ERISA | | Page 2

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

September 12, 2013

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

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

Exchange Notice Requirement Under 18B Due October 1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Consult With Qualified Counsel About What To Do & Document Analysis

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

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

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

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

For Help or More Information

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

A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Council, immediate past Chair of the American Bar Association (ABA) RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Group and current Co-Chair of its Welfare Benefit Committee, Vice-Chair of the ABA TIPS Employee Benefits Committee, a council member of the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits, and past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, Ms. Stamer is recognized, internationally, nationally and locally for her more than 25 years of work, advocacy, education and publications on cutting edge health and managed care, employee benefit, human resources and related workforce, insurance and financial services, and health care matters.

A board certified labor and employment attorney widely known for her extensive and creative knowledge and experienced with these and other employment, employee benefit and compensation matters, Ms. Stamer continuously advises and assists employers, employee benefit plans, their sponsoring employers, fiduciaries, insurers, administrators, service providers, insurers and others to monitor and respond to evolving legal and operational requirements and to design, administer, document and defend medical and other welfare benefit, qualified and non-qualified deferred compensation and retirement, severance and other employee benefit, compensation, and human resources, management and other programs and practices tailored to the client’s human resources, employee benefits or other management goals. A primary drafter of the Bolivian Social Security pension privatization law, Ms. Stamer also works extensively with management, service provider and other clients to monitor legislative and regulatory developments and to deal with Congressional and state legislators, regulators, and enforcement officials about regulatory, investigatory or enforcement concerns.
Recognized in Who’s Who In American Professionals and both an American Bar Association (ABA) and a State Bar of Texas Fellow, Ms. Stamer serves on the Editorial Advisory Board of Employee Benefits News, HR.com, Insurance Thought Leadership, Solutions Law Press, Inc. and other publications, and active in a multitude of other employee benefits, human resources and other professional and civic organizations. She also is a widely published author and highly regarded speaker on these matters. Her insights on these and other matters appear in the Bureau of National Affairs, Spencer Publications, the Wall Street Journal, the Dallas Business Journal, the Houston Business Journal, Modern and many other national and local publications. You can learn more about Ms. Stamer and her experience, review some of her other training, speaking, publications and other resources, and register to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns from Ms. Stamer here.

Other Resources

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

For important information about this communication see here. THE FOLLOWING DISCLAIMER IS INCLUDED TO COMPLY WITH AND IN RESPONSE TO U.S. TREASURY DEPARTMENT CIRCULAR 230 REGULATIONS. ANY STATEMENTS CONTAINED HEREIN ARE NOT INTENDED OR WRITTEN BY THE WRITER TO BE USED, AND NOTHING CONTAINED HEREIN CAN BE USED BY YOU OR ANY OTHER PERSON, FOR THE PURPOSE OF (1) AVOIDING PENALTIES THAT MAY BE IMPOSED UNDER FEDERAL TAX LAW, OR (2) PROMOTING, MARKETING OR RECOMMENDING TO ANOTHER PARTY ANY TAX-RELATED TRANSACTION OR MATTER ADDRESSED HEREIN.

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

Tell HHS What You Think About Obamacare & Other Rules

September 9, 2013

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

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

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

Health Care
Research and Innovation
Prevention and Wellness

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

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

For Help or More Information

Other Resources

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

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

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

September 5, 2013

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For Help or More Information

Other Resources

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

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

Self-Dealing Or Other Mishandling of Employee Benefit Plan Funds Risky For Fiduciaries & Those Appointing Them

July 31, 2013

New litigation against the former trustee and former investment service provider of four pension plans reminds employer or other employee benefit plan sponsors, business owners or management, investment advisors and others serving as fiduciaries or advisors of employee benefit plans of the need to ensure that employee benefit plans are only used for the benefit of participants and beneficiaries, and prudently and properly invested and administered. Businesses sponsoring plans and their leaders, as well as others serving as fiduciaries or investment advisors are cautioned that mishandling of plan assets or investments can create significant liability both for those who improperly handle plan responsibilities and the employer or other plan sponsor, business owner or management, and others who are involved in their selection, oversight and retention. Consequently, parties should ensure act prudently to ensure plan assets are only invested prudently and for the sole benefit of the plan and its members, as well as to appropriately monitor the actions of other plan fiduciaries or personnel, investment managers, advisors, and others handing investments or other plan transactions, and be prepared to prove it.

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky on July 26 granted in part the U.S. Department of Labor’s motion for a preliminary injunction against George S. Hofmeister and Bernard Tew, former fiduciaries of four Lexington-based pension plans: the Hillsdale Salaried, Hillsdale Hourly, Revstone Casting Fairfield GMP Local 359, and Fourslides Inc. The injunctions stem from ongoing litigation against the defendants filed by the Labor Department under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). See Perez v. George Hofmeister, et al. Civil Action File Number 5:12-cv-00250-KKC, Perez v. George Hofmeister, et al. Civil Action File Number 5:13-cv-00156-KKC and Perez v. Robert La Courciere, et al. Civil Action File Number 5:13-cv-00158-KKC.

The Labor Department previously filed lawsuits in the same court that named Hofmeister and Tew, among others. Hofmeister was the trustee of the four pension plans, and Tew was managing director of their investment service provider, Bluegrass Investment Management LLC. The court’s order removes Hofmeister as a fiduciary of the plans and prohibits him from taking any actions with respect to the pensions plans or their assets. Tew resigned as fiduciary of the plans a few days before a hearing regarding the Labor Department’s motion. The lawsuits alleged that the defendants engaged in a series of prohibited transactions resulting in the misuse of approximately $12.1 million from the Hillsdale Salaried pension plan, approximately $22.5 million from the Hillsdale Hourly pension plan, approximately $4.4 million from the Revstone Casting Fairfield GMP Local 359 pension plan, and approximately $500,000 from the Fourslides Inc. pension plan. The four plan sponsors are closely affiliated with Lexington-based Revstone Industries LLC and Spara LLC.

The suits follow an EBSA investigation that found violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, including prohibited loans to related companies, prohibited use of plan assets for the purchase and lease of employer property, prohibited purchase of customer notes from affiliated companies, prohibited transfer of assets in favor of parties-in-interest, payment of excessive fees to services providers, and payment of fees on behalf of the companies.

ERISA’s fiduciary responsibility rules compel individuals named as employee benefit plan fiduciaries, or who functionally exercise or have discretion or control over plan assets or their investments, or certain other plan actions to act prudently and for the exclusive benefit of participants and beneficiaries. Plan fiduciaries must act “solely in the interest” of the plan and its members. ERISA also expressly prohibits fiduciaries from dealing with the plan or its assets for the benefit of themselves or any third party. Meanwhile, ERISA’s prohibited transaction rules identify a list of parties and transactions that are per se prohibited and violate ERISA’s fiduciary responsibility rules unless the fiduciary demonstrates that an applicable exception applies. These transactions commonly are referred to as “prohibited transactions.”

According to the Labor Department brief Hofmeister, Tew and Bluegrass have repeatedly violated ERISA, using nearly $40 million in pension plan assets to benefit themselves or related parties. The department’s investigation of these pension plans revealed a pattern of prohibited transactions involving the use of these plans’ assets by Hofmeister, Tew and investment adviser firms. Alleged improper use of the plans’ assets began within days or months of Hofmeister assuming control of the pension plans. The department contends that Hofmeister has placed millions of dollars in pension plan assets at risk and has consistently failed to act to protect these assets when required.

Under ERISA, fiduciaries that commit prohibited transactions or breach other fiduciary duties rules of ERISA generally are liable personally to the employee benefit plan for the greater of damages resulting from the breach or profits realized, plus attorneys’ fees and other costs of recovery. In addition, the Labor Department also can impose penalties of up to 20 percent of the amount of the fiduciary breach, seek to enjoin the breaching fiduciaries from serving in a fiduciary capacity, and refer them to the Department of Justice for criminal prosecution. Bankruptcy often does not provide any protection against the obligation to repay.

Employers, members of management, and others with discretion or control over plan assets or the selection, appointment, oversight or retention for those providing fiduciary or other plan services should be careful to act prudently when performing these duties to avoid becoming exposed to liability for bad actors. Beyond avoiding committing its own breach of fiduciary duties, a plan sponsor, member of management or other party who is a named fiduciary or possesses fiduciary power or authority over the plan also sometimes can be liable for the prohibited transactions or other fiduciary breaches of another fiduciary under ERISA’s co-fiduciary responsibility rules. These rules generally allow co-fiduciary liability to attach when an otherwise innocent fiduciary either enabled the breach by failing to appropriately fulfill its own fiduciary responsibilities, knew or should have have known of the breach but failed to properly act to prudently intervene to protect the plan and its assets, or later discovers the breach and fails to prudently act to intervene to protect the plan and its assets.

In addition to prudently overseeing those handling investments or other plan assets or performing other fiduciary functions, parties engaging these individuals should ensure that all fiduciaries, investment advisors and service providers of the plan handing plan matters are carefully credentialed. A documented background check should be conducted to confirm that the individuals or their organizations are not disqualified from serving as fiduciaries and have appropriate credentials and reputations to perform those duties. This analysis should be periodically rechecked and that documentation and its review also carefully preserved.

Furthermore, employers and plan fiduciaries also should confirm and retain documentation that the parties serving as fiduciaries, involved in the handling of plan assets or funds, or acting in certain other capacities are bonded as required by ERISA. ERISA’s fiduciary responsibility rules require appropriate bonding. In addition to overlooking the necessity of bonding, many plan sponsors and vendors underestimate the amount and required terms of the bonding and the scope of individuals required to be bonded.

Failing to meet this requirement can broaden the scope of fiduciary liability to a plan sponsor or member of management who selected or appointed the fiduciary or service provider that engages in the prohibited transaction or other inappropriate conduct. Consequently, in the event of a plan loss, Labor Department investigators typically request documentation of this credentialing and bonding early in the investigation.

Employee benefit plan vendor selection and compensation arrangements made by association and other employee benefit plan sponsors, fiduciaries and service providers are coming under increasing scrutiny by the EBSA. While ERISA technically grants plan sponsors and fiduciaries wide latitude to make these choices, the exercise of these powers comes with great responsibility. See e.g., Plan Sponsors. Their Owners & Management & Others Risk Personal Liability If Others Defraud Plans or Mismanage Employee Benefit Plan Responsibilities; New Rules Give Employee Benefit Plan Fiduciaries & Investment Advisors New Investment Advice Options; DOL Proposes To Expand Investment Related Services Giving Rise to ERISA Fiduciary Status As Investment Fiduciary.

Associations, employer and other plan sponsors, and other entities and individuals who in name or in function have or exercise discretionary responsibility or authority over the selection of plan fiduciaries, administrative or investment service providers or other services to the plan or the establishment of their compensation generally must make those decisions in accordance with the fiduciary responsibility and prohibited transaction rules of ERISA.

Since the earliest days of ERISA, the EBSA as well as private plaintiffs have aggressively enforced these and other fiduciary responsibility rules. In recent years, EBSA has taken further steps to tighten and enforce these protections such as the new fee disclosure rules recently implemented by the EBSA and other fiduciary guidance. See, e.g., Western Mixers & Officers Ordered To Pay $1.2M+ For Improperly Using Benefit Plan Funds For Company Operations, Other ERISA Violations; Plan Administrator Faces Civil & Criminal Prosecution For Allegedly Making Prohibited $3.2 Million Real Estate Investment; Tough times are no excuse for ERISA shortcuts.

Despite these well-document fiduciary exposures and a well-established pattern of enforcement by the Labor Department and private plaintiffs, many companies and their business leaders fail to appreciate the responsibilities and liabilities associated with the establishment and administration of employee benefit plans. Frequently, employer and other employee benefit plan sponsors fail adequately to follow or document their administration of appropriate procedures to be in a position to prove their fulfillment of these requirements when selecting plan fiduciaries and service providers, determining the compensation paid for their services, overseeing the performance of these parties, or engaging in other dealings with respect to plan design or administration. In other instances, businesses and their leaders do not realize that the functional definition that ERISA uses to determine fiduciary status means that individuals participating in discretionary decisions about the employee benefit plan, as well as the plan sponsor, may bear liability under many commonly occurring situations if appropriate care is not exercised to protect participants or beneficiaries in these plans. For this reason, businesses and associations providing employee benefits to employees or dependents, as well as members of management participating in, or having responsibility to oversee or influence decisions about the establishment, maintenance, funding, and administration of their organization’s employee benefit programs need a clear understanding of their responsibilities with respect to such programs, the steps that they should take to prove their fulfillment of these responsibilities, and their other options for preventing or mitigating their otherwise applicable fiduciary risks.

In light of the significant liability risks, employer, association and other employee benefit plan sponsors and their management, plan fiduciaries, service providers and consultants should exercise care when selecting plan fiduciaries and service providers, establishing their compensation and making other related arrangements. To minimize fiduciary exposures, parties participating in these activities should seek the advice of competent legal counsel on their potential fiduciary status and responsibilities on these activities and take appropriate steps to minimize potential exposures.

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 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 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.

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

Other Resources

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

About Solutions Law Press

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 | Bankruptcy, Corporate Compliance, Employee Benefits, Employers, ERISA, Fiduciary Responsibility, Health Plans, Mental Health, Mental Health Parity, Professional Liability, Retirement Plans, Risk Management, Tax | Tagged: ERISA, fee disclosure, Fiduciary, participant fee disclosuyrenvestment-advisor, plan investiments, prohibited traansaction, Prudence | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Id & Manage Hidden Employee Benefit Exposures In Business Insolvency Or Other Transactions

June 5, 2013

The June 4, 2013 announcement of the Employee Benefit Security Administration (EBSA) provides a timely reminder to businesses sponsoring employee benefit plans, their owners and management, plan fiduciaries, banks, administrative service providers and other plan vendors, employee benefit plan and bankruptcy trustees, corporate receivers, creditors, and others looking to expedite the windup of abandoned 401(k), profit-sharing and other individual account pension plans of the challenges that can result when employee benefit plan responsibilities are mishandled when companies fail or experience other significant events, as well as the availability of tools to help mitigate or prevent these challenges through responsible proactive action.

Hidden Employee Benefit Exposures For Unwary Abound For Parties In Business Insolvency Or Other Transactions

A complex maze of ERISA, tax and other rules make, administration and termination of employee benefit plans a complicated matter. When the company sponsoring a plan experiences a significant workforce or other restructuring, becomes distressed, goes bankrupt or liquidates, merges, sells assets or engages in other significant business transaction impacting the plans or its workforce, the rules, as well as the circumstances, can create a liability and operational quagmire for everyone from the sponsoring business, its management, buyers, vendors, plan fiduciaries, plan participants and beneficiaries, related entities, asset purchasers and others. While tough economic times may tempt business leaders to cut corners, more than 3o years of litigation and enforcement precedent make clear that cutting corners on the assessment and handling of employee benefit and other workforce responsibilities amid business distress or in other business transactions or events presents risks for all parties involved. See e.g., Tough Times Are No Excuse For ERISA Shortcuts; Mishandling Employee Benefit Obligations Creates Big Liabilities For Distressed Businesses & Their Business Leaders. While many business leaders and plan fiduciaries lack a strong understanding of these rules and their implications in times of business or benefit plan distress or other significant business transactions, even those experienced with these concerns need to use caution to understand and respond to the series of ongoing changes in these rules, regulations and precedent that impact on the handling of plan related responsibilities in these and other special situations.

The Internal Revenue Code (Code) requires contains a maze of requirements that companies sponsoring pension, profit-sharing, health and other employee benefit plans, their plans, and plan administrators must follow when maintaining, administering, or terminating these plans including in many instances, special rules on the termination of the plans, distribution of assets, and the liabilities that attach to affiliated companies, successors, and assets resulting from transactions involving employee benefit plans or their sponsors.

In addition to the Code’s rules, companies and other individuals that in name or in function have or exercise discretionary responsibility or authority over the maintenance, administration or funding of employee benefit plans regulated by ERISA also generally must meet ERISA’s high standards for carrying out these duties based on their functional ability to exercise discretion over these matters, whether or not they have been named as fiduciaries formally. Under many circumstances these rules, or the handling of transactions can broaden the scope of responsibility or create exposures for a surprising range of parties dealing with the plan sponsor, related corporations or their stock, assets, benefit plans or workforce in corporate bankruptcies, mergers, asset or stock acquisitions, liquidations or other transactions.

Beyond these basic tax and fiduciary obligations, ERISA and the Internal Revenue Code (Code) create additional responsibilities and liabilities for when dealing with defined benefit or other pension plans subject to ERISA’s minimum funding and plan termination rules that when violated trigger a plethora of funding and notification obligations, penalties, liens on assets, and other obligations that can create significant traps for unwary plan fiduciaries and administrators, the sponsoring corporation, its management, affiliates and successors, as well as creditors or purchasers of stock or assets and others dealing with them.

