Search
RSS
Subscribe

Enter your email address to receive new posts in your inbox:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Share

Like what you see? Share!

Our Attorneys

DISCLAIMER: This blog is published for general information only - it is not intended to constitute legal advice and cannot be relied upon by any person as legal advice.  U.S. Treasury Regulations require us to notify you that any tax-related material in this blog (including links and attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of avoiding tax penalties, and may not be referred to in any marketing or promotional materials.  While we welcome you to contact our authors, the submission of a comment or question does not create an attorney-client relationship between the Firm and you. 

Wednesday
May252016

EEOC Doubles Down: Final Wellness Program Rules Under ADA and GINA – Part II

Last week the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued final rules for wellness programs under both the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) (the “Final ADA Rule”) and the Genetic Information and Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) (the “Final GINA Rule”). 

Part I of this two-part series addressed the Final ADA Rule.  In Part II, we discuss the Final GINA Rule.  Like the Final ADA Rule, the Final GINA Rule is generally consistent with the proposed rule published by the EEOC in October 2015.  The Final GINA Rule simply clarifies the type of information regulated by the rule and the level of financial incentives that may be offered by an employer in exchange for certain health information about an employee’s spouse and children. 

Click to read more ...

Friday
May202016

EEOC Doubles Down: Final Wellness Program Rules Under ADA and GINA – Part I

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has issued final rules for wellness programs under both the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) (the “Final ADA Rule”) and the Genetic Information and Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) (the “Final GINA Rule”).  The release is accompanied by Frequently Asked Questions posted to the EEOC website, as well as interpretive guidance discussing the Final ADA Rule.  Employers must comply with both sets of rules as of the first group health plan year that begins on or after January 1, 2017.  Despite a torrent of highly critical comments submitted during the comment period and ongoing litigation surrounding the EEOC’s interpretation of the limits imposed on wellness programs by the ADA and GINA, the final rules differ very little from the proposed rules and continue to depart in significant ways from the final regulations issued by the Department of Labor, Department of the Treasury, and the Department of Health and Human Service under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) (the “Final HIPAA Regulations”).  In this two part series, we discuss the differences between the proposed and final versions of each rule and highlight changes that may be required to existing wellness programs.  Part I concerns the Final ADA Rule.

Click to read more ...

Monday
Apr042016

Including Limitations Periods in Denial Letters: From “Best Practice” to Necessity 

Sponsors of group health plans in the First Circuit must now describe any contractual limitations period, if the plan applies one, in the letter advising a participant of a final adverse benefit determination.  In light of the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in Santana-Diaz v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., No. 15-1273, 2016 WL 963830 (March 14, 2016), the failure to include such a description would preclude the application of a contractual limitations period.  ERISA does not prescribe a statute of limitations for initiating a civil action.  However, as discussed in our 2015 Mid-Year Client Advisory, a plan sponsor may limit the amount of time a participant has to initiate a lawsuit under ERISA by adding a contractual limitations period to its plan.  The limitations period should be included in the plan document and the SPD and, until recently, it was a “best practice” to make the limitations period known in adverse benefit determination letters.  Following Santana-Diaz, however, including a description of the applicable limitations period in the final benefit determination is now a necessity for plan sponsors in the First Circuit.

Click to read more ...

Wednesday
Mar092016

Avoiding a Patchwork of Pitfalls: Gobeille v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co.

In the first decision issued since the passing of Justice Scalia, the Supreme Court of the United States held that ERISA preempts a Vermont statute requiring third party administrators of self-insured group health plans to report claims information to state health care databases.  Gobeille v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. addresses two important issues for benefit plans: (1) the scope of ERISA preemption; and (2) mandated reporting to state maintained “all-payer claims databases” (APCDs), which an increasing number of states are attempting to create in an effort to assess the cost, quality, and utilization of health services.  Employers should benefit from the broad ERISA preemption standard re-affirmed in the majority opinion authored by Justice Kennedy.  Plan sponsors, insurance carriers, and third party administrators should also take comfort in avoiding a patchwork of state APCD reporting requirements that may create foot faults for these entities.

Click to read more ...

Friday
Jan222016

IRS Issues Guidance on Employer Health Plan Opt-Out Payment Arrangements

Late last month the IRS released, in the form of 26 Q/As in Notice 2015-87, guidance on the application of various provisions of the Affordable Care Act to employer-sponsored health coverage.  The Notice covers a number of important issues, including the effect of health reimbursement account contributions, cafeteria plan flex credits, and employer opt-out payments on an employee’s cost of coverage for purposes of determining affordability under Code § 4980H(b).  The Notice also addresses the application to government entities of the employer shared responsibility rules, information reporting for applicable large employers, health savings account matters for persons eligible for benefits through the Department of Veterans Affairs, COBRA continuation coverage for carried over health flexible spending account balances, and penalty relief for employers that make a good faith effort to comply with the ACA reporting rules. 

Regarding employer opt-out arrangements, for months the IRS has stated, informally in various settings, that an employer should include the value of an opt-out payment in determining and reporting an employee’s cost of coverage.  (An opt-out payment is taxable income provided to an employee for waiving coverage under the employer’s health plan.)  Under this rule an opt-out payment might cause an employee’s cost of coverage to become unaffordable, thereby potentially subjecting the employer to an assessable payment.  Though the statutory and regulatory basis for this position is somewhat thin, a senior official at the IRS confirmed this view to us last summer. 

Oddly enough, Notice 2015-87 both confirms and retreats from this position.  Specifically, it provides that until the issuance of further guidance a payment under any opt-out payment arrangement in place prior to December 17, 2015 need not be reported on Form 1095-C and will not, on its own, cause an employer to be subject to a shared responsibility penalty.  Further (as confirmed by communication with the principal author of the Notice) and again until IRS guidance states otherwise, a payment under a conditional opt-out arrangement (for example, one requiring an employee to show proof of coverage under the spouse’s plan in order to receive the payment) adopted at any time need not be reported on Form 1095-C and will not, on its own, cause an employer to be subject to a shared responsibility penalty. 

Though the Notice provides that, for the time being, opt-out payments under certain arrangements need not be added to an employee’s cost of coverage for purposes of reporting and determining affordability, such payments will be added to an employee’s cost of coverage for purposes of determining (i) the employee’s eligibility for a subsidy on the Exchange, and (ii) whether the employee might be exemption from a penalty under the individual mandate.