Boca Benefits Consulting Group Inc.

A Blog for HR and Benefits Professionals

Archive for the ‘healthcare reform’ tag

New Feds Guidance on Use of HRA’s and HRP’s [Exchanges Related Info]

without comments

Twitter Logo

The below info is excerpted from a Zane Benefits information piece published Sunday, Sep 15, 2013.  The entire technical discussion can be accessed at their RSS blog feed by clicking here.  The essence of the discussion is that unlike what some major group insurance carriers have been indicating, newly stuctured HRP’s ( i.e., a limited healthcare reimbursement plan) can be used as the vehicle to shift employees from a group plan to individual purchases on exchanges. Wallgreens is the most recent large company to announce such a shift (click here for info on annoncement today 9/18/2013). IBM and Time Warner have made similar announcements.

[Begin Excerpt] ____________________________

Now, the good news

Employers can still reimburse employees for individual health insurance premiums.

For the first time, the Department of Labor, the Department of Treasury, and Health and Human Services have coordinated to issue formal confirmation that employers are 100% allowed to reimburse individual health insurance premiums tax-free under the tax code. This is a MAJOR positive.

We repeat – employers are still allowed to reimburse employees tax-free for individual health insurance premiums.

 

What is the solution for plan years beginning on or after January 1st, 2014?

For plan years beginning on or after January 1st, 2014, the solution is to adopt a limited Healthcare Reimbursement Plan (HRP), such as ZaneHealth.

The HRP is structured to only reimburse:

  1. Health insurance premiums up to a specified monthly healthcare allowance,
  2. Preventative care as required by PHS Act Section 2713 at 100% without cost-sharing.

This structure ensures the HRP complies with the PHS Act 2711 annual limit requirements and the PHS Act 2713 preventative care requirements as outlined in the Technical Release.

Additionally, care must be taken in the design and administration of the HRP to ensure the plan does not meet the definition of an eligible employer-sponsored plan in IRC Section 5000A and consequently qualify as minimum essential coverage. This ensures employees participating in the HRP are able to receive a tax subsidy via the new health insurance marketplaces assuming they meet additional eligibility criteria.

Conclusion / Next Steps

With the Departments all in agreement, everyone should be excited there is finally a clean, final process for employers to reimburse employees for individual policies that are guaranteed-issue.

Sponsors of stand-alone HRAs should begin preparing to convert their plan to an HRP for plan years beginning after 2014.

Finally, our nation can rid itself of one-size-fits-all employer group health insurance policies that hamper businesses, employees and their families.

[End Excerpt] _____________________________________

 

 

The Future of Employer Provided Health Plans: HRA Q&A

without comments

Twitter Logo 

click here for questions or proposals

Many observers see employer-sponsored healthcare benefits offered to employees as being on the cusp of major change. PPACA contains a provision which will proscribe all individual medical policy underwriting no later than March 2014.  This means that no individual can be declined when applying for an individual healthcare policy, clearly diminishing the need for group insurance plans going-forward. In addition, from 2002 to 2011 the healthcare costs for a family of four have risen from $9,235 to $19,393, a clearly unsustainable rate for both individuals and for the U.S. economy in the aggregate. Of the $19,393 current cost, approximately 42% is being borne directly by employees, more than at any time in U.S. history. Even when employers can afford to continue to provide healthcare benefits, the offerings are often perceived as not fitting the needs of specific employees which may be unique in nature. Employers are also passing along an unprecedented portion of the total annual increase as out-of-pocket costs to employees, on average  9.2%  during the 2010-2011 renewal season.  When wages and employment are stagnant, the cost of staple products such as gasoline are at record levels, and overall returns on investments are below 5%,  an annual household healthcare cost of $8,000 is more than many can handle. Lower cost alternatives that are specifically tailored to fit the needs of individual employees are critically needed. Many strongly feel the HRA approach described below is the answer.