Despite these well-documented responsibilities and a well-established pattern of enforcement by the Department of Labor, Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation, Internal Revenue Service and private plaintiffs, many businesses and business leaders fail to appropriately understand these and other basic responsibilities and liabilities associated with the establishment, administration, termination and windup of employee benefit plans and other details about how their or others mishandling of employee benefit plan related responsibilities can undermine business goals and create unanticipated liability exposures.

Frequently, companies sponsoring their employee benefit plans and their executives mistakenly assume that they can rely upon vendors and advisors to ensure that their programs are appropriately established. The establishment and maintenance of these arrangements with limited review or oversight by the sponsoring company or its management team can be risky.

In other instances, businesses and their leaders do not realize that ERISA’s functional definition to determine fiduciary status means that individuals participating in discretionary decisions about the employee benefit plan, as well as the plan sponsor, may bear liability under many commonly occurring situations if appropriate care is not exercised to protect participants or beneficiaries in these plans.

In yet other instances, purchasers, related entities, bankruptcy trustees and creditors or others don’t appreciate the way their own or others mishandling of employee benefit plan obligations or exposures can impact their transactions and associated risks.

Proactive Action Can Mitigate Exposures & Costs

For this reason, companies providing employee benefits and their management, service providers, and related entities and the businesses dealing with them need a clear understanding of the rules and responsibilities Federal law imposes on the funding, administration and termination of these programs, how these rules can impact their responsibilities and goals, and the steps necessary to avoid or mitigate exposures likely to result if they or others mishandle employee benefit plan related responsibilities or assets and how to avoid or mitigate these concerns.

The challenges of winding up an abandoned plan discussed in the EBSA news release yesterday highlights just one of these complications, the problem of dealing with abandoned plans.

When companies and their management abandon plans, they leave their plans, participants and beneficiaries, service providers and others in limbo, without the authority or funds to wind up the plans. When employers abandon their individual account pension plans, custodians such as banks, insurers and mutual fund companies are left holding the assets of these abandoned plans but without the authority to terminate such plans and make benefit distributions even in response to participant demands. Service providers often find themselves in the legally awkward situation of having continuing plan responsibilities without necessary direction or compensation for performance. Meanwhile, participants and beneficiaries can’t manage, access or often even get information about their funds until the situation resolves. Dealing with these issues usually requires cumbersome, time-consuming and costly processes often requiring complex, lengthy, highly formalistic and expensive judicial and administrative procedures to resolve while fiduciary, tax and other liabilities mount. Meanwhile, participants and beneficiaries often lose access to their accounts or benefits or even see plan value decline as plan assets that could go to benefits are diverted to cover administrative costs of winding up the plan.

The EBSAs abandoned plan program is just one of many examples of tools that parties struggling with these issues can use to mitigate these challenges and exposures. EBSA uses its abandoned plan program to facilitate a voluntary efficient process for winding up the affairs of abandoned individual account plans so that benefit distributions are made to participants and beneficiaries when this occurs.

The EBSA Abandoned Plan News Release and the EBSA’s related response Response to ADP/JP Morgan published June 4, 2013 show an example of how EBSA used its abandoned plan program to give critical relief to JP Morgan Chase Bank NA and ADP Inc. to use to wind up certain abandoned plans without exhausting the 90-day waiting period that ordinarily applies before the termination of a retirement plan based on the best interest of participants pursuant to 29 CFR §2578.1. By exercising its discretion to waive the 90-day notice period, the EBSA allowed JP Morgan Chase Bank NA and ADP Inc. to terminate immediately and wind up approximately 180 defined contribution pension plans abandoned due to corporate crises or neglect.

Requesting relief from the EBSA like that granted to JP Morgan Chase Bank NA and ADP Inc. in the announcement made yesterday is just one of various types of relief that legal counsel experienced with dealing with workforce and employee benefit plan challenges that can arise when companies or their plans become inadequately funded, bankrupt, or experience other significant transactions or events, can use to help debtors, and other plan sponsors, their management, affiliates, successors, buyers, plan fiduciaries, vendors, bankruptcy creditors and trustees.

Experienced counsel can help companies understand and negotiate the complex rules of the EBSA, the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation and the Internal Revenue Service governing dealings with these plans and where appropriate and available by taking advantage of relief or other options to mitigate these challenges. Involving experienced counsel to explore and use these options early can help all parties get participants and beneficiaries their benefits while minimizing legal risks, time and expenses associated with the wind up of these troubled or abandoned plans. Even where special dispensation is not available, the early involvement of experienced legal counsel as early as possible after the possibility that a business or its plans or assets will be impacted by underfunding, insolvency, a bankruptcy or liquidation, workforce reduction, sale, merger or other significant event can help plan and administer the steps necessary to handle cost effectively employee benefit related responsibilities and impacts.

For Help or More Information

If you need help with assessing or handing employee benefit or workforce challenges arising from business or employee benefit plan insolvency, stock or asset sales, mergers, bankruptcy or liquidation, reductions or other workforce changes or other significant business transactions or events, 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 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, and insurers, bankruptcy trustees and receivers, asset purchasers, creditors and others dealing with plans and their sponsors, 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. Her experience includes involvement in the planning, execution and resolution of workforce and employee benefit related details of a multitude of high and low profile restructurings, bankruptcies and other significant transactions throughout her more than 25 year career.

Other Resources

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

For important information about this communication click here. THE FOLLOWING DISCLAIMER IS INCLUDED TO COMPLY WITH AND IN RESPONSE TO U.S. TREASURY DEPARTMENT CIRCULAR 230 REGULATIONS. ANY STATEMENTS CONTAINED HEREIN ARE NOT INTENDED OR WRITTEN BY THE WRITER TO BE USED, AND NOTHING CONTAINED HEREIN CAN BE USED BY YOU OR ANY OTHER PERSON, FOR THE PURPOSE OF (1) AVOIDING PENALTIES THAT MAY BE IMPOSED UNDER FEDERAL TAX LAW, OR (2) PROMOTING, MARKETING OR RECOMMENDING TO ANOTHER PARTY ANY TAX-RELATED TRANSACTION OR MATTER ADDRESSED HEREIN.

1 Comment | Affordable Care Act, Bankruptcy, Claims Administration, Corporate Compliance, Defined Benefit Plans, Defined Contribution Plans, Employee Benefits, Employers, Employment Agreement, ERISA, Excise Tax, Executive Compensation, Fiduciary Responsibility, Health Care Reform, Health Plans, HIPAA, Human Resources, Income Tax, Insurance, MEWA, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Professional Liability, Reporting & Disclosure, Restructuring, Retirement Plans, Risk Management, Tax | Tagged: abandoned plans, bankkruptcy, employee benefit plans, ERISA, fiduciary responsibiltiies, illiquid, insolvancy, reductions in force, Reengineering | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

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

May 9, 2013

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

MSP Act Secondary Payor Rules Require Proper Coordination

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

Glaxo On MA Plan MSP Act Rights

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

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

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

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

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

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

For Help or More Information

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

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

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

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

May 6, 2013

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

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

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

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

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

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

For Help or More Information

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

Other Resources

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

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

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

May 3, 2013

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For Help or More Information

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

Other Resources

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

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

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

April 30, 2013

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For Help or More Information

Other Resources

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

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

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

April 29, 2013

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For Help or More Information

Other Resources

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

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

April 25, 2013

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

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

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

ACA SBC Mandate Overview

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

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

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

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

FAQ Part XIV Updates To SBC

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

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

Rationale For SBC Changes

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

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

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

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

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

”Does this Coverage Provide Minimum Essential Coverage?

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

Does this Coverage Meet the Minimum Value Standard?

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

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

Other SBC Requirement Clarifications in FAQs XIV

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

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

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

SBC Delivery Deadline Means Time Short To Finalize 2014 Plan Designs

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

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

For Help or More Information

Other Resources

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

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

Company President, Officer Can’t Use Bankruptcy To Avoid Liability For Using Plan Money For Company Operations

December 27, 2012

John Dombek III and John Dombek Jr. cannot use personal bankruptcy to avoid complying with a federal court order to restore $69,521 in health-care premiums and retirement plan contributions withheld from the paychecks of employees at several companies that are part of the JJD Industries in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). The recent judgement against the two men in Solis v. John Dombek Jr., John Dombek III, Wisconsin Tool & Stamping Co. 401(k) Profit Sharing Plan & Trust, J.D. Acquisition 401(k) Profit Sharing Plan and Trust, and the JJD Industries Group Health Plan is a reminder to business owners, management and others with discretionary control over employee contributions or other plan assets of the importance of ensuring that all employee contributions withheld from pay and other plan assets are used only for appropriate plan expenses and timely deposited in trust or otherwise appropriately applied. Businesses owners and managers should treat these and other similar judgmentsas a wake-up call to meet employee benefit funding obligations, not to use plan monies for company operations and to take other required steps to make sure that retirement, health and other employee benefit plans moneys and other responsibilities are properly handled.

Company Leaders Ordered To Restore Misdirected Monies

A Chicago federal court ordered the two men to make restitution of $69,521 of employee contributions withheld from employee pay that the court ruled the Dombeks mismanaged by failing to ensure the timely deposit of these funds with the plans. See

Dombek III, who is president of the JJD Industries Group, and Dombek Jr. were co-fiduciaries of the Wisconsin Tool & Stamping Co. 401(k) plan and have been ordered to restore $22,164.45 in unremitted contributions and lost opportunity costs to the plan. Dombek III is also liable for an additional $2,222.78 in unremitted contributions and lost opportunity costs to the J.D. Acquisition 401(k) plan.

Dombek III must also restore $45,134.08 in unremitted contributions and lost opportunity costs to the JJD Industries sponsored group health plan. The company contracted with Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Illinois to provide health and dental benefits to the employees of its related companies, including Wisconsin Tool & Stamping Co., J.D. Acquisition Corp., Akorat Metal Fabricators Inc./Smithco Fabricators Inc. and Pavo Inc./Injection Plastics Corp. The companies paid their premiums separately, and premiums were partially funded through weekly employee payroll deductions.

The judgment also bars Dombek Jr. and Dombek III from serving as fiduciaries or service providers to any employee benefit plan subject to ERISA for a period of five years. An independent fiduciary will oversee the termination of the 401(k) plans of both Wisconsin Tool & Stamping and J.D. Acquisition, as well as the distribution of plan assets to eligible participants.

The Dombeks will not be able to claim bankruptcy protection to avoid liability for the judgments. Dombek Jr. and Dombek III both previously had filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy protection. The Labor Department filed separate complaints to determine the dischargeability of these obligations and seek the enforcement of any monetary judgment against both individuals to restore the funds to the employee benefit programs. On October 5 and October 16, 2012, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted the Labor Department’s motions for default judgment, finding that the debts Dombek Jr. and Dombek III owed to the plans were not dischargeable in bankruptcy.

Business Leaders Risk Personal Liability When Employee Contributions Used In Company Operations

The judgement is another reminder to business owners and leaders not to allow employee contributions or other plan assets to be used to pay company expenses or otherwise misdirected. The judgment is one many enforcement actions that the Department of Labor regularly takes against businesses and business leaders that allow plan assets to be used for company operations or other improper purposes.

“Failing to administer health insurance premiums properly demonstrates a total lack of concern for employees and their families,” said Steve Haugen, director of the Chicago Regional Office of the Labor Department’s Employee Benefit Security Administration. “Incorporating employees’ voluntary salary contributions into the general assets of a company and failing to forward them to the retirement plan are violations of both the law and the trust workers have placed in their employers.”

The judgement shows that owners, operators and managers of businesses that exercise discretion and control over the funding, investment or administration of employee benefit plans or their assets face significant liability for failing to properly fulfill their responsibilities with respect to their employee benefit plans. Businesses, their owners, board members, officers, and other members of management making decisions about the maintenance, funding, administration, termination, hiring or appointment of fiduciaries or service providers or other matters impacting the employee benefit plan should ensure that they understand the potential implications and responsibilities associated with these activities for themselves and their companies. Individuals who have authority or responsibility for employee benefit plans who also perform or take part in the performance of other company management functions also should pre-educate themselves about when ERISA may require that their plan responsibilities be put before otherwise applicable responsibilities to their company, appropriate processes for documenting decisions and activities, and other procedures to help position activities to mitigate exposures and promote defensibility.

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 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 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.

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:

About Solutions Law Press

1 Comment | Employee Benefits, Employers, ERISA, Fiduciary Responsibility, Health Plans, Mental Health, Mental Health Parity, Retirement Plans, Tax | Tagged: Bankruptcy, ERISA, fee disclosure, Fiduciary, plan investiments, prohibited traansaction, Prudence | 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

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.

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.

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.

For Help or More Information

About Ms. Stamer

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

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

Catch Up On Health Reform & Other Key Employee Benefits & Insurance Issues Emerging Issues and Litigation Relating to Life, Health, Disability and ERISA Symposium In Ft. Lauderdale

December 7, 2012

Cynthia Marcotte Stamer will be one of the featured panelists discussing “Implications of PPACA” on January 18, 2013 at the American Bar Association Tort Trial & Insurance Practice Section’s (TIPS) 39th Annual TIPS Midwinter Symposium on Insurance and Employee Benefits “Emerging Issues and Litigation Relating to Life, Health, Disability and ERISA” in Fort Lauderdale.

The “Implications on PPACA” program scheduled at 3:30 p.m. on January 18, 2012 is one of many content-rich series of programs on employee benefit and insurance issues that leading practitioners will lead during the Symposium W Hotel Fort Lauderdale in Fort Lauderdale, FL on January 17-19, 2013. To register, review the full agenda or get additional information about the Symposium, see here.

About Ms. Stamer

Managing Editor of Solutions Law Press, Inc. and 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 knowledgeable and creative 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 TIPS, 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 many 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 more 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.

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. If you do not wish to receive these updates in the future, send an e-mail with the word “Remove” in the Subject to here.

Comments Off on Catch Up On Health Reform & Other Key Employee Benefits & Insurance Issues Emerging Issues and Litigation Relating to Life, Health, Disability and ERISA Symposium In Ft. Lauderdale | 105(h), Affordable Care Act, CHIP, COBRA, Disability, Disability, Employee Benefits, Employers, Employment Tax, ERISA, Excise Tax, Fiduciary Responsibility, FMLA, Health Care Reform, Health Plans, HIPAA, Human Resources, Income Tax, Insurance, Malpractice, Medicare Part D, Mental Health, Mental Health Parity, Patient Empowerment, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Payroll Tax, Preemption, Prescription Drugs, Protected Health Information, Reporting & Disclosure, Tax Credit, Wellness Programs | Tagged: Affordable Care Act, ERISA, HIPAA | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

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

November 28, 2012

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For Help or More Information

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

About Ms. Stamer

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

Recognized in Who’s Who In American Professionals and both an American Bar Association (ABA) and a State Bar of Texas Fellow, Ms. Stamer serves on the Editorial Advisory Board of Employee Benefits News, the editor and publisher of Solutions Law Press HR & Benefits Update and other Solutions Law Press Publications, and active in a multitude of other employee benefits, human resources and other professional and civic organizations. She also is a widely published author and highly regarded speaker on these matters. Her insights on these and other matters appear in the Bureau of National Affairs, Spencer Publications, the Wall Street Journal, the Dallas Business Journal, the Houston Business Journal, Modern and many other national and local publications. You can learn more about Ms. Stamer and her experience, review some of her other training, speaking, publications and other resources, and registerto receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns see here or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at 469.767.8872 or via e-mail to cstamer@solutionslawyer.net.

About Solutions Law Press

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

Boost Employee Recognition of Value Of Employer & Other Retirement Savings Tools & Plans

October 22, 2012

Studies suggest that employees need to save an estimated 40% of current earnings to have sufficient savings to fund the anticipated cost to keep up their lifestyle post retirement for their expected post retirement life expectancy. Although times are tough, American workers need to understand the importance of taking advantage of employer sponsored and other retirement saving and funding tools. Here is a free Department of Labor resource that employers might want to include in their retirement education toolkit.

For More Information Or Assistance

If you need help reviewing or responding to the defined benefit plan funding or other employee benefit, compensation or employment regulations or other related matters please contact Cynthia Marcotte Stamer here or (469)767-8872.

