Remember GINA?: EEOC Settles its First GINA Law Suit

The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) passed in 2008.  Since then, most of the discussion benefit plan professionals have had regarding GINA has focused on HIPAA notice requirements and compliance with GINA restrictions in wellness plans.  This month, the EEOC settled its first case brought under GINA and the facts should serve as a reminder for plan sponsors about what GINA really does.

By way of background, GINA prohibits health plans from discrimination on the basis of the genetic information of enrollees.  Health plans may not use genetic information to make eligibility, coverage, underwriting or premium-setting decisions.  Plans may not request or require individuals or their family members to undergo genetic testing or to provide genetic information.  As defined in the law, genetic information includes family medical history and information regarding individuals' and family members' genetic tests.  GINA also prevents employers from using genetic information in employment decisions such as hiring, firing, promotions, pay, and job assignments. Genetic information means information about an individual’s genetic tests, the genetic tests of family members of the individual, the manifestation of a disease or disorder in family members of the individual or any request for or receipt of genetic services, or participation in clinical research that includes genetic services by the individual or a family member of the individual.

The case involved a company that asked an applicant about her family medical history as a component of her post-offer medical exam.  The exam was mandatory and had to be completed in order to obtain employment.  The questionnaire included questions about heart disease, cancer, arthritis and mental illness, among others.  The employee was eventually denied employment and the EEOC charged that the company violated GINA.  The matter resolved for a $50,000 settlement and a consent decree agreeing not to discriminate in the future.

So the mistake here was the appearance of discrimination based on family medical history.  The fact that the employers asked about that history implies they misused it.  So before you ask employees or potential employees about their family medical history for any reason, remember GINA and make sure you are not collecting and using that information for inappropriate purposes.

DOL Issues Model Notice for Coverge and COBRA: More PPACA Forms

As a component of PPACA, employees will be able to opt out of employer coverage and go to exchanges (or go there directly if the employer does not offer coverage).  The government refers to this program as the "Health Insurance Marketplace."  Open enrollment for health insurance coverage through the Marketplace begins October 1, 2013, which, in conjunction with the new Section 18B of the FLSA, requires employers to provide notices to their employees by October 1.  All active employees must get this notice before 10/1, and all new hires after 10/1 the must receive it within 14 days of their hire date.  This continues on then as a requirement for every new hire.

Four important documents came out.  The first is the Technical Release 2013-12.  It provides the DOL instructions on how has to issue the notice and what employers are subject to the notice requirement.  Then there is a Model Notice for Employers Who Offer Coverage.  It is distributed by employers who offer health insurance coverage or self-insured plans.  Finally, there is a Model Notice for Employers Who DO NOT Offer Coverage.  The purposes of these notices is to allow employees to go to the exchanges and who them what coverage their employer does and does not offer, as well as reminding employees about their insurance coverage options.

In addition to these three documents, we also get a new Model COBRA Notice that is available from the DOL's Affordable Care Act Website.  The site also includes a red-line version so you can see how the old Model COBRA notice was changed.  Not to spoil it for you, but basically it just adds reference to the exchanges.  This new notice should be implemented for COBRA events after October 1, 2014.

So employers should review these notices and make themselves aware of the requirements.  And if you have any questions, make sure to consult with your benefit professionals to sort out the details.  October 1 will be here sooner than you think.

Defining Eligibility: Start With Plan Terms

One of the quirks about PPACA is that the measure of "affordability" of coverage is based on the value of single (or "employee only") coverage.  A qualifying plan has to make coverage available to dependents, but it can exclude spouses as dependents.  And don't forget that outside of PPACA, there are ERISA rues, IRS rules and sometimes state rules that define "dependent" or "spouse" for various purposes.  So as we get closer to the 2014 deadline, plan sponsors should be reviewing their welfare plans to make sure they have these terms properly and consistently defined so that they make coverage available to those they intend to offer it to, and exclude those intended to be excluded.

Of course, PPACA is not the only consideration for clarifying these terms.  What constitutes a "spouse" or "dependent" can vary.  For example, in Maryland, the state is getting ready to eliminate coverage for "domestic partners" because as of January 1, 2013, same-sex marriage became legal in that state.  That means that there would no longer be a need to carve out coverage for same-sex partners who could not marry.  In sum, now that everyone can get married under state law, the term "spouse" now has no differentiation between same-sex or opposite-sex couples.  Continuing to provide coverage to same-sex domestic partners would also now discriminate against opposite-sex couples who chose not to marry because eligibility of benefits would be based on sexual orientation (specifically being in a same-sex relationship gets you benefits without the legal commitment of marriage).

And it is not just major medical plans that should be reviewed.  Cafeteria plans have their own set of eligibility rules and definitions.  Some plan sponsors may want to consider excluding coverage for claims incurred by spouses not covered by the major medical plan.  They don't have to, but remember that the rules for eligibility in a cafeteria plan define certain benefits the plan MAY provide, not MUST provide.  It is up to the plan sponsor to define who is actually eligible.  The same holds true for the definition of employee eligibility for "full time" or "part time" employees.  PPACA has penalties for not providing coverage to employees who work 30 or more hours per week, but it is up to the plan sponsor to make sure the definitions in the plan match the desired eligibility requirements.  Your plan terms control the operation of your plan, not PPACA.

So, when you are looking at who you want to cover, start with your definitions and see how your plans defined "full time," "eligible employee,' "spouse" and "dependent."  These terms will dictate who can participate in your plan.  Once you decide who you want to let in, make sure your plan correctly identifies them.  And if you need help sorting out eligibility terms, make sure to contact your attorneys at Fox Rothschild.

Making Mistakes: Keep Track of How You Got There

Last week, we upgraded our software and changed our document management system.  For non-computer savvy people like me, it was a real challenge.  The trainer told me that whenever I did something that caused an error, I should write down what I did and ask him to explain to me what went wrong and how to avoid it in the future.  This struck me as an interesting piece of advice that could also be good for plan sponsors and plan administrators when it comes to compliance so when I finally was able to get access to the internet, I decided to write my thoughts about it.

I have written before about fiduciaries and their responsibility to act diligently and to make informed decisions.  It is essential that fiduciaries document the steps they took in reaching decisions related to plan operations.  The process for choosing advisors, service providers or investments should all be documented so that there is a record of how the decision was reached to demonstrate diligence.  Similarly, when mistakes are made, there should be a record of how they were identified, how they were corrected and what steps are being taken to make sure they do not happen again. 

When it comes to benefit plan administration, there are several "corrective mechanisms" available to fix mistakes.  Sometimes the best mechanism is to document the procedure being implemented to prevent them from happening in the future.  Things like written policies and procedures can be a boon to both show diligence and to also adjust future administration.  Memorializing how and why the actions were taken give us a roadmap in case a mistake occurs so we can look back and see where a wrong turn might have been made.  It is very difficult to fix a mistake if you can't identify why it happened or what practice or policy was ignored.

I think this will become even more relevant the closer we get to full PPACA compliance.  Plan sponsors are making decisions about how to count employees, what coverage to offer and how to measure hours.  Undoubtedly, mistakes will be made.  There should be a record of how conclusions were reached for each of these issues so that there is both proof of diligence and a reference point for correction if necessary.  Mistakes can be fixed, but it is usually easier (and less costly) to fix things if there is a record to look back on.

Second Year SBCs: PPACA Guidance for Next Year

As we continue to get closer to the January 2014 deadline for PPACA compliance, we continue to get additional guidance from the DOL.  On 4/23, the DOL issued another set of FAQs addressing the summary of benefits and coverage (SBC) disclosure requirement under health care reform.  These FAQs reflect changes to SBCs distributed for coverage that begins on or after January 1, 2014, and before January 1, 2015, which is generally referred to as the "second year of applicability."  Remember that the SBCs are supposed to provide a summary of coverage offered to be compared against other available coverage options (like the exchanges).  Plan sponsors should have issued SBCs for coverage in place before January 1, 2014, so now we have some guidance for what SBCs will look like.

The FAQs address issues related to providing SBCs in the second year of applicability.  The updated SBC template and sample completed SBC are for use in the second year of applicability.  The good news is that these documents make no changes to the uniform glossary, the SBCs "Why This Matters" language, coverage examples, or related "Instructions for Completing the SBC."  The only significant change to the SBC template and completed SBC is the addition of statements addressing whether the plan or coverage provides minimum essential coverage meets the minimum value requirements.

The FAQs contain several items related to the content of the second-year SBCs and adjustments that have to be made about benefit limits and also contains some explanation of transitional relief that is available to plans that already started writing the second years SBCs.  I think it is odd that they decided to publish this particular guidance when so many more questions need to be answered, but if preparing your second year SBC is on your current to-do list, make sure to review this new guidance.

Defining Equitable Relief and Plan Terms

While it may seem boring to those who don't deal with benefit plans on a daily basis, the Supreme Court's recent decision in US Airways, Inc. v. McCutchen is somewhat important.  The issues litigated in that case were whether two equitable defenses applied in the context of a health plan's claim for reimbursement under ERISA Section 502(a)(3).  With it, comes some further insight into defining plan terms and available remedies.  This can be important for plan undergoing changes for PPACA compliance.

McCutchen was a participant in a self-funded ERISA health plan sponsored by US Airways.  He was injured in an automobile accident and the plan paid his medical expenses.  McCutchen subsequently recovered money from third parties, but refused to reimburse the plan claiming that (1) he should not have to reimburse the plan because he did not receive full recovery for his injuries and (2) the plan would be unjustly enriched if allowed to take full recovery without taking into account attorneys fees.  The district court rejected these arguments and granted summary judgment to US Airways on the ground that the plan terms clearly provided for full reimbursement of medical expenses.  The US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit vacated the district court's order, holding that an award of "appropriate equitable relief" under ERISA Section 502(a)(3) may be limited by equitable defenses and principles, including unjust enrichment.

The Supreme Court held that equitable defenses cannot override clear plan terms.  However, equitable rules can be used to fill a gap where the plan is silent regarding an aspect of the reimbursement, especially for things like allocation of costs.  In other words, equitable defense cannot override clear language in a plan...plan terms speak for themselves.  So specific terms apply and if terms are missing, courts can fashion remedies based on equitable principles, even if the result is not what the plan sponsor intended.

So the lesson here is, for subrogation and reimbursement cases, health plans should make sure they have very specific subrogation and reimbursement language to avoid challenges on an equitable basis.  But the broader concept is an affirmation that plan terms mean what they say.  In a time when we are revising and redrafting plans to comply with PPACA, it is important to keep in mind that we have to say exactly what we mean.  To avoid "equitable" interpretations of plan language, be specific and detailed.  If you need help crafting specific plan language, you can always look to your attorneys at Fox Rothschild for assistance.  

Dealing With Appeals: It's OK To Change Your Mind

With PPACA, we have added an extra component of the appeals process to include an external review.  While this is added for health plans, other welfare plans like disability or life, and of course retirement plans, do not have this same requirement.  But what happens if, during the course of the appeals process, the plan administrator comes across information that might impact the decision on appeal that makes the administrator want to grant the appeal?  Does the administrator have to disclose why? 

First, we can operate on the presumption that there would not be an appeal unless the participant was being denied a benefit (or at least seeking to modify a benefit granted).  The initial "internal" appeal requires the administrator to consider what ever additional information the participant chooses to provide.  Plus the administrator has to provide to the participant that information it relied on in denying the claim.  But the administrator may also get information from someone other than the participant during the appeal.  So how does this impact the appeals process? 

In the recent case of Lee v. Hartford Life, the District Court for the District of Columbia dealt with an issue where, while the appeal was pending, the administrator received another medical report from its doctor affirming its original denial.  Hartford did not share that opinion with the participant until after the appeal was denied.  She subsequently claimed she was denied a full and fair review on appeal because she did not know about this second report during her appeal.  The Court confirmed that, when an appeal is filed, the administrator has to give the participant documents generated and relied on prior to the original claim denial, but not any documents received after the initial appeal is filed.  So the subsequent report was not something that had to be disclosed during the appeal because the appeal was already made.  Of course after the appeal was denied, the administrator has to reveal the basis for that denial, which it did, which gave rise to this lawsuit.

When applied to a health plan with an external review, the steps would work something like this: (1) initial claims denied; (2) appeal filed, give all documents relied on for original denial; (3) when appeal denied, give all documents relied on when making the denial of the appeal (including, in this case, the second report).  After a claim is denied and an appeal is filed, you don't necessarily have to supplement your original denial with information acquired after the appeal is filed until you actually deny the appeal.  So, why the title question about changing your mind?  Well, because information only has to be produced that existed prior to the filing of the appeal, but not information received during the appeal process unless the appeal is also denied.  If the plan administrator receives subsequent information that makes it want to rescind the original denial, it appears that there would not be an obligation to explain why the reversal occurred.  A plan administrator can simply grant the appeal without ever specifying it relied on something other than the participants appeal submission.

The point is you might not want the participant to know why you changed your mind, only that you did.  Plan administrators sometimes want to keep their resources close to the vest.  Fortunately, under this case, the basis for granting an appeal (or reversing a denial of benefits) does not have to be disclosed.  If the appeal is granted, there is no more requirement to provide a disclosure to the participant.  So it is OK to change your mind between the initial denial and the determination on the appeal and simply grant the appeal.  If there is no denial of the appeal, there is no obligation to disclose why it was granted. 

Taking Away Welfare Benefits: The Question of Vesting

Even when it is not all about PPACA, it can still be about PPACA.  I happened to be reading some recent court decisions and came upon a decision from the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals that has an impact on welfare benefits generally, but also a possible impact on PPACA health plans, so I thought I would share it.

In Price v. Laborers Pension Fund, the 6th Circuit was considering a case related to disability benefits.  Price was granted disability back in 1990.  In 2006, because of an amendment to the plan, his disability benefits were eliminated and he promptly filed a lawsuit.  In affirming the termination of his disability benefits, the Court made a couple critical observations that are important to all plan sponsors.  First, the Court affirmed the proposition that welfare benefits (as opposed to retirement benefits) do not generally "vest."  Welfare benefits can generally be terminated at any time so long as the termination is consistent with the terms of the plan.

Second, the Court resolved the issue by looking at the specific terms of the plan where the trustees had reserved the right to amend or terminate benefits, even retroactively.  The Court found that the specific language of the plan was such that it allowed for elimination of disability benefits at any time, thereby precluding an argument that the right to receive these benefits was "vested" or guaranteed. So in terms of these "welfare" type benefits, if a plan sponsor has reserved the right to amend or terminate benefits in the plan language and follows the terms in the plan when it takes action, it can generally avoid a claim that the right to the benefits has vested.

Under PPACA, many plan sponsors are considering eliminating or curtailing welfare benefits (like health, vision and dental coverage) for cost concerns.  All well and good provided that the plan sponsor has reserved the right in the plan to change, amend or terminate these welfare benefits at any time.  While ERISA might generally give a plan sponsor the right to act, if you are considering eliminating health insurance coverage for employees because of PPACA, a good place to start is to see if your health plan has a provision giving you the ability to amend or terminate coverage at any time.  Having a provision like this goes a long way to defeating any argument that the benefits have "vested."   

The First PPACA Exchange Rates Are Out: Vermont

As we know, PPACA creates the concept of an exchange that will be available to individuals to obtain coverage, either as an alternative to employer sponsored coverage or as a replacement if an employer does not offer coverage.  As we come closer to implementation of PPACA, the question continues to come up about what the exchanges will look like and how much coverage in the exchanges will actually cost.  Well, we have at least a glimpse of the answer to these questions.

Today, Vermont became the first state to publish proposed rates for its exchange.  The single coverage rates average between $365.76 per month for bronze coverage up through $609.47 for platinum coverage.  Family rates average between $1,027.78 and $1,712.61.  These averages are measured based on the options available under each level of coverage, so it might be that some coverage levels cost more or less depending on the option selected.  These rates do not take into account any subsidies that might be available based on household income. 

For states that have decided not to adopt an exchange, we will have to wait for a federal exchange rate to be published, or at least for some clarification of how the federal exchange rates will be determined.  Plus other states will have to create their own rates based on their own compliance criteria.  But for now we have at least a base point to consider moving forward.  Assuming these rates remain unchanged between now and the date of implementation, we now have some idea about what exchange coverage might actually cost.

Counting to 90: PPACA and the Waiting Period

Under PPACA, once we decide who we have to offer coverage to, then we have to decide when they get the coverage.  Generally the new rule is that a waiting period for coverage cannot exceed 90 days.  So now the IRS has given us proposed rules on the 90 day waiting period.  As with all other proposed rules, they are not final until they are final, but these do give employers some additional guidance on how to maintain the correct waiting period.

The proposed regulations define a waiting period as “the period that must pass before coverage for an employee or dependent who is otherwise eligible to enroll under the terms of a group health plan can become effective.”  What this means is that once eligibility requirements are met (meaning that an employee is "full time"), coverage must begin 90 calendar days after eligibility is obtained.  This includes weekends and holidays.  If day 91 falls on a weekend or holiday, the plan sponsor may elect to have coverage be effective earlier than the 90th day, for administrative convenience, but may not delay coverage past the 91st day.  So plan sponsors should eliminate any plan provisions that provide that coverage begins at some time after the 90th day (like the first day of the month after the expiration of the 90 day period).

The proposed rule also provides that a plan may impose eligibility criteria such as completion of a period of days of service (which may not exceed 90 days), attainment of a specific job category, or other criteria, so long as they have not been designed to avoid compliance with the 90-day waiting period.  For example, a plan provides coverage only to employees with the title of manager.  John is hired on September 1, 2014 as an associate.  On April 1, 2015, he is promoted to manager.  John must be offered coverage no later than July 1, 2015.  This does not mean that John might not have otherwise been offered coverage as a full-time employee.  So be wary of reading too much into this job classification option.  We still have to measure how many hours John works even as an associate.

Also, there had been some question about certificates of creditable coverage being required after January 1, 2014.  The proposed rules provided that these certificates will be phased out by 2015 because PPACA's prohibition on exclusions from coverage due to pre-existing health conditions renders them obsolete.  Since pre-existing condition exclusions have to be eliminated for plan years beginning on or after January 1, 2014, these certificates are no longer necessary.  But they still have to be provided throughout the 2014 plan year.

There are other specifics in the proposed rules that will have to be fleshed out and, again, these rules are proposed and subject to change.  But they serve as an ongoing reminder that plan sponsors have to be watchful of how they administer their plans and must make sure that their stated eligibility rules satisfy the requirements of both ERISA and PPACA.

PPACA and Wellness Plans: The CVS Model

In prior entries, I have discussed wellness programs and the rules related to discrimination.  Specifically, we considered what can and cannot be done with respect to "participation based" versus "outcome based" programs.  Clearly wellness programs are a key component of controlling health claims costs and PPACA certainly allows them to exist (and even encourages them).  So looking at the CVS model announced last week, we can see how implementing a "participation based" program can be very effective.