Q: What is the “HRA concept?”
A: In short, it is a tax advantaged method whereby employers can provide financial support to employees for the purchase of any IRS-approved healthcare product. HRA is the acronym for “health reimbursement arrangement,” a term which has been around the benefits industry for many years but which is now receiving unprecedented attention. More often than not, HRA’s are used as alternatives to traditional qualified healthplans but that is not always the case depending on the employer’s objective. Some large corporations have also used HRA’s to allow employees to tailor a mix of health product alternatives to best fit their personal needs while maintaining their own qualified health plans as alternatives. Recently, a Fortune 200 sized corporation announced that it would use the HRA approach to fulfill its obligations to future retirees by providing them a fixed allowance and having the retiree purchase the product of his/her own choice.

Q: Why is the concept receiving so much attention all of a sudden?
A: There are many reasons. However, the primary one is that the PPACA healthcare reform legislation passed in 2010 proscribes the use of medical underwriting by individual health insurance carriers no later than 2014. To date , group insurance plans, which are not medically underwritten on a person-specific basis, have been more suitable to most employers because no employees were left out. The new underwriting rules will take that advantage away from group insurance plans because no applicant for an individual policy will be denied. From an employer’s perspective, it lessens the burden of managing all the specifics of a few qualified healthplans per each geographic location (e.g., a dual offering of a PPO and POS plan). When no person can be rejected for an individual policy, the employer emphasis shifts strictly to financing.

Q: Speaking of financing, does the employer lose any tax advantage by shifting from a qualified health plan to an HRA approach?
A: HRA reimbursements for employees are considered a business expense by the IRS and are deductible just as qualified healthplan contributions presently are. Depending how the HRA and related salary reduction plans are structured, an employer can potentially increase its tax advantage via the reduced payroll and associated payroll taxes (n.b., there may also be other payroll driven charges, such as workman’s compensation premium, that are also commensurately reduced).

Q: Is it complex and/or hard to administer?
A: The answer is a qualified yes. Various administrators of flexible spending accounts (“FSAs”) under IRC Section 125 will claim unwarranted expertise. However, HRA administration is a specialized field and uniquely different than FSA administration. The entire alphabet soup of administered healthcare related programs, FSA, HSA, MSA, cafeteria plans, etc., are often confused with HRA approaches. The selection of an experienced HRA administrator with a demonstrated track record is the key to success. Some of the available administrative programs are actually patented and offered by a limited number of organizations.

Q: Can the administration be integrated into my payroll system?
A: Direct integration is not the norm. However, the best HRA administrators have proprietary management software in place to manage the HRA plan globally and make the reimbursement process as seamless as possible. As mentioned above, certain software and methods are patented and unique to specific administrators.

Q: Is there a cost consideration for employers?
A: Yes. In fact, many employers are assessing whether they can move to an HRA approach immediately in 2011. Group insurance premiums in total, the employee’s share of that premium, and the employees costs sharing when a healthcare service is rendered all continue dramatically upward. Some smaller employers feel compelled to just eliminate their qualified health plans in entirety. Some are adjusting benefits downward and passing along more costs to employees. Neither is a sustainable solution over time. These factors have caused employers to seek out more palatable ways of dealing with the cost problem.

Q: Does the HRA concept actually make the health care purchase less expensive?
A: Probably not on a truly apples to apples basis. The cost of discounted underlying healthcare services (i.e., in any form of managed care product) will not change. However, it give the employer two decided advantages. First is that, going forward, the employer can fix an annual dollar amount that it will provide to employees for the purchase of an IRS-approved healthcare product. It can be (1) the same average amount now provided as the employer’s piece of the qualified healthplan premium, (2) a reduced amount to generate costs savings while still providing substantial, albeit not the same level, of investment in employee healthcare, or (3) a substantially reduced amount which recognizes that the alternative would be the total elimination of any healthcare benefits on the part of the employer. The second advantage is that no matter at what level the dollar amount is set, the employer is not forced to design a plan where one or two options must fit the needs and desires of the entire employee group.