About Ms. Stamer

Board Certified in Labor and Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, an American College of Employee Benefits Counsel Fellow, past Chair and current Welfare Benefit Committee Co_Chair of the American Bar Association (ABA) RPTE Employee Benefit & Other Compensation Group, a Council Member of the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits, current TIPS Employee Benefits Committee, Vice Chair, and Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, management attorney and consultant Cynthia Marcotte Stamer has more than 25 years experience advising and representing employers, health and other employee benefit plans, their sponsors, fiduciaries and plan administrators, consultants, vendors, outsourcers, insurers, governments and others about employment, employee benefit, compensation, and a wide range of other performance, legal and operational risk management practices and concerns. As a part of this work, Ms. Stamer has worked extensively with clients to manage risks and defend practices under a wide range of laws and circumstances. Her experience includes extensive work advising and representing employers, plans, plan fiduciaries, trustees, investors, and others about managing and resolving risks relating to distressed pension and other employee benefit plans, downsizing and other workforce re-engineering and other similar matters. A prolific author and popular speaker, Ms. Stamer also publishes, conducts client and other training, testifies, speaks and consults extensively on other employment and employee benefit risk management practices and concerns for the ABA, World At Work, SHRM, American Health Lawyers Association, Institute of Internal Auditors, Society for Professional Benefits Administrators, HCCA, Southwest Benefits Association and many other organizations. An Editorial Advisory Board member and contributing author of HR.com, Insurance Thought Leaders, Employee Benefit News and many other publications, her insights on these and related topics have appeared in Atlantic Information Service, Bureau of National Affairs, World At Work, The Wall Street Journal, Business Insurance, Managed Healthcare, Health Leaders, various ABA publications and a many other national and local publications. To learn more about Ms. Stamer, her experience, involvements, programs and publications, see here or contact Ms. Stamer.

Other Resources & Developments

If you found this information of interest, you also may be interested in reviewing other recent Solutions Law Press updates including:

If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates and notices about upcoming programs and events, 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.

Comments Off on Boost Employee Recognition of Value Of Employer & Other Retirement Savings Tools & Plans | Bankruptcy, Corporate Compliance, Employers, ERISA, Fiduciary Responsibility, Internal Controls, Reporting & Disclosure, Restructuring, Retirement Plans | Tagged: defined benefit plan, disclosure, ERISA, funding, Labor Department, notices, PBGC, pension plans, reporting, underfunded plans | 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 Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Council, immediate past Chair of the American Bar Association (ABA) RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Group and current Co-Chair of its Welfare Benefit Committee, Vice-Chair of the ABA TIPS Employee Benefits Committee, a council member of the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits, and past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, Ms. Stamer is recognized, internationally, nationally and locally for her more than 24 years of work, advocacy, education and publications on cutting edge health and managed care, employee benefit, human resources and related workforce, insurance and financial services, and health care matters.

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

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

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

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

Congress Gives Defined Benefit Plan Sponsors Welcome Funding Relief, Raises PBGC Premiums & Makes Other Reforms

July 31, 2012

The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended (ERISA) and the Internal Revenue Code generally require employers that sponsor defined benefit pension plans make sufficient contributions to their defined benefit pension plans to ensure that their plans meet minimum funding requirements.

Failure to meet minimum funding requirements triggers a series of complicated reporting and disclosure, funding and excise tax liabilities, liens and other obligations that are serious and require prompt redress through prompt payment of required contributions and penalties, request for funding waivers or termination under a series of complicated rules or both. Special controlled group, lien and successor liability rules incorporated into these funding requirements often spread the risk of funding deficiencies under these rules by extending liabilities to commonly controlled or affiliated employers, lenders, potential purchasers and others dealing with these plans or the businesses that sponsor them.

Because employer funding obligations under these rules depend heavily upon interest and other investment performance used to calculate funding levels, employer funding obligations tend to spike during economic depressions or slowdowns, resulting in sharp increases in funding obligations for employers at a time when the tight economy already makes finances tight. Congress has faced growing pressure to provide some sort of defined benefit pension plan funding relief as low investment returns and strained corporate budgets during the ongoing economic crisis have fueled an underfunding epidemic among employers sponsoring defined benefit pension plans and threatened the financial viability of many sponsoring employers and the federal insurance program responsible for providing backup insurance for private employer defined benefit commitments administered by the PBGC.

MAP-21 provides immediate defined benefit plan funding relief by changing how the interest rates that employers must use to calculate their current defined benefit plan funding obligations are calculated. MAP-21 defined benefit plan funding reforms effectively decrease current defined benefit plan funding costs by establishing a minimum and maximum for the interest segment rates defined benefit plans use to calculate currently required funding based on a historic 25-year average of those segment rates. It is important that employers and plan fiduciaries keep in mind that the MAP-21 interest rate change applies to the calculation of current funding obligations that employer. It does not apply for purposes of calculating lump sum distributions, limits on deductible contributions to single-employer plans, PBGC variable-rate premiums, fi

With many employers continuing to meet defined benefit plan funding requirements driven up by the continued excessively low investment performance of their benefit plan investment in the slow economic environment, defined benefit pension plan funding relief included in the “Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act”(MAP–21”) signed into law by President Obama on July 6, 2012 provides welcome and much-needed pension funding relief. For many financially strapped businesses that sponsor defined benefit plans, the MAP-21 relief may allow the employer to avoid terminating its defined benefit plan, escape costly underfunding consequences that many defined benefit plan sponsors fear will financially cripple or bankrupt their companies, or both.

MAP-21 provides immediate funding relief for financially strapped defined benefit plan sponsors and makes various other reforms impacting defined benefit pension plans and the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation (PBGC) insurance program that helps to insure certain benefit commitments made under these defined benefit plans. The MAP-21 funding relief is intended to help employers struggling to meet heightened pension funding obligations brought about by the decline in investment performance resulting from the economic downturn.

nancial reporting under Section 4010 of ERISA, and qualified transfers of excess pension assets to retiree medical accounts.

In addition to changing the rules for calculating interest rates for purposes of determining defined benefit plan minimum funding obligations, MAP-21 also extends rules allowing transfers of excess pension assets to retiree health accounts to December 31, 2021 and expands those transfer rules also to allow transfers to fund retiree group term life insurance accounts.

Finally, in addition to these changes to defined benefit pension plan funding rules, MAP-21 also reorganizes the PBGC organizational structure and increases PBGC insurance premiums.

While the MAP-21 reforms will provide welcome relief, sponsoring businesses, their commonly controlled and affiliated employers, lenders, investors and successors still must exercise care to carefully monitor the funding status of defined benefit plans and the potential liabilities and responsibilities associated with these plans. Appropriate steps should be taken to maintain required funding levels or, at the first sign of trouble, to seek experienced legal and actuarial advice and help to identify and take prompt steps to pursue options to head off a potential crisis by freezing or terminating the plan, providing required notifications and disclosures to participants and beneficiaries, the PBGC, lenders, investors, and other concerned parties, and other actions to mitigate exposures.

For More Information Or Assistance

A Fellow in the the American College of Employee Benefits Council, Board Certified in Labor and Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, Immediate Past Chair and current Welfare Plan Committee Co-Chair of the American Bar Association (ABA) RPTE Employee Benefit & Other Compensation Group, a Council Member of the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits, Vice-Chair of the ABA TIPS Employee Benefits Commitee, Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, management attorney and consultant Cynthia Marcotte Stamer nearly 25 years experience advising and representing employers, employee benefit plans, their sponsors, bankruptcy creditors, debtors and trustees, plan fiduciaries and plan administrators, consultants, vendors, outsourcers, insurers, governments and others about employment, employee benefit, compensation, and a wide range of other performance, legal and operational risk management practices and concerns. As a part of this work, Ms. Stamer has worked extensively with clients to manage risks and defend practices under a wide range of laws and circumstances. Her experience includes extensive work advising and representing employers, plans, plan fiduciaries, trustees, investors, and others about managing and resolving risks relating to distressed pension and other employee benefit plans, downsizing and other workforce reengineering and other similar matters. A prolific author and popular speaker, Ms. Stamer also publishes, conducts client and other training, speaks and consults extensively on GINA and other employment and employee benefit risk management practices and concerns for the ABA, World At Work, SHRM, American Health Lawyers Association, Institute of Internal Auditors, Society for Professional Benefits Administrators, HCCA, Southwest Benefits Association and many other organizations. Her insights on these and related topics have appeared in Atlantic Information Service, Bureau of National Affairs, World At Work, The Wall Street Journal, Business Insurance, Managed Healthcare, Health Leaders, various ABA publications and a many other national and local publications. To learn more about Ms. Stamer, her experience, involvements, programs and publications, see here or contact Ms. Stamer.

Other Resources & Developments

If you found this information of interest, you also may be interested in reviewing other recent Solutions Law Press updates including:

If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates and notices about upcoming programs and events, please be sure that we have your current contact information – including your preferred e-mail- by creating or updating your profile at here. To unsubscribe, send an e-mail with “Unsubscribe” in the subject here. For important information concerning this communication click here.

Comments Off on Congress Gives Defined Benefit Plan Sponsors Welcome Funding Relief, Raises PBGC Premiums & Makes Other Reforms | Bankruptcy, Corporate Compliance, Employers, ERISA, Fiduciary Responsibility, Internal Controls, Reporting & Disclosure, Restructuring, Retirement Plans | Tagged: defined benefit plan, disclosure, ERISA, funding, Labor Department, notices, PBGC, pension plans, reporting, underfunded plans | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Stamer Speaks 11/15 About Things Plan Committees Must Do Differently In 2012 At SWBA Meeting

July 10, 2012

Stamer Speaks About Things Plan Committees Must Do Differently In 2012 At SWBA Meeting In November

Cynthia Marcotte Stamer will be among the featured panelists speaking about “The Flood of Things a Plan Committee Must Do Differently in 2012” at the Southwest Benefits Association (SWBA) 23rd Annual Employee Benefits Conference for Practitioners and Plan Sponsors scheduled for November 15-16, 2012 at the Doubletree Galleria Hotel in Dallas, Texas

During “The Flood of Things a Plan Committee Must Do Differently in 2012” program, scheduled to begin at 4:00 PM on November 15, Ms. Stamer and other panelists will discuss the grow emerging challenges and responsibilities that employee benefit plan committees and other fiduciaries must deal with in 2012 such as new provider disclosures and participant disclosures about internal retirement plan fees, to new processes for handling claims and appeals arising under health plans now (and other types of plans soon), to identifying and documenting who really are the other fiduciaries of its plan, to avoiding stock drop exposure (especially after Pfiel), excessive fees exposure, securities lending exposure and others.

The program is part of two days of educational programs that the SWBA will provide during the Conference. To register or for additional details, see here.

About Ms. Stamer

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 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. 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. Her publications and insights 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. 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. 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

Comments Off on Stamer Speaks 11/15 About Things Plan Committees Must Do Differently In 2012 At SWBA Meeting | Employee Benefits, Employers, ERISA, Fiduciary Responsibility, Health Plans, Mental Health, Mental Health Parity, Retirement Plans, Tax | Tagged: ERISA, fee disclosure, Fiduciary, participant fee disclosuyrenvestment-advisor, plan investiments, prohibited traansaction, Prudence | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

$27M+ Settlement Highlights Fiduciary Risks Plan Sponsors & Fiduciaries Risk If Plan Vendors, Compensation Improperly Set

July 7, 2012

A $27 million settlement announced by the Department of Labor on July 7 shows the big liability that employer, union or association plan sponsors and their fiduciaries risk by failing to take appropriate steps when deciding who will serve as fiduciaries or other plan sponsors or setting the compensation paid by the plan for those services.

The National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA) will restore $27,272,727 to three association-sponsored employee benefit plans covered by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) to settle U.S. Department of Labor Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA) charges that the association violated ERISA by selecting itself as a service provider to the plans, determining its own compensation and making payments to itself that exceeded NRECA’s direct expenses in providing services to the employee benefit plans. EBSA announced the settlement on July 5, 2012.

Following an EBSA investigation, EBSA accused NRECA of violating NRECA by selecting itself to act as the administrator of various association employee benefit plans and arranging for the NRECA to receive unreasonable compensation for these services which NRECA set without the use of independent parties to prudently verify the appropriateness of the selection or compensation arrangements. EBSA said these arrangements violated the self-dealing and other fiduciary responsibility requirements of ERISA.

Headquartered in Arlington, NRECA is a nonprofit trade association for electric power cooperatives. The sponsored plans are open to members of the trade association as well as the association’s employees. As of 2010, the latest information available, the NRECA 401(k) Plan had 68,970 participants, the NRECA Retirement Security Plan had 64,286 participants and the NRECA Group Benefits Plan had 73,644 participants.

Under the terms of the agreement, NRECA will not provide administrative services to the NRECA Retirement Security Plan, the NRECA 401(k) Plan and the NRECA Group Benefits Plan without entering into a written contract or agreement with the plans that must be approved by an independent fiduciary. The independent fiduciary must determine whether the use of NRECA to provide administrative services to the plans is prudent and reasonable, determine the categories of direct expenses that NRECA may charge to the plans and the methods of calculating those expenses, and monitor NRECA’s compliance with certain terms of the agreement. The agreement also provides that during a 60-month period following the implementation date, NRECA shall discount the amount of permissible direct expenses for which it seeks reimbursement from all three plans in the amount of $22,727,272. The balance of the settlement payment, $4,545,455, already has been paid directly to the NRECA 401(k) Plan. In addition to the amounts returned to the plans, NRECA will pay $2,727,276 in civil penalties.

“This settlement sends a clear message to plan fiduciaries that they cannot profit from selecting themselves to provide services to plans,” said Phyllis Borzi, assistant secretary of labor for employee benefits security in announcing the settlement.

Employee benefit plan vendor selection and compensation arrangements made by association and other employee benefit plan sponsors, fiduciaries and service providers are coming under increasing scrutiny by the EBSA. While ERISA technically grants plan sponsors and fiduciaries wide latitude to make these choices, the exercise of these powers comes with great responsibility. See e.g., Plan Sponsors. Their Owners & Management & Others Risk Personal Liability If Others Defraud Plans or Mismanage Employee Benefit Plan Responsibilities; New Rules Give Employee Benefit Plan Fiduciaries & Investment Advisors New Investment Advice Options;DOL Proposes To Expand Investment Related Services Giving Rise to ERISA Fiduciary Status As Investment Fiduciary.

Associations, employer and other plan sponsors, and other entities and individuals who in name or in function possess or exercise discretionary responsibility or authority over the selection of plan fiduciaries, administrative or investment service providers or other services to the plan or the establishment of their compensation generally must make those decisions in accordance with the fiduciary responsibility and prohibited transaction rules of ERISA. Among other things, these rules generally require that fiduciaries exercising discretion over these and other plan matters:

ü Must act prudently for the exclusive benefit of plan participants and beneficiaries;

ü Must not involve the plan or its assets in any arrangement that is listed as a prohibited transaction under ERISA § 406; and

ü Must not act for the benefit of themselves or any third party.

Fiduciaries that violate these rules risk personal liability to the plans for the greater of profits realized or losses sustained by the plan, plus attorneys’ fees and costs, as well as exposure to an EBSA-assessed ERISA civil penalty equal to 20% of the amount of the fiduciary breach.

Despite these well-document fiduciary exposures and a well-established pattern of enforcement by the Labor Department and private plaintiffs, many companies and their business leaders fail to appreciate the responsibilities and liabilities associated with the establishment and administration of employee benefit plans. Frequently, employer and other employee benefit plan sponsors fail adequately to follow or document their administration of appropriate procedures to be in a position to demonstrate their fulfillment of these requirements when selecting plan fiduciaries and service providers, determining the compensation paid for their services, overseeing the performance of these parties, or engaging in other dealings with respect to plan design or administration. In other instances, businesses and their leaders do not realize that the functional definition that ERISA uses to determine fiduciary status means that individuals participating in discretionary decisions relating to the employee benefit plan, as well as the plan sponsor, may bear liability under many commonly occurring situations if appropriate care is not exercised to protect participants or beneficiaries in these plans. For this reason, businesses and associations providing employee benefits to employees or dependents, as well as members of management participating in, or having responsibility to oversee or influence decisions concerning the establishment, maintenance, funding, and administration of their organization’s employee benefit programs need a clear understanding of their responsibilities with respect to such programs, the steps that they should take to demonstrate their fulfillment of these responsibilities, and their other options for preventing or mitigating their otherwise applicable fiduciary risks.

In light of the significant liability risks, employer, association and other employee benefit plan sponsors and their management, plan fiduciaries, service providers and consultants should exercise care when selecting plan fiduciaries and service providers, establishing their compensation and making other related arrangements. To minimize fiduciary exposures, parties participating in these activities should seek the advice of competent legal counsel concerning their potential fiduciary status and responsibilities relating to these activities and take appropriate steps to minimize potential exposures.

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.