According to reports, CVS will implement a wellness program that will require its employees that enroll in the company medical plan to have a wellness review completed or face a penalty.  The company will pay for the review and it will be administered by a third party.  The company will not know any of the results, only whether or not the employee participated in the review.  The employee will then be told about potential health risks they face and how to get healthier.  If employees do not participate, they will pay a $600 annual "penalty" in the form of increased contributions to health insurance coverage.

The reward, not paying the $600, is the incentive to participate in the program and since the reward is not based on a particular outcome (such as losing weight or lowering BMI), it avoids the HIPAA non-discrimination concerns that outcome based programs face.  Of course it has caused quite an uproar because the assumption is that it penalizes employees for being overweight, but this is not actually the case.  It merely provides an incentive to employees to find out how they can be more healthy, including the fact that they might need to lose weight.  Ideally, as employees find out about their health risks, they will seek to improve their health, thus driving down overall health plan costs.

So as we come closer to full PPACA compliance, employers should consider adding a wellness program component to their health plan as a means of potentially controlling health claims expense.  It is perfectly legal and can be done in a manner as simple as the CVS model.  But make sure you know whether you have an outcome based or participation based program to avoid discrimination concerns. 

When is a Spouse an Ex-Spouse? Beneficiary Designations and Your Plan

In previous entries, I have written about what happens when you can't locate a spouse for waiver purposes, about how to deal with missing beneficiaries or even how to review QDROs.  Well, every now and then a new case comes around that throws in a new twist, so let's consider when a spouse really ceases being a spouse.

In Gallagher v. Gallagher, the Massachusetts District Court was asked to consider a case between the son a deceased participant and his not-quite-ex wife.  In 1989, Mr. Gallagher separated from his wife and entered into a separation agreement and continued to pay spousal support to his estranged wife.  But the participant never actually finalized the divorce.  He had not spoken to his estranged wife for several years and in 2005, the participant changed the beneficiary designation on his 401(k) plan to his son.  He then passed away in 2011 and his estranged wife and son instituted litigation over who was the appropriate beneficiary.

The Court ruled that even though the participant's intention to change his beneficiary was clear, since he was not actually divorced, he could not alienate his "spouse" and she was entitled to the account balance.  The spouse was still a "spouse" until legally she was no longer a spouse. 

So the lesson for plan administrators is don't assume an estranged spouse is no longer a proper beneficiary or that they have no claim under the plan.  Unless you see a divorce decree confirming the termination of the "spouse" status, don't do anything to adversely impact that spouse's claim to benefits.  Just because a participant says they are divorced, get proof.  In this case, if the plan had disbursed the money to the son, it might have had to pay it again to the spouse because it did not check.  So don't assume a spouse is not a spouse until you get proof.

Affordable Coverage Under PPACA, Theoretically

The IRS and HHS have been issuing guidance and notices, as well as regulations, regarding the definition of affordable coverage.  But employers seem to be caught up in household income, 8%, 9.5% and what constitutes affordable coverage to avoid penalties.  So breaking down this one issue of "affordability," let's summarize where we presently appear to be (at least as I understand the rules):

First, assume you are offering coverage that meets the minimum essential value test (which is still being defined).  If the employee cost of obtaining "single coverage" is less than 9.5% of that employee's total compensation as reported in box 1 of that employee's W-2, that coverage will be "affordable."  Coverage generally has to be available to cover dependents, excluding spouses, but the cost of dependent coverage is not calculated in the determination of whether the employer is offering affordable coverage.  It may have an impact on the eligibility for subsidies of the employee, but not the employer.  So, as it presently sits, if the cost of single coverage to the employee is less than 9.5% of their compensation, it is affordable.

Now, from the employee's perspective, whether or not the coverage offered by the employer is affordable looks at total household income.  For the individual, their personal definition of whether they are being offered affordable coverage will be based on 8% of total household income.  By way of example, think of an employee making $30,000 a year.  The employer has to offer that employee single coverage for an employee contribution of $237.50 a month or less ($30,000 x 9.5% = $2850/12).  The employer would be OK because that coverage would be affordable. 

Now suppose that employee has two children.  The employer can charge more for the family coverage than the 9.5% because that limit applies only to the single coverage.  So let's assume the employer charges $500 a month to the employee for family coverage.  The coverage would still be affordable and the employee would not be subsidy eligible if they went to the exchange because the employer is offering affordable coverage.  The exchange coverage for the family might be a cheaper option and the employee could choose it, but they would not get subsidies.

Where things get interesting is when you consider non-covered spouse.  Assume the spouse is unemployed and the total household income is that same $30,000.  If the spouse goes to the exchange for coverage themselves, the spouse would be eligible for a subsidy because they are not offered any employer sponsored coverage and the total household income for the family is below 400% of the federal poverty level.   Further, because of the household income is so low, it is likely that children could end up with coverage through a state-sponsored S-CHIP plan.

Now it gets even more confusing.  If the employee decides to opt out of the employer coverage and the whole family remains uninsured, they would not be subject to the individual tax penalty for not having insurance because the cost of the employer coverage for the family is more than 8% of total household income ($2,400 versus $6,000).  But that total household income calculation applies to the employee and family, not the employer.  Back to step one, if the employer's single only coverage is less than 9.5% of the employee's income, it is affordable and the employer pay no penalty,

As you can see, this means that it would be hard to argue that this is going to make coverage more affordable for families.  And employers that were charging employees more than 9.5% of the cost of coverage (or not offering coverage at all) will see some additional cost.  But for employers, the point is you don't have to get caught up in trying to figure out the total household income of your employees.  Look only at their individual income and base your affordability measure on that figure (at least for now).

DOL Issues Compliance Self-Tests: PPACA and HIPAA

These are trying times for employers sponsoring health plans and as we get closer to January 1, 2014, PPACA guidance is not always easy to come by.  Lots of regulations still have to be written.  However, today the DOL did issue a couple "compliance tools" to help employers self-test to see if their plans are complaint with HIPAA and some of the provisions of PPACA as they presently sit.

The HIPAA Self-Compliance Tool looks primarily at regulations and requirements other than PPACA.  It is designed to help determine whether a plan is compliant with the HIPAA non-discrimination rules and also such things as wellness programs, mental health parity and the WHCRA and Newborns Act.  The PPACA Self-Compliance Tool provides a checklist of items that are already in effect for PPACA and gives some guidance to plans on how things should already be operating. 

Neither checklist predicts the future, and while they do include useful tips about how to comply or what may be required, they do not provide definitive guidance on all issues.  Specifically missing from the PPACA tool is an explanation of how to count employees or hours or any explanation of how to determine who will ultimately be eligible for coverage.  But they do give us some way of determining if a plan is doing things correctly so far.  Plan sponsors should review these lists and take this as an opportunity to self-correct deficiencies, even while planning for how things will look next year.

Seasonal Workers and PPACA: A Little Closer Look

So some good steps to dealing with the seasonal employees issue might be to (1) clearly define them as seasonal and tell them, (2) limit their employment to a reasonable "season" (probably fewer than 120 consecutive days), and (3) clearly designate them as seasonal when you do your calculations for large employer status and for eligibility.  I suspect that where employers will most likely get in trouble is when they either don't make it clear to employees they are seasonal, or don't limit their employment to a defined "season."  If you need help defining who is a seasonal worker, what their season of employment is or how they effect your counting employees under PPACA, ask you attorney at Fox Rothschild for guidance.

Plan Documentation: Do I Give it or Not?

I frequently am asked by plan sponsors and plan administrators about how to respond to a request for "plan documentation."  Under Section 104(b)(4) of ERISA, a plan administrator is obligated to provide certain information when requested by a participant or beneficiary.  This documentation includes the summary plan description, the latest annual report (if the plan files one) and any bargaining agreement, contract or trust document under which the plan is established.  Sounds fairly simple, right?

Well, under 502(c), there is a $110 a day penalty for failing to provide the documentation within 30 days when requested, so there is some timeliness requirements to the response, and there is some penalty associated with no complying with the request.  104(b)(4) allows for their to be a reasonable charge for copies if requested.  But who can request them?  The term "participant" or "beneficiary" is not cleanly defined in these sections.  Well, generally, we know that a participant or beneficiary is someone who participates in the plan or is entitled to benefits under the terms of the plan.  But it may also be someone who has a "colorable claim" to benefits.  Say perhaps an ex-spouse who thinks they are entitled to life insurance benefits.  Or perhaps a step-child who thinks they meet the definition of a dependent.  So it is important to consider who is requesting the information and not just their actual status, but their possible status as well.

Also, the request can come from an attorney.  There is an old DOL opinion letter that suggests that since the statute says the request has to come from the participant or beneficiary, a request from an attorney does not trigger the obligation to comply.  But more recent case law has considerably blurred that line so that a request from an attorney for a participant or beneficiary made in good faith should elicit a response.  Further, while the statute says the request has to be made to the "administrator," an employer, as plan sponsor, should not assume that it is free from compliance because it has outside administration.  Lots of cases have been litigated over whether that "fiduciary" status is sufficient to require an employer to provide documentation.  Simply put, the risk associated with penalties and litigation over failing to provide documentation seem to clearly favor erring on the side of giving documents when requested.

So plan sponsors (and administrators) should collect the required documentation, keep it in a nice folder and be prepared to send it out on request.  Set an reasonable fee in advance and apply it uniformly.  Make sure to comply within 30 days and err on the side of providing the documentation to anyone with a colorable claim to participant or beneficiary status.  And if you have any questions, contact your attorney at Fox Rothschild for guidance.

DOL Audit Letters Revised for PPACA: Asking for Specifics

By off chance, a client sent me a letter from the Department of Labor conducting an audit of their self-funded health plan.  While I have responded to many audit requests in the past, this most recent audit letter was unique in that it is the first one I have received that specifically requests information related to compliance with PPACA.  Looking at what was specifically requested by the DOL in it's audit can go a long way toward preparing plan sponsors for compliance with these requests, so let's consider the PPACA specific documents the DOL asked to see.

The DOL requested that, if a plan is claiming grandfathered status, it provide a copy of the "grandfathered health plan status disclosure statement" as well as each document the plan maintained substantiating it retained grandfathered status.  The DOL also requested a copy of each written notice describing the opportunity to enroll dependents up to age 26 as well as copies of all notices relating to lifetime or annual limits, or the elimination of those limits.  Also included was a request for copies of all summary material modifications related to any plan changes instituted to effect PPACA compliance.

The audit request included a request for the process and procedure for administering external appeals, as well as a contract hiring an external appeals administrator and the process for evaluating that administrator.  The DOL also requested copies of the last five appeals filed after September 23, 2010, with all information relating to the highest level appeal that was completed.  There was a request for the notice informing participants of the rights to designate primary care physicians if the plan is not grandfathered, samples of all adverse benefit determination notices and copies of all documents issued in a non-English language required for counties with 10% or more of the population speak a particular language.

Of course, to the extent all of this documentation should now be a part of a plan's administrative process, it should not come as complete surprise that it was requested.  But it does serve as a reminder of the reporting and documentation requirements that existed before, and was modified by, PPACA.  If you don't have some of these documents, or were not aware they were required, now would be a good time to find out more about them so that if you are audited in the future, you have the documents at the ready.  And if you do receive an audit notice, make sure you ask for assistance from your attorneys at Fox Rothschild. 

The New and Improved HIPAA/HITECH Rules: What Employers Need to Know

On January 25, the new (final?) rules about HIPAA Privacy under the HITECH Act were issued in the Federal Register.  While the effect of the new rules may not be to substantially change the way HIPAA privacy is viewed, there are a number of action items for employers as plan sponsors that have to be accomplished when these rules go into effect.

There are two pieces of good news.  The first is that the general purpose of compliance remains the same.  Plan sponsors have to ensure PHI is properly protected, refrain from impermissible disclosures and provide notices of security breaches.  The second is that the earliest possible deadline for compliance with the new rules is September 23, 2013, so there is some time to prepare.  But it is not a bad idea to start preparing now.  So let's consider the key changes.

1. Tougher Security Breach Notification Standard

Under the old rule, the standard for notification to participants of a security breach was only necessary if the release of information "posed a significant risk of financial, reputational or other harm" to a covered person.  Now, that standard is tightened to apply to ANY security breach unless the plan sponsor can prove "a low probability that the [PHI] has been compromised based on a risk assessment."  This should encourage plan sponsors to tighten their security breach protections because any release, even things like accidental e-mails, can potentially become reportable events.  So the first step in compliance would be to review security standards and document steps taken to avoid security breaches.

2. Tougher Standards for Business Associates Agreements

Because the new rule provides for penalties to a covered entity for breaches by business associates, the default position is that plan sponsors should be much more concerned about how compliant their business associates really are.  Where in the past, plan sponsors may have felt comfortable simply handing off certain protection functions to service providers, the new rule makes it pretty clear that plan sponsors have to actually know that their business associates are HIPAA compliant and diligently seek to confirm that compliance.

3.  New Privacy Notices for 2013 Open Enrollment

The new rule also requires that plan sponsors add or amend their privacy notices:

  1. The notice must specifically state that the covered health plans are required to obtain plan participants' authorization to use or disclose psychotherapy notes, to use PHI for marketing purposes, to sell PHI, or to use or disclose PHI for any purpose not described in the notice as well as a statement explaining how plan participants may revoke an authorization.
  2. The notices must state that the plans (other than a long-term care plan) are prohibited from using PHI that is genetic information for underwriting purposes
  3. The notice must inform plan participants of their right to receive a notice when there is a breach of their unsecured PHI.

The new rules makes it clear that since this new language is a "material change," plan sponsors are required to distribute this revised notice, even if they had just recently sent the old notice. 

4. Genetic Information and the GINA Notice

The Genetic Information Non-Discrimination Act of 2008 (GINA) prohibits discrimination based on genetic information.  The HIPAA Privacy Rule now similarly prohibits HIPAA-covered plans from taking genetic information into consideration when offering incentives or discounts through a health risk assessment.  Because this modification of the Privacy Rule materially affects how a plan may use PHI, the HIPAA Privacy Rule requires that plan participants be informed in the plan's privacy notice of the prohibition on the use of PHI for underwriting purposes.  See the second item under Part 3, above.

So in the midst of our struggles to comply with PPACA, plan sponsors should not forget about HIPAA medical privacy concerns.  Start pulling together privacy notices, business associates agreements and plan documents for review and amendment.  Review your security practices to avoid even accidental breaches.  And be prepared to issue new notices as necessary for your next open enrollment.  For more detailed information about HIPAA and HITECH Compliance, please make sure to check out our HIPAA Blog as well.  More information means better compliance, which is always a good thing.

Proposed Rules Issued on Religious Institutions and Contraceptives

One component of PPACA that has been hotly contested is the provision of birth control expenses and its impact on religious-affiliated groups opposed to contraception.  New proposed rules and a fact sheet have been issued that are apparently an effort to quell some of the debate.

The new regulations propose to have insurers who sell the coverage to pick up the cost of the contraceptives.  Now, there is a proposal that applies to religious institutions that self-insure which obligates the administrator of the plan to find a policy that would cover contraceptives.  The insurer would be compensated for that coverage through a reduction in the fees it pays to the state-based marketplaces, or exchanges, being established to provide coverage to individuals and small businesses.  Under the proposed rule, women employed by nonprofit religious organizations opposed to contraceptives, such as Catholic hospitals or colleges and student health plans, are entitled to get contraceptive services and products without a co-payment.   Since the organization is not required to bear the cost of the service, the insurer of the organization has to notify workers that it will provide the coverage through separate individual health insurance policies.

For self-insured plans, the administrator of the plan (typically an insurance company) would provide a separate individual policy and then offset the costs of those policies through an “adjustment” in the fees that will be charged to insurers participating in the health marketplaces.  Of course this does not explain what will happen if the plan is administered through an entity that is not an insurer and there is also no explanation about what will happen when those in the marketplace bearing the additional cost start complaining about paying extra to subsidize the cost of contraceptive coverage.

All in all, it is fairly clear that the Supreme Court will ultimately have to sort out this contraceptive issue.  While the proposed regulations may appear to have implemented some type of fix, it may prove to be illusory and unworkable when practical market realities intrude. 

More on PPACA: Multiemployer Plans and Shared Responsibility

Earlier this month, Treasury and the IRS published a proposed rule regarding the shared responsibility penalty.  The proposed rule describes how the penalty will be applied and includes a number of safe-harbor methods that employers may use to determine whether an employee is a full-time employee for purposes of the employer shared responsibility penalty. (See my January 2, 2013 entry).  Within this proposed rule, there is a section dealing with employers that contribute to multiemployer plans.  It is a transitional rule, but at least it gives some guidance on whether contributions to a multiemployer plan will be sufficient to avoid the pay-or-play penalties.

As I have discussed before, the amount of the employer penalty will be based on whether the employer offers qualifying health coverage to full-time employees.  Employers have asked whether contributions to a multiemployer health plan will satisfy the obligation to offer coverage and allow them to avoid the penalties.  Under the proposed transitional rules, a large employer will not owe the penalty for a full-time employee if the following three things apply:

  1. The employer is required to contribute to a multiemployer plan with respect to that employee pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement or participation agreement,
  2. Coverage is offered under the multiemployer plan to the full-time employee (and the employee’s dependent children), and
  3. the coverage offered to the full-time employee is affordable and provides minimum value.

This brings into question whether the multiemployer plan to which an employer is contributing satisfies items 2 and 3.  An employer might have a bargaining agreement, but unless the plan offered dependent coverage and is affordable and provides minimum value, this transitional rule would not apply.  While most coverage provided by multiemployer plans satisfies number 3, employers should get a certification from the plan that it does.  More recently, number 2 can be an issue.  Plans that may have eliminated dependent coverage to control costs could create problems for employers who contribute to a multiemployer plan and then discover it does not satisfy the obligation to offer coverage.  In other words, an employer could be obligated to contribute to a plan and still face a penalty for not offering coverage.  Remember, the penalty is paid by the employer, not the plan.

So while this transitional rule seems to provide some relief by allowing that contributions to a multiemployer plan satisfy the obligation to offer coverage, it is not a rubber stamp.  Employers who contribute to a multiemployer plan should verify that the plan meets the requirements under this guidance or potentially face penalties.

Am I Offering a Taxable Fringe Benefit? Check the Code

In the fiscal cliff debates last quarter, there was some discussion about limiting deductions or changing the tax code to eliminate certain exclusions from compensation.  It is not uncommon for employers to offer fringe benefits to employees as an alternative to direct compensation because fringes are not always taxable.  But it is important to know whether what you are offering is treated as taxable income and what the limitations are on that "fringe."  Fortunately, the IRS Code contains specific provisions related to the taxation or exemption of fringe benefits.

The big ones are under Sections 104, 105 and 106 that exclude from compensation (and thus taxation) injury or sickness benefits, benefits received from employer health insurance and health insurance premiums paid by employers.  Section 119 excludes certain meals and lodging.  Section 125 establishes cafeteria plans and allows for flexible spending accounts.  Section 127 allows for educational assistance programs, while Section 129 provides for dependent care assistance programs.  Section 132 allows for employee discounts, de minimus fringes, transportation expenses, moving expenses and other similar working condition fringe benefits.  Section 137 provides for adoption assistance.  These name but a few of the Code sections related to fringe benefits.

