pay the worker’s return transportation costs at the end of the contract period.

The H-2A temporary agricultural worker program permits agricultural employers who expect a shortage of domestic workers to bring nonimmigrant foreign workers to the United States to do temporary or seasonal agricultural work. The employer must file an application stating that a sufficient number of domestic workers are not available and the employment of these workers will not adversely affect the wages and working conditions of similarly employed workers in the U.S. Employers using the H-2A program also must meet a number of specific conditions relating to recruitment, wages, housing, meals and transportation. See more on H-2A visa employment rules here.

Reflective of the Obama Administration’s heavy emphasis of the enforcement of wage and hour and other laws protective of workers, the Peri & Sons order shows the potential risks that employers run when violating these rules. To minimize these exposures, employers of H-2A or other workers employed under special visa programs should carefully manage these programs to ensure their ability to prove compliance with all requirements of the visa program, the FLSA, and other relevant laws. These programs should include careful and ongoing due diligence to maintain a current understanding of all applicable requirements for the legal employment of these workers and the establishment of systemized processes and documentation both to support compliance and to preserve evidence necessary to prove this compliance against possible investigations or charges. When conducting and planning these activities, businesses should keep in mind that employers of foreign workers generally are accountable for meeting all human resources and related laws generally applicale to employees as well as additional visa and other eligibility to work credentialing, documentation, pay and other requirements.

About Ms. Stamer

Recognized in International Who’s Who, and Board Certified in Labor & Employment Law, attorney and management consultant Cynthia Marcotte Stamer has 25 years experience advising and representing private and public employers, staffing and manpower companies, employer and union plan sponsors, employee benefit plans, associations, their fiduciaries, administrators, and vendors, governmental leaders and others on wag hour and other workforce, employee benefits, compensation, internal controls and compliance, and related performance and risk management concerns. Her experience includes extensive work advising domestic and international businesses about employment, recruitment, compensation and management of workers and other human resources, employee benefit and other reengineering, performance management, risk management, compliance, public policy and other concerns and opportunities.

A primary drafter of the Bolivian Social Security privatization law with extensive domestic and international workforce, regulatory and public policy experience, Ms. Stamer has extensive experience advising U.S. and foreign businesses about the employment of foreign workers in the U.S., as well as other cross-border employment and other workforce management and compliance concerns. In addition, Ms. Stamer also has worked extensively domestically and internationally on public policy and regulatory advocacy on human resources and other workforce, health and other employee benefits, insurance, tax, compliance and other matters. She has represented clients in dealings with the US Congress, Departments of Labor, Treasury, Health & Human Services, Federal Trade Commission, HUD and Justice; state legislatures attorneys general, insurance, labor, worker’s compensation, and other state and local agencies and regulators; and various foreign governments and their officials.

Ms. Stamer also shares her experience through leadership involvement in a number of human resources and related management and professional organizations An Editorial Advisory Board Member and author for the Institute of Human Resources (IHR/HR.com), Insurance Thought Leaders, Employee Benefit News, and various other highly regarded publications, Ms. Stamer also presently serves as Co-Chair of the ABA RPTE Section Welfare Plan Committee, Vice Chair of the ABA TIPS Employee Benefit Committee, an ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits Representative and in various other professional and civic leadership. She previously has served on the Dallas World Affairs Council Board, and has been active in cross border policy, trade and other activities of the US-Mexico Chamber of Commerce and a variety of other organizations.

A prolific author and popular speaker, Ms. Stamer regularly authors materials and conducts workshops and professional, management and other training on employee benefits, human resources, health care, privacy and data security, technology and other compliance and management topics. Ms. Stamer has written and spoken extensively on cross-border migration, workforce, health care, pension, insurance, ethics and internal controls, public policy and other challenges businesses and governments face in connection with cross border or multinational employment or operations. An Editorial Advisory Board member and author for HR.com, Insurance Thought Leaders and many other publications, Ms. Stamer also regularly serves on the faculty and planning committees of a multitude of symposium and other educational programs.

Her publications and insights on these and other related topics appear in the Health Care Compliance Association, American Bar Association, Atlantic Information Service, Bureau of National Affairs, World At Work, SHRM, The Wall Street Journal, Government Institutes, Inc.,Business Insurance, the Dallas Morning News, HR.Com, Modern Health Care, Managed Healthcare, Health Leaders, and a many other national and local publications. For more details about Ms. Stamer’s services, experience, presentations, publications, and other credentials or to inquire about arranging counseling, training or presentations or other services by Ms. Stamer, see www.CynthiaStamer.com or contact Ms. Stamer at (469) 767-8872 or via e-mail here.