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

Comments Off on $27M+ Settlement Highlights Fiduciary Risks Plan Sponsors & Fiduciaries Risk If Plan Vendors, Compensation Improperly Set | Employee Benefits, Employers, ERISA, Fiduciary Responsibility, Health Plans, Mental Health, Mental Health Parity, Retirement Plans, Tax | Tagged: ERISA, fee disclosure, Fiduciary, participant fee disclosuyrenvestment-advisor, plan investiments, prohibited traansaction, Prudence | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Coping With Health Care Reform: 2012 Health Plan Update Workshop July 24, 2012: Register Now!

July 2, 2012

Coping With Health Care Reform: 2012 Health Plan Update

A Solutions Law Press HR & Benefits Workshop

July 24, 2012

10:30 A.M.-Noon Eastern | 11:30 A.M.-1:00 P.M. Central | 9:30 A.M-11:00 A.M. Pacific

Register Now!

Get a 2012/2013 Health Plan Compliance Checkup!

Learn Latest About What Your Health Plan Must Do To Meet Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act (ACA) Summary of Benefits & Communications (SBC), External Review, Culturally & Linguistically Appropriate, Nondiscrimination, Mandated Coverage & Benefit & Other Affordable Care Act, As Well As The Latest On ERISA & Other Federal Health Plan Rules!

The June 28, 2012 Supreme Court National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius ruling rejecting constitutional challenges to the ACA health care reform law means most health plans, their employer and other sponsors, fiduciaries and administrators, and insurers must rush to update their health plan documents, summary plan descriptions and other communications, administrative procedures and contracts, reporting and other arrangements to meet the requirements of ACA that have, or by year end will, take effect pending the full rollout of the law in 2014.

Solutions Law Press, Inc. invites you 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 by participating in “Coping With Health Care Reform: 2012 Health Plan Update Workshop on Tuesday, July 24, 2012. 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.

Learn Latest On 2012/2013 Federal Health Plan Requirements

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

About The Speaker

A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefits Counsel, recognized in International Who’s Who, and Board Certified in Labor & Employment Law, attorney and health benefit consultant Cynthia Marcotte Stamer has 25 years experience advising and representing private and public employers, employer and union plan sponsors, employee benefit plans, associations, their fiduciaries, administrators, and vendors, group health, Medicare and Medicaid Advantage, and other insurers, governmental leaders and others on health and other employee benefit. employment, insurance and related matters. A well-known and prolific author and popular speaker Board Certified in Labor & Employment Law, Ms. Stamer presently serves as Co-Chair of the ABA RPTE Section Welfare Plan Committee, Vice Chair of the ABA TIPS Employee Benefit Committee, an ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits Representative, an Editorial Advisory Board Member of the Institute of Human Resources (IHR/HR.com) and Employee Benefit News, and various other publications. 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. 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, Education Credit & Other Details

REGISTRATION FEE: Registration Fee $125.00 per person (plus an additional $10 service fee for parties seeking Texas Department of Insurance Continuing Education Credit). Registration Fee Discounts 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. Register Now!

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE CONTINUING EDUCATION CREDIT: This program has been approved to be offered for general certification credit by the Texas Department of Insurance 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 Texas Department of Insurance possesses the final authority to decide whether an individual qualifies to receive requested continuing education credit. Neither Solutions Law Press, Inc. , the speaker or any of their related parties shall have any liability therefore.

OTHER PROFESSIONAL CERTIFICATION OR CONTINUING EDUCATION CREDIT: HRCI and World At Work certification credit requested and pending. If you have special continuing education credit needs that you wish us to consider, please let us know. We are happy to visit with you about our ability to accommodate your request. Special fees or other conditions may apply.

CANCELLATION & REFUND POLICY: In order to receive credit, cancellation (either fax or 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.. DISABILITIES ACCOMMODATION: If you are an individual with a disability who requires accommodation to take part, please let us know when registering so that we may consider your request.

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. Our resources include a broad range of legal, regulatory, compliance, risk management, internal controls and other key information and support to aid management generally as well as industry and discipline specific resources on Management Compliance, Operations & Risk Management; Human Resources, Employee Benefits & Compensation, Health Plans & Insurance; Investigations, Audits & Assessments; Internal & External Controls & Policies; Officer, Directors & Owner Risk Management; Privacy & Other Information Security; Public Policy & Regulatory Oversight; Quality & Process Management; Vendor & Customer Relationship; Event Management; and Other Management & Operations Needs.

Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ also conducts and assist businesses and associations to design, present and conduct customized programs and training targeted to their specific audiences and needs. For additional information about upcoming programs, to inquire about becoming a presenting sponsor for an upcoming event, e-mail your request to info@Solutionslawpress.com.

Save The Date & Register For These Upcoming HR & Benefits Workshops

Solutions Law Press, Inc sponsors many valuable Human Resources and Employee Benefits Workshops. Register or get more information on the following upcoming Health Plan Workshops Here:

July 24, 2012, Coping With Health Care Reform: 2012 Health Plan Update Workshop

July 31, 2012, Claims & Appeals Bootcamp

August 14, 2012, HIPAA Bootcamp

Sponsorships & Other Partnering Opportunities

Solutions Law Press, Inc. offers many sponsorship and other opportunities for consultants, brokers, associations and other organizations to offer our training and other resources to groups and others on preferred terms. To explore these opportunities, please E-mail cindy@solutionslawpress.com.

Important Information

Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ programs, publications and other resources are provided only for general informational and educational purposes. Neither the distribution or presentation of these programs and materials to any party nor any statement or information provided in or in connection with this communication, the program or associated materials are intended to or shall be construed as establishing an attorney-client relationship, to constitute legal advice or provide any assurance or expectation from Solutions Law Press, Inc., the presenter or any related parties. If you or someone else you know would like to receive future Alerts or other information about developments, publications or programs or other updates, send your request to info@solutionslawpress.com. If you would prefer not to receive communications from Solutions Law Press, Inc. send an e-mail with “Solutions Law Press Unsubscribe” in the Subject to support@solutionslawyer.net. CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE: The following disclaimer is included to comply with and in response to U.S. Treasury Department Circular 230 Regulations. ANY STATEMENTS CONTAINED HEREIN ARE NOT INTENDED OR WRITTEN BY THE WRITER TO BE USED, AND NOTHING CONTAINED HEREIN CAN BE USED BY YOU OR ANY OTHER PERSON, FOR THE PURPOSE OF (1) AVOIDING PENALTIES THAT MAY BE IMPOSED UNDER FEDERAL TAX LAW, OR (2) PROMOTING, MARKETING OR RECOMMENDING TO ANOTHER PARTY ANY TAX-RELATED TRANSACTION OR MATTER ADDRESSED HEREIN.

Comments Off on Coping With Health Care Reform: 2012 Health Plan Update Workshop July 24, 2012: Register Now! | Uncategorized | Tagged: ADA, Affordable Care Act, ERISA, FMLA, GINA, Health Care Reform, Health Plans, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Western Mixers & Officers Ordered To Pay $1.2M+ For Improperly Using Benefit Plan Funds For Company Operations, Other ERISA Violations

May 23, 2012

Businesses owners and managers should treat last week’s judgment against a California fruit and nut supplier Western Mixers Inc. and its officers as a wake-up call to meet employee benefit funding obligations, not to use plan monies for company operations and to take other required steps to make sure that retirement, health and other employee benefit plans moneys and other responsibilities are properly handled.

Under a judgment entered in Solis v. Frank L. Rudy et. al. and Western Mixers Inc. Money Purchase Pension Plan, Western Mixers Inc., its owners and officers will pay a total of $1,287,901 to the company’s pension plan, plus a 20 percent penalty to the Department of Labor.

Following an investigation by the Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA), the Department of Labor sued Western Mixers Inc. and two officers who served as trustees of the plan for failing to make approximately $952,511 in mandatory employer contributions for the benefit of participants and beneficiaries and improperly using plan monies in the company’s business operations. Investigators also found that the same two officers as well as the company’s chief financial officer made $565,000 in unauthorized withdrawals from the plan accounts, commingling those funds in the company’s general accounts and using them for the benefit of the business.

Labor Department officials sued the company, and the officers for violation of the fiduciary responsibility rules of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). ERISA generally requires that plan trustees and other plan fiduciaries carry out duties with respect to an employee benefit plan assets prudently for the exclusive benefit of participants.

Pursuant to the consent judgment, the company and its officers admitted to violation of ERISA. During the course of the investigation leading up to the lawsuit, the company previously repaid to the plan $485,000 of the total funds identified as missing by the Labor Department. According to an announcement of the U.S. Department of Labor on May 14, 2012, Midwest Mixers Inc.’s officers agreed to repay $802,901 to participants’ accounts within 10 day of the judgment.

In addition to repaying the missing funds with interest, defendants also must pay a penalty equal to 20 percent of the recovered amount. The court also has appointed an independent fiduciary to terminate the plan and to collect, marshal, pay out and administer plan assets. Frank L. Rudy and David H. Bolstad, owners of the company, are removed as plan trustees and fiduciaries. Together with Robert J. Fischer, Western Mixers, Inc.’s chief financial officer, they are permanently enjoined and restrained from violating ERISA and from serving as fiduciary or service providers to any ERISA-covered plan in the future.

The Western Mixer’s judgement demonstrates that owners, operators and managers of businesses that exercise discretion and control over the funding, investment or administration of employee benefit plans or their assets face significant liability for failing to properly fulfill their responsibilities with respect to their employee benefit plans. Businesses, their owners, board members, officers, and other members of management making decisions about the maintenance, funding, administration, termination, hiring or appointment of fiduciaries or service providers or other matters impacting the employee benefit plan should ensure that they understand the potential implications and responsibilities associated with these activities for themselves and their companies. individuals who have authority or responsibility for employee benefit plans who also perform or take part in the performance of other company management functions also should pre-educate themselves about when ERISA may require that their plan responsibilities be put before otherwise applicable responsibilities to their company, appropriate processes for documenting decisions and activities and other procedures that can help position activities to mitigate exposures and promote defensibility.

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.

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

Comments Off on Western Mixers & Officers Ordered To Pay $1.2M+ For Improperly Using Benefit Plan Funds For Company Operations, Other ERISA Violations | Employee Benefits, Employers, ERISA, Fiduciary Responsibility, Health Plans, Mental Health, Mental Health Parity, Retirement Plans, Tax | Tagged: Bankruptcy, ERISA, fee disclosure, Fiduciary, plan investiments, prohibited traansaction, Prudence | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Plan Administrator Faces Civil & Criminal Prosecution For Allegedly Making Prohibited $3.2 Million Real Estate Investment

May 22, 2012

The U.S. Department of Labor has filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho against Matthew D. Hutcheson alleging that he violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) by imprudently investing retirement plan assets in a now-failed real estate venture. Hutcheson also faces a separate criminal indictment, which was filed in the same court on April 10, in connection with the same transaction.

The Labor Department civil complaint alleges that, toward the end of 2010, Hutcheson used more than $3.2 million representing the retirement plan savings of workers from multiple employers for his own personal expenses and in an attempt to buy an interest in the Tamarack Resort – a failed ski and golf resort in Idaho.

Labor Department officials charge this imprudent prohibited transaction has left affected retirement plans without sufficient funds to pay participants all the benefits owed to them.

The Labor Department also has filed an application for a temporary restraining order seeks to remove Hutcheson and other named defendants as fiduciaries of the affected plans, and seeks to appoint an independent fiduciary to administer the plans. In addition to Hutcheson, defendants include Hutcheson Walker Advisors LLC; Green Valley Holdings LLC; and the Retirement Security Plan and Trust, formerly known as the Pension Liquidity Plan and Trust.

Appropriate management of retirement and other employee benefit plan assets is a key obiligation of employee benefit plan investment advisors and other fiduciaries that have authority over plan assets. Plan fiduciaries generally are required by ERISA 404 to invest prudently and for the exclusive benefit of plan participants and beneficiaries. Additionally, ERISA generally prohibits plan fiduciaries from investing in or involving the plan or its assets in certain prohibited transactions or dealing with plan assets for the benefit of themselves or other third parties.

Because violations of ERISA’s fiduciary responsibility rules can create personal liability, employer and other plan sponsors, plan fiduciaries and others participating in decisions or administration of a rebate exercise care in dealing with any rebate. Many plan sponsors also may want to consider reviewing and tightening as warranted existing plan, trust, insurance policy, plan communications and other documentation to lower risks and promote desired characterization of rebates and other amounts paid into or with respect to their plans.

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.

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

Comments Off on Plan Administrator Faces Civil & Criminal Prosecution For Allegedly Making Prohibited $3.2 Million Real Estate Investment | Employee Benefits, Employers, ERISA, Fiduciary Responsibility, Mental Health, Mental Health Parity, Retirement Plans, Tax | Tagged: 404, 406, ERISA, fiduciary liabiity, Fiduciary Responsibility, investment, investment advisor, plan administrator, prohibited transactions | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Employee Plan Fee Disclosure Rules Clarified

May 22, 2012

The Department of Labor’s Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA) has made a technical correction to recently released participant-level fee disclosure regulation (29 CFR § 2550.404a-5) contained in Field Assistance Bulletin No. 2012-02 (Fab 2012-02) as initially released on May 7, 2012.

Fab 2012-02 contains frequently asked questions and answers about the Department’s participant-level fee disclosure regulation. As originally released a sentence in the answer to Question 19 concerning quarterly Web site updates to “average annual total return” information inadvertently referred to the most recently completed calendar “year” rather than the most recently completed calendar “quarter.”

In its technical correction of this provision on May 17, 2012, EBSA revised the Faq to track the regulation of the regulation amd re,pved the word “calendar”from the phrase “… 10-calendar year periods …” in the same sentence. See Q-19, n.2. The Fab as revised is available at: here.

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.

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

Comments Off on Employee Plan Fee Disclosure Rules Clarified | Employee Benefits, Employers, ERISA, Fiduciary Responsibility, Health Plans, Mental Health, Mental Health Parity, Retirement Plans, Tax | Tagged: ERISA, fee disclosure, Fiduciary, participant fee disclosuyrenvestment-advisor, plan investiments, prohibited traansaction, Prudence | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Brokerage Firm To Pay $630,000+ To Benefit Plans To Settle DOL Charges It Wrongfully Steered Clients To Investments

April 18, 2012

News that Memphis-based brokerage firm Morgan Keegan and Co., Inc. will pay more than $600,000 to settle charges it violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) reminds employee benefit plan fiduciaries and brokerage or other providers of investment advice or services to employee benefit plans.

The Employee Benefit Security Administration (EBSA) announced April 16, 2012 that Morgan Keegan has agreed to pay $633,715.46 to 10 ERISA-covered pension plans to settle EBSA charges that it violated ERISA when it recommended certain hedge funds of funds as investments to its ERISA-covered employee benefit plan clients. These recommendations resulted in the hedge funds of funds paying Morgan Keegan revenue-sharing and other fees.

Following an investigation by EBSA’s Atlanta Regional Office as part of EBSA’s “Consultant/Adviser Project,” EBSA charged Morgan Keegan violated ERISA between April 2001 and November 2008 by accepting undisclosed compensation to steer employee benefit plan investments. The Consultant/Advisor Project focuses on the receipt of improper or undisclosed compensation by employee benefit plan consultants and other investment advisers.

Under the terms of the settlement, Morgan Keegan has agreed to disclose to its ERISA plans clients whether the company will act as a fiduciary to those plans. If the company is acting as a fiduciary, Morgan Keegan has agreed to specify the services that it is providing as a fiduciary and to provide the ERISA plan clients a description of all compensation and fees received, in any form, from any source, involving any investment or transaction related to them. Morgan Keegan also agrees not to collect commissions or, if it does collect them, to refund to its ERISA plans clients 100 percent of the amount collected from third parties.

Meanwhile, EBSA also increasingly has focused regulatory and enforcement attention on broker or other service provider arrangements involving compensation arrangements that might involve a brokerage or other fiduciary service provider in a conflict of interest in contravention of these ERISA duty of loyalty requirements.

ERISA Section 404 generally requires that plan fiduciaries act prudently and for the exclusive benefit of plan participants and beneficiaries when dealing with plan assets or conducting other plan related responsibilities.

As part of this general fiduciary duty, plan fiduciaries selecting service providers for the plan generally are required to conduct due diligence and prudently review the fees and other compensation received by a service provider. To help support the ability of plan fiduciaries to carry out these responsibilities, EBSA fee disclosure regulations also generally require plan consultants and investment advisors to disclose compensation they receive as a result of plan related transactions and activities.

Along side their fee disclosure obligations, where investment advisor and other service provider acts as employee benefit plan fiduciary, ERISA Section 404 also requires that service provider to conduct its duty prudently and “for the exclusive benefit” of the plans and their beneficiaries. Additionally, ERISA Section 406 generally prohibits plan fiduciaries and other parties in interest from acting for the benefit of a party other than the plan and from engaging in certain other enumerated “party-in-interest” transactions except in certain narrowly proscribed circumstances.