The point to this is that there are actually specific guidelines provided in each of these sections that can help employers administer employee fringe benefit programs to make sure they remain non-taxable.  Employers who assume that they are giving a qualified non-taxable fringe benefit because it just seems like it should be frequently find themselves knee-deep in an audit, trying to explain why they did not follow the rules.  So before providing a "fringe" because it makes employees happy or because it sounds like a good idea, check the Code and see if what you are doing is permissible.  Check with your legal counsel and get an opinion as to the limitations.  And then follow the rules.  After all, you don't want to end up having to pay taxes on a "fringe" just because you did not understand it.

Breach of Fiduciary Duty Claims Don't Automatically Create Individual Remedies

When the Supreme Court decides not to take a case, that is generally not news.  But in the case of the Court's decision to decline a review of Walker v. Federal Express Corp., there should be some mention of its impact on claims under ERISA.  Usually, when I am defending a claim made against a plan or a plan administrator, I see that the Plaintiff has thrown in a claim for "breach of fiduciary duty" as a sort of catch-all argument.  Frequently, this claims is is coupled with some type of claim for failing to provide documents or for having defective notices.  But these types of claims may survive under ERISA, as the underlying decision in Walker illustrates. 

Factually, the case involved a claim for benefits under a life insurance policy.  In addition to the claim for benefits under Section 502(a)(1), the plaintiff included a claim for breach of fiduciary duty under Section 502(a)(2) for either failing to provide a conversion notice, or in breaching a duty to the participant by not giving benefits.  The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the Court from the Western District of Tennessee, finding that the relief available under Section 502(a)(2) for breach of fiduciary duty is not relief available to an individual.  It is relief that should be limited to the plan as a whole.  By not hearing the case, the Supreme Court has effectively left the 6th Circuit's decision intact. 

It is also important to note that this leaves intact the Appeals Court's decision that nothing in ERISA requires a life insurance plan fiduciary to issue a separate conversion notice beyond what is contained in the summary plan description, but that is not what I focus on here.

Certainly, other jurisdictions have had similar decisions and much has been written about relief available under 502(a)(2) and equitable remedies available under 502(a)(3).  But my point here is that making a claim for "breach of fiduciary duty" means something more than just disagreeing with a plan administrator's determination.  It has specific statutory and administrative limits.  So if you are a plan fiduciary facing an allegation that you have breached a fiduciary duty, your first consideration might be whether the requested remedy is even available.  I am not suggesting it is a good idea to engage in breaches of duty, but a claim for breach is not a blank check for a claimant.  It is a very specific claim that has very specific remedies and very specific limits.  Make sure that if you are a fiduciary, you are aware of your fiduciary obligations as well as the remedies so you don't further compound problems with your plan administration by giving the wrong thing. 

For more information about being a well-informed fiduciary, or to arrange for fiduciary training, please contact your attorney at Fox Rothschild.

Change is Inevitable: Know Your Notices

Between talk about the "fiscal cliff" and "shared responsibility,"  it makes me wonder how plan sponsors and fiduciaries are going to manage to keep their plans looking the same way for an entire plan year.  It seems like every day new issues are presented that might require employers to have to change their benefits plans.  Unfortunately, most time when people talk about changing plans, they overlook some of the rules relating to changes, particularly notices to participants. 

ERISA has a rule about "summary of material modifications" that provides that notice of plan changes have to be distributed to a participant within 210 days of the end of the plan year that the change is effective.  This applies to welfare plans and retirement plans alike.  For group health plans, if the material modification is a material reduction in benefits, the summary has to be distributed 60 days after the effective date of the reduction.  PPACA gives us a rule that provides that if a health plan makes a mid-year plan change that changes one of the terms in their summary of benefits coverage, the plan has to give a notice to participants 60 days prior to the effective date of the modification.  The notice of the changes would satisfy both the SMM requirement and the SBC notice requirement.  So you might have to issue a notice in 60 days or not depending on the change. 

Retirement plans have notices too.  Not only do the SMM rules apply, but there are special rules about notice requirements like a 30-day advance notice of amendments to 401(k) plan to eliminate matches or a 60-day advance notice of an intent to terminate a plan.  So mid-year changes to retirement plans can trigger an obligation to provide notices to participants prior to the change.  In the case of either welfare plans or retirement plans, failure to provide proper notice could constitute a breach of fiduciary duty, which creates its own potential liability.

The point is that changes can be made to plans mid-year or end of year, or both, be they retirement or welfare, and that plan sponsors can modify their plans to fit their changing needs.  But it is imperative to know the timing restrictions and notice requirements in advance of making those changes so you don't run into problems.  Don't assume, ask an expert. 

Do You Know the 2013 Retirement Plan Limitations?

Each year, the IRS announces cost-of-living adjustments affecting dollar limitations for various retirement plans.  Some of the key changes to limits for 2013 (as well as some that did not change)are:

  1. The elective deferral (contribution) limit for employees who participate in 401(k), 403(b), most 457 plans and the federal government’s Thrift Savings Plan is increased to $17,500.
  2. The catch-up contribution limit for employees aged 50 and over who participate in 401(k), 403(b), most 457 plans and the federal government’s Thrift Savings Plan remains unchanged at $5,500.
  3. The limit on annual contributions to an Individual Retirement Arrangement (IRA) increases to $5,500.
  4. The limitation under Section 402(g)(1) on the exclusion for elective deferrals described in Section 402(g)(3) is increased from $17,000 to $17,500 for 2013.
  5. The limitation on the annual benefit under a defined benefit plan under Section 415(b)(1)(A) is increased from $200,000 to $205,000. For a participant who separated from service before Jan. 1, 2013, the limitation for defined benefit plans under Section 415(b)(1)(B) is computed by multiplying the participant's compensation limitation, as adjusted through 2012, by 1.0170.
  6. The limitation for defined contribution plans under Section 415(c)(1)(A) is increased to $51,000.
  7. The annual compensation limit under Sections 401(a)(17), 404(l), 408(k)(3)(C) and 408(k)(6)(D)(ii) is increased from $250,000 to $255,000.
  8. The dollar limitation under Section 416(i)(1)(A)(i) concerning the definition of key employee in a top-heavy plan remains unchanged at $165,000.
  9. The limitation used in the definition of highly compensated employee under Section 414(q)(1)(B) remains unchanged at $115,000.

Plan sponsors should make sure that their administrators are aware of these changes.  There are some other changes that may impact your 2013 plan administration so now is a good time to review your company retirement plan to make sure it is administered in accordance with these 2013 limits.

Proposed Rules (and FAQs) on Shared Responsibility Under PPACA

As we ring in 2013, employers should be focused on measuring their obligations under the shared responsibilities provisions of PPACA.  On December 28, we got two additional pieces of guidance that tie together various prior notices relating to minimum essential coverage, measuring employees and potential liabilities.  The IRS has given us the proposed rule on Shared Responsibilities for Employer Regarding Health Coverage and some questions and answers to Frequently Asked Questions.

What the IRS has provided is consistent with prior advice, but it does clarify some key points.  Not the least of which is that while these rules do not go into effect until January 1, 2014, employers should be using the 2103 plan year as their basis for collecting information relevant to their compliance obligation.  There is also clarification that, when determining whether or not employers have 50 or more employees, companies with common ownership are treated as a single entity.  There is further clarification that, for determining the 50-employee threshold, an employer only counts those employees employed in the United States.  The FAQs also promise that a calculator is being developed to determine whether coverage offered meets the "minimum value" to be qualified health coverage.

The release of this information continues to underline the importance of counting employees and measuring their hours to see if they are full or part-time under the definitions provided in PPACA.  Employers should start counting now and avoid any last minute confusion over their status or their obligations.  As more guidance is issued, we can fine tune these measurements.  But don't get caught short at year end having failed to manage your population.

PPACA New Taxes for 2013

As we close in on the end of 2012, I thought it was worth mentioning some new taxes (and some other tax changes) that go into effect in 2013 as a result of the provisions of PPACA.  Some have direct impact on employers, both for reporting and withholding purposes, while others may simply add to the cost of providing medical coverage to employees.  In any event, here they are:

  1. A 3.8% surtax on investment income for households making in excess of $250,000 ($200,000 single filer)
  2. Medicare payroll taxes increase from 1.45% to 2.35% for employees on wages in excess of $250,000 per household ($200,000 single) and self-employed tax increases from 2.9% to 3.8%.
  3. A 2.3% excise tax is imposed on medical device manufacturers.
  4. Medical expense deduction is raised from 7.5% to 10% of AGI
  5. FSAs are capped at $2,500
  6. Elimination of tax deduction for employer-provided retirement drug coverage

For employers, as plan sponsors, item 5 means you have to make sure your cafeteria plans have been properly amended and that the limit is in place for the 2013 plan year.  For items 1 and 2, employers should make sure that their payroll service provider, payroll department and/or accountants are aware of and prepared to implement the changes.  Throughout 2013, and as we get closer to 2014, we can expect more PPACA guidance to be issued by the respective regulatory agencies.  In the mean time, make sure that your 2013 benefits compliance strategy includes preparation for the 2014 changes so the next new year does not surprise you. 

PPACA and Penalties: State v. Federal Exchanges

As we get closer to full enactment of PPACA, the issue of penalties and cost-sharing comes closer and closer to the forefront.  Within this penalty consideration comes the issue of whether or not a state exchange is established.  As of December 14, 18 states have committed to establishing a state exchange and 24 states have committed to participating in the federal exchange.  This becomes significant because of the issue over whether employers who operate in states that DO NOT have a state-established exchange will face penalties.

See, the trigger for penalties is whether a large employer has one or more employees who participate in an exchange who are eligible for tax credits.  But a strict reading of the rules indicates that tax credits are only available to employees who participate in state exchanges.  There is no similar provision for credits for those who participate in the federal exchange.  So if the plain language is read literally, a person who participates in the state exchange who is eligible for a tax credit would trigger a penalty to his employer, whereas a participant in the federal exchange could not get a tax credit and so his employer would not face a penalty.

For example, a large employer in New Jersey (opting for the federal exchange) could opt to not offer health insurance and avoid the $2,000 per person penalty because none of those employees would be eligible for tax credits.  A large employer in New York (opting for the state exchange) would face a penalty if any of its employees participated in the exchange and received tax credits.  As you can imagine, this makes New York appear much less hospitable to business because of the potential penalty.

Of course there will have to be further guidance on this issue and there is already litigation pending by one state challenging the application of the statute.  While many commentators expect the IRS to opine that the law was intended to provide credits for those in the federal exchange as well, the statute does not provide for that extension and the IRS is not free to interpret laws; it can only act on laws as written.  So watch carefully for what your state is doing with respect to the exchanges.  If they go with state exchanges (like New York and California), penalties should be a concern.  If they go with the federal exchange (like Pennsylvania and New Jersey), there may still be penalties, but we can't be certain until we get further guidance.

Are You Part of a Control Group? It Counts When Counting

Between COBRA, discrimination testing and determining PPACA compliance, employers really have to know who to count when counting employees.  Take, for example, the case of Warnecke v. Nitrocision LLC, where a district court held that an employer had more than 20 employees and was subject to COBRA because even though the direct employer had fewer than 20 employees, it was part of a control group and when all employees of the commonly controlled company were added up, the companies exceeded the 20-employee threshold.  Remember that, for ERISA purposes, when two or more businesses are under common control, each can be considered to be a single employer of all employees in the group.

Now, PPACA says when we are counting up to 50 employees, not only do we have to account for part-time employees, but we also have to include employees in our control group.  Notice 2011-36 tells us that all employees of a controlled group under § 414(b) or (c), or an affiliated service group under § 414(m), are to be taken into account in determining whether any member of the controlled group or affiliated service group is an applicable large employer.  These code sections are the same ones that apply to discrimination testing for 401(k) plans and other benefit plans subject to discrimination testing.  So you have to know when to count people who may not be your actual employees but should be included because of control group status.

Basically there are three types of control groups: brother-sister, parent-subsidiary and affiliated service groups.  Each has specific rules for figuring out if they apply but the simple starting point is commonality of ownership.  A parent-subsidiary control group exists when one company owns 80% or more of a subsidiary.  In a brother-sister control group, 5 or fewer individuals own 80% or more of two or more companies.  This is common in many closely-held or family businesses.  In some cases, ownership by a spouse, parent, child or grandchild may be combined to determine whether a control group exists.  If you have more than 5 owners, there are special rules for testing that structure which can also create control group concerns based on the total percentage of ownership between related individuals or owners.

The point is that if you sponsor a benefit plan and the owners of your company own other businesses, control group status should be something to consider.  Don't assume that separate EIN numbers means that employees never get counted as a group.  If you don't know the rules about control group status, you might accidentally find yourself being considered as part of a much large whole, which means much larger penalties if you don't comply properly.  To find out your control group status, ask your attorney at Fox Rothschild to help you sort it out.

Is My Health Plan Discriminatory? Insured Plans and PPACA

With all of the recent talk about calculating the number of employees and determining whether they are subject to PPACA compliance, employers are more and more asking whether they have to worry about discrimination in their health plans.  Under PPACA, IRS Code Section 105(h) will apply to insured health plans (like it always has for self-funded plans), so let's take a look at what that means.

First, the IRS has issued two notices, 2010-63 and 2011-1, that address the timing of non-discrimination rules.  The general rule is that compliance with this non-discrimination feature will not have to take place until AFTER regulations have been issued (which has not happened) and not until AFTER the beginning of a plan year AFTER the regulations are issued.  So while January 1, 2014 is generally accepted as the date to expect this to go into effect, until there are regulations written, we can't say for certain when employers will have to comply or how they will have to revise their plans to comply.

Second, some practical questions:

  1. Can I offer different plans to different classes of employees?  Generally, yes.  Under the current state of the law, you can continue to offer (or not offer) insured coverages to different class of employees.  And you can make different classes of employees make different levels of contribution so long as you are dealing with an insured plan. 
  2. What will "discrimination" mean? The assumption is that the rules (when written) will require that a plan cannot favor highly compensated employees.  It has to (1) benefit 70% or more of all employees, (2) benefit 80 percent or more of all employees who are eligible for benefits, or (3) benefit a group of employees set yup by the employer as a class that are not highly compensated employees. 
  3. What is a highly-compensated employee?  One of the 5 highest paid officers, a shareholder owning more than 10% of the stock or someone amongst the highest paid 25% of all employees.  For most employers, look at the top 25% of your payroll and chances are, these will be "HCEs" for testing purposes.
  4. Are there penalties for non-compliance?  You bet.  $100 a day for every day an individual is discriminated against, which can get expensive if you discriminate against a large class of employees.  The cap is $500,000 which is a fairly hefty penalty.
  5. What should I do now?  The short answer is nothing because we don't have rules.  But the practical answer is to look at your population and see who is eligible and who is not and then self-test to see if you would pass the current non-discrimination rules.  If you fail, chances are you will fail once the rules are written.  So plan ahead.

In a prior entry, I suggested that employers should keep doing what they are doing until they tell us otherwise.  I think that is still the case, but with the caveat that you should at least know whether or not what you are doing now is going to create a potential problem.  So prepare for a change, but before changing to comply with anything, check with your attorney at Fox Rothschild.

HHS Issues Proposed Regulations on Wellness Plans

Earlier this month, HHS  issued new proposed regulations on wellness programs.  These proposed regulations are designed to comply with the provisions of PPACA dealing with wellness programs.  Again, these are proposed regulations and are not final yet, but they provide some insight into what will ultimately be the rules for wellness programs going forward.

The proposed regulations would apply to plan years beginning on or after January 1, 2014 and do not significantly change the 2006 regulations previously issued.  Some key points:

  1. The maximum allowed reward for "standards-based" programs increases to 30% of the cost of coverage.
  2. The maximum allowed reward for programs designed to prevent or reduce tobacco use is 50%.
  3. Reasonable alternatives for rewards must be provided to account for medical conditions (or conditions where it is medically inadvisable to attempt compliance).
  4. Plans and insurers may seek verification of claims for medical exemptions (unless the condition is obvious or known to the plan or insurer already).

The proposed regulations also include sample language on how to provide notice of opportunities to obtain rewards and how to request the alternative from the plan. 

For the most part, the proposed regulations seem to be focused primarily on clarifying certain provisions of the 2006 regulations relating to non-discrimination and options to obtain rewards and benefits as part of an accommodation or exception.  While these are not final yet, sponsors of wellness programs would be wise to review their plans to make sure that they offer appropriate alternatives in both their standards-based and participation-based programs.

Sandy was a Hardship! Relief for Hardship Distributions

Previously I wrote about restrictions on hardship distributions for recovery from Hurricane Sandy.  The administration apparently had similar concerns and the Internal Revenue Service has announced that 401(k)s and similar employer-sponsored retirement plans are getting special relief to permit loans and hardship distributions to victims of Hurricane Sandy and members of their families.

To qualify for this relief, hardship withdrawals must be made by Feb. 1, 2013.  Under the special relief, the six-month ban on 401(k) and 403(b) contributions that normally affects employees who take hardship distributions will not apply and the normal restrictions associated with hardship distributions (such as demonstrating no other sources of relief are available) will not apply.  Distributions are limited to those in the geographical area defined by the IRS in Notice 2012-44.  The relief further provides that a person who lives outside the disaster area can take out a retirement plan loan or hardship distribution and use it to assist a son, daughter, parent, grandparent or other dependent who lived or worked in the disaster area.

Although plans are be allowed to make loans or hardship distributions before the plan is formally amended to provide for such features, the plan would still need to eventually be amended to account for the special relief given.  In addition, the plan can ignore the limits that normally apply to hardship distributions, thus allowing them, for example, to be used for food and shelter.  If a plan requires certain documentation before a distribution is made, the plan can relax this requirement as described in the announcement.

So if your plan does not allow for hardship distributions, or if it does with limitations, this relief period provides plan sponsors with a way to permit participants to withdraw funds to aid in recovery from the hurricane.  For guidance on plan amendments, please contact your attorney at Fox Rothschild.

Same-Sex Marriage and Your Plans: Be Aware of the Impact

In the excitement over the presidential election, it might have been overlooked that voters in the states of Maine, Maryland and Washington voted to approve same-sex marriages.  As more states recognizes same-sex marriages and civil unions, it is important to for plan administrators and sponsors to be keenly aware of the ongoing conflict between federal and state law related to these relationships. 

First, let's review retirement plan concerns.  Qualified retirement plans are generally governed by ERISA and various corresponding tax regulations.  All of these regulations are subject to the impact of the federal Defense of Marriage Act.  While this Act is subject to various disputes right now, it is still the law so it has to be followed.  The net effect is that when considering the term "spouse" in your qualified plans, it does not include a same-sex partner, married or otherwise.  So any provision in a plan that provide for benefit to a "spouse" would not apply to a same-sex spouse even when married under state law.  For example, consider a defined benefit plan distribution that requires spousal consent for distribution.  A partner in a same-sex marriage is not required to obtain spousal consent because in the eyes of the plan, he or she has no spouse.  Similarly, any spousal rights that may accrue as a result of the death of the participant under the terms of the plan would not accrue to the same-sex partner. 