Q: How many plan options are available to employees?
A: Under an HRA, a certain dollar amount is made available to employees. The individual employee purchases the healthcare product that they feel best suits their needs from the carrier of their choice. There is no closed list of carriers. Often an employer will facilitate the use of a handful of carriers just to make the process easier for employees. However, the employer cannot limit the carrier or product choice on the part of an employee. Once the purchase is made directly by the employee, the employee submits a request for reimbursement under the HRA plan.

Q: My broker has told me that PPACA has eliminated different health plans for different classes of employees. Is it the same for HRAs?
A: Current IRS guidance indicates that different HRA allowances can be provided to different classes of employees. Because employees can then decide how and when to spend the allowance, no single healthcare plan can be considered discriminatory under PPACA. As with all IRS guidance, this may actually be somewhat of a moving target and an employer considering class-related allowances should seek the most current guidance before moving forward.

Q: Does the purchase have to be a full-blown individual major medical type plan?
A: No… other options are available. For those persons who don’t have the resources to purchase a product with traditional levels of benefits, there are reduced benefit products at lower costs which can be purchased from a broad array of carriers under an HRA (e.g., critical healthcare policy, limited benefits policy, minimed policy, etc.). A caution: employees should be warned to never assume the product in which they have an interest is reimbursable. Even products with similar sounding names may or may not be reimbursable from one carrier to the next. Generally speaking, individual major medical policies from recognized carriers are not problematic. However, once the HRA plan is put in place, employees should be directed to check with the administrator if there is any question about other products.

Q: Can the HRA approach be used for other solutions?
A: The answer is unequivocally yes. One example is the large employer which is self-insured. Those employers must keep a liability on their balance sheet for “incurred but not reported” claims (“IBNRs”). That liability represents claims in the pipeline that have not yet been presented for payment. In the event of termination of a healthplan, in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, the employer must have a reserve established from which funds will be drawn to pay those claims. Typically, this reserve balance grows year to year in tandem with the increase in claims costs. The more employees that move to individual, fully insured, policies the less that is required to be carried in the IBNR reserve. This methodology requires a degree of analysis to project the employee migration from a qualified healthplan and the net effect on the IBNR reserve.

Q: Are there other solutions?

 A: Some of the approaches are below:

  • Use it as a competitive hiring tool by allowing assistance with tax advantaged COBRA payment
  • Use it as a competitive hiring tool by providing some form of healthcare when a substantial waiting period exists
  • Use it as a competitive hiring tool in industries which typically do not broadly provide healthcare benefits (e.g., hospitality industry)
  • Use it as an employee relations tool by allowing even employees with less than the minimum weekly hours to participate in some form of healthcare
  • Use it as an employee relations tool by providing a tax advantaged method of paying Medicare premiums for 65+ employees (or spouses)
  • Use it as an employee relations tool by providing customizable healthcare purchases for employees who receive their primary coverage via spouse and may currently feel disenfranchised
  • If a start-up company, provide affordable initial healthcare benefits short of a full-blown qualified healthplan
  • If facing another round of large qualified plan cost increases which must be passed along to employees, provide them with affordable options

Q: It seems that some of the above might actually damage my qualified healthplan if I offer an alternative. Is that true?
A: It is critical that an average spread of risk be held in both a qualified plan and any alternatives available via an HRA. If all the young healthy employees were to migrate to alternatives, it would certainly endanger the rating soundness of the qualified plan left with an older, higher morbidity, group. In certain instances, it might also cause the qualified plan to fall below required participation minimums, although participation in alternative coverage may be adequate to remove employees from the census when making that calculation.

Q: How do I know if I will have the average spread of risk you mention?
A: Many employers have offered voluntary benefits for years. If any tax advantage was to be had, it was only via limited salary reduction via FSA contributions and the related payroll tax offsets. Generally speaking, employers have not done any kind of analysis related to the strategic placement of voluntary benefits to enhance overall company benefits objectives. As the sea-change noted here gains momentum, it is critical for employers to utilize the services of carriers which not only make products available but which can do sophisticated modeling relative to the placement of voluntary products. Employers should be wary of just accepting a laundry list of products the carrier indicates are available without projecting the net impact of those purchases.