The Morgan Keegan investigation and settlement highlights the readiness of the EBSA to enforce these requirements against broker or other service providers who abuse these rules. “The law is very clear: If you accept a fee to give investment advice to a retirement plan, you are a fiduciary and must therefore act solely in the best interests of the participants in that plan,” said Phyllis C. Borzi, assistant secretary of labor for employee benefits security. “Third-party payments should never be the motivating factor behind which investments brokers and advisers steer retirement clients into.”

To mitigate liability risks arising from fee related violations like those charged against Morgan Keegan, employee benefit plan fiduciaries and brokerage other service providers to employee benefit plans should carefully review and update existing fee and other practices to ensure that the fee disclosure, fiduciary responsibility, prohibited transaction and other requirements of ERISA and other applicable federal law are met. Documented analysis should be conducted and retained to position the parties to demonstrate that the service provider and its fees were prudently determined and disclosed, and that the transaction is free from any prohibited conflicts of interests.

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.

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

Comments Off on Brokerage Firm To Pay $630,000+ To Benefit Plans To Settle DOL Charges It Wrongfully Steered Clients To Investments | Employee Benefits, Employers, ERISA, Fiduciary Responsibility, Health Plans, Mental Health, Mental Health Parity, Retirement Plans, Tax | Tagged: ERISA, fee disclosure, Fiduciary, investment advisor, plan investiments, prohibited traansaction, Prudence | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

IRS Publishes More Guidance For Tax Preparers On Preparer Tax Identification Number

October 30, 2011

Tax attorneys, accountants and certain other tax advisors or representatives are required by new Internal Revenue Service rules to obtain a preparer tax identification number (PTIN).

Notice 2011-80 provides guidance to individuals who have or will obtain a PTINincluding a provisional PTIN, or who become registered tax return preparers.

Notice 2011-80 was published in IRB 2011-43 on October 24, 2011.

For Help or More Information

If you need help reviewing and updating your employee benefit plan investment advice arrangements or with other employee benefits, human resources or related matters, please contact the author of this update, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer.

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

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

Comments Off on IRS Publishes More Guidance For Tax Preparers On Preparer Tax Identification Number | Employee Benefits, Employers, Retirement Plans, Tax | Tagged: 401(k), Determination Letters, Employee Benefits, ERISA, investment advice, IRA, plan qualification, prohibited transactions, Retirement Plans, Tax, Tax preparers | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Plans & Investment Advisors Get Flexibility To Give Investment Advice To 401(k) & Other Individual Account Plan Participants & Beneficiaries

October 30, 2011

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) recently updated the applicable interest rates used for purposes of making calculations under Internal Revenue Code § 412(b)(5)(B)(ii)(II) and Code § 430(h)(2).

Notice 2011-84 provides guidance as to the corporate bond weighted average interest rate and the permissible range of interest rates specified under § 412(b)(5)(B)(ii)(II) of the Code as in effect for plan years beginning before 2008. It also provides guidance on the corporate bond monthly yield curve (and the corresponding spot segment rates), and the 24-month average segment rates under § 430(h)(2). In addition, this notice provides guidance as to the interest rate on 30-year Treasury securities under § 417(e)(3)(A)(ii)(II) as in effect for plan years beginning before 2008, the 30-year Treasury weighted average rate under § 431(c)(6)(E)(ii)(I), and the minimum present value segment rates under § 417(e)(3)(D) as in effect for plan years beginning after 2007.

Notice 2011-84 was published in the IRB 2011-43, dated October 24, 2011.

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

Comments Off on Plans & Investment Advisors Get Flexibility To Give Investment Advice To 401(k) & Other Individual Account Plan Participants & Beneficiaries | Employee Benefits, Employers, Retirement Plans, Tax | Tagged: 401(k), Determination Letters, Employee Benefits, ERISA, investment advice, IRA, plan qualification, prohibited transactions, Retirement Plans, Tax | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

IRS To Waive User Fee On Certain Plan Qualification Determination Applications

October 30, 2011

The Internal Revenue Service has announced plans to waive the user fee requirement that normally applies when plan sponsors seek determination letters on the qualified status for certain qualified employee benefit plans.

Notice 2011-86. The Code provides for exemption from the requirement to pay a user fee for certain applications to the Service for determination letters on the qualified status of pension, profit-sharing, stock bonus, annuity, and employee stock ownership (ESOP) plans. This notice amplifies Notice 2002–1, 2002–1 C.B. 283, by explaining how to determine, for purposes of eligibility for exemption from the user fee requirement, if such an application has been filed within a remedial amendment period with respect to the plan beginning within the plan’s first five plan years. The guidance in this notice generally pertains to such applications that are filed with the Service after January 31, 2011.

Notice 2011-86 will appear in IRB 2011-45 dated Nov. 7, 2011.

For Help or More Information

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

Comments Off on IRS To Waive User Fee On Certain Plan Qualification Determination Applications | Employee Benefits, Employers, Retirement Plans, Tax | Tagged: 401(k), Determination Letters, Employee Benefits, ERISA, investment advice, IRA, plan qualification, prohibited transactions, Retirement Plans, Tax | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Borzi Tells House Committee Current Fiduciary Regs Flawed; Must Fix Loopholes In Investment Advisor Definition To Protect Plans

July 28, 2011

Assistant Secretary of Labor, Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA) Phyllis C. Borzi testified Tuesday, July 26, 2011 to the House Committee on Education and the Workforce Subcommitte on Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions that EBSA a proposed fiduciary regulation that would update EBSA regulations defining when a person is considered a “fiduciary” by reason of giving investment advice for a fee with respect to assets of an employee benefit plan or IRA will help protect employee benefit plan participants by correcting “loopholes” in a “flawed 35-year-old rule” that allow many parties providing advice about the investment of retirement plan assets to escape coverage by ERISA’s fiduciary responsibility rules. The proposed regulations and other stepped up regulations and enforcement of ERISA’s fiduciary protections by the EBSA means that plan sponsors, fiduciaries, investment advisors and other plan service providers and others involved in the sponsorship, design, and administration of an employee benefit plan need to act to manage expanding fiduciary responsibilities and exposures.

Borzi Says Loopholes & Other Flaws In Existing Regulations Hurt Plans & Their Participants

Borzi told the Committee that EBSA believes its rules about the types of advisory relationships that give rise to fiduciary status under the ERISA on the part of those providing investment advice services need to change because “technicalities” and “loopholes” in the current EBSA fiduciary regulations definition of “investment advisor” in effect since 1975 harms participants and beneficiaries by allowing many advisers to easily dodge fiduciary status.

Borzi testified that the five-part regulatory test used under the current regulations to determine when ERISA’s fiduciary requirements apply to “investment advice” and when the advisor is a “fiduciary” significantly narrowed the plain language of the ERISA statute so that much of what plainly is advice about plan investments is not treated as investment advice as fiduciary conduct under ERISA and the person paid to render that advice is not treated as an ERISA fiduciary.

Under current fiduciary regulation, an investment adviser is not treated as a fiduciary accountable for complying with ERISA’s prudence, exclusive benefit, prohibited transaction and other fiduciary responsibility safeguards if and when providing advice that meets each element of a five part test.

Under the current regulation, a person is a fiduciary under ERISA and/or the tax code with respect to their advice only if and when he or she:

Make recommendations on investing in, purchasing or selling securities or other property, or give advice as to their value;
On a regular basis;
Pursuant to a mutual understanding that the advice;
Will serve as a primary basis for investment decisions; and
Will be individualized to the particular needs of the plan.

Borzi told members of Congress this narrow definition of investment advisor exempts a wide range of parties receiving compensation for providing advice about the investment of employee benefit funds from coverage by ERISA’s fiduciary responsibility requirements. Borzi testified that the narrowness of the existing regulation opened the door to serious problems, and changes in the market since the regulation was issued in 1975 have allowed these problems to proliferate and intensify. Borzi says the narrowness of the regulation has harmed some plans, participants, and IRA holders. Research has linked adviser conflicts with underperformance. SEC reviews of certain financial sales practices may also reflect these influences. Finally, EBSA’s own enforcement experience has demonstrated specific negative effects of conflicted investment advice.

Borzi Says Proposed Regulation Would Strengthen Protections For Plans & Their Participants

Borzi said the proposed regulation published in the Federal Register on October 22, 2010 would change the rules defining a person is considered to be a “fiduciary” by reason of giving investment advice for a fee with respect to assets of an employee benefit plan or IRA by modifying the current regulation in effect since 1975 would replace the five-part test of “investment advisor” with a broader definition more in keeping with the statutory language while providing clear exceptions for conduct that should not result in fiduciary status.

According to Borzi, types of advice and recommendations that generally would trigger fiduciary status under the proposed regulations include: (1) appraisals or fairness opinions concerning the value of securities or other property; (2) recommendations as to the advisability of investing in, purchasing, holding or selling securities or other property; or (3) recommendations as to the management of securities or other property.

To be a fiduciary for performing these or other activities treated as fiduciary investment advice, Borzi explained that a person engaging in one of these activities must receive a fee and also meet at least one of the following four conditions:

Represent to a plan, participant or beneficiary that the individual is acting as an ERISA fiduciary;
Already be an ERISA fiduciary to the plan by virtue of having any control over the management or disposition of plan assets, or by having discretionary authority over the administration of the plan;
Be an investment adviser under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940; or
Provide the advice pursuant to an agreement or understanding that the advice may be considered in connection with investment or management decisions with respect to plan assets and will be individualized to the needs of the plan.

At the same time, Borzi testified that the proposed regulation recognizes that activities by certain persons should not result in fiduciary status. Specifically, these are:

Persons who do not represent themselves to be ERISA fiduciaries, and who make it clear to the plan that they are acting for a purchaser/seller on the opposite side of the transaction from the plan rather than providing impartial advice;
Persons who provide general financial/investment information, such as recommendations on asset allocation to 401(k) participants under existing Departmental guidance on investment education;
Persons who market investment option platforms to 401(k) plan fiduciaries on a non-individualized basis and disclose in writing that they are not providing impartial advice; and
Appraisers who provide investment values to plans to use only for reporting their assets to the DOL and IRS.
EBSA Still Working To Address Expressed Concerns

The proposed regulation has prompted a large volume of comments and a vigorous debate. Borzi testified that the EBSA is working hard to hear and consider every stakeholder concern and shared some examples of how EBSA is considering addressing certain of these concerns. Borzi said EBSA is taking multiple steps in its effort to respond to these and other concerns in its efforts to finalize the regulation including:

Borzi told the Committee EBSA is working to better understand how specific compensation arrangements would be affected by the proposed rule and whether clarifications of existing prohibited transactions exemptions would be appropriate. Borzi said EBSA has already begun to issue subregulatory guidance describing some of these clarifications and will continue to do so as necessary as it completes its analysis.

Borzi also said that as EBSA further develops its thinking in this rulemaking, EBSA is paying special attention to the two primary exceptions to fiduciary status under the proposed rule: (1) clarifying the difference between investment education that does not give rise to fiduciary status and fiduciary investment advice; and (2) clarifying the scope of the so-called “sellers’ exception” under which sales activity is not fiduciary advice. In both cases, Borzi said EBSA intends to analyze and address the comments and concerns that were raised during our extensive public comment period.

Finally, Borzi said EBSA is exploring a range of appropriate regulatory options for moving forward, taking into consideration public comments submitted for the record, EBSA’s economic analysis, and relevant academic research. In so doing, Borzi told the Committee EBSA is aiming to address conflicted investment advice while not unnecessarily disrupting existing compensation practices or business models.

Plan Sponsors, Fiduciaries, Service Providers Should Prepare For Tighter Rules While Continuing To Provide Input To EBSA

The proposed changes to the definition of investment advisor is one of many steps that EBSA is taking to tighten the regulations implementing ERISA’s fiduciary requirements and to enforce the protections of ERISA. The proposal to expand the conditions that providing investment advice regarding retirement plan assets will trigger the fiduciary protections of ERISA is designed to expand the reach of those regulations. Service providers involved in providing these or other related services generally will want to review and update their processes, documentation and training to manage new exposures likely to arise from these proposed regulations, while continuing to share feedback to EBSA and other rulemakers.

Service providers are not the only parties that need to update practices and provide input about these rules. Plan sponsors, fiduciaries, service providers, participants and beneficiaries also are impacted. Employers and other plan sponsors, fiduciaries and others need to anticipate and respond effectively to the inevitable efforts by providers of investment advice and other services to avoid or shift liability. Parties securing or relying on advice or services about investments or other responsibilities should:

Carefully, prudently conduct a documented investigation and critical analysis of existing and proposed advisors and other service providers credentials, analysis, performance, contract, recommendations and other conduct;
Carefully review contracts and other materials and secure appropriate constractual and other safeguards;
Require indemnification, insurance and other protections;
Ensure that appropriate action is taken to appoint parties intended to perform fiduciary advisory or other services to manage risks
Secure and maintain appropriate fiduciary and other liability insurance coverage;
Carefully conduct an appropriate, well-documented prudent review of performance, credentials and other relevant factors on a regular basis to preserve ongoing evidence of prudence; and
Other appropriate safeguards to manage risks and liabilities.

To help guard and position themselves to defend against fiduciary exposures plan sponsors, fiduciaries, service providers and others involved in the administration of health or other employee benefit plans should seek the advice of legal counsel with appropriate experience with employee benefit and other related matters to develop an understanding of ERISA and other laws and the duties and liabilities that these rules may create for their organizations and themselves personally. For additional tips and information about managing these risks, see here.

For Help With These Or Other Risk Management Matters

If you need assistance in auditing or assessing, updating or defending your wage and hour or with other labor and employment, employee benefit, compensation or internal controls 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. Her experience includes extensive work helping employers implement, audit, manage and defend wage and hour 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 wage and hour, worker classification and other human resources and workforce, employee benefits, compensation, internal controls and related matters. She also is recognized for her publications, industry leadership, workshops and presentations on these and other human resources concerns and regularly speaks and conducts training on these matters. Her insights on these and other matters appear in the Bureau of National Affairs, Spencer Publications, the Wall Street Journal, the Dallas Business Journal, the Houston Business Journal, and many other national and local publications. For additional information about Ms. Stamer and her experience or to access other publications by Ms. Stamer see here or contact Ms. Stamer directly.

About Solutions Law Press

Comments Off on Borzi Tells House Committee Current Fiduciary Regs Flawed; Must Fix Loopholes In Investment Advisor Definition To Protect Plans | Bankruptcy, Corporate Compliance, Defined Benefit Plans, Defined Contribution Plans, Employee Benefits, Employers, ERISA, Fiduciary Responsibility, Health Plans, Human Resources, Insurance, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, Professional Liability, Reporting & Disclosure, Restructuring, Retirement Plans, Risk Management, Union | Tagged: 404, Director Liability, embezzlement, ERISA, Fiduciary, Fiduciary Responsibility, Officer Liability, Officers & Directors Liability, Owner Liability, Plan Sponsor Liability, Service Provider Liability, tpa | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Plan Sponsors. Their Owners & Management & Others Risk Personal Liability If Others Defraud Plans or Mismanage Employee Benefit Plan Responsibilities

April 4, 2011

Mitigate Risk With Appropriate Prevention, Monitoring & Response

Executives, board members, and other business leaders of companies providing health, 401(k) or other employee benefits under plans regulated by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended (ERISA) should heed a series of recent fiduciary liability settlement orders and lawsuits of the U.S. Department of Labor (Labor Department) as important reminders of the potential personal liability exposures executives can may face if their company’s benefit programs are not appropriately maintained and administered.

Recent Enforcement Actions, Changing Regulations Highlight Fiduciary Risks

On March 29, 2011, the Labor Department sued the owner of Eyeglass Factory, Inc. (EGF), Stephen Schaffer, for breach of fiduciary duties under ERISA by failing to ensure that EGF timely forwarded health plan contributions collected from employees to pay health plan contributions to the plan and failing to ensure that he and other plan fiduciaries and service providers were bonded in accordance with ERISA’s fidelity bond requirements.[i] The Labor Department suit charges that from July 1, 2000 to October 1, 2000, Schaffer and EGF withheld and failed to forward to the health plan contributions deducted from employee pay for health insurance coverage and contributions made to the flexible benefit plan sponsored by EGF from January 1, 2000 to December 4, 2000. The employees’ paycheck withholdings were commingled with the company’s general assets and used for its general operating expenses. The Labor Department is asking the court to order that Schaffer and other defendants make restitution to the plan for the misapplied contributions, including lost opportunity costs, to correct prohibited transactions and to appoint an independent fiduciary to oversee the plans once Schaffer is removed as the plan fiduciary.