Second, when we look at welfare plans, all of the dependent coverage definitions in the plan referring to "spouse" would not automatically include the same-sex spouse.  Certainly a plan can add coverage for same-sex partners, but doing so does not grant them the federal protections of things like COBRA (which would not apply since the dependent would not be recognized as a spouse under federal law).  Cafeteria plans cannot provide benefits to same-sex partners, which means that employees cannot pay that portion of their health coverage attributable to same-sex partners with pre-tax dollars.

This is not to say that plans, retirement or welfare, cannot be amended or designed to recognize and benefit same-sex spouse.  What is does mean, though, is that plan administrator have two particular concerns.  One, if the plan administrator does decide to recognize same-sex partners as spouses, it has to be very careful to administer benefits in accordance with federal law.  Second, the plan administrator has to be very careful to make sure that it is not providing benefits improperly because of lack of diligence.  Plan administrators should be very careful about enrollment of participants, particularly in states recognizing same-sex marriage and domestic-partners.  Participants have to be advised of the distinction between state and federal law and how benefits may or may not be administered for their same-sex partners.

Finally, there are tax concerns.  Because the amount of the benefits for the same-sex partner are disallowed for federal tax purposes, the employers' withholding responsibilities are calculated based on the total gross compensation that includes the value of the benefits to the same-sex partner and has to take into account that the premiums paid are not using pre-tax dollars.  Plus the level of withholdings for state purposes might be different from the withholdings for tax purposes.  An employee in a same-sex marriage could be "married" with two dependents for state tax withholding purposes, but "single" with no dependents for federal tax purposes.  So employers can no longer assume all withholdings based on a single W-4 for same-sex couples.  They have to be wary of these distinctions between state and federal taxes.

So plan sponsors, as both keepers of benefit plans and employers paying taxes have to be cognizant of the impact of adding coverage for same-sex partners.  Changing laws require attention to detail, which in turn avoids problems in the future.  For assistance in dealing with this issue in your plans, or your payroll, ask for assistance from your attorney at Fox Rothschild.

Health Care Reform: Counting to 50

In preparing for the obligation to comply with health care reform, some employers have hit upon the idea that they will never be considered "large employers" (meaning having more than 50 full-time employees) if they have no full-time employees on their payroll, or at least fewer than 50 who work more than 30 hours per week.  While it is true that PPACA does not require employers to offer health insurance to part-time employees, the simple act of making all your employees part-time does not necessarily insulate you as the employer from being subject to potential obligations as a large employer.  This is because the act counts part-time employees as a fractional employee for making the determination.

Under PPACA sections 1513 and 10106, you have to count part-time employees as a fractional "equivalent full-time" employee.  To determine your status as a large employer, you first take all employees who work 30 or more hours per week in the measurement period and count them as a full time employee.  Then, you add up all of the hours worked by part-time employees in a month and divide that number by 120, which gives you the full-time employee equivalent of your part-timers.  So an employer that has 20 part-time employees all working 24 hours a week has the equivalent of 16 full-time employees ((20 x 24 x 4)/120).  So if the employer has 35 full time employees and thinks he is not a large employer, he is wrong.  Because under this calculation, he actually has the equivalent of 51 full-time employees.

We expect more guidance to be issued on this calculation methodology as time goes on, but employers should be keenly aware that there is a difference between avoiding the penalty by offering coverage to full-time employees only, and avoiding the penalty by not being a large employer.  Again, the law does not require an employer to offer coverage to part-time employees but a large employer that does not offer coverage to full-time employees is potentially subject to the penalty.  Having nothing but part-time employees is not the solution to avoiding penalties.  Knowing the law and complying with it is the only way to avoid penalties.  Make sure you plan accordingly. 

Yikes! $83,000 COBRA Penalty For Not Providing Notice

I cannot stress enough the importance of documenting plan procedures and following them for each stage of plan administration.  Nothing brings this home as much as a high-dollar award against an employer for failure to satisfy an administrative obligation.  Since it seems like COBRA creates these scenarios most often, let's look at a recent decision related to a failure to provide a COBRA notice.

In Evans v. Books-A-Million, a recent case out of the Northern District of Alabama, the District Court awarded $83,000 in penalties and attorneys fees to a plaintiff who brought suit for a failure to provide a COBRA notice.  Of that award, $37,950 was the penalty which the court calculated as 506 days at $75 a day.  The reason that the court gave such a stiff penalty was because, at trial, the evidence was clear that not only did the plaintiff not get a notice, but the people who were responsible for COBRA administration could not articulate the basic procedures for COBRA administration and provided contradictory statements regarding what actions they took in dealing with this plaintiff.

This award may seem a little drastic, but the Judge's opinion made it very clear that the lack of documented procedures and a clean administrative record weighed very much in favor of a punitive result.  Which brings us back to my original statement that failure to comply with the rules of plan administration can lead to much larger and more expensive problems.  Think of the documentation procedure as both a road map and an insurance policy.  The road map gives plan employees a clear direction on what steps to take and provides consistency in administration.  The existence of written procedures, and evidence that those procedures were followed, gives insurance against a claim of administrative failure (and breach of fiduciary duty).

So document, document and document.  Create them and follow them.  And if you need help in creating or following them, your attorney at Fox Rothschild can be your guide.

Disasters and Open Enrollment: More Time Can Be Granted

In the welfare plan world, the fourth quarter is typically considered as "open enrollment" season.  With Hurricane Sandy paralyzing a lot of New York and New Jersey, some clients have asked me about the possibility of extending open enrollment periods beyond their original limits. 

Generally, the rules related to health plans only require that an open enrollment period be offered.  Several regulations related to Medicare enrollment specify that the period must be 30-days and several states have adopted regulations specifying the duration of the open enrollment period for insured plans.  A 30-day period has become fairly common practice.  However, there are no specific regulations preventing the extension of open enrollment periods at the discretion of the plan administrator.

By way of example, yesterday it was announced that the Christie administration has extended the open enrollment deadline for both State and local government participants in the State Health Benefits Program and School Employees' Health Benefits Program until November 16, 2012 from the original date of November 9, 2012.  The Diocese of Newark announced that it too has extended open enrollment.  While neither of these is particularly definitive, both demonstrate that the plan administrator has that authority to extend its open enrollment period.  Shortening beyond the stated period in the summary plan description is not permitted.  But extending the period is within the authority of the plan administrator (provided it is communicated to participants).

If you have an insured plan, it is good to double check with the insurance company before committing to extending an open enrollment period.  But if you, as plan administrator, determine that it is in the best interests of the participants to extend the period, and that, as a prudent fiduciary, it makes sense to extend the open enrollment time, you have that ability.  Just make sure to document and communicate how and why you differed from any stated plan limitations.

Hurricanes and Hardship Distributions: Post Sandy Clean-Up

Earlier this week, Hurricane Sandy hit and caused some serious damage to the eastern seaboard.  There will be a lot of time spent sorting out how to pay for damages, and I expect that some folks may end up having to look for assistance in paying for repairs and clean up.  It might be that their retirement plan savings are the place to locate that needed money so let's take a look at rules regarding "hardship distributions."

The IRS has a very good FAQ for Hardship Distributions, but here are some of the basics:

  1. A retirement plan may, but is not required to permit hardship distributions.  So there are no distributions unless the plan permits them.
  2. The plan has to set a specific criteria for distributions and making a determination of a hardship.  There has to be a set way to apply for and get approval for the distribution and the rules of the plan have to be satisfied.
  3. The IRS generally defines a hardship as "an immediate and heavy financial need" and the most common examples are medical expenses, purchase of a principle residence, tuition, funeral expenses AND "certain expenses for the repair or damage of the employee's principle residence."
  4. Employees must have taken all other available distributions and loans from the plan prior to receiving the hardship distribution.
  5. Employees cannot make elective deferrals to the plan for 6 months after receipt of a hardship distribution.
  6. Hardship distributions are generally limited to the amount of the employee's total elective contributions (less any previous withdrawals).
  7. Hardship distributions are generally includable in gross income and may be subject to taxation as an early distribution of elective deferrals.

There are no rules relating specifically to natural disasters, so general hardship distribution rules apply.  Congress might pass some special acts that allow for post-disaster withdrawals and special treatment, but until they do that, the plan's hardship distribution rules apply.  Generally speaking, hardship distributions may be available to an employee to cover the costs of repair or recovery from a natural disaster, provided the plan permits it and they have no other available financial options.  It is not designed to be the first source of money.  Instead, it should be the option of last resort.  Bear in mind, there can be negative tax implications from the distribution.

So to conclude, victims of natural disasters may be able to obtain distributions, but likely as a last resort, and certainly not without some negative implications.  For more information about amending your plan to include for these distributions, or for assistance in administering these distributions, please contact your attorney at Fox Rothschild.

So What is the Risk? Diversification Requirements for Defined Contribution Plans

This might sound like the start of a bad joke, but I had the opportunity to speak with a room full of accountants last week about fiduciary liability.  It was not as boring as it sounds because of some really good questions raised about what constitutes sufficient diversification in defined contribution plans.  Specifically, they asked me what a fiduciary is required to offer that would satisfy the obligation to diversify.

First, bear in mind that ERISA Section 404(a)(1)(c) requires that a fiduciary diversify the investments of the plan so as to minimize the risk of large losses.  Fair enough, but how do we do that?  So then we look to the regulations.  29 CFR 2550.404(c)-1(b)(3)(i)(B) tells us that a plan has to offer the opportunity to "choose from at least three investment alternatives:

  1. Each of which is diversified;
  2. Each of which has materially different risk and return characteristics;
  3. Which in the aggregate enable the participant or beneficiary by choosing among them to achieve a portfolio with aggregate risk and return characteristics at any point within the range normally appropriate for the participant or beneficiary; and
  4. Each of which when combined with investments in the other alternatives tends to minimize through diversification the overall risk of a participant's or beneficiary's portfolio.

Notice that items 2, 3 and 4 consider "risk"  This is because in a defined contribution plan, the "risk" is born by the participant, not the plan sponsors.  So we offer diversity, but we have to offer diversity in consideration with the risk, not necessarily the type of investments.  It is not enough to just offer a stock fund, a bond fund and a treasury securities fund.  You have to consider the risk of each investment option and provide a meaningful way for participants to balance the risk amongst the investment options.

It is not a matter of just choosing 3 different options, or 10 or 100.  We have to show that we made a meaningful and prudent determination of the risk of each investment option offered and allowed for a diversification of risk within the participant's portfolio through a diversity of options with varying degrees of risk.  We don't have to make them avoid risk, but we have to give them alternatives with varying degrees of risk so they can diversify (if they want to).  So when deciding how many investment options to offer in a defined contribution plan, fiduciaries have to consider risk not just types of investments and offer diversity.  Otherwise, the lack of risk diversity will violate ERISA rules.

Beware of "Springing" Fiduciary Status: Do You Control Plan Assets?

When I was in law school, I vaguely remember learning about "springing" interests.  They pop up when some event occurs that creates some claim to the property or trust.  Well, in some instances, fiduciary status can spring up based on whether you actually exercise discretion over plan assets.  In other words, you might not intend to be a fiduciary, but as soon as you exercise discretion, you are one.

Consider the recent decision in Borroughs Corp. v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan.  In this case, the plan was self-funded and Blue Cross was acting as the TPA under a service agreement.  The service agreements with Blue Cross provided that the amounts sent each month to pay benefits were specifically NOT plan assets.  Unbeknownst to the plan, Blue Cross was taking a little bit of the money each month as a service fee so the plan sued for breach of fiduciary duty.  First, the Court said that even though the contract said otherwise, the amounts transferred were plan assets.  You could not contract away the fact that the money coming from the plan to pay benefits is a plan asset.  Then the court held that because Blue Cross exercised discretionary authority over those assets (meaning it decided to take a little as a fee), it was a fiduciary.  Finally, the court concluded that using plan assets to pay yourself a fee that only you determine and know about is a prohibited transaction and a breach of fiduciary duty.

The fiduciary status sprung from the possession of plan assets and the use of discretionary authority.  The same thing can happen to anyone that comes into possessions of assets of a plan if they begin exercising discretionary authority.   For example, a lawyer that has money from a plan in an escrow account to be used to pay a settlement is in possession of plan assets.  If he or she just distributes it as directed by the plan, no exercise of discretionary authority and no fiduciary status.  The assets are still plan assets, but the non-exercise of discretion eliminates the fiduciary status.  But if the lawyer takes some money out of the account for any purpose other than what the plan directs, then there is an exercise of discretion and fiduciary status springs to life.

This is why it is very important for plan sponsors, plan employees and plan service providers to be keenly aware of the actions they are taking when they have plan assets under their control.  If you act with direction from a fiduciary without your own discretion, you tend to stay away from fiduciary status.  But if you start to make decisions related to the distribution of those assets, fiduciary status springs upon you.  So it is always important to know (1) if you are dealing with plan assets and (2) are you exercising authority over those assets.  Being aware of these two things is the first step in avoiding having fiduciary status arise unexpectedly.  And if you have questions about your status or whether you are dealing with plan assets, ask for assistance from your attorneys at Fox Rothschild.

Don't Be Tempted to Be Flexible (At Least With Plan Terms)

Frequently I am asked about the possibility of giving "something extra" to employees because of a long work history or because of special circumstances and the employer wants to do something special for them.  Unfortunately, they sometimes look to the benefit plan and that might mean bending the benefit plan a little or giving some extra benefit beyond what the plan provides.  This can be in the form of modifying eligibility or providing extra payments.  But the problem with that can be that changing plan terms for special treatment of a particular participant can create a variety of issues that frustrate good plan administration.

A recent decision out of the third circuit considered a case where an employer left an employee on their health plan during leave even though she was not eligible for coverage.  The plan paid a large amount of money in benefits for this person and then sought reimbursement from a stop-loss carrier.  The court determined that the stop-loss carrier was not liable for the reimbursement claim because the benefits were outside of what was required by the plan.  While not addressed by the court, it would stand to reason that since the plan should not have paid, paying those claims in the first place would be a breach of fiduciary duty.  And what if someone else came along and wanted the same dispensation?

A recent fourth circuit decision relating to severance plans looked at a claim for discrimination made by a former employee alleging that male employees were given extra severance as opposed to female employees.  While the crux of the decision related to whether Title VII applies to severance from employment, the facts plead suggest that some male employees were in fact given something beyond what the plan called for generally.  Similarly, I recently read a seventh circuit case that dealt with a claim by a former employee complaining that he was not offered the same continuation of health coverage that other employees received as part of their severance, which was provided coverage outside of normal COBRA continuation.  He claimed he was the victim of discrimination as well.

The point is that the plan has terms and the terms have to be followed.  Even if your plan is self-funded, you have to treat all participants equally under the terms of the plan.  Once you start giving special benefits to individual participants, you invite claims by any participant who does not get the "extras."  Being flexible in eligibility or benefits invites claims that the plan is being administered in an "arbitrary and capricious" fashion, which is something all plan sponsors should want to avoid.  So being nice can prove to be problematic.  Don't be flexible in applying plan terms because, when it comes to plan administration, bending the rules is the same as breaking them.

COBRA or Not COBRA: That's a Good Question

For employers with around 20 employees, finding out whether they are subject to COBRA can be confusing.  Many states have "mini-COBRA" that are state laws that provide for a continuation of health insurance even if employers are too small to be subject to COBRA.  But as a recent case lays out, it is very important to know whether COBRA applies and what are the consequences if it does or does not.

First, to determine whether or not you are subject to COBRA, you have to decide if you have 20 or more employees.  The DOL specifies that the rule for measuring employees for COBRA is if you "employed at least 20 employees or more on more than 50% of a typical business day during a previous calendar year."  If you meet that measurement, you are subject to COBRA.  And that is important because in Hanysh v. Buckeye Extrusion Dies, Inc., the issue was one where the employer made a mistake and ended up having to pay. 

Factually, the case came from a former employee that sued his employer after his COBRA continuation coverage was retroactively terminated by the employer’s insurer.  The employee received a COBRA notice and election form and elected COBRA coverage and paid the required premiums.  For some reason, the employee filed a complaint with the DOL regarding his COBRA coverage and when the DOL investigated the complaint, the DOL determiend that the employer was not subject to COBRA.  The employer's insurer then retroactively terminated the employee’s COBRA coverage.  The employee sued to stop the employer from denying his COBRA coverage and made a claim for his medical expenses.  He claimed he had relied on "material misrepresentations" about his COBRA eligibility.  The court ultimately found that the employer could be liable for the employee’s continuation coverage and the medical expenses because it was responsible for knowing how many people they employed and whether COBRA applied.

So notwithstanding whether or not you properly administer COBRA, step one is to figure out whether you are subject to COBRA.  Don't assume, make the calculation.  If you are subject to COBRA, know that you are and comply.  If you are not, know whether you are subject to state mini-COBRA and comply with those rules.  And if you are not sure, ask your attorneys at Fox Rothschild for help. 

Fiduciaries and Experts: Relying on Advice

Frequently benefit plan fiduciaries have to rely on experts for advice relating to plan administration.  Legal counsel, actuaries, investment advisors, appraisers and the like are essential components of the administration of benefit plans, but they are not fiduciaries.  And fiduciaries are subject to the "Prudent Man Rule" when satisfying their fiduciary obligations.

The good news is that generally courts don't look at the results of a decision so much as the process.  Fiduciaries who use experts for advice and counsel properly can sometimes be insulated from breach of fiduciary duty claims because they made diligent efforts to reach a conclusion, even if it was ultimately a bad decision.  For example, numerous court cases have found that making a bad investment is not a breach of fiduciary duty if the fiduciaries satisfied their fiduciary obligation to properly investigate the investment before they made the decision.  The process is reviewed, not the outcome.  So investment losses are not necessarily a breach if the investment decision was made properly.  As one judge noted "the test of prudence- the Prudent Man Rule -is one of conduct and not a test of the result performance of the investment.  The focus of the inquiry is how the fiduciary acted in his selection of the investment and not whether the investment succeeded or failed."

To rely on experts, fiduciaries are charged with the obligation to provide accurate and complete information, and to properly review and become familiar with recommendations and advice.  It is not enough to rubber stamp the recommendation of a fund advisor.  Fiduciaries have to understand why the advice was given and evaluate whether it was based on accurate information (and sometimes accurate assumptions).  Similarly, choosing experts is a component of the evaluation process and a decision to use a particular expert should be based on a thorough review of the need for the expert and their credentials.