Other Resources

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

About Solutions Law Press

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

Comments Off on Record $2.3 Million+ H-2A Backpay Order Plus Civil Money Penalty Reminds Businesses Employing Foreign Workers To Manage Compliance | Affirmative Action, Child Labor, EEOC, Employee Benefits, Employers, Fair Labor Standards Act, Human Resources, I-9, Immigration, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, Mental Health, Mental Health Parity, Retirement Plans, Tax, Wage & Hour | Tagged: Employer, Ex Pat, FLSA, H-2A, Human Resources, I-9, Immigration, multinational, Visas, wage and hour | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Tighten Defensibility of Criminal & Other Background Check Practices In Light of Labor Department Non-Discrimination Regulation & Enforcement Emphasis

May 25, 2012

Employers, job banks, recruiters and other parties that conduct and rely upon criminal background checks for purposes of screening applicants or making other employment decisions should check and update their practices in response to the announced plans of the U.S. Department of Labor to expand and enforce limitations on employment discrimination against individuals with criminal records as well as the criminal background check requirements of the Fair Credit Reporting Act and other applicable laws.

While criminal or other background checks often are mandated or otherwise business justified, employers and others conducting or using background check information need to understand and comply with legal requirements about the use and administration of criminal or other background checks.

Potential Employment Discrimination Exposures From Criminal Background Checks

Over the past several months, Labor Department officials have identified protection of individuals with criminal backgrounds against employment discrimination as a policy and enforcement priority.

In keeping with this goal, the Labor Department Employment and Training Administration (ETA), with the Civil Rights Center (CRC). on May 25, 2012 published updated training guidance for about exclusions based on criminal records, and how they are relevant to the existing nondiscrimination obligations for the public workforce system and certain other entities that receive federal financial assistance to operate Job Banks, to provide assistance to job seekers in locating and obtaining employment, and to assist employers by screening and referring qualified applicants in Training and Employment Guidance Letter No. 31-11 (TEGL) along with the following accompanying guidance documents:

Meet FCRA Criminal & Other Background Check Requirements

When conducting such a criminal or other background check using a third-party or the internet, care should be taken to comply with the applicable purpose, notice and consent requirements for conducting third-party conducted background checks under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and otherwise applicable law.

Since criminal and other background investigations generally qualify as a credit check for purposes of the FCRA, employers, recruiters, job banks and other parties conducting background checks for employment related purposes risk significant liability for conducting these activities without providing the proper notifications and obtaining necessary consents. Additional requirements often also may apply under applicable state laws, labor-management contracts, government contracting requirements or other similar requirements. Consequently, before doing any credit or other background check, employers or others should ensure that they have the policies, disclosures, data security and written consents required to comply with the FCRA and other laws.

With these procedures in place, employers or others planning to use criminal or other background checks then should work to manage discrimination and other potential risks associated with potential challenges to their use of the information.

Among other things, businesses should carefully document the business justification for their use of the background check and restrict the data they request and receive to information relevant to that purpose. The collection and receipt of this information should be structured and managed in such a way to mitigate employment discrimination, privacy and other legal risks and to promote defensibility. For instance, proper procedures should be used to lower the risk of a pattern of prohibited discrimination on race, national origin, disability or other similar employment discrimination laws. Likewise, collection or receipt of information such as bankruptcy history or other liability sensitive information should be avoided unless a legally defensible need and appropriate procedures governing use can be demonstrated in operation. Care also should be taken to apply the criteria uniformly. Given ADA, GINA, FACTA and other privacy concerns, employers also should specifically check their data collection and protection procedures for adequacy.

To help with these and other concerns, consider defining and documenting in advance the relevant criteria for the position and why it is relevant. Where possible, try to avoid getting information beyond that defined as relevant which could raise sensitivities. Since the FCRA requires notice if adverse hiring decisions are made, employers also should carefully evaluate and document the basis of their decisions when deciding not to hire or promote individuals based on this information and appropriately safeguard this information against improper use or disclosure.

For Help Or Additional Information

If you need help reviewing and updating, administering or defending your background check or other employee benefits, human resources, health care or insurance matters, please contact the author of this update, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer.

Board Certified in Labor and Employment Law, 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 human resources, recruitment, employee benefits, compensation, credentialing, promotion and discipline and related workforce and risk management matters.

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 employment and other services arrangements and assocaited employee benefit, compensation, reductions in force and other severance and other human resources, employee benefit, compensation, and human resources, management and other programs and practices tailored to the client’s r 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.

Other Resources

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

About Solutions Law Press

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

Comments Off on Tighten Defensibility of Criminal & Other Background Check Practices In Light of Labor Department Non-Discrimination Regulation & Enforcement Emphasis | ADA, Affirmative Action, Bankruptcy, Civil Rights, Corporate Compliance, Disability, EEOC, Employee Benefits, Employers, GINA, Government Contractors, Internal Controls, Labor Management Relations, Mental Health, Mental Health Parity, Nonresident aliens, OFCCP, Rehabilitation Act, Tax | Tagged: background check, criminal background check, Discrimination, Employer, FCRA, job bank | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

$50K Settlement Shows Small Breach Reports Carry Enforcement Risk

Email Subscription

Pages

Recent Posts

Archives

Share this blog

Solutions Law Press HR & Benefits Update