The Schaffer suit follows the Labor Department’s successful prosecution of a breach of fiduciary duty action against Larry Lauterback, the president and former owner of a Minnesota Cement Company, for his role in allowing his construction company to commingle with company assets and divert to company use employee health and 401(k) contributions withheld from employee’s pay. In Solis v. Larry Lauterback, [ii] the District Court ordered Lauterback to restore $17,273.18 in unremitted employee contributions and lost opportunity costs to the company’s health and dental plan, and $747.20 in unremitted employee contributions to the company’s 401(k) plan and enjoins Lauterback from serving or acting as a fiduciary or service provider to any employee benefit plan for three years.. The order followed the entry of a consent judgment against Lauterback and the plan sponsor, Slate Cement, Inc., for failure to remit employee contributions, failure to forward employee contributions to medical and dental providers, co-mingling employee contributions of the general assets and using those assets for company operations.

The Schaffer and Lauterback actions taken in March, 2011 are only the most recent in a series of enforcement actions taken against business executives, board members, plan vendors and others for their role in committing or failing to take prudent steps to prevent or redress alleged misconduct relating to the maintenance, administration and funding of various employee benefit programs regulated by ERISA. In recent months and years, the Labor Department has filed several lawsuits against business executives and businesses for alleged breaches of fiduciary duties. While misuse of employee contributions by plan sponsors is a common focus of many of these actions, plan sponsors, plan service providers and members of their management with discretionary authority or responsibility over plan assets or administration or the election of those appointed to administer those responsibilities often arise out of the failure or these individuals to take prudent steps to prevent, monitor or address misconduct by other plan fiduciaries or service providers.[iii]

Plan sponsors, fiduciaries, service providers and their management should anticipate these risks and their attendant responsibilities will continue to rise as the Labor Department moves forward to adopt and implement revisions and enhancements to its fiduciary regulations such as those provided for in the new “Interim Final Regulation Relating to Improved Fee Disclosure for Pension Plans” scheduled to take effect in July, 2011 and the Proposed Regulation on the “Definition of the Term Fiduciary” published by the Labor Department in July and October, 2010 respectively.

Meanwhile, the Labor Department enforcement activities highlight the longstanding and ongoing policy of aggressive investigation and enforcement of alleged misconduct by companies, company officials, and service providers in connection with the maintenance, administration and funding of ERISA-regulated employee benefit plans. In its Fiscal Year 2010, the Labor Department closed 3,112 civil investigations, of which 2,301 (73.94%) resulted in monetary recoveries or other corrective action. The Labor Department referred 264 cases for civil litigation and filed 128 civil lawsuits. Meanwhile on the criminal side, the Labor Department closed 281 criminal investigations and obtained indictments against 96 people.

In addition to prosecutions brought by the Labor Department, companies and individuals that exercise discretion and control of the administration or funding of employee benefit plans regulated by ERISA also may be sued personally by participants and beneficiaries for breach of fiduciary under ERISA. A review of the Labor Department’s enforcement record and existing precedent makes clear that where the Labor Department perceives that a plan sponsor or its management fails to take appropriate steps to protect plan participants, the Labor Department will aggressively pursue enforcement regardless of the size of the plan sponsor or its plan, or the business hardships that the plan sponsor may be facing.

Plan Sponsors, Fiduciaries, Service Providers & Their Management Should Act To Manage Exposures

Given these exposures, businesses providing employee benefits to employees or dependents, as well as members of management participating in, or having responsibility to oversee or influence decisions concerning the establishment, maintenance, funding, and administration of their organization’s employee benefit programs need a clear understanding of their responsibilities with respect to such programs, the steps that they should take to demonstrate their fulfillment of these responsibilities, and their other options for preventing or mitigating their otherwise applicable fiduciary risks.

To help guard and position themselves to defend against these and other exposures, plan sponsors, fiduciaries, service providers and others involved in the administration of health or other employee benefit plans should seek the advice of legal counsel with appropriate experience with employee benefit and other related matters to develop an understanding of ERISA and other laws and the duties and liabilities that these rules may create for their organizations and themselves personally. For additional tips and information about managing these risks, see here.

For Help With These Or Other Risk Management Matters

About Solutions Law Press

[i] Chao v. Stephen Schaffer, the Eyeglass Factory, Inc., No O2-CV-60197, as announced in EBSA Release No. 11-341-CHI (March 29, 2011).

[ii] Solis v. Larry Lauterback, as announced in EBSA Release No 11-322-CHI (March 14, 2011).

[iii] See, e.g. Chao v. Associated Plan Administrators, as announced in EBSA Release No. 07-1265-BOS/BOS 2007-298 (October 16, 2007); Chao v. Starkey, as announced in EBSA Release No. 05-747-ATL (May 2, 2005); Chao v. Perry., as announced in EBSA Release BOS 2002-054 (March 21, 2002); Chao v. Mabry, as announced in EBSA Release No. 160 (March 20, 2002). See also, e.g., Baker v. Kingsley, 2006 WL 2027606 (N.D.Ill.2007); In Re Enron Corp Securities Derivative & “ERISA” Litigation, 284 F.Supp. 511 (S.D.Tex. 2003); Varity Corp. v. Howe, 516 U.S. 489 (1996); Brink v. DeLesio, 496 F. Supp. 1350 (D.Md. 1980).

Comments Off on Plan Sponsors. Their Owners & Management & Others Risk Personal Liability If Others Defraud Plans or Mismanage Employee Benefit Plan Responsibilities | Bankruptcy, Corporate Compliance, Defined Benefit Plans, Defined Contribution Plans, Employee Benefits, Employers, ERISA, Fiduciary Responsibility, Health Plans, Human Resources, Insurance, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, Professional Liability, Reporting & Disclosure, Restructuring, Retirement Plans, Risk Management, Union | Tagged: 404, Director Liability, embezzlement, ERISA, Fiduciary, Fiduciary Responsibility, Officer Liability, Officers & Directors Liability, Owner Liability, Plan Sponsor Liability, Service Provider Liability, tpa | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Health Plans, Insurers Get Limited & Imperfect Relief From Grace Period Extension For Some New Affordable Care Act Health Claims & Appeals Rules

March 24, 2011

The Departments of Labor, Health & Human Services and Internal Revenue Service are extending a previously announced enforcement grace period under which the agencies will not take enforcement against health plans or health insurers that attempt to operate in good faith compliance with, but fail to meet certain new requirements for handing medical claims and appeals enacted as part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Affordable Care Act). While health plans and insurers working in good faith to comply with the new requirements may find the enforcement relief helpful for dealing with some areas of uncertainty about the interpretation of certain requirements, it is important to keep in mind that the enforcement grace period provides only limited and somewhat imperfect relief. As a result, health plans, health insurers and those responsible for their design and administration are encouraged to continue to move forward on efforts to comply with the new requirement in thoughtful and well-documented manners despite the announced grace period extension.

New Claims & Appeals Requirements & Enforcement Grace Period

As signed into law on March 23, 2010, the Affordable Care Act generally requires that health plans and health insurance policies that are not “grandfathered” to begin complying with a series of new requirements by the first day of the first plan year that begins after September 22, 2010. These new requirements include a number of new requirements about the way that nongrandfathered health plans and health insurance policies handle medical claims and appeals. For instance, the Affordable Care Act as construed by the agencies in interim final regulations published by the agencies on July 23, 201 will require that non-grandfathered group health plans and insurers issuing non-grandfathered health insurance plans and policies:

Implement specified internal and external review procedures that among other things mandate independent external review of medical judgment based decisions in accordance with the regulations for reviews of appeals of medical judgment based denials;
Provide a broad range of new information in notices regarding claims and do so in a culturally and linguistically appropriate manner;
Provide continued coverage pending the outcome of an internal appeal; and
Comply with a laundry list of additional criteria for ensuring that a claimant receives a full and fair review in addition to complying with the requirements of existing Labor Department claims and appeals procedures.

After the agencies jointly published interim final regulations defining and implementing these requirements on July 23, 2010, last September the agencies announced that they would not enforce certain elements (but not all) of the new requirements set forth in the interim final regulations against covered health plans or health insurers seeking to comply in good faith with the new requirements through July 1, 2011. In the March 18, 2011 announcement, the Department of Labor said that the agencies now have agreed to extend this reprieve from agency enforcement of the requirements listed in the guidance against plans seeking to comply in good faith with the new requirements until plan years beginning on or after January 1, 2012.

While offering welcome relief, covered health plans and insurers, their sponsors and issuers should not over-estimate the reach and protection provided by this new guidance. For instance:

First, in order to qualify for the enforcement grace period, efforts must be made to administer the health plan or health insurance policy in good faith compliance with the new requirements during the enforcement grace period.
Second, the enforcement grace period provides only limited relief. The extension to 2012 only four of a series of new requirements set forth in the interim final regulations. Nongrandfathered plans and their administrators and insurers remain accountable for prudently administering claims and appeals in accordance with all other requirements of the Affordable Care Act as well as pre-existing claims and appeals regulations set forth in 2000 claims regulations issued by the Department of Labor pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

Third, the enforcement grace period guidance only means that the agencies will not exercise their power to take action against a non-compliant plan. It does not prevent plan members, health care providers with benefit assignments or other plan beneficiaries from bringing lawsuits against health plans, health insurers or their administrators for failing to comply with the new requirements during post- September 22, 2010 plan years even if the enforcement grace period otherwise protects the plan or insurer from agency enforcement action. This means that health insurers and health plans may still run the risk that plan members or beneficiaries will ask courts to reverse claims or appeals denials or impose other penalties and sanctions against plans or their fiduciaries for failing to meet the new requirements for post-September 22, 2010 plan years.

Finally, and perhaps most significantly, the grace period guidance requires nongrandfathered plans and insurers to make “good faith” efforts to comply with the requirements covered by the relief during the grace period in order to be eligible to claim the relief offered by the enforcement grace period guidance.

Consequently, despite the relief announced March 18, nongrandfathered health plans still have significant work to do to comply with the new Affordable Care Act claims and appeals requirements even during the announced enforcement grace period.

For Help With Affordable Care Act or Other Employee Benefits or HR Needs

If you have any questions or need help responding to the Affordable Care Act or other any other health plan or insurance employee benefit, compensation, workforce or internal control concerns, please contact the author of this update, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer here or at (469)767-8872.

About Solutions Law Press

Comments Off on Health Plans, Insurers Get Limited & Imperfect Relief From Grace Period Extension For Some New Affordable Care Act Health Claims & Appeals Rules | Affordable Care Act, Claims Administration, Employers, ERISA, Fiduciary Responsibility, Health Care Reform, Health Plans, Human Resources, Insurance, Public Policy | Tagged: affordale care act, Appeals, appeals procedure, claims procedure, Claims Regulations, ERISA, external appeals, Health Insurance, Health Plans, Insurer, internal claims, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, tpa | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Avoiding Liability For Another’s Health Plan Fraud

February 25, 2011

TPA’s Embezzlement Guilty Plea Reminds Plan Sponsors, Fiduciaries & Service Providers To Ensure Fiduciaries, Administrators & Staff Prudently Selected, Monitored & Bonded

The guilty plea of an Ohio-based third-party administrator to embezzlement of $1 million in plan assets reminds employers and other employee benefit plan sponsors and members of their management participating in plan related activities, plan administrators and other plan fiduciaries and plan service providers (“plan decision-makers”) of the importance of ensuring appropriate, well-documented credentialing and selection, oversight, auditing and bonding the individuals and companies acting as fiduciaries and others participating in administration of plans or their assets (“plan workforce members”) to minimize their potential exposure to potential personal liability as a result of the fraud under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).

Cox Prosecution Reflective DOL Readiness To Prosecute Parties For Misuse of Plan Monies & Other Plan Fraud

According to a February 23, 2011 U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) announcement, Rhonda Sue Irvin Cox, owner of Irvin Administrative Solutions LLC (IAS), pleaded guilty to the embezzlement of $1 million of retirement plan assets from client plans administered by IAS. The DOL reports that between January 2003 and April 2007, Cox plead guilty to using used her position with ISC to embezzle the funds from 12 of 59 plans for which IAS served as a third party administrator. Cox also pleaded guilty to one count of making false statements in documents required under ERISA to be kept and certified by the plans’ administrator. Scheduled to be sentenced on June 1, 2011, Cox faces a maximum of five years in prison on each criminal count, a $250,000 fine and a special assessment. Cox is scheduled to be sentenced on June 1, 2011.

The DOL and Justice Department have a long-standing record of aggressive investigation and prosecution of embezzlement or other fraud impacting health and other employee benefit plans. Their criminal and civil enforcement and prosecution record makes clear this commitment remains strong.

Plan Sponsors, Fiduciaries & Service Providers May Face Civil Liability From When Others Defraud Their Plans

While plan decision-makers generally are aware that individuals defrauding health or other employee benefit plans risk criminal and civil prosecution, many fail to recognize their own potential civil liability exposures that may arise out of the fraudulent acts or other misconduct of another plan workforce member.

Embezzlement of plan assets is one of many acts of misconduct that can create potential fiduciary liability exposure for plan decision-makers under ERISA. Until confronted with potential fraud, misconduct or other misfeasance by a plan fiduciary, service provider or other plan workforce member, many plan decision-makers lack an adequate appreciation of the personal liability they may incur if they cannot demonstrate appropriate steps were taken to protect their health plan from this misconduct.

Under ERISA’s fiduciary responsibility rules, embezzlement or other misuse of employee contributions or other plan assets as well as certain other misconduct or misfeasance by a plan fiduciary, service provider or other plan workforce member can create personal liability exposures for plan decision-makers with responsibility or discretionary authority over the selection, retention, or management of plan workforce members if the plan decision-maker cannot demonstrate appropriate steps were taken to select, monitor and bond the plan workforce and other prudent action was taken to prevent and redress the fraud. Accordingly, health plans, their sponsors, fiduciaries, service providers, their management, and others serving as, or selecting, managing or retaining companies or individuals that participate in the handling of health plan assets or administration should act to strengthen their health plans and themselves against these exposures.

Risk Management Strategies & Tips

When embezzlement or other concern affecting their health plan arises, plan decision-makers concerned about protecting their health plans and themselves must act promptly in a carefully documented, prudent manner to investigate and respond to the concern. They should be prepared to present well-documented evidence of the scope and limits of their responsibility, authority, awareness, and potential for the selection, monitoring and oversight of the plan workforce member or others responsible for the performance of those actions, the adequacy of the bonding arrangements for the plan, and other efforts to prudently protect the plan before, during and after the discovery of the concern. While these and other steps can help strengthen the ability of a plan decision-maker to liability exposures that can result from the other plan workforce member’s embezzlement of plan assets or other misconduct, plan sponsors and plan decision-makers also should acquire suitable fiduciary and other liability insurance coverage and make other arrangements to help provide for the potential financial costs and other demands that are likely to arise in the event that it becomes necessary to investigate or redress fraud or other misconduct. Learn more here.

For Help With Investigations, Policy Review & Updates Or Other Needs

If you need help investigating or responding to fraud or other misconduct affection a health or other employee benefit plan, dealing with an employee benefit plan investigation or enforcement action by the Labor Department, private plaintiffs or another public or private party, reviewing current or proposed health plan processes or procedures, or responding to other employee benefit, labor and employment or other related controls and practices, please contact the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer here or at (469)767-8872.

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 HIPAA and other privacy and data security, health plan, health care and other human resources and workforce, employee benefits, compensation, internal controls and related matters.

For more than 23 years, Ms. Stamer has counseled, represented and trained employers and other employee benefit plan sponsors, plan administrators and fiduciaries, insurers and financial services providers, third party administrators, human resources and employee benefit information technology vendors and others privacy and data security, fiduciary responsibility, plan design and administration and other compliance, risk management and operations matters. In connection with this work, Ms. Stamer regularly counsels and helps clients to defend a broad range of clients about employee benefit plan fraud and other fiduciary responsibility concerns. Throughout her career, she has represented and served as special counsel to health and other employee benefit plans, plan sponsors, plan service providers, officers, directors and other management officials, bankruptcy trustees, debtors and creditors, and others in connection with health and other employee benefit plan fraud and other fiduciary responsibility and related investigations, prosecutions and other actions involving the Labor Department, IRS, HHS, Justice Department, state insurance and attorneys general, bankruptcy actions, and participant, beneficiary and vendor disputes. She also is recognized for her publications, industry leadership, workshops and presentations on these and other employee benefits, insurance and 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

Solutions Law Press™ provides business risk management, legal compliance, management effectiveness and other resources, training and education on health care, human resources, employee benefits, data security and privacy, 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:

Comments Off on Avoiding Liability For Another’s Health Plan Fraud | Defined Benefit Plans, Defined Contribution Plans, Disability Plans, Employee Benefits, Employers, ERISA, Fiduciary Responsibility, Health Plans, Human Resources, Insurance, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, Malpractice, Professional Liability, Retirement Plans, Risk Management | Tagged: co-fiduciary liability, embezzlement, employee benefit, ERISA, Fiduciary Liability, fraud, Health Plan | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

ERISA Leader Nell Hennessy Dies From Cancer

February 4, 2011

Nell Hennessy died February 4, 2011 after a brave battle with cancer. Her passing was announced earlier today by Phyllis C. Borzi, Assistant Secretary of Labor Employee Benefits Security Administration.