Fiduciaries need not become experts themselves, and can rely on expert advice when making decisions.  Reliance on experts is an essential component of administering a plan, but it starts with choosing good experts and giving them complete and accurate information.  Year-end reviews are always a good time for fiduciaries to look at their processes for making decisions.  Consider reviewing how your plan uses experts, and who those experts are, to make sure you can verify the processes for their selection and using their advice.  Put checks and balances in place to make sure they get accurate information.  And above all, ask questions.  Fiduciaries may not have to be experts, but they always have to be prudent.     

Overdoses Are Accidents: Plan Language Controls

Often times the silliest of facts patterns illustrate the important principles of plan administration.  Take the case of McDonough v. Federal Insurance, a recent case out of Massachusetts where the fight was over accidental death benefits for an employee who died of a cocaine overdose.  The plan denied the claim under its "Intentional Injury" exclusion as "self-inflicted," which meant there was no coverage for the claim. 

The Court disagreed.  The Court went straight to the language of the policy exclusion and determined that because the language did not specifically exclude drug-related deaths as "intentional," the insurance company had to rely on it's definition of accident.  It could not reasonably be said that the decedent intended to die from ingesting cocaine, so the denial of the claim as "intentional" was overturned.  But the Court did not grant recovery in favor of the estate.  Instead, the Court held the matter open for more briefing over the definition of "accident" in the policy.  See, one of the key terms defining accident in the plan is that the death has to be "unexpected."  So the case will now turn on how much cocaine was consumed that lead to the overdose and whether one would have expected to die from ingesting that amount.

While the facts sound a little crazy, the concepts are clearly relevant to plan administrators.  As much as facts and circumstances are relevant to court cases, the starting point of every analysis is always the language of the plan.  You always look first to what the plan says.  So it is important for plan sponsors to make sure their plans clearly say what they mean for them to say.  Definitions should be clear, consistent and free of ambiguities.  Exclusions should likewise be specific and plan sponsors should not assume "catch-all" phrases will be sufficient.  Even with discretion to interpret the plan, poorly worded documents or unclear definitions lead to disputes and litigation.

If you would like a review of your disability plan, health plan or any other benefit plan to avoid ambiguities, ask your attorney at Fox Rothschild for help.

Get Tested! Non-Discrimination and Self-Funded Health Plans

Health care reform has really opened up the flood gates of discussion about discrimination testing.  The new regs will (when finally written) make Code Section 105(h) applicable to insured plans.  But some sponsors of self-funded health plans might have forgotten that 105(h) already applies to them.  If your plan is self-funded, you should already be doing discrimination testing.  Let's review the requirements.

Self-funded plans (and cafeteria plans, too) have to do annual discrimination testing to make sure that they remain "qualified" as employee benefit plans.  If they are disqualified, then the benefit provided would be taxable as income to participants, and also subject to withholdings by the employer.  So the penalties for disqualification can be pretty steep.  That's why it is important to test plans to make sure they pass muster and remain qualified.

The first test is the "Benefits Test" that tests to make sure the plan does not discriminate in favor of highly compensated employees ("HCEs").  It essentially looks to see that everyone receives the same benefits.  The second test is the "Eligibility Test" that tests to see that the plan is available to the correct percentage of employees and that, again, it does not discriminate in favor of HCEs.  The third test is one not commonly discussed, but it tests "Non-Discrimination in Operation."  This happens when plans might appear to be non-discriminatory, but in their practical operation, they only benefit HCEs.

The point here is not to describe each test in detail because I don't want anyone to assume they pass based on what they read about the tests.  These tests are very detailed and is essential that sponsors of self-funded plans have their plans tested.  Don't assume that because you offer coverage to everyone, your plan passes.  Just like you test your 401(k) plan, you have to test your cafeteria plans and your self-funded health plans.  So get tested!

IRS Issues Guidance on Full-Time Employee Mandate under PPACA

PPACA provides for compliance for “large” employers, which means more than 50 full-time employees.  Many employers have questions about how to calculate full-time status.  Fortunately, the IRS has issued several guidance notices that explain some 'safe-harbor" methods that, if used, would be consider appropriate methods of making this calculation.

Most recently, Notice 2012-58 provides for a “safe harbor” employers can use relating to ongoing employees.  Under this method, there is a look-back period used to measure full-time status. The guidance provides for a “standard measurement period” that the employer can use. The measurement period has to be at least 3 consecutive months, but no more than 12 consecutive calendar months.  The guidance also explains the “stability period.” Employees who averaged at least 30 hours each week during the measurement period are full-time employees during a subsequent stability period, regardless of the employee's number of hours of service during the stability period and provided that the employee continues to be an employee. So once an employee averages 30 or more hours per week during the measurement period, they remain full-time employees through the stability period. The stability period must be (1) a least as long as the measurement period, (2) at least 6 months, and (3) measured AFTER the standard measurement period. The good news is that, for employees who did not work full-time during the measurement period, their status does not change during the stability period.

The Notice also provides explanations of how to deal with “New Employees Reasonably Expected to Work Full Time” as well as “Variable and Seasonal Employees.” This notice, in conjunction with prior notices, are designed to help employers sort out how they can make calculations without running afoul of the law, hence the “safe harbor” nomenclature. One of these options might be best for your company, so make sure to review them and ask questions of your professionals about how they work.

See also Notices 2011-36, 2011-73, 2012-17

Wellness Plans and the ADA Safe Harbor: Seff v. Broward Revisited

Many plan sponsors are unaware of the "safe harbor" provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act as it relates to health insurance.  Basically it provides that certain insurance plans are exempt from the ADA restrictions related to screenings, medical examinations and making inquiries of employees related to their health status.  Health plans are allowed to collect information related to health conditions for the purpose of underwriting or clarifying risks, or for plan administration purposes.

In late 2011, the Southern District of Florida ruled, in a case called Seff v. Broward, that wellness plans fall within the ADA safe harbor.  At issue in the case was that a county sponsored wellness program consisted of biometric screening and a health risk assessment.  This information was collected and used to identify certain part high-risk conditions and then those participants were eligible to participate in disease management programs and waivers of co-pays for medication.  Employees who refused to participate in the wellness program were charged $20, and Seff sued because of the charge.  His claim was that the screening process violated the ADA.

The 11th Circuit affirmed the District Court's decision in favor of the county and further clarified that the wellness program was a "term" of the group health plan and was thus integrated into the health plan to be covered by the safe harbor.  Even though the plan document did not expressly reference the wellness program, the Court reasoned that since it was only available to health plan enrollees and was sponsored by the same insurer that provided the group coverage, it was part of the health plan.

Though the EEOC has not commented on this decision and has not issued formal guidance on wellness plans and ADA compliance, the Court's decision seems to continue to confirm that an integrated wellness program, even as an undefined "term" gets the same safe harbor protection as a health plan.  However, plan sponsors should be cautioned that making appropriate references to the wellness program in plan documentation will certainly go a long way toward bolstering that position.  If you have concerns or questions about the adequacy of your plan documentation, your attorney at Fox Rothschild is available to assist.

Heath Care and W-2s: Not All Employers Report and Not All Contributions Are Reported

In conjunction with the passage of PPACA, certain employers are now required to report the "aggregate cost of applicable employer sponsored coverage" under Section 6051(a)(14) on W-2s.  There is a lot of good information in IRS Notice 2012-9 that explains this reporting requirement. Some highlights:

  • In the case of the 2012 Forms W-2 (and until further guidance issued) an employer is not subject to the reporting requirement for any calendar year if the employer was required to file fewer than 250 Forms W-2 for the preceding calendar year.  So, if an employer filed fewer than 250 2011 Forms W-2 (the ones employers gave out in January of 2012), the employer would not be subject to the reporting requirement for Forms W-2 for the 2012 calendar year.  For employers with fewer than 250 w-2s, the requirement to report takes effect for the 2013 tax year (unless further delayed).
  • The aggregate reportable cost generally includes both the portion of the cost paid by the employer and the portion of the cost paid by the employee, regardless of whether the employee paid for that cost through pre-tax or after-tax contributions.  So it is the total cost of the coverage. 
  • Amounts contributed to a multiemployer plan are not included in the cost of coverage.  If the only applicable employer-sponsored coverage provided to an employee is provided under a multiemployer plan, then the employer is not required to report any amount under § 6051(a)(14) on the Form W-2 for that employee. 
  • An employer is not required to include the cost of coverage under a dental plan or a vision plan if such plan is not integrated into a group health plan providing additional health care coverage subject to the reporting requirements of § 6051(a)(14). An employer must include the cost of coverage under a dental plan or a vision plan if such plan is integrated into a group health plan providing such additional health care coverage.

So as we get closer to the time when 2012 W-2s have to be prepared, make sure you consult with your benefit professionals to make sure if you have to report, what you have to report and how you calculate the reportable number.

PPACA Penalties: What Individuals Without Coverage Will Pay

As we press forward with implementation of health care reform, one of the things that has not been fully discussed is the penalty for not having “minimum essential coverage.”  This is the “tax” on the individual who does not have coverage. We know that for large employers (over 50 employees) who do not offer a qualified health plan, the penalty is between $2,000 and $3,000, depending on the individuals who participate in the exchange.  But what about those who don’t have coverage?  What is their penalty?

First, a side note about “minimum essential coverage.”  Minimum essential coverage is not the same as “essential health benefits.”  Minimum essential coverage is simply that coverage that is sufficient to satisfy the individual mandate.  It can be offered by an employer (or governmental entity).  If an employer offers a qualified health plan (meaning it satisfies the requirements of PPACA related to benefits and limits and meets the bronze, silver, gold or platinum standards), the assumption is that this plan will meet the definition of “minimum essential coverage.”  But they are not interchangeable.

Assuming an individual does not have minimum essential coverage, the annual penalty will be the greater of a flat dollar amount per individual or a percentage of the individual’s taxable income.  Dependents under 18 are not treated as a full person so for dependents under the age 18, the penalty is half of the penalty for an individual.

The flat dollar amount per individual is $95 in 2014; $325 in 2015 and $695 in 2016. After 2016, the flat dollar amount is indexed to inflation.  The flat dollar penalty is capped at 300% of the flat dollar amount.  It works something like this:

  1. A family of three, with two partners and one child under 18 would have a flat dollar penalty of $237 for 2104 ($95 + $95 + $47)
  2. A family of four, with two parents and two children over 18 would have a flat dollar penalty of $285 in 2014 because the 300 % cap would apply ($95 * 4 = $380).

Since it is the greater of the flat or a percentage, you also have to consider the percentage of income test.  The Act contains a specific definition of “income” for this test, but generally it would be similar to calculating household income for tax filing purposes.  The percentage of taxable income is an amount equal to a percentage of a household’s income less the tax filing threshold.  For 2014, it is 1%, 25 in 2015 and 2.5% in 2016. So as an example:

  • If an individual has a household income of $50,000 in 2014, the percentage would be 1% of the difference between $50,000 and the tax threshold for 2014 (which is not yet defined).  Assuming that the threshold is $15,000, for 2014, the percentage would be calculated on $35,000 ($50,000 - $15,000) and 1% of that is $350. Because this percentage penalty is greater than the flat dollar penalty for 2014 ($95), the individual would pay the higher penalty of $350.

Ideally everyone will get coverage and not pay any penalties. But individuals seeking to remain self-insured should be aware of these penalties.

Step-Children Are Not Beneficiaries (Unless They Are)

A retirement plan participant can designate a beneficiary other than a spouse, but a waiver is required.  Many plans have specific provisions that provide for the order in which distributions will be made in the event a specific beneficiary is not designated.  For plan administrators, the rules about beneficiary designations require strict adherence to the plan documents, which can mean that those who think they have a right to benefits may not in fact have those rights and that leads to litigation.

Such was the case in Herring v. Campbell, a recent case decided by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.  In this case, a plan participant designated his wife as his primary beneficiary with no secondary beneficiary.  His wife died before he did, but he made no other beneficiary designation.  When he died, the plan distributed his account balance in accordance with the plan rules, to his surviving siblings.  Of course, he happened to have step-children, who sued the plan administrator for not giving them the money.  The plan rules provided that in the absence of a beneficiary designation, surviving children get a the distribution before the deceased participant's siblings.

The Court upheld the plan administrator's interpretation of the definition of "children" to mean biological or legally adopted children.  Step-children did not meet this definition so they were not entitled to the benefits.  The step-children argued that they had been "equitably adopted" but the Court found that this concept applies only to those seeking to require a parent to recognize a child, not a benefit plan making distributions.  So in the end, the Court decided that the plan had properly distributed the benefits to the siblings and excluded the step-children.

So when considering the distribution of benefits from a participant's account, the participant certainly can designate step-children as beneficiaries by an affirmative designation.  And step-children can become "children" through adoption, which would give them "child" status when considering plan distribution rules.  But, as we see in this case, unless a "child" clearly satisfies the plan's definition of beneficiary (that is if they are in fact children under the definition of the plan), they will not be entitled to a distribution as a beneficiary.

The Importance of Being Earnest: Why Benefit Professionals Matter

Over the last few days, I have had various meetings with a number of very good benefit professionals to discuss the state of the union (at least as it relates to employee benefit packages).  Whether they were health or retirement plan service providers, or even legal counsel, we all seemed to agree that we may have reached the tipping point where rules and regulations have finally overwhelmed plan sponsors.  It is now almost impossible for an employer to keep track of all the changes and necessary forms, notices and revisions required for complete plan administration on an entirely "in-house" basis.  On the other hand, when the economy is tight, employers are loath to spend the money.

The simple truth is that it is no longer "reasonable" for plan sponsors to avoid having specialists assisting them in dealing with their benefit plans.  Under ERISA Section 404, a plan fiduciary has an obligation to act with the "care, skill, prudence and diligence" that a reasonably prudent person would act in similar circumstances.  But that standard is the base line, not the top limit.  The proliferation of specialists in the benefits marketplace almost mandates that the definition of "reasonable" under ERISA expands to include the use of these specialists.  Thus, we should anticipate that real prudence is doing more than just the minimum, and real diligence means doing more than just enough to get by.  The increasing specialization of service providers requires that fiduciaries diligently seek out experts who add value and they have to retain those specialists to provide services to the plan, and ultimately to maximize the effectiveness of the plan for the benefit of the plan beneficiaries. 

Consider the new fee disclosure rules.  Now fiduciaries have to review, understand, digest and report how fees are charged and have to show efforts to minimize those costs to plan participants.  PPACA requires us to compare, contrast and explain our plans and rationalize our actions to participants.  Employers who fail to engage professionals to assist because of concerns over cost are begging for more expensive future problems.  The cost of non-compliance will always be much higher than what compliance would have cost in the first place.  When I am going through and audit with a regulatory agency, it is hard to justify problems with a plan by explaining how the employer did not want to pay for expert guidance in the first place.

Also, there is the benefit of having assistance in long-range planning.  Reactionary decisions in this area are always more costly than a well-thought out approach.  You would not start a business on a whim with no plan.  You should not approach your benefits packages any differently.  Sure, professionals, like benefits attorneys or consultants, cost money.  But there is return on that investment in the form of more efficient, more effective and more compliant benefits packages.  Plus, having these retained professionals provides a security that, as a fiduciary, you are acting with diligence, care and prudence by not going it alone.  In the end, that is what benefit professionals are there for....to provide assistance with compliance and adherence to the regulations.  Earnest fiduciaries seek out good professionals and engage them to help with plan administration so that they are can truly be called "prudent."

Changes for August 1, 2012: Keeping up with PPACA

 As we have discussed previously, PPACA is going to require a number of important changes to plans over the next few years.  But in thinking long term, it is important not to overlook the seemingly minor changes that occur in the interim.  Two importance changes that went into effect as of August 1, 2012, are the application of Medical Loss Ratio (MLR) and the changes to Women's Preventative Health Services.

The Medical Loss Ratio component applies only to fully insured plans.  Under this provision, insurers must provide rebates if their percent of premiums spent on medical claims (and quality improvement) for policies issued in a state is less than 80% in the small group and individual markets or 85% in the large group market.   This ratio has to be determined on a state-by-state basis and it is measured in the state where the policy is issued.  Insurers that fail to achieve these percentages must issue rebates, and notices of rebates, to policyholders.  Plan sponsors should be aware notices of rebates are required to be sent, not only to plan sponsors, but to participants enrolled in the plan to which the rebate relates. 

PPACA, and its regulations, outline how these rebates are to be used by the plan sponsor depending on the type of entity sponsoring the plan (e.g., for profit, government, etc.)  In many cases, a portion of the rebate must be either used to reduce future premiums or distributed to plan participants in the form of a cash payment.  Plan sponsors should develop a policy regarding the use of any rebates issued and, in the case where the plan sponsor expects to receive a rebate, an internal communication to plan participants should be generated and distributed.  Developing a policy or plan regarding the use of any rebates and communicating directly with plan participants will likely reduce the number of questions and concerns raised by participants once notice of a rebate is sent by an insurer.

Under the Women's Preventive Health Services component, non-grandfathered plans have to add women’s preventive care services to their coverage, with no individual customer cost sharing.   Some of the basic services include "well-woman" visits, screening for gestational diabetes, and HPV testing.  Coverage will include contraceptives for non-religious, non-exempt employers.  Plans sponsored by "religious" employers have a one-year delay until the first plan year beginning on or after Aug. 1, 2013.  More guidance is expected on this issue, but while most insured plans will be in compliance with this provision through the insurer, self-funded plans should be checking to make sure they have properly complied.

So don't overlook the trees while looking at the forest. As much as long range planning is important, these incremental steps required plan sponsors to keep abreast of the operations of their plans to make sure they properly comply and don't find themselves surprised by changes. If you have questions about compliance, make sure to get advice from your plan professionals.

Protecting Participants from Themselves: The Choice is Theirs

I recently spoke at a seminar where the question was raised about a plan sponsor's obligations to act where they see a participant has made foolish investment choices in their self-directed accounts.  Is there a fiduciary obligation to tell a participant that they have made an unwise investment choice?

Well, those short answer is no, there is not.  That is the nature of defined contribution plans.  There is a fiduciary obligation to provide appropriate diversity and sufficient options for investment.  And there is a responsibility to provide some type of educational component to participants.  But a plan sponsor should not substitute their own opinions with respect to appropriate retirement investing for the choices made by participants.  Fiduciaries have to operate on the assumption that participants have made an election based on their own goals and objectives.  The best that a fiduciary can do is limit the investment options in a plan to those strategies that meet the acceptable diversification criteria outlined in ERISA.

That said, there are times when a fiduciary can make an investment election for a participant and, if done properly, the fiduciary is protected from claims of breach of fiduciary duty.  Such was the case in Bidwell v. Univ. Medical Ctr., a recent decision from the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals.  In this case, the plan administrator elected to change the default investment from a stable value fund to a target date fund.  Participants in the stable value fund were notified that unless instructed otherwise, the plan administrator would move their account balances to the target date fund.  Two participants claimed they did not receive notice and brought suit for losses they sustained because of the transfer.

The Court upheld the district court's determination that a breach of fiduciary duty had not occurred because the safe harbor for qualified default elections protects the plan administrator if a participant fails to make an affirmative investment election.  Not just the initial election, but subsequent elections like this.  If notice is provided, a failure by the participant to affirmatively elect means the plan administrator can apply the appropriate default election, even to funds already invested.