Q: You mention voluntary products? Is that the same as an HRA plan?
A: No. However, the purchase of anything, and its ultimate reimbursement, under an HRA is always voluntary. Some of the alternative products will come from an employer-endorsed voluntary products carrier whereby the employer has made it easy via payroll deduction. However, the HRA plan cannot be limited to that single carrier. Also, much of the HRA participation will be in individual major medical policies purchased from carriers other than the endorsed voluntary carrier. Again, the carrier selection cannot be limited by the employer. The integration of existing voluntary plans (i.e., via FSA) needs to be closely monitored to ensure for proper tax treatment.

Q: If voluntary benefits are only a small part of the HRA concept, why should I rely on a carrier to do a strategic analysis?
A: The best voluntary carriers can do modeling which goes beyond just their own products. As should be clear, projecting the impact of alternatives to an existing qualified healthplan is more an art than a science. It comes down to best guesses and reasonable assumptions. Utilizing the resources of those best positioned to assist an employer only makes sense.

#

Bookmark and Share
[Note: to share only this single post, click title of this post above prior to clicking on Share icon.]

Health Care Reform (PPACA) Update Web Meeting June 17, 2010

with one comment

Twitter Logo

If you are an employer or senior management person trying to keep up with the provisions of PPACA, you are likely very frustrated as are many others. It is a moving target with interpretations and interim rules emerging almost daily. I noted in today’s St. Pete Times comments made following a seminar hosted by the Tampa Chamber on the details of PPACA. Even the normally informed “experts” are a little behind the curve and major employers are struggling with decisions due to incomplete guidance.

CIGNA has been holding a series of web meetings hosted by both their own employees and outside experts. The last one had two attorneys who specialize in PPACA as presenters and who were excellent in terms of their level of knowledge and current information. Following the presentation, a web conference operator moderates individual telephone questions directly to the presenters for specific questions and answers.

You do not need to be a CIGNA client to take advantage of this resource. Even if you just “lurk” without asking any questions, you will be brought up to speed on many details that might not otherwise be available to you. BBCG encourages you to register via the below link and join the web meeting at 2 P.M. June 17, 2010.

Click here for the CIGNA registration web page and link to additional health reform information available from CIGNA.

Bookmark and Share
[Note: to share only this single post, click title of this post above prior to clicking on Share icon.]

Cost Example: Short Term Health Coverage for Graduating College Seniors

with one comment

Twitter Logo

I am sending this along as an example of minimal costs to cover a 22 year old, male graduating college senior, aging out of parents’ plan(s), living in Clearwater, Florida, selecting the better of the two short term options available. The $1,000 deductible option costs $391.74 for six months of coverage. Most seniors will need seven months for $616.99 (yes… there is a big step in premiums from six to seven months) if they can enroll on Jan 1st in one of parent’s plans. See http://bocabenefits.com/short_term_med_examp.pdf for the cost details. See https://www.goldenrulehealth.com/PDF/38491-G200906.pdf for a product brochure.


Bookmark and Share
[Note: to share only this single post, click title of this post above prior to clicking on Share icon.]

NAIC PPACA (Healthcare Reform 2010) Frequently Asked Questions Resource

with one comment

Twitter Logo

Below is link to excellent National Association of Insurance Commissioners “Frequently Asked Questions” resource relative to the specfics of PPACA (i.e., 2010 health care reform statute). It is segmented by Consumers, Employers and Seniors.

Click here for link.


Bookmark and Share
[Note: to share only this single post, click title of this post above prior to clicking on Share icon.]

CIGNA Hosting “To Age 26” Teleconference Wed., May 19, 2010

with one comment

Twitter Logo

CIGNA is hosting an educational teleconference on the subject of early implementation of the “To Age 26” provision of PPACA. Valuable for all employers sponsoring employee health plans (i.e., both insured and self-funded). Possibly broker and CIGNA client oriented. However, pertinent to all regardless of present carrier and/or TPA.

CIGNA teleconference registration link.