Ms. Hennessy, Chief Executive Officer of Fiduciary Counselors Inc., was widely respected in the employee benefit community for both her professional leadership in the development of employee benefit law and her generous mentorship and friendship to employee benefits practitioners throughout her career.

Ms. Hennessy began her legal career as an attorney in two of the three federal agencies that regulate employee benefits, first in the Office of the Chief Counsel at the Internal Revenue Service (1978-80) and then at the PBGC (1980-81). She later served as Deputy Executive Director and Chief Negotiator of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC), the federal agency that guarantees private defined benefit pensions. She represented PBGC in negotiations with major corporate pension plan sponsors and unions in a wide range of industries, including auto, steel, chemical, textile and airlines. Working closely with the Department of Labor, she negotiated an agreement with General Motors that permitted GM to contribute employer stock to its hourly plan – the largest such transaction in U.S. history — forming the basis for a ground-breaking prohibited transaction exemption that allowed GM to subsequently spin off its EDS subsidiary. She negotiated the restructuring of TWA’s debt to PBGC and Carl Ichan, which allowed TWA to successfully reorganize. The Early Warning Program she headed at PBGC was awarded one of the first federal Innovations in American Government Awards by the Ford Foundation and the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University.

In addition to her professional service, Ms. Hennessy also generously mentored others in the profession. Ms. Hennessy chaired the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits and the Employee Benefits and Executive Compensation Committee in the ABA Section of Business Law. She was a member of the ABA Standing Committee on Technology and Information Systems and was a member of the ABA Presidential Task Force on Corporate Responsibility, which produced the “Cheek Report” cited favorably by the SEC in regulations regulating the conduct of lawyers under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.

Since 1985 Ms. Hennessy has been an adjunct professor at Georgetown University Law Center, where she helped develop the graduate certificate program in employee benefits. She was a founding Board member of the American College of Employee Benefits Counsel and she a founding member and past President of the Worldwide Employee Benefits Network (WEB). Ms. Hennessy is also a member of the National Bankruptcy Conference, a non-partisan, organization of approximately 60 lawyers, law professors and bankruptcy judges who advise Congress on bankruptcy law.

Ms. Hennessy received her B.A. from James Madison College at Michigan State University in 1971, her J.D. from the Catholic University of America in 1978 and her L.L.M. in Taxation from Georgetown University Law Center in 1984. Her publications include ERISA—Fiduciary Responsibility and Prohibited Transactions (BNA Tax Management Portfolio No. 365) and the HR and Benefits Guide to Mergers and Acquisitions (Thompson Publishing 2001).

A memorial service for Ms. Hennessy is planned for Saturday, February 26th at 11 a,m.at St. Joseph’s Church on Capitol Hill, 313 2nd St NE, Washington DC 20002, followed by a reception at the Irish Channel at 500 H St. NW, Washington DC 20001.

According to Ms. Borzi, persons wishing to memorialize Ms. Hennessy are encouraged to contribute to the Nell Hennessy Employee Benefits Scholar Award at the Catholic University of America, Office of Development and Alumni Relations, 3600 John McCormack Rd., NE, suite 339, Washington, DC 20064.

If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about human resources or employee benefits developments, 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.

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.

Comments Off on ERISA Leader Nell Hennessy Dies From Cancer | Bankruptcy, Employee Benefits | Tagged: Employee Benefits, ERISA, Hennessy, PBGC | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Proposed New Defined Benefit Plan Annual Funding Notice Rule Reminder of Need to Carefully Manage Pension Plan Responsibilities

November 18, 2010

Plan sponsors and administrators of defined benefit plans must carefully monitor and comply with the funding, notification, insurance and other associated requirements of the minimum funding rules imposed under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act and the Internal Revenue Code. The Department of Labor’s Employee Benefits Security Administration today (November 18, 2010) its Pension Protection Act web page with the Annual Funding Notice for Defined Benefit Plans Proposed Rule, available at here, a fact sheet, available here, a model notice for single employer plans, available here, and a model notice for multiemployer plans, available here.

Pension plan funding, reporting and disclosure and termination requirements are complicated in non-distress situations. This complexity and the potential legal exposures of non-compliance can grow exponentially when a pension plan or one or more of its contributing employers becomes distress. Furthermore, special controlled group, lien and successor liability rules incorporated into these funding requirements often create hidden risks for affiliated employers, lenders, potential purchasers and others dealing with these plans or the businesses that sponsor them. As a consequence, all parties dealing with these plans should exercise care to understand and properly manage these exposures to avoid unintentionally triggering liability under these rules.

For More Information Or Assistance

About Ms. Stamer

Board Certified in Labor and Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, Chair of the American Bar Association (ABA) RPTE Employee Benefit & Other Compensation Group, a Council Member of the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits, Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, management attorney and consultant Cynthia Marcotte Stamer has more than 23 years experience advising and representing employers, health and other employee benefit plans, their sponsors, fiduciaries and plan administrators, consultants, vendors, outsourcers, insurers, governments and others about employment, employee benefit, compensation, and a wide range of other performance, legal and operational risk management practices and concerns. As a part of this work, Ms. Stamer has worked extensively with clients to manage risks and defend practices under a wide range of laws and circumstances. Her experience includes extensive work advising and representing employers, plans, plan fiduciaries, trustees, investors, and others about managing and resolving risks relating to distressed pension and other employee benefit plans, downsizing and other workforce reengineering and other similar matters. A prolific author and popular speaker, Ms. Stamer also publishes, conducts client and other training, speaks and consults extensively on GINA and other employment and employee benefit risk management practices and concerns for the ABA, World At Work, SHRM, American Health Lawyers Association, Institute of Internal Auditors, Society for Professional Benefits Administrators, HCCA, Southwest Benefits Association and many other organizations. Her insights on these and related topics have appeared in Atlantic Information Service, Bureau of National Affairs, World At Work, The Wall Street Journal, Business Insurance, Managed Healthcare, Health Leaders, various ABA publications and a many other national and local publications. To learn more about Ms. Stamer, her experience, involvements, programs and publications, see here or contact Ms. Stamer.

Other Resources & Developments

If you found this information of interest, you also may be interested in reviewing other recent Solutions Law Press updates including:

If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates and notices about upcoming programs and events, please be sure that we have your current contact information – including your preferred e-mail- by creating or updating your profile at here. To unsubscribe, send an e-mail with “Unsubscribe” in the subject here. For important information concerning this communication click here.

Comments Off on Proposed New Defined Benefit Plan Annual Funding Notice Rule Reminder of Need to Carefully Manage Pension Plan Responsibilities | Bankruptcy, Corporate Compliance, Employers, ERISA, Fiduciary Responsibility, Internal Controls, Reporting & Disclosure, Restructuring, Retirement Plans | Tagged: defined benefit plan, disclosure, ERISA, funding, Labor Department, notices, PBGC, pension plans, reporting, underfunded plans | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Affordable Care Act’s Health Plan External & Internal Review Safe Harbor & Other Regulations Require Health Plan Updates

August 26, 2010

The Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act (Affordable Care Act) generally mandates that all group and individual health plans and policies comply with these mandates no later than the first plan or policy year beginning after September 22, 2010 unless the plan or policy qualifies as a “grandfathered plan” under the Affordable Care Act. Employer and other health plan sponsors, insurers, fiduciaries and administrators of all federally-regulated employment-based health plans should move quickly to update plan documents, administrative procedures and agreements, decisional criteria, investigation and decision-making documentation, and claims and appeals-related notification and other communications to comply with a series of new Federal guidance governing health plan claims and appeals published in the Federal Register on July 23, 2010 as further supplemented by additional “safe harbor” external review procedures published in the Federal Register today (August 26, 2010) (collectively the ACA Appeals Rules”).

Although the ACA Appeals Rules technically apply only to non-grandfathered plans, Agency commentary about existing Labor Department health plan claims and appeals procedures published along with the ACA Appeals rules sends a strong signal that the adequacy of all health plan claims and appeals procedures is warranted. As many health plan sponsors and health insurers are deciding that compliance with Affordable Care Act mandates is more cost effective than meeting the conditions that federal regulations require for a health plan to maintain grandfathered plan status, most group health plans and policies will need to be updated to comply with these new rules quickly. Even if a plan qualifies as a grandfathered plan, however, comments contained included the preamble to the July 23, 2010 guidance and recent court decisions send a strong signal that a review and update of existing claims and appeals procedures and practices is warranted. Read more.

For assistance to review and update your health or other employee benefit claims and appeals or other terms, processes, notices and communication or other processes and procedures, please contact the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer at (469) 767-8872 or cstamer@solutionslawyer.net.

Learn More About Affordable Care Act Mandates: Order Recording of August 24 “2010 Health Plan Update”

Details of recently released guidance about federal health plan rules applicable to employment-based health plans under the Affordable Care Act and other federal health plan regulations were among the topics covered in a “2010 Health Plan Update” internet broadcast briefing on Tuesday, August 24 2010. For more information about this briefing, see here. If you are interested in purchasing a recording of this briefing, e-mail here.

For Assistance or More Information

If your organization needs assistance updating your heath care program documentation, policies or procedures in response to these or other requirements or with other employee benefit, insurance or human resources matters, please contact the author of this update, Board Certified Labor & Employment attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer at (469) 767-8872 or via e-mail here.

Current Chair of the American Bar Association (ABA) RPTE Employee Benefit & Other Compensation Group, 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 continuously advises employers, health and other employee benefit plans, plan sponsors, fiduciaries, plan administrators, plan vendors, insurers and others about health program related legal, operational, documentation, public policy, enforcement, privacy, technology, litigation and risk management and other concerns. Ms. Stamer also publishes, conducts client and other training, speaks and consults extensively on these and other health and managed care program concerns and practices. She regularly speaks and conducts training for the ABA, American Health Lawyers Association, Institute of Internal Auditors, Society for Professional Benefits Administrators, Southwest Benefits Association and many other organizations. Her insights on these and related topics have appeared in Atlantic Information Service, Bureau of National Affairs, World At Work, The Wall Street Journal, Business Insurance, Managed Healthcare, Health Leaders, various ABA publications and a many other national and local publications. To contact Ms. Stamer or for additional information about Ms. Stamer, her experience, involvements, programs or Publishers of her many highly regarded writings on health industry and human resources matters include the Bureau of National Affairs, Aspen Publishers, ABA, AHLA, Aspen Publishers, Schneider Publications, Spencer Publications, World At Work, SHRM, HCCA, State Bar of Texas, Business Insurance, James Publishing and many others. You can review other highlights of Ms. Stamer’s experience here.

Other Resources

If you found this information of interest, you also may be interested in reviewing other recent Solutions Law Press updates 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 for review here. If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates and notices about other upcoming Solutions Law Press events, please be sure that we have your current contact information – including your preferred e-mail- by creating or updating your profile at here. For important information concerning this communication click here.

Comments Off on Affordable Care Act’s Health Plan External & Internal Review Safe Harbor & Other Regulations Require Health Plan Updates | Affordable Care Act, Claims Administration, Employee Benefits, Employers, Employment Tax, ERISA, Fiduciary Responsibility, Health Plans, Human Resources, Insurance, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, Patient Empowerment, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Preemption, Public Policy, Risk Management | Tagged: Affordable Care Act, Appeals, appeals procedures, Claims, Claims Procedures, ERISA, external review, Health Insurance, Health Plans, Insurance, internal review, self-insured | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Assess Your Health Plan Compliance 8/24: Register Now!

August 12, 2010

Get a Health Plan Compliance Checkup

Learn What You Must Do Now To Meet Key 2010/2011
Affordable Care Act & Other Health Plan Compliance Deadlines

2010 Health Plan Update

A Solutions Law Press Live Internet Broadcast Briefing

August 24, 2010

10:00 A.M.-12:30 P.M. Eastern | 11:00 A.M.-1:30 P.M. Central | 9:00 A.M-11:30 A.M. Pacific

Earn 2 Hours of Texas Insurance Continuing Education Credit, WorldAtWork or HRCI Credit!

Solutions Law Press invites you to catch up on the latest guidance on new group health plan mandates imposed under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Affordable Care Act) and other federal health plan regulations by participating in the “2010 Health Plan Update” briefing on Tuesday, August 24, 2010. The briefing will be held via a live internet broadcast from 11:00 to 1:30 P.M. Central Time. Registrants can elect to participate in person or watch via the Internet for a registration fee of $150.00. To register click here.

Affordable Care Act Requires Prompt Action By Group Health Plans, Employee Sponsors, Fiduciaries, Administrators, & Insurers

Health benefit costs and legal risks continue to grow for U.S. businesses. The Affordable Care Act and other impending federal health plan regulatory changes will require employment-based group health plans, their employer and other plan sponsors, insurers plan fiduciaries, plan administrators and other service providers and insurers to make quick decisions and to act quickly to meet impending federal compliance deadlines while preserving flexibility. All employer and other group health plan sponsors, fiduciaries, insurers and administrators must act quickly to update their health plan documents, communications, insurance and vendor agreements and practices to comply with new federal requirements that become effective under the Affordable Care Act on the first day of the next plan year beginning after September 22, 2010 and various other changes in federal health plan rules effective or scheduled to take effect during 2010 or 2011 plan years. Many plan sponsors also may need to act quickly to cancel or revise plan design or vendor changes planned or already implemented since March 23, 2010 to position their health plan to qualify for grandfather status. Quick action also may be needed to qualify for small employer tax credits, retiree medical subsidies or other benefits.

August 24 Briefing Provides Key Information

The August 24, 2010 “2010 Health Plan Update” briefing will cover the latest guidance on Affordable Care Act and other federal health plan regulatory changes impacting employment-based group health plans and their sponsors for plan years beginning between September 23, 2010 and September 22, 2011 and other key information to help employers, group health plans, insurers, plan administrators, fiduciaries, broker and others working with these plans to understand and respond to these new requirements including:

How to qualify your health plan as a grandfathered plan under the Affordable Care Act
How to decide if maintaining grandfathered plan status is worthwhile
Claims & appeals requirements for grandfathered & non-grandfathered plans
Preventive care coverage & wellness program rules under Affordable Care Act, GINA, ADA & other federal regulations
Updated dependent child eligibility, pre-existing condition & other dependent coverage rules for grandfathered & non-grandfathered plans
Special enrollment, preexisting condition & other eligibility mandates for grandfathered & non-grandfathered plans under new Affordable Care Act, FMLA, Michelle’s Law, HIPAA & other regulations
Mental health & substance abuse, provider choice & other benefit mandates under new Affordable Care Act, Mental Health Parity & other federal rules
New HIPAA Privacy Rules
Update on other recent & pending Affordable Care Act group health plan rule guidance
Cafeteria plan implications
Tips to review & update your plans, vendor agreements & processes to meet Affordable Care Act & other federal group health plan dictates
Expected future Affordable Care Act & other federal rule changes & tips for preparing
Practical strategies for responding to new requirements & changing rules
Participant questions

About The Presenter

The program will be conducted by attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer. Ms. Stamer is nationally known for her more than 23 years of work, publications and presentations on health plan and other employee benefit, health care and insurance matters. Current Chair of the American Bar Association (ABA) RPTE Employee Benefit & Other Compensation Group, 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 continuously advises group health plans, insurers, employer and other plan sponsors, plan fiduciaries, plan administrators and vendors, and others about health plan design, administration, defense, contracting and related legal compliance, operational, documentation, public policy, enforcement, privacy, technology, litigation and risk management and other concerns. Ms. Stamer also publishes and speaks extensively on these and other health and managed care program concerns and practices. Her insights on these and related topics have appeared in Atlantic Information Service, Bureau of National Affairs, World At Work, The Wall Street Journal, Business Insurance, Managed Healthcare, Health Leaders, various ABA publications and a many other national and local publications. To contact Ms. Stamer or for additional information about Ms. Stamer, her experience, involvements, programs or publications, contact Ms. Stamer at (469) 767-8872 or via e-mail here or see here. Texas Insurance Department Continuing Education Provider Number 3544.