So participants can pick whatever options are available, and plan administrators have to make appropriate options available.  At the same time, plan administrators are protected if they have qualified default investment options in place to cover those participants that don't make appropriate elections.  Choosing the default investment option, providing appropriate notice and properly diversifying options are all things a plan administrator must do to protect participants.  But you also have to let them make their own choices, ideally with some educational assistance.  And don't be afraid to ask your plan professionals for assistance in making sure your plan has the right pieces.

Defined Contribution Plans: Making Them "Better"

I happened across an article today from ABC News recommending to participants ways to improve their 401(k) account performance.  As I read it, I was struck by how many of the ways suggested relate directly to the fiduciary obligations that plan administrators must satisfy.  So let's consider their suggestions:

1. Review Your Quarterly Statements.  This reminds us of our obligation to communicate to participants, but it also reminds us of our obligation to review fees and expenses paid by the plan to make sure they are reasonable.  With the 404(a)(5) disclosures due by August 30, this means that participants will have a chance to give a closer look at these charges.  So good fiduciaries should do the same.

2. Check Morningstar Ratings for Fund Performance.  This should serve as a reminder that fiduciaries have to not only diversify the investments in the plan, but also to make sure the investment options are appropriate.  Fiduciaries have to review the risk and reward variations of investment options and have to make sure the investment options are offered in accordance with the investment policy statement for the plan.  Fiduciaries also have to monitor performance of these options to see if alternative investment options should be offered.

3. Review Plan Documents.  Fiduciaries should certainly review plan documents on a regular basis and have to make them available to participants.  More importantly, fiduciaries have to make sure the plan is administered in accordance with those documents, so it is essential that we know what is in them, what they require and that we have processes in place to make sure the plan is consistently administered.  Plus they have to be amended as needed to comply with new regulations.

4. Volunteer to Serve on the Plan's Governance Committee.  Not all plans have adopted an administrative committee.  But it is not a bad idea to have more than one person involved in the plan administration process as a means of better evaluating the plan.  An "investment committee" is an easy way for fiduciaries to establish a set process for reviewing and evaluating plan performance, fees and charges and investment options.  Including a plan participants on that committee (beyond merely managers) might be a good opportunity to learn more about the goals of the plan's end users.

5. Get Educated.  Fiduciaries have an obligation to provide educational opportunities to plan participants.  Fiduciaries do not tell participants where to invest, but the help them learn how to maximize their returns in conjunction with their own risk tolerances.  Consider going beyond the on-line tools many service providers offer and actual conduct in-person educational sessions.  The more participants understand investing, the more effective the plan will be.

Fiduciaries are charged with administering plans for the sole benefit of participants and to act to maximize the benefit to them.  Looking at what participants can do to make their plans better should serve as a reminder to fiduciaries of what they have to do to make that possible.  If you use your plan professionals to make sure you meet these 5 objectives you will go a long way toward maximizing the effectiveness of your plan and minimizing your risk of fiduciary breaches.

Benefit Plan Discrimination Testing: The Same, But Different

Although it is not yet in effect, or fully defined, Section 2716 of the Public Health Service Act was revised under PPACA to provide that the anti-discrimination provisions of IRS Code Section 105(h) would apply to insured health plans.  While we are waiting for these regulations to be written, I thought it would be beneficial to review how the discrimination testing provisions in the Code generally apply.

Section 105(h) prevents a self-insured health plan from "discriminating" in favor of highly compensated employees, either with respect to eligibility or benefits provided.  Since it only applies to self-insured plans, employers sponsoring insured health plan are generally not concerned with limiting eligibility to obtain that coverage.  While the new rules for insured plans have yet to be written, 105(h) as it sits presently generally provides that unless the plan benefits 70% or more of all employees (or 80% of the 70% who are eligible), it would be discriminatory.  There are certainly other factors to keep the plan qualified, but for the purposes of this review, I am focusing on this eligibility and "benefit" issue.  Section 125, that creates cafeteria plans, contains a provision that provides that 105(h) applies to them as well.

This is slightly different from the discrimination provisions for retirement plan.  Under Section 401(a)(4), a qualified retirement plan cannot discriminate in favor of highly compensated employees.  Then, in Section 410(b), there is a requirement that the plan benefit a percentage of employees who are not highly compensated which is at least 70% of the highly compensated employees benefiting under the plan.  Instead of looking at "all employees," retirement plan testing looks at ratios of highly compensated to non-highly compensated employees.  Similar concerns, but not exactly the same.

I am not intending this to be a definitive analysis of discrimination testing, but rather I think it is important for employers to know that there are more than one set of rules for discrimination testing for employee benefit plans.  Employers who have insured health plans, but also offer retirement plans, may be familiar with 401(k) plan testing and might incorrectly assume that 105(h) testing (when implemented) would be the same.  But it is not exactly the same.  So, assuming the rules for non-discrimination for insured health plans follow 105(h) as it is presently written, it is important be be aware the distinction exists.  Just because your retirement plan passes testing does not mean that your insured health plan will be non-discriminatory simply because it has the same eligibility rules and comparable participation.

When the new rules for 105(h) compliance finally come out, we can do a deeper analysis.  But for now, remember: same, but different.  And don't hesitate to ask you lawyers at Fox Rothschild for help if you have questions about discrimination testing in any of your benefit plans.

Health Care Reform and Collective Bargaining: Getting Ready for 2014

Since PPACA is now the law of the land, we should assume that we will need to continue working toward full compliance.  But what about those uncertainties like the exchanges and penalties that have not yet been fully defined?  For employers who are dealing with collective bargaining agreements, this can really be a challenge since we don't yet know what our obligations will be and we don't know whether or not union employees can opt out of their union health plan and get into the exchanges.  We assume that they will be able to, but this could have a substantial impact on employers with contracts that extend beyond January 1, 2014.

While not purely a "plan administration" issue, there should be some reason for employers to pause and wonder how they should address health care reform in negotiations.  For example, what will happen if employees decide to opt out of the fund and get into an exchange?  Who will be responsible for payment of penalties?  What is the fund does not meet the definition of a "qualified health plan"?  What if the coverage offered by the fund is "bronze" and the employees want "gold"?  What if the new rules will render the fund unsustainable and it ceases to exist mid-contract?

There are not really answers to these questions yet.  There are just too many variables that are not yet defined.  But one feasible option for employers currently in negotiations is to consider including a "mid-term re-opener" in the collective bargaining agreement that allows the employer, at its option, to reopen the agreement and bargain to address these issues once regulations are finally issued.  In other words, a provision that unlocks the agreement before its conclusion so that both employer and union can deal with what might be serious concerns regarding health benefits coverage.  So to the extent you as an employer may be looking at negotiating a new agreement that will carry past January 1, 2014, you should consider raising this issue at bargaining. 

Also, consider raising the issue of you as an employer opting out of providing health coverage altogether if the employer and union agree to an option that is less expensive or more manageable.  It may be that it is preferable to both sides that employee participate in the exchanges rather than the union health fund or employer sponsored coverage.  Until we see how the exchanges look, we can only speculate, but you need to careful about being locked in to making contributions for employees who drop out and go into exchanges.  Making contributions and paying penalties would not be a preferred approach.

Since we know changes are coming, it seems logical that both parties would be best served by addressing it now rather than hoping nothing bad happens later.  If you are in negotiations, or have negotiations coming up before 2014, these are issues that should definitely be considered.  For assistance in this area, you can certainly contact your Fox Rothschild attorney for guidance.

PPACA Upheld as Constitutional

This morning, the United States Supreme Court issued its opinion on the constitutionality of PPACA.  In a 5-4 vote, the Court appears to have upheld those provisions of PPACA that most significantly impact employers and plan sponsors.  Initial impressions indicate that the Court found that the individual mandate is constitutional under the Taxing Powers. 

Now for the practical part.  For the next few days, there will be lots of noise about what this means, and efforts to interpret what the results are and what are the political implications.  There will be lots of people trying to explain the decision and lots of debate about what to do next.  Plan sponsors, including those that have health plans maintained through the purchase of insurance will probably be best served by not overreacting.  At this point, we have worked very hard to comply with PPACA and we should assume we are going to have to continue to comply until we are told otherwise.

So take an inventory of what changes you have made and verify what changes might have to be made to comply between now and the start of your next plan year.  Continue working on your summary of benefits coverages that have to go out for open enrollment.  Get ready to report health coverage costs on the 2102 W-2s.  Make sure you have all required PPACA amendments in place and documentation to verify compliance.  And keep in touch with your benefits professionals to seek their guidance on changes to compliance.  In other words, keep moving forward.

Your attorneys at Fox Rothschild will continue to keep you updated on any additional guidance issued and are always available to assist in your ongoing compliance efforts.

Fee Disclosures Are Right Around the Corner: 404(a)(5) Action Plan

While waiting for the Supreme Court to decide about PPACA, don't forget about the retirement plan fee disclosure requirements due August 30, 2012.  Retirement plan sponsors have to be prepared to make appropriate disclosures to plan participants.  So let's review the requirements and prepare an action plan.  

408(b)(2) requires certain service providers to report to retirement plans their fees and expenses.  Plan sponsors should receive those disclosures from their service providers by July 1.   But the next step is what is critical.   All participant-directed ERISA plans (like 401(K) plans) need to provide the 404(a)(5) disclosure to people with accounts.  This is the responsibility of the plan administrator, or the person designated by the plan administrator.  The disclosure has to include the following information:

  • Plan-related information, like an explanations of investment instructions and options, transfers, beneficiary designations, names of service providers.
  • Administrative expenses, explaining general fees and expenses that may be charged against individual accounts and how they are allocated.
  • Individual expenses that were charged to the participants account for the reporting period, including how the charge impacted actual returns and performance over time
  • An Internet website address that is sufficiently specific to provide participants and beneficiaries access to information
  • Glossary of terms to assist participants in understanding the designated investment alternatives or an Internet website address to such a glossary

I have been told by some professionals that they expect the average 404(a)(5) notice to participants to be anywhere from 6 to 8 pages long.

Plan sponsors should not assume that their 401(k) service provider will automatically handle the 404(a)(5) notice distribution.  Plan administrators should consider using the following as a minimum checklist for compliance:

  1. Make sure you have a list of all service providers for your plan, and whether they are required to make disclosures
  2. Make sure you have 408(b)(2) disclosures from all service providers required to report to the plan
  3. Make sure you know who will be preparing and sending the 404(a)(5) notice
  4. Make sure you have a system to review and approve the content of the notices before they are sent
  5. Make sure you have someone familiar with the requirements to verify the content of the notices
  6. Make sure you have set up the required contact point who will handle questions from participants

It is not enough to just send the 408(b)(2) disclosure to participants and assume it satisfies the 404(a)(5) notice requirements.  They are two different things and while they might have some of the same information, each participant has to get a statement tailored specifically to them.  Don't be afraid to ask for help from your service providers and if you are confused, ask questions.  This is going to be a major required undertaking and all plan sponsors (even for small plans) should focus on getting it right.

Start Your Engines: Preparing for the Supreme Court's Decision on PPACA

We are all expecting the Supreme Court to rule on the constitutionality of PPACA before the end of this month.  While there is much anticipation, good plan sponsors should already be hedging their bets on how they will respond to the decision.  So let's look at some road-maps to prepare for the possible outcomes.

(1) Assume PPACA is Upheld as Constitutional

If PPACA is upheld, we have to look at complying with the upcoming requirements for the 2012 and 2013 plan years.  Most importantly, we need a summary of benefits and coverage and we need to be prepared to hand that out in the next open enrollment.  We also have to be prepared for health plan reporting on W-2s which is mandatory for the 2012 tax year.  Also recall that beginning in January 2013, an individual’s annual maximum contributions are limited to $2,500 for flexible spending accounts.  So if it is upheld, we have some significant changes to make in our administration process before the end of the 2012 plan year. 

(2) Assume PPACA is Struck Down as Unconstitutional

If PPACA is struck down, the first thing we will have to do is analyze what we have changed and how we changed it.  Many plan sponsors will incorrectly assume that we revert back to the pre-PPACA status.  But remember that we are dealing with ERISA plans and you can't just change an ERISA plan at the drop of a hat.  We will have to prepare for mid-year coverage changes and amendments to coverage for the 2013 plan year.  Enrollment and eligibility will have to be analyzed and appropriate notices issued to current participants.  We will have to analyze tax implications to see if any special reporting is required for coverage provided to adult children.  And we will have to decide whether or not it is cost effective to eliminate certain benefits provided to comply with PPACA as some of the changes made might actually be worth keeping.  But most of all, we will have to amend plans to undo amendments already made, and follow the appropriate procedures for making plan amendments.

(3) Partially Upheld, Partially Struck Down.

It is because of this option that plan sponsors should use this time to develop a map of what changes they have made and design a plan for undoing those changes.  Plan sponsors do not want to be caught short trying to figure out what they still have to do to comply, or what they might have to do to revise their plan.  Now is the perfect time to make a list of all the changes you made to comply with PPACA and how specifically you made the changes.  Then prepare to either follow that map in reverse to undo changes, or continue forward to finish what we already started.  We can't say for sure yet what the court will do, but we should at least know what we have done and what we still might have to do to comply (or change) and we will have a short window in which to do it.  So take the time now to analyze your compliance thus far.  Whatever the decision, we are going to have some serious work ahead of us.  Your professionals at Fox Rothschild are ready to assist either way.

An SPD is not the Plan, But Are Both Required?

Some time back I wrote about the Supreme Court's decision in Cigna v. Amara and pointed out that terms in a summary plan description (SPD) have to match terms in the plan document.  The issue in Amara was that the benefit calculation set out in the SPD was not included in the plan document and so there was considerable discussion about whether it constituted a "plan term."  The Court seemed to pretty clearly conclude that since the SPD was only a summary, the plan document was where we would have to look for the actual terms controlling the operation of the plan.

In March of this year, the 9th Circuit looked at a similar case, Skinner v. Northrop Grumman Retirement Plan B, and sort of agreed, but in another way.  In Skinner, the benefit calculation was described in the plan document but not the SPD.  The 9th Circuit found in favor of the plan when it determined that silence in the SPD did not mean it was not a plan term.  So it appears that if it is in the SPD but not the plan document, it is not really a plan term, and if it is in the plan but not the SPD, it is a plan term but not properly summarized. 

Justice Scalia, in his concurrence in Amara, clearly suggests that because Congress defined both an SPD and plan document in ERISA, it is expected that both will exist.  But an SPD is nothing more than a summary of the terms of the plan, and provided that summary is written in plan language and includes the right statements, it satisfies the SPD requirements.  There is nothing that specifically precludes the plan document and the SPD from being the same document as long as the one document meets the requirement for both.  Section 104(b)(4) of ERISA requires a plan administrator to furnish an SPD and any "trust agreement, contract or other instruments under which the plan is established or operated."  It does not say they have to be separate.  So your plan document and SPD could be one in the same or separate.

Depending on your plan, and whether it is subject to separate trust regulations, you might want to consider incorporating both documents, or you might be better served having two.  But if you have two, make sure the terms in rights and remedies set out in the SPD are included in the plan document.  If it is only in the SPD, then it is not a plan term.  If it is in the plan document, it should be in the SPD but it is still a plan term.  If the SPD and plan document are rolled into one, then make sure you spell that out clearly and then they should all be considered as plan terms.

COBRA Notices Good When Mailed to Last Known Address (If You Can Prove You Sent Them)

In past entries, I have written about the ongoing struggle plan administrators face when trying to locate participants to provide notices.  COBRA notices can be a particular concern because participants frequently argue a violation of COBRA when they did not receive notices.  But it is not required that an administrator prove a terminated participant received the notice, only that they sent it.

Consider Somer v. Cudd Energy Services, recently decided in the Western District of Oklahoma.  The participant argued that she was not provided with a COBRA notice and election form until she actually called and complained to HR.  As a result, the notice was 3 months late.  Fortunately, the plan sponsor was able to show that it had mailed a COBRA notice to the last known address of the participant in a timely manner.  The Court affirmed that the employer has to comply with the sending, not prove the receipt.  So the demonstration that a system was in place to send notices to the last known address, coupled with the copies of the letters sent, was enough to establish a "good faith attempt to comply."

There are a couple of good lessons from this case.  First, employers and administrators should keep copies of the notices sent as proof of sending.  They should also have a documented process and be able to demonstrate they followed the process in each case if challenged.  Having a standard procedure and following that procedure is certainly a best practice.  But beyond COBRA, consider the other various notice requirements associated with employee benefit plans.  Cases like this tend to demonstrate for us the importance of having procedures for all notices and being able to demonstrate that we followed them.  So consider this a reminder to document and save copies (even electronic versions) in case a participant claims they never got their notice.

I Can't Find My Spouse: QJSA Waivers for Disappearing Spouses

I can't find my spouse!  Believe it or not, benefit plan administrators hear that statement on a regular basis.  Plans with qualified joint and survivor annuity options ("QJSAs") can be faced with a dilemma when a participant is seeking a distribution in a form other than as a QJSA without spousal consent and the participant also asserts they cannot get that consent because their spouse has "disappeared."  If the spouse refuses to consent, then there is no distribution.  But what if they really have no idea where their spouse is?

From an administrators perspective, how they disappeared is not as important as confirming that they have actually disappeared.  Or, to put it more correctly, that the spouse cannot be located to give or deny consent.  It is one thing when a participant can't find their spouse, but a plan cannot simply accept that the spouse is gone.  Such was the case in Lester v. Reagan Equipment, where the participant gave the plan administrator an affidavit listing all the ways he tried to find his missing spouse.  The plan accepted the affidavit and distributed the plan account balance without tying it up in a QJSA.  Sure enough, the "missing" spouse popped up demanding her benefit after the participant died.  The court found that relying on the affidavit was not enough.  The administrator had to "take reasonable steps on its own to verify that the spouse could not be located."

So what are reasonable steps?  Section 205(c) or ERISA and Code Section 417(a)(2)(B) provide that a plan can make a distribution without a QJSA if it is established to the satisfaction of a plan representative that the consent required may not be obtained because there is no spouse or because the spouse cannot be located.  But what constitutes proof?  There are locator services through the IRS Letter Forwarding program and Social Security that a plan administrator should use as proof they tried.  An certifications from participants certainly help.  But the Code and ERISA are delightfully silent on other options.

Well, consider what the federal government does.  Under 5 CFR 846.202, the Federal Employees Retirement System provides that the Office of Personnel Management may waive the requirement of spousal consent upon a showing that the former spouse's whereabouts cannot be determined.  A request for waiver on this basis must be accompanied by—

  1. A judicial or administrative determination that the former spouse's whereabouts cannot be determined; or
  2. Affidavits by the employee or Member and two other persons, at least one of whom is not related to the employee or Member, attesting to the inability to locate the former spouse and stating the efforts made to locate the spouse; and Documentary corroboration such as newspaper reports about the former spouse's disappearance.