Bookmark and Share
[Note: to share only this single post, click title of this post above prior to clicking on Share icon.]

United Healthcare is Added to Carrier List of Accelerated “To Age 26” Provision of PPACA

with 2 comments

Twitter Logo

United Healthcare announced that it has agreed to the White House’s request to provide coverage for graduating college seniors under the “To Age 26” provision of PPACA (i.e.,  2010 health reform act). See below excerpt from announcement. Click here for full broker announcement.

<<<

On April 19 we (sic) announced that we will work with customers that wish to extend the health coverage that graduating college students currently have under their parents’ plans. As a result, we are mailing letters beginning May 5 to all fully insured customers* regarding our graduate coverage initiative.  The mailing includes the Customer Notice, Letter and FAQ and Opt-Out form posted above.

>>> 

Bookmark and Share
[Note: to share only this single post, click title of this post above prior to clicking on Share icon.]

CIGNA Implements PPACA Anti-Rescission Provision Early

with one comment

Following on CIGNA’s earlier announcement this week regarding early implementation of the PPACA “to age 26” provision, CIGNA has announced today that they will also implement early the “anti-rescission” provisions of PPACA prior to the statutory requirement of 9/23/2010. CIGNA has announced they will make the policy change effective 5/1/2010.

It would appear that CIGNA is attempting to capture the public relations high ground on these decisions relative to their healthcare insurance competitors. However, these are relatively easy changes to effect and will not substantially alter the competitive balance as other major carriers make similar decisions to implement certain PPACA provisions early.

Below Excerpt from CIGNA Press Release:

<<<

CIGNA’s business practices are already compliant with the suggested reforms that are to be implemented on September 23, 2010. CIGNA is confirming that it will not rescind the coverage of any premium-paying customer except in cases of deliberate fraud or intentional misrepresentations of material facts. CIGNA will also institute a policy of third party review if a rescission is to be made.

>>>

Click here for full press release.

Bookmark and Share
[Note: to share only this single post, click title of this post above prior to clicking on Share icon.]

White House Lists Carriers Advancing Age 26 Provision in PPACA

without comments

Below from The White House Blog. See http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/04/27/more-support-young-adults for a list of carriers voluntarily accelerating the “age 26” provision to make in coincide with 2010 college graduation dates as of the date of this posting. BBCG expects that most all carriers will ultimately agree to this timeline.

>>>

But we knew that some young adults graduating from college this spring could risk losing their health insurance before the provision takes effect, only to be added back onto their parents’ policy the next time their parents’ plan comes up for renewal on or after September 23rd.  That was bad news for families and bad news for insurance companies too.  Removing an individual from a health insurance plan and then adding them back on a few months later takes time, and it costs money.

That’s why on April 19, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius called on leading insurance companies to begin covering young adults voluntarily before the September 23 implementation date required by the new health reform law.  Early implementation would avoid gaps in coverage for new college graduates and other young adults and save on insurance company administrative costs of dis-enrolling and re-enrolling them between May 2010 and September 23, 2010.   Early enrollment will also enable young, overwhelmingly healthy people who will not engender large insurance costs to stay in the insurance pool.

And we’re pleased to report that the following insurance companies are doing just that:

>>>

Bookmark and Share
[Note: to share only this single post, click title of this post above prior to clicking on Share icon.]

Carriers Accelerate PPACA Provision for Age 26 Eligibililty

with one comment

We have received communications from both CIGNA and Aetna that they will each be implementing the “to age 26” provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act earlier than required by statute (9/23/2010).  The concern stated is the potential for a gap in coverage for those in the 21-26 age group who may be graduating from college and who would otherwise lose eligibility once full-time student status was eliminated.

Both companies are making their eligibility changes effective 6/1/2010.

Although we have not seen announcements from either Blue Cross/Blue Shield or United Healthcare, BBCG is surmising that the changes announced by Aetna and CIGNA have become the new de facto eligibility standard and that the other major healthcare insurers will follow.

Click here for CIGNA announcement. 

Click here for Aetna announcement.