About Solutions Law Press

Solutions Law Press™ provides business risk management, legal compliance, management effectiveness and other updates, consultation, training and education, tools, and other resources for businesses on human resources, employee benefits, compensation, data security and privacy, health care, insurance, and other key compliance, risk management, internal controls and other key concerns. If you find this of interest, you also be interested reviewing some of our other Solutions Law Press™ resources available for review here. If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates and notices about other upcoming Solutions Law Press™ events, please be sure that we have your current contact information – including your preferred e-mail- by creating or updating your profile at here. For important information concerning this communication click here.

Solutions Law Press ™ Thanks Our Sponsors

Benefit HR Productions is a producer of enrollment and employee benefit and human resources orientation and on boarding enrollment and other human resources video communications for employers and their service providers. For more information, contact Bill at (972) 267-8410.

NFC offers supplemental insurance benefits to individuals and families that pay benefits directly to the insured and offers cafeteria plan administration services at no cost to employers including a Debit Card feature. To learn more about NFC cafeteria plan services or its supplemental insurance products contact Art Mueller at National Family Care Life Insurance Company, 13530 Inwood Rd, Dallas, Tx 75244. 800-527-0996. acmnfc@flash.net

A limited number of participants on a space available basis will have the opportunity to participate in the briefing as a member of the live studio audio audience in Plano, Texas. Interested persons should e-mail support@solutionslawyer.net.
Discounts available for groups registering three or more participants. E-mail support@solutionslawyer.net.

Comments Off on Assess Your Health Plan Compliance 8/24: Register Now! | CHIP, Claims Administration, COBRA, Employee Benefits, Employers, ERISA, Excise Tax, Fiduciary Responsibility, FMLA, Health Plans, Human Resources, Income Tax, Mental Health, Mental Health Parity, Prescription Drugs, Tax, Wellness, Wellness Programs | Tagged: ADA, Affordable Care Act, Appeals, Claims Regulations, COBRA, ERISA, FMLA, GINA, Health Plans, HIPAA, Mental Health Parity, self-insurance, Wellness Programs | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

New Regulations & Court Decisions Require Health Plan Claims & Appeal Updates & Strengthening

August 8, 2010

Register Now For 8/24 Health Plan Update Briefing

Employer and other health plan sponsors, insurers, fiduciaries and administrators should move quickly to review, update and tighten their plan documents, administrative procedures and agreements, decisional criteria, investigation and decision-making documentation, and claims and appeals-related notification and other communications in response to new requirements and guidance in recently proposed Labor Department Regulations and the increased willingness of Federal courts to scrutinize and overturn benefit denials.

New regulations (ACA Appeals Rules) implementing tighter health plan claims and appeals rules enacted under the Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act (Affordable Care Act) are the latest in a wave of new Affordable Care Act and other federal regulations that require quick updates to employment-based health plans.

The new ACA Appeals rules published July 23, 2010 primarily focus on additional claims and appeals standards that group health plans not “grandfathered” under the Affordable Care Act must meet by the first plan year beginning after September 22, 2010. However, clarifications of the Labor Department’s interpretation of existing claims and appeals rules for employment-based group health plans shared with the ACA Appeals Rules make clear grandfathered plans also have work to do. Therefore, group health plan sponsors, insurers, fiduciaries and administrators of all group health plans should review and tighten their claims and appeals procedures in response to the guidance recently published in connection with the ACA Appeals Rules.

Beyond responding to the Labor Department’s ACA Appeals Rules, employer and other health and employee benefit plan sponsors, insurers, fiduciaries and administrators also should consider tightening and strengthening their claims and appeals decision-making, documentation and notice processes and procedures to reduce the risk that the courts will overturn benefit denials to guard against the growing willingness of federal courts to overturn benefit denials based upon their findings of process, documentation, notification, conflict of interest or other deficiencies that make the decision “arbitrary or capricious” or otherwise unsustainable under ERISA. Read more.

Many Other Changing Federal Rules Require Other Plan Updates

Changing claims and appeals standards are only a small part of the sweeping range of developments that employer and other plan sponsors, administrators, and fiduciaries of group health plans must deal with as the struggle to design and administer legally defensible plans this year.

The new ACA Appeals Rules are the latest in a wave of new Affordable Care Act and other federal regulations that require quick action by employment based health plans, their employer and other sponsors, fiduciaries, administrators and insurers. Regulations issued in previous weeks define when health plans and health insurance policies qualify as “grandfathered” under the Affordable Care Act and interpret and implement many other federal health plan rule changes enacted by the Affordable Care Act.

All employer and other group health plan sponsors, fiduciaries, insurers and administrators should be prepared to act quickly to update their health plan documents, communications, insurance and vendor agreements and other practices to comply with new federal requirements that become effective under the Affordable Care Act on the first day of the plan year beginning after September 22, 2010 and various other changes in federal health plan rules effective or scheduled to take effect during 2010 or 2011 plan years. Many plan sponsors also may need to act quickly to cancel or revise certain design or vendor changes planned or already implemented since March 23, 2010 to position their health plan to qualify for grandfather status. Quick action also may be needed to preserve options to claim small employer tax credits, retiree medical subsidies or other opportunities.

In addition to responding to these Affordable Care Act changes, most group health plans also will require updates in response to other federal health plan rule changes beyond those enacted under the Affordable Care Act. These Affordable Care Act and other impending federal health plan changes will require employment-based group health plans, their employer and other plan sponsors, plan fiduciaries, plan administrators and other service providers and insurers to make quick decisions and to act quickly to meet impending federal compliance deadlines while preserving flexibility and managing costs.

August 24 “2010 Health Plan Update” Internet Workshop Provides Key Information

Solutions Law Press invites you to catch up on the latest guidance about the new group health plan Affordable Care Act and other federal health plan regulations by participating in a live “2010 Health Plan Update” internet broadcast briefing on Tuesday, August 24 2010. The briefing will be conducted via live video broadcast from 11:00 A.M.-1:30 P.M. Central Time. Register & Get More Details.

Learn the tests that will decide if your group health plan will qualify as “grandfathered” from key Affordable Care Act requirements and assess what updates you should consider making to meet critical 2010/2011 Affordable Care Act & other federal health plan compliance deadlines.

How to qualify your health plan as a grandfathered plan under Affordable Care act
How to decide if maintaining grandfathered plan status is worthwhile
Claims & appeals requirements for grandfathered & non-grandfathered plans
Preventive care coverage mandates & wellness program requirements & rules under Affordable Care Act & other federal regulations
Updated dependent child eligibility, pre-existing condition & other requirements for grandfathered & non-grandfathered plans
Special enrollment, preexisting condition & other eligibility mandates for grandfathered & non-grandfathered plans under new Affordable Care Act, new FMLA, COBRA, Michelle’s Law, HIPAA & other federal regulations
Mental health & substance abuse, provider choice & other benefit mandates under Affordable Care Act, Mental Health Parity & other federal rules
Update on other recent & pending Affordable Care Act group health plan rule guidance
Tips to review & update your plans, vendor agreements & processes to meet Affordable Care Act & other federal group health plan dictates
Expected future Affordable Care Act & other federal rule changes & tips for preparing
Practical strategies for responding to new requirements & changing rules
Participant questions

To register or get additional information, see here.

For Assistance or More Information

Other Resources

If you found this information of interest, you also may be interested in reviewing other recent Solutions Law Press updates including:

About Solutions Law Press

Comments Off on New Regulations & Court Decisions Require Health Plan Claims & Appeal Updates & Strengthening | Affordable Care Act, Claims Administration, Disability Plans, Employee Benefits, Employers, ERISA, Fiduciary Responsibility, Health Plans, Human Resources, Insurance, Preemption, Reporting & Disclosure | Tagged: Affordable Care Act, Appeals, Claims, ERISA, Health Plans | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

New Affordable Care Act Health Plan Appeals Regulations Require Health Plan Updates

July 23, 2010

Register For August 24^th 2010 Health Plan Update To Catch Up On Latest Federal Health Plan Regulations

Employer and other plan sponsors, administrators, and fiduciaries of non-grandfathered group health plans must move quickly to update their plan documents, administrative procedures and agreements, claims and other communications and other processes and procedures to comply with new regulations (Appeals Rules) implementing tightened health plan claims and appeals rules enacted under the Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act (Affordable Care Act) jointly published by the U.S. Departments of Health & Human Services (HHS), Labor (DOL) and Treasury yesterday (July 23, 2010). The new Appeals Rules are the latest in a wave of new Affordable Care Act and other federal regulations that require quick action by employment based health plans, their employer and other sponsors, fiduciaries, administrators and insurers. Regulations issued in previous weeks by the Departments define when health plans and health insurance policies qualify as “grandfathered” under the Affordable Care Act and interpret and implement many other federal health plan rule changes enacted by the Affordable Care Act. In addition to responding to these Affordable Care Act changes, most group health plans also will require updates in response to other federal health plan rule changes beyond those enacted under the Affordable Care Act. To assist concerned business leaders, plan fiduciaries and plan administrators to understand and cope with these new rules, Solutions Law Press invites you to participate in the live “2010 Health Plan Update,” internet workshop on August 24, 2010 from 11:00 a.m.-1:30 p.m. Central Time. To register or for other details, see here.

Affordable Care Act Appeals Rules & Other Federal Claims & Appeals Regulations Make Prompt Plan Review & Update Advisable

Currently, all group health plans covered by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) must prudently process and administer claims and appeals using reasonable claims and appeals procedures that comply with detailed Labor Department regulations. Recent Supreme Court and other decisions send a strong signal that many group health plans, their insurers, and administrators need to tighten their existing documentation and practices to promote the defensibility of claims and appeal decision making under the existing requirements of ERISA and the existing Labor Department regulations implementing these requirements. These existing claims and appeals requirements generally will continue to apply to all ERISA-covered group health plans without regard to whether the group health plan qualifies as grandfathered or non-grandfathered for purposes of the affordable care act.

The new requirements generally will apply to claims denials and coverage rescissions made by non-grandfathered health plans beginning with the first plan year beginning after September 22, 2010. Furthermore, non-grandfathered group and individual health policies subject to the Appeals Rules also may continue to be required to comply with state-mandated external and/or independent review and other state-imposed claims and appeals procedures.

In addition to complying with existing claims and appeals requirements, the new Appeals Rules also will require that non-grandfathered health plans modify existing claims and appeals procedures to comply with new federal appeals protections mandated under the Affordable Care Act. The Appeals Rules requirements for internal claims and appeals processes generally will apply to any denial, reduction, or termination of, or failure to provide or make a payment (in whole or in part) for a benefit, including any:

Rescission of coverage as defined in the regulations restricting rescissions
Determination of an individual’s eligibility to participate in a plan or health insurance coverage
Determination that a benefit is not a covered benefit
Imposition of a preexisting condition exclusion, source-of-injury exclusion, network exclusion, or other limitation on otherwise covered benefits
Determination that a benefit is experimental, investigational, or not medically necessary or appropriate
Other denial, reduction, or termination of, or a failure to provide or make a payment (in whole or in part) for a benefit can include both pre-service claims (for example, a claim resulting from the application of any utilization review), as well as post-service claims and
Any other instance where a plan pays less than the total amount of expenses submitted with regard to a claim, including a denial of part of the claim due to the terms of a plan or health insurance coverage regarding co-payments, deductibles, or other cost-sharing requirements.

When applicable, the new Appeals Rules among other things will require that non-grandfathered group health plans and insurers issuing non-grandfathered health insurance plans and policies:

Implement specified internal and external review procedures
Must continue to provide continued coverage pending the outcome of an internal appeal
Comply with the Appeals Rules’ additional criteria for ensuring that a claimant receives a full and fair review in addition to complying with the requirements of existing Labor Department claims and appeals procedures.

Highlights of some of these fair review requirements include:

Timely allowing a claimant to review the claim file and to present evidence and testimony as part of the internal claims and appeals process
Before issuing a final internal adverse benefit determination based on a new or additional rationale, timely proving the claimant free of charge, with the rationale
Complying with the Appeals Rules’ requirements for ensuring that all claims and appeals are adjudicated in a manner designed to ensure the independence and impartiality of the persons involved in making the decision
Providing certain notifications regarding appeals and other rights as required by the Appeals Rules

The Appeals Rules also state that if a plan or issuer that fails to strictly adhere to all of its requirements with respect to a claim, the claimant may initiate an external review and pursue any available remedies under applicable law, such as judicial review regardless of whether the plan or issuer asserts that it substantially complied with these requirements or that any error it committed was de minimis.

Both Grandfathered & Non-Grandfathered Plans Should Review Existing Claims & Appeals Procedures For Compliance With Existing Labor Department Regulations

Grandfathered health plans will not be required to comply with the new Appeals Rules. Like non-grandfathered plans, however, grandfathered plans will remain covered by the current claims and appeals requirements of ERISA and the existing Labor Department regulations. Along the Labor Department updated its existing claims and appeals regulations a decade ago, many plan fiduciaries, administrators and insurers have failed to fully update their plan documentation, processes and notifications to comply with these highly specific and detailed requirements. Furthermore, most grandfathered health plan sponsors and administrators also will want to consider whether any tightening of their health plan’s claims and appeals processes is warranted by language contained in the preamble to the Appeals Rules that that clarifies the Labor Department’s interpretation of existing claims and appeals procedures.

Other Affordable Care Act & Other Health Plan Rule Changes Require Prompt Action By Group Health Plans, Sponsors, Fiduciaries & Administrators

The Appeals Rules are the latest in a series of recently-issued guidance implementing various health coverage requirements of the Affordable Care Act. It follows closely the publication by the Agencies of regulations about when group health plans and insurance qualify as “grandfathered plans” for purposes of determining deadlines for complying with certain health care reform requirements imposed under the Affordable Care Act and a series of other regulations construing and implementing various other Affordable Care Act requirements. For additional information about these other Affordable Care Act requirements, see here.

These Affordable Care Act and other impending federal health plan changes will require employment-based group health plans, their employer and other plan sponsors, plan fiduciaries, plan administrators and other service providers and insurers to make quick decisions and to act quickly to meet impending federal compliance deadlines while preserving flexibility.

August 24 “2010 Health Plan Update” Internet Workshop Provides Key Information

How to qualify your health plan as a grandfathered plan under Affordable Care act
How to decide if maintaining grandfathered plan status is worthwhile
Claims & appeals requirements for grandfathered & non-grandfathered plans
Preventive care coverage mandates & wellness program requirements & rules under Affordable Care Act & other federal regulations
Updated dependent child eligibility, pre-existing condition & other requirements for grandfathered & non-grandfathered plans
Special enrollment, preexisting condition & other eligibility mandates for grandfathered & non-grandfathered plans under new Affordable Care Act, new FMLA, COBRA, Michelle’s Law, HIPAA & other federal regulations
Mental health & substance abuse, provider choice & other benefit mandates under Affordable Care Act, Mental Health Parity & other federal rules
Update on other recent & pending Affordable Care Act group health plan rule guidance
Tips to review & update your plans, vendor agreements & processes to meet Affordable Care Act & other federal group health plan dictates
Expected future Affordable Care Act & other federal rule changes & tips for preparing
Practical strategies for responding to new requirements & changing rules
Participant questions

To register or get additional information, see here.

About The Author

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 employer and other plan sponsors, insurers, administrators, fiduciaries, governments and others design, administer and defend innovative health and other employee benefit programs and other human resources, compensation and management policies and practices. 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 also is recognized for her publications, industry leadership, workshops and presentations on these and other health industry and human resources concerns. You can review other highlights of Ms. Stamer’s experience here. If you need help with human resources or other management, concerns, wish to ask about compliance, risk management or training, or need legal representation on other matters please contact Cynthia Marcotte Stamer here or (469)767-8872.

Solutions Law Press & Other Solutions Law Press Resources

If you found this information of interest, you also may be interested in reviewing other recent Solutions Law Press updates 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 or e-mailing this information here or registering to receive our Solutions Law Press distributions here. For important information about 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 here.

Comments Off on New Affordable Care Act Health Plan Appeals Regulations Require Health Plan Updates | Affordable Care Act, COBRA, COBRA Subsidy, Employee Benefits, Employers, ERISA, family leave, Fiduciary Responsibility, FMLA, H.R. 4872, Health Care Reform, Health Plans, Human Resources, Insurance, Leave, medical leave, Mental Health, Mental Health Parity, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Protected Health Information, Tax, Wellness, Wellness Programs | Tagged: Affordable Care Act, Appeals, Claims, Claims Procedures, ERISA, Health Care Reform. Health Plans, Health Insurance, Health Plans | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Email Subscription

Pages

Recent Posts

Archives

Share this blog

Solutions Law Press HR & Benefits Update