It also provides that OPM may waive the requirement of consent  based on "exceptional circumstances" if the employee or Member presents a judicial determination regarding the former spouse that would warrant waiver of the consent requirement based on exceptional circumstances.

Unfortunately most plan administrators are not prepared to deal with a missing spouse and did not draft rules or procedures to address this issue.  Maybe it will never happen to your plan.  But consider the possibility that it might and be prepared in advance if it does.  By providing a framework in the SPD on which a decision will be made, you put participants on notice of how they will need to comply.  It is not enough to just take their word for it. 

Does ERISA Preempt Breach of Contract Claims on Employment Agreements? Yes and No.

Employment agreements and offer letters that make reference to employee benefits can create a whole host of potential problems.  Not the least of which is an argument over whether a subsequent claim for "breach of contract" is preempted by ERISA if the employee does not get the benefits they think they were promised in their contract.  Whether or not a claim for breach of contract is preempted by ERISA depends on what the contract actually promises.

First, consider the decision in Arditi v. Lighthouse International, recently decided by the 2nd Circuit.  Applying the standard articulated by the Supreme Court in Aetna Health Inc. v. Davila (ERISA preempts a cause of action where (1) an individual could have brought his claim under ERISA §502(a)(1)(B), and (2) no other independent legal duty is implicated by the defendant's actions), the Court reasoned that a mere promise to participate in the plan and receive benefits in accordance with the plan terms warranted preemption.  The former employee claimed his contract guaranteed him a certain benefit but the Court disagreed, finding that the employment agreement only described the benefits and made it clear that benefits arose from, and were governed by, the terms of the plan.

Contrast that with Dakota, Minnesota & Eastern Railroad v. Schieffer, where the 8th Circuit found that a breach of contract claim was not preempted by ERISA.  In this case, the contract provided for a severance benefit separate from any welfare plan offered by the company.  Therefore, preemption did not apply because the damages (in this case severance) could be satisfied outside of any plan and directly from the employer.  In short, a contract referencing a specific benefit would not necessarily be preempted if that benefit is provided outside of a plan (or even could be).  For example, promising an employee "health benefits for life" in an employment agreement might create a breach of contract claim that would not be preempted by ERISA even if it was intended to provide those health benefits through the company plan.

Employers have to be careful about what their employment contracts and offer letters say.  To avoid breach of contract claims, offer of benefits should be limited to participation in plans in accordance with the terms of the plan and not separate from the plans themselves.  Don't summarize the benefits provided by the plans, just reference participation in the plans.  Be careful not to promise something that can be construed as anything other than what the plan gives (and in accordance with plan terms).  Otherwise, you might find that ERISA preemption does not apply and your company, not your plan, is under the gun.

More Guidance from the DOL on Summary of Benefits Coverage

On may 11, the Department of Labor issued Part 9 of its FAQ series related to implementation of PPACA.  This particular is directed, in large part, to answering questions about the summary of benefits coverage that enables participants to compare their health coverage.  Some key points:

  • SBCs may be provided electronically to participants and beneficiaries in connection with their online enrollment or online renewal of coverage under the plan.  SBCs also may be provided electronically to participants and beneficiaries who request an SBC online.  In either case, the individual must have the option to receive a paper copy upon request.
  • The regulations state that a health insurance issuer must provide the SBC upon application for health coverage.  For this purpose, a plan or issuer must provide the SBC as soon as practicable, but no later than seven business days after receiving a substantially complete application for a health insurance product.
  • If an individual, plan, or plan sponsor is negotiating coverage terms after an application has been filed and the information required to be in the SBC changes, an updated SBC is not required to be provided (unless an updated SBC is requested) until the first day of coverage.  The updated SBC should reflect the final coverage terms under the contract, certificate, or policy of insurance that was purchased. 
  • While it is not permitted to substitute a reference to any other document for any content element of the SBC, an SBC may include a reference to another document in the SBC footer (including reference to a summary plan description).  In addition, wherever an SBC provides information that fully satisfies a particular content element of the SBC, it may add to that information a reference to specified pages or portions of other documents in order to supplement or elaborate on that information. 

There is also a link provided for translation services if you are required to provide a translation of the SBC because you are sending it to a county with the requisite percentage of the population speaking a particular language.

As we get closer to the actual compliance dates for SBCs, we can expect even more answers like these.  But if you have questions about compliance with PPACA, and with respect to SBCs in particular, you can always ask your attorney at Fox Rothschild.

2013 Limits for HDHPs and HSAs

The IRS recently released Rev. Pro. 2012-26 that gives us the limits for 2013 minimums and maximums for HSA and HDHP plan contributions. 

  • Maximum Annual HSA contribution: $3,3250 for single, $6,450 for family
  • Minimum HDHP Deductible: $1,250 for single, $2,500 for family
  • Maximum HDHP Out-of-Pocket: $6,250 single, $12,500 family

Remember that as a plan sponsor, it is not enough to simply change your numbers.  You have to revise or amend plan documents that have specific reference to these limits and make sure they are distributed to participants.

Don't Sign that Contract: Owners Should be Wary of Language in Bargaining Agreements

Owners of companies should avoid signing collective bargaining agreements themselves.  Maybe that is too broad of a statement, but I present it because over the last couple of years, a series of cases have been decided that put personal liability on the owners of companies for withdrawal liability and delinquent contributions because they personally signed the agreement obligating the company to make contributions to a multiemployer fund.

The theory from the fund side goes something like this: unpaid contributions to ERISA funds constitute plan assets when they are due.  A person who exercises discretionary authority over plan assets is a fiduciary, so if your company is obligated to make contributions to a fund and the company does not do it, you have breached a fiduciary duty and are personally liable for the deficiency.  Lots of individual owners are now being sued for "breach of fiduciary duty" and, in many instances, have been found to be personally liable for the delinquent contributions.

What typically happens is that the fund trust agreement provides that contributions are assets of the plan when due.  Then the collective bargaining agreement contains a very innocuous provision that, in addition to creating a contribution obligation, incorporates all of the trust provisions into the contract.  So by signing the contract, you acknowledge and agree to be bound to the proposition that contributions are plan assets when due.  So if the company does not pay, you as the owner are personally liable because it is assumed you exercised the authority by deciding not to pay. 

The counter to this position is that ERISA fiduciary status does not attach to someone unless they know they are a fiduciary and surprising liability on owners and corporate officers is not favored.  If the owner of the company does not sign the bargaining agreement, he or she is not agreeing to be bound by the terms of the trust and fiduciary status does not personally attach to them.  In short, if you personally do not sign the agreement that requires contributions, you are not personally bound by the trust provisions.  Now, having said this, it is still possible to have some claim for fiduciary obligation associated with a decision to not make contributions.  But it certainly helps in defending a claim for personal liability if you have not signed the document creating the contribution obligation.

If you are the owner of a company and don't have the luxury of having someone else sign, perhaps a good fall back position is to actually get a copy of the trust agreement for the funds and read it as well as the bargaining agreement to see if a "springing" fiduciary status is being created.  But don't just sign and assume.  Read and understand because personal liability for delinquent contributions, and even withdrawal liability, is something you definitely want to avoid. 

Defined Benefit Plan Investment Options: The Never-ending Review

As I have discussed here before, the new fee disclosure regulations are going to obligate plan sponsors to provide information to participants about what it costs to maintain the plan.  This is certainly going to require sponsors to be more active in their review of fees and more active in their pursuant of controlling those fees.  But because participants are now going to have access to information about fees, we are also likely to see more inquiries about investment choices and options available because some investment options simply cost more to choose.  So that challenges sponsors to review plan investment options.

We know from prior cases the importance of not only having an investment policy statement, but in following the terms of that statement.  There are also numerous cases that remind us the importance of providing a diverse pool of investment options (although not an unlimited pool).  The plan sponsor is charged with making investment options available in a manner consistent with their investment policy statements.  So simply making more options available to participants is not enough if it runs afoul of the policy statement.  Likewise, not following the dictates of your policy statement when making investment options available creates its own set of problems. 

Then, consider default investment elections and whether your plan provides for them and are they memorialized in your policy statement.  Your default election should be a reasonable one (meaning not too risky or too conservative).  Plus, your default investment option has to be reviewed to see if the fees and costs associated with that option are reasonable.  So you have to watch performance as well as fees to make sure you have a reasonable selection.

To recap, plan sponsors have to look at investment options to see if they are reasonable and if you have enough options, whether they fit within your investment policy statement and whether the fees and expenses are reasonable for those options.  And you have to do it with regularity because now you have an annual reporting requirement to participants.  A new age of review is upon us ad it pays to be diligent to avoid future litigation.  But you can always ask for assistance from your attorneys at Fox Rothschild. 

A Late COBRA Notice is Not Retaliation

Sometimes displaced employees try to co-mingle law to suggest a variety of nasty acts by their employer.  Sometimes employment law and benefits law can overlap, and sometimes they don't.  Such was the case in Thompson v. Morris Heights Health Center, recently decided by the U.S. District Court for the S.D. of New York. 

Thompson was terminated as an employee from the medical center and filed a claim with the EEOC, claiming that her employer had retaliated against her in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act for filing a previous EEOC charge.  In her latest EEOC charge, she alleged, in part, that the medical center retaliated against her by failing to provide a timely COBRA notice and election form.  The late part was correct.  The employer did send it four months late, but when it finally did send it, it offered coverage retroactive to the original qualifying event date.  The EEOC dismissed her claim and she filed a federal court action alleging that her former employer (1) did not timely issue her information regarding benefits under COBRA, and (2) failed to expeditiously provide her with a statement of benefits and a disbursement under the Pension Plan.

The Court quickly disposed of the pension plan claim because it so happened that the plan was not a calendar year plan (the year ended 6/30), and since her request was mid-year, it was not unreasonable to have to wait until after the end of the plan year to receive a statement.  On the COBRA issue, the court ruled that Thompson failed to demonstrate that the late COBRA notice was "post-employment retaliation in violation of Title VII."  The Court reasoned that because Title VII is limited to to prohibit only actions that affect current employment or the ability to secure future employment, she would have had to prove that the delay in furnishing her COBRA election notice had hindered her ability to search for or procure future employment.  She could not show that she had suffered "any prejudice from this delay of the sort cognizable under Title VII."  So her claim was dismissed.  

It is important for employers to note that even though Thompson could not make a case under Title VII for post-employment retaliation, she still could have tried to assert a claim for COBRA penalties for the late election notice (although why she chose not to is not reported).  So this decision does not say there could not be any remedy, just not a remedy under Title VII.  But it does serve as a reminder that the actions taken by the plan, and the employer as plan sponsor, are distinct from the actions taken by the employer as employer.  Sometimes that works in the employer's favor.

For assistance in distinguishing actions taken as an employer or as a plan sponsor, please do not hesitate to call you attorney at Fox Rothschild. 

PPACA and "Linguistically Appropriate Services"

Under ERISA, there are come requirements for plan administrators to provide documents or notices in languages other than English.  If a plan has participants who are literate only in a particular foreign language, the plan administrator may be required to provide the SPD or required notices written in that language, along with the SPD, stating that assistance in understanding the SPD or notice is available.  Generally for plans with fewer than 100 participants as of the beginning of the plan year, the requirement applies if 25% or more of participants are literate only in a particular foreign language.  For plans with 100 or more participants as of the beginning of the plan year, the requirement applies if the lesser of 500 participants or 10% of the total number of participants are literate only in a particular language. 

Under PPACA, which incorporated Section 2719 of the Public Health Service Act, group health plans and health insurance issuers offering health insurance coverage have to provide relevant notices in a "culturally and linguistically appropriate manner."  The idea is that plans will make certain accommodations for notices sent to an address in a county where 10% of people who reside in that county are are literate only in the same non-English language.  CMS recently published its "Culturally and Linguistically Appropriate Services County Data" which lays out which counties are affected. 

What this means is that the notices regarding enhanced internal and external appeals and also the summary of benefits coverage have to be distributed with a statement, prominently displayed, in any applicable non-English language, clearly indicating how to obtain assistance in understanding the notices.  If requested, the notices also have to be provided in the applicable non-English language.  In short, plan sponsors have to be prepared to include non-English directions on their notice and also to have non-English notices available,

A quick review of the county list provides some real-world examples.  Notices mailed to addresses in Bronx County, New York, have to include statements in Spanish.  This is also the case for Union County, New Jersey and Los Angeles County, California.  San Francisco County has to have the notice in Chinese, but not Spanish.  So first, review to find our where you are sending notices BY COUNTY in each state where you have covered participants.  Second, check to see if the county you are sending the notices to requires special non-English notice.  Third, prepare appropriate notices in that language and make arrangement for translation services to make sure participants can obtain assistance in understanding the notices.

Obviously PPACA's status with the Supreme Court remains up in the air.  But it might be worthwhile for plan sponsors to check this list out and see what they might have to prepare for if it is upheld.

401(k) Loans: Avoid Problems for Your Plan

Last week I read two interesting articles about 401(k) plan participant loans.  One article suggested that in a struggling economy, plan participants were better off borrowing from themselves through a plan loan.  Another article reported that 80% of terminated employees who had outstanding loans from their previous employer's 401(k) plan defaulted on those loans.  It also reported that nearly 20% of 401(k) plan participants maintained an outstanding loan.  For plan sponsors, this can create a real problem because dealing with plan loans is not always as simple as it sounds.

IRC Code §72 generally sets out restrictions on plan loans but it does not restrict the number of loans a plan participant can take.  §72(p)(2) provides that a loan to a plan participant will not be treated as a distribution to the participant as long as the loan is limited in accordance with the terms of the Code.  If a loan does not satisfy the Code’s requirements, then the loan is deemed to be a taxable distribution to the participant.  This can happen if the participant does not make the payments required under the terms of the loan.  Because the plan sponsor (usually the employer) has and obligation to properly report and treat loans as taxable or non-taxable based on these rules, administering outstanding loans can be a problem hidden away waiting to jump out at you if you are ever audited.

The IRS has a couple of useful "Fix-it" statements relating to 401(k) loans.  One discusses how to treat defaults in payment.  The second addresses non-conforming loans.  Both look at how to fix the problems, which means they are problems that have to be fixed by the sponsor.  They also suggest some possible ways to avoid mistakes in loan administration, like permitting cure periods for missed payments, requiring transmittal of loan information to payroll before loans are permitted, reviewing plan documents regarding loan requirements and actually creating a written loan policies that should be followed every time a loan is requested.

On top of that, consider a couple other suggestions.  Maybe your plan should only permit one loan at a time or there should be a limit on the size and scope of the loans.  You should also consider your procedures for monitoring and collecting loans from participants after they have terminated employment and establish a procedure for keeping track of whether those loans have been satisfied.  Since non-conforming loans are clearly a component of the IRS's audit package for 401(k) plans, it pays to know more about loans, better manage them and accurately report them before you face an audit.  So don't simply assume plan loans are being handled properly.  Look into them now and fix your mistakes.  If you need assistance, your attorney at Fox Rothschild can help you sort it out..

PPACA March Madness: The Arguments in Brief

Last week, the United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments on the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA).  Call it an employee benefits version of "March Madness."  The arguments were heard over 3 days and while the media generally reported that the "individual mandate" was the key argument, there were actually 4 separate issues being argued.  I will attempt to summarize them below, but without betting on the outcome of any particular argument.

"Does the Anti-Injunction Act Bar the Challenge?"

The Anti-Injunction Act precludes the court from hearing challenges to assessments or collection of taxes before they actually go into effect.  The Court itself was concerned about whether or not it even had the ability to hear this case before the 2014 penalties and assessments went into effect.  Since both the White House and opponents of PPACA are anxious to have this case decided, both sides argued that the Anti-Injunction Act does not apply.  The Supreme Court actually appointed an independent lawyer to argue that the Act did apply so that the Court could be certain it heard full argument on the issue.  So day one involved an argument about whether or not the case was "ripe" for consideration before the mandate and tax go into effect.

"Is the Individual Mandate Constitutional?"

Day two saw the challenge and defense of the individual mandate.  The White House argued that the individual mandate regulates the national health insurance market which is permitted because the Constitution gives Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce, because Congress can tax under the "General Welfare Clause," and Congress can do what is "Necessary and Proper" to carry out its ability to regulate interstate commerce.  Opponents argued that the mandate does not actually regulate commerce but instead forces buyers into the commerce stream.  Therefore, PPACA does not regulate commerce but rather forces people to engage in commerce. 

"Is the Individual Mandate Severable?"

Day three saw arguments related to whether the individual mandate could be separated from the other provisions of PPACA.  To hear this argument, the Court had to presume the mandate was unconstitutional and then looked to see what, if any, part of PPACA might survive.  Opponents argued that if the mandate falls, the whole act must fall, while the White House argued that many other new rules should remain.  Day three also brought arguments related to the constitutionality of the expansion of Medicaid, with states arguing the required expansion (which makes them extend Medicaid to more participants in order to get federal funding) was unconstitutional "coercion" by the Federal government.  The White House argued that the "Spending Clause" of the constitution means Washington can set whatever rules it wants for states to get federal funds.

Despite everyone saying they know, nobody really knows how the Court will rule.  It is anticipated that a decision will be issued before the end of the current Court term, which is in June of this year.  Regardless of the outcome, the decision will have significant impact on employers, insurers and plans.  However, because compliance is still required until a ruling is issued, and may still be required after a decision is issued, employers and plan sponsors should continue to prepare for compliance and not gamble on the outcome.

Don't Forget About Spouses (Participants' Spouses, That Is)

Late last year I reviewed the case of Milgram v. Orthopedic Associates which dealt with a plan having to essentially pay twice because it gave too much money to an ex-spouse in a QDRO distribution.  Now consider the other side of the coin, where a plan makes a distribution to a participant without protecting the rights of the spouse.  They are beneficiaries just like participants and it is important to make sure you know they are out there so you can address their claims.

For most defined benefit pension plans, these plans generally have to provide a Qualified Joint and Survivor Annuity (QJSA), or a Qualified Preretirement Survivor Annuity (QPSA) if the participants dies before retirement payments are made.  Generally, if a married participant in a retirement plan with survivor annuity benefits wants to receive a distribution in a different form, the spouse must provide written consent and the consent must be witnessed by a plan representative or notary public.  As a general rule, most profit sharing and 401(k) plans are safe harbored from the QJSA rules but they still require spousal consent to designate a beneficiary other than a spouse.

So what happens if someone gets married AFTER they have already enrolled in your plan and forgets to tell you?  Depending on the terms of the plan, their status as a "spouse" may create claims by a beneficiary even if you are not aware of it.  Call it Milgram in reverse...the spouse makes a claim after the distribution is made to secondary beneficiaries or the participant.  How can you protect your plan against "springing" spouses who appear without your knowledge?  Or maybe people who are not spouses that you don't find out about the divorce until after the participant dies and forgot to remove the ex-spouse from the designation form?  Lots of potential pitfalls relating to spouses as beneficiaries.

While I don't have an absolute answer to dealing with these issues, consider the open-enrollment period for your health plan as an opportunity to take stock of your retirement plan participants and their beneficiary designations.  If you are giving participants the opportunity to change their investment elections (and you should be), you should also remind them to update their beneficiary designations and their marital status.  Your duties as a fiduciary mean more than just assuming your participants will tell you about changes.  Sometimes you have to remind them to tell you. 

More on Summary of Benefits Coverage: FAQ Part 8

In case you missed it, the Supreme Court is hearing arguments next week on the constitutional challenges to health care reform.  But government soldier's on, so Monday the EBSA release is FAQ Part 8 relating to implementation of PPACA.  Here are some highlights:

We know that the Summary of Benefits Coverage (SBC) must be delivered to the employee and beneficiaries at initial application or enrollment, upon a change after enrollment and before the plan year, at renewal, at a special enrollment and upon request. FAQ 8 specifies that the “upon application” delivery requirement applies whenever a person completes materials to enroll even if no application is required.  So a good safe harbor option may be to provide the SBC any time you are generally providing any plan documentation to participants or potential participants.

For a timing perspective, the obligation to provide the SBC is based on your plan year.  If your open enrollment period commences prior to September 23, 2012, you will not have to comply with the SBC rules and you don't have to provide an SBC until January 1, 2013.  If your open enrollment period starts on or after September 23, 2012, you must comply with all of the new SBC rules.  Otherwise, assume that after 1/1/13, everyone gets and SBC.  Like COBRA notices, the SBC must be delivered to the participant AND to the beneficiaries.  If you fail to provide an SBC, a penalty of $100 per day per person (capped at $200 per day per family) applies. 

FAQ 8 actually includes model language for an e-card or postcard for use with an evergreen website posting and there is also a requirement that the SBC must be culturally and "linguistically appropriate."  This means non-English versions of the SBC must be available and several templates are available on the DOL website.  The SBC must be sent to persons who are COBRA qualified beneficiaries and who are on COBRA continuation coverage.  It is also important to note that the SBC can be included in the summary plan description as long as it is prominently displayed right after the table of contents.  The SBC must be sent to a participant or beneficiary within 7 business days of a request.  Finally, an SBC can be provided electronically if the format is readily accessible (such as in an html, MS Word, or pdf format), it is provided in paper form free of charge upon request, and if it is provided via an Internet posting (including on the HHS web portal), the issuer timely advises the plan (or the plan or issuer timely advises the participants and beneficiaries) that the SBC is available on the Internet and provides the Internet address. 

Since it is not clear that there will be a final decision on PPACA's status before the 9/23/12 deadline, and we certainly can't predict what part or parts will stand (if at all), it is wise for plan administrators to continue on in their preparation from compliance with the SBC distribution requirements.  The good news is that FAQ 8 concludes with a statement that SBC requirements are not expected to change for 2014, so we can take some comfort in that.  For compliance assistance, please contact your attorney at Fox Rothschild.

HHS Issues Rules on PPACA Exchanges

While not directly impacting employers, it is important to note that the latest stage of implementation of PPACA involves defining health insurance exchanges.  The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has issued "implementing regulations"  that finalize some of the proposed rules addressing the creation and operation of these exchanges.

These final regulations address the creation and eligibility for the state exchanges.  By way of background, the exchanges are ideally the marketplaces that provide the "qualified health plans" that satisfy the minimum benefit standards. These plans would then be open to employers and individuals.

Some of the key components of the final rules:

  1. Exchanges must provide and maintain a  website that contains information about available qualified health plans.  This includes displaying a summary of benefits coverage for each qualified health plan offered..
  2. The regulations include requirements about the content, form and timing requirements for notices sent by an exchange to individuals and employers.  They must be in writing and provided electronically when possible and include the date the notice was sent and the reason for any intended action.
  3. Exchanges must determine and articulate the eligibility for enrollment in a qualified health plan.  Exchanges must allow individuals to enroll in or change from one qualified health plan to another, even outside of the open enrollment period if certain things occur, such as marriage, birth or adoption, 
  4. For dental plans, they must allow limited scope dental benefit plans that satisfy certain coverage requirements to be offered through the exchange.  A dental plan can be offered as a stand-alone dental plan or in conjunction with a qualified health plan.  Cost-sharing limits and restrictions on annual and lifetime limits defined under PPACA apply to stand-alone dental plans for coverage of pediatric dental essential health benefits.

The rules are designed to provide some initial explanation of how the exchanges will be formed and how they will work.  Ideally, employers could review these rules to find out what they should offer as a competitive plan and how it might be measured against an exchange.  However, the real impact may be simply to give insurance companies a clearer framework for developing their qualified health plan offerings.  Certainly more guidance is anticipated but at least we do know that the exchanges are moving forward in case employers choose that as an option.

Know Your Role: Am I a "Settlor" or a "Fiduciary"?

When making decisions about benefit plans, plan sponsors should at least take some time to consider what role they are playing.  I am working with a company that is terminating its health plan and the distinction between "settlor" functions and "fiduciary" functions became very significant.  So I thought I might share some thoughts on the topic.

Settlor functions are those typically related to plan design, such as establishment of a plan, determination of who the plan will cover and designing the benefit offerings.  The creation or termination (or even amendment) of a plan is a settlor function.  This is important because settlor functions are not subject to the same fiduciary status when making these decisions.  For instances, the decision to amend or terminate a plan is a settlor function that does not give rise to a claim for breach of fiduciary duty.  Similarly, the decision about what class of employees to make eligible for coverage would be a settlor function.  You might have qualification issues and have to comply with IRS regulations, but the decision about design is not necessarily a fiduciary one.

Fiduciary functions tend to be the "administrative" aspects of the plan.  Fiduciaries exercise control or management over plan assets and have discretionary authority over the plan operation.  So while the decision to terminate the plan may not be a fiduciary function, the way that you administer the termination would be.  Likewise, while a decision to offer coverage to a specific group of employees may not be a fiduciary function, denying eligibility to an employee who thinks they are eligible would be.  Fiduciary actions are governed by ERISA standards, while settlor activities are generally not.  I say "generally" because often times the decisions can be a mix of both settlor and fiduciary functions and it is important to know which hat you are wearing for each decision.

And it is the "mix" that is important.  When making decisions related to creating a plan, amending a plan or terminating a plan, it is important to separate those decisions made or actions taken in a settlor capacity from those decisions made or actions taken in a fiduciary capacity.  That way there is a clear delineation of what role you were playing at each point.  When you are acting as both a fiduciary and a settlor, your actions will be given very close scrutiny by a court if they are challenged, so give them that same close scrutiny before you make them.  It saves grief in the long run.

Financial Disclosure: 408(b)(2) and 404(a)(5) in a Little Detail

Although I have commented on the new financial disclosure rules before, I thought it would be good to actually reference the code sections involved to give a little deeper explanation of the compliance rules.  Plus, as we get closer to the compliance deadline, you may see more reference to these sections so it is good to know that they are there.

408(b)(2) requires that most service providers to retirement plans have to provide written disclosure of their services, fiduciary status and total compensation to the plan sponsors on an annual basis.  The deadline for this disclosure to the plan sponsor is July 1, 2012.  They have to include a description of the services provided and a description of the fee arrangement.  The information can be delivered electronically and while there is no specific format required, the information provider must be in a format that is "sufficient to meet the guidelines."  Service providers are continuing to work out the details of what that means.  Plan sponsors are required to terminate any service provider who fails to information relating to future services.  So 408(b)(2) covers the service provider to plan reporting obligation.

404(a)(5) covers the plan to participant reporting requirement.  That information includes general information about the structure and operation of the plan, as well as investment options,  Plan sponsors must also provide an explanation of fees and expenses that are charge or deducted from participant accounts, including loans and other transactional fees.  This statement is due the later of 60 days after the July 1, 2012  disclosure to the plan sponsor, or 60 days after the the first day of the plan year beginning on or after November 1, 2011.  While the final rules have a sample chart to use for disclosures, no specific format is required.  

Since the first step is the 408(b)(2) exchange of information, plan sponsors should consider reaching out to their various services providers now to (1) make sure they will be sending the information and (2) ask for a sample or draft of what their disclosure information will look like to begin preparing from the individual reports under 404(a)(5).  Don't wait until the last minute.

For assistance or more information, please contact your attorney at Fox Rothschild.

More Information about W-2s and Health Plan Reporting

Questions about W-2 reporting requirements for health plans to comply with PPACA?  As we continue to prepare for the 2012 reporting requirements, I thought it would be beneficial to provide a link to the sites that the IRS has published to give guidance.  The most recent "Question and Answer" is available here with links to all previously published notices.  They have also prepared a nifty chart based on the content of Notice 2012-9 available here.

While the 2011 reporting requirements was option, that does not mean it went away altogether so you should be looking at what is required for the 2012 year now so you can begin collecting the correct information.  For assistance, please contact your attorney at Fox Rothschild.

SEC Advises on Say-on-Pay Presentation on Proxy Card

While I don't normally get an opportunity to include matters relating to executive compensation, it is an important component of employee benefit package in many companies.  Robert Fields and Sarah Ivy, two of our executive compensation attorneys here at the firm, have shared the following with me, so I am passing it on:

In 2010, the Securities and Exchange Commission adopted final rules regarding shareholder advisory (“say-on-pay”) votes on executive compensation and “golden parachute” compensation arrangements required under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the Dodd-Frank Act).  As you may know, these votes are now required to be included in a proxy statement relating to an annual meeting of stockholders or, in the case of “say-on-parachute” votes, in a merger or related proxy.

On February 13, 2012, the SEC’s Division of Corporation Finance issued the following Compliance and Disclosure Interpretation regarding a say-on-pay vote and its presentation on proxy cards:

      Question: On its proxy card and voting instruction form, how should a company describe the advisory vote to approve executive compensation that is required by Exchange Act Rule 14a-21?

      Answer: The following are examples of advisory vote descriptions that would be consistent with Rule 14a-21's requirement for shareholders to be given an advisory vote to approve the compensation paid to a company's named executive officers, as disclosed pursuant to Item 402 of Regulation S-K.

  • To approve the company's executive compensation
  • Advisory approval of the company's executive compensation
  • Advisory resolution to approve executive compensation
  • Advisory vote to approve named executive officer compensation

The following is an example of an advisory vote description that would not be consistent with Rule 14a-21 because it is not clear from the description as to what shareholders are being asked to vote on. Shareholders could interpret this example as asking them to vote on whether or not the company should hold an advisory vote on executive compensation, rather than asking shareholders to actually approve, on an advisory basis, the compensation paid to the company’s named executive officers.

  • To hold an advisory vote on executive compensation

Compliance Steps: Public companies should review their proxy cards to determine if their presentation of the say-on-pay vote is in a form that has been endorsed by the SEC and, if not, whether the presentation is misleading in contravention of the requirements of Rule 14a-21.

For more information about this topic, please contact Sarah or Robert, or your attorney at Fox Rothschild.

Fiduciary Found Liable for Not Timely Honoring Rollover Request

Plan fiduciaries are frequently faced with difficult decisions regarding plan administration and it is important for them to know not only what the plan says, but also what the potential penalties are for not following the plan.  And sometimes, strict adherence to "form over substance" can create a fiduciary breach.  Such was the case in Klepeis v. J&R Equipment, recently decided in the Southern District of New York.

Klepeis left employment in January of 2005 and was entitled to have his 401(k) account balance rolled over as of December 31, 2005.  Klepeis made a rollover request, but it was not on the correct form.  The plan administrator testified that to make a rollover, the form provided by the participant was not required, only authorization from the plan trustee (who happened to be the owner of the company).  The defendants argued a variety of defense, claiming the request was untimely and that the funds in the plan were frozen pending an IRS approval of the plan's termination. 

The Court found that though the SPD provided that upon termination, plan assets would be distributed as soon as practicable, that did not allow a fiduciary to withhold assets until the actual termination occurred, particularly where the participant had no notice of the termination.  Moreover, because the fiduciary was aware of the request and only need to authorize the distribution, it was a breach of fiduciary duty to delay the approval.  When the plan terminated, Klepeis' account was transferred to an IRA, but he lost almost $7,000 between the time he should have received his distribution and the actual rollover date.  The Court awarded this as damages, plus interest and attorneys fees. 

I think this case illustrates what I consider to be an ongoing warning to fiduciaries.  To satisfy their obligations as fiduciaries, they are charged with acting reasonably and in the best interests of the plan.  Strict adherence to the law is one thing but requiring strict adherence to form requirements or ignoring participant's reasonable requests can be a breach of duty.  So fiduciaries should comply with the law, seek to know the requirements of the law and the plan and administer the plan accordingly.  But being a draconian administrator can be as problematic as being too lax.  Satisfying your fiduciary obligations requires a balance of both.  Your plan professionals should be consulted to help you figure out what is "reasonable" to avoid these problems.

Final Rules Issued on Summary of Coverage Document: Start Your Compliance

You may recall that, under PPACA, plans were to start providing uniform "summaries of coverage" and uniform definitions by March 23, 2012.  This compliance date was delayed pending publication of final rules.  Well now they are here.  The final rule and guidance documents are now available.  Under the final rule, plans with plan years that start September 23, 2012 or later will have to supply SBCs in their next open enrollment.

Rather than try to summarize each document, I suggest you look at them first.  As more opinions and guidance are release, I will be providing additional commentary for each.  But for now please check out the following official publications to help start your compliance process:

  1. Final Regulations,
  2. Compliance Guide,
  3. Summary of Benefits and Coverage Template
  4. Sample Completed SBC
  5. Instructions for Completing the SBC - Group Health Plan Coverage
  6. Instructions for Completing the SBC - Individual Health Insurance Coverage
  7. Why This Matters language for "Yes" Answers
  8. Why This Matters language for "No" Answers
  9. Uniform Glossary of Coverage and Medical Terms 

And as a sort of a catch all page, use this HHS Site for Simulating Coverage which has all the resources.

As we get closer to September 23, there will likely be some modifications.  But plan sponsors should start preparing now for compliance for their 2012-2013 open enrollment. 

It's OK to Ask: Same-Sex Benefits and Taxes

Its tax time again and I tend to get questions this time of year about reporting of benefits.  Health plans that provide coverage to same-sex couples and domestic partners require some special consideration for tax purposes so let's review some of the key issues.

The first is verification of status.  Some employers voice to me concerns over asking for marital status for fear that requiring enrollees to identify potential same-sex partners is tantamount to discrimination.  But it is OK to ask (and in many instances, you are required to).  You just can't treat enrollees differently once they are determined to be eligible for coverage.  As more states define their respective positions with regard to same-sex marriage or domestic partnerships, plan sponsors are under specific tax rules that require that benefits to these spouses and partners be properly taxed at a federal and state level.  So the employer must, as a function of tax law, inquire about status and an employee who enrolls a same-sex spouse in a state that recognizes same sex marriage can be asked to differentiate between "marriage" and "same-sex marriage" for plan enrollment and tax purposes.

However, a plan sponsor cannot require different verifications standards.  If someone enrolls their same-sex married partner, they cannot be required to produce a marriage certificate unless you are prepared to require all married couples to produce a certificate.  So it is not the asking that creates the issue, it is the verification process.

Domestic partners can create a slightly different scenario in that some states recognize both same-sex and opposite-sex domestic partnerships.  Moreover, some plans actually provide for coverage for unmarried opposite sex partners with verification of some type of long term arrangement.  Plans seeking verification of domestic partnership status would need to require all domestic partners to verify that status, regardless of gender, but making that a requirement for domestic partners might also trigger an obligation to verify marital status for married partners as well.  Remember, marital status can be a protected class.  Essentially plans have to balance the obligation to verify eligibility and properly report income against the obligation to treat participants equally, regardless of marital status and sexual orientation.

A lot of plans simply require the employee to sign an affirmation of accuracy at the time of enrollment confirming they are making true statements.  This might eliminate the need for actual verification and certainly there can be stated penalties for fraud.  How a plan verifies eligibility is a process the plan administrator has to develop and administer so there is no automatic answer for every situation.  But when it comes to enrollment, plans have to ask so that benefits are treated properly for tax purposes.  Just make sure you ask properly.

401(k) Fee Disclosure Deadline Delayed But Rules Added

Gearing up for the April 1, 2012 fee disclosure deadline?  Well, yesterday the Department of Labor released final regulations under Section 408(b)(2) of ERISA, requiring retirement plan service providers to disclose information about their services and fees to plan sponsors.  They then delayed the application of the rules until July 1, 2012 to give plan sponsors more time to comply.

Some changes were made to the interim rule with the release of this new final rule:

  1. There is an increase in the information that must be disclosed relating to any indirect compensation received by a covered service provider to include a description of the arrangement made between the payer of the indirect compensation and the service provider.
  2. They revised  the investment-related information that must be disclosed by providers of fiduciary services to an investment contract, product or entity that holds plan assets and in which the plan has a direct equity investment to provide consistency for parties that are also required to comply with the DOL's participant-level disclosure regulation under ERISA Section 404(a).
  3. Providers of record-keeping or brokerage services required to provide investment-related information are now permitted to comply with the regulations by providing information from the investment issuer's current disclosure materials, provided the issuer is one of the regulated entities described in the regulations.
  4. Adding an optional "summary guide" to assist fiduciaries with their review of required disclosures.
  5. Changing the deadline for disclosures of changes to investment-related information so that providers may disclose all such changes on an annual basis instead of being required to separately disclose each change within 60 days of the date the provider knows of the change.
  6. Revising the deadline for providing related reporting and disclosure information to responsible plan fiduciaries to coordinate with the date the plan intends to comply with ERISA's general reporting and disclosure requirements, rather than the prior requirement to provide this information upon request.
  7. Clarifying that any errors or omissions made by the covered service provider in disclosures of changes to previously disclosed information can be corrected within 30 days of the date the provider knows of the errors or omissions.
  8. Requiring any covered service provider that provides record-keeping services to include a detailed explanation of the record-keeping services provided to the plan and the cost of those services.

To assist with compliance, the DOL issued a new "Fact Sheet", as well as a copy of the new "Final Regulation" and a "Summary of the Changes."

 From a plan sponsor's perspective, these changes should not have a significant impact on the information that is disclosed to participants.  However, it may change how information is reported to the plan by service providers.  Because these changes are relatively fresh, we should see some further explanation to sponsors about what they are required to communicate and we will continue to pass that information along.

Dependent Audits and Dis-enrollment: Yes You Can!

With PPACA comes potential coverage of dependents to age 26.  But how do you confirm dependent status and what can you do with non-cooperative participants?  Many plans are undertaking to conduct "dependent audits" to make sure covered dependents are actually eligible for coverage.  But what happens when you find someone on the plan who should not be there, or you can't get cooperation.

This was the situation in Muhammad v. Ford Motor Co. (E.D. Mich. 1/12/12).  The Ford plan had discretionary authority to (1) determine eligibility, (2) demand proof of dependent status and (3) garnish wages to recover overpayment of benefits.  Ford repeatedly asked Muhammad to provide proof that his dependents met the qualifications of eligibility under the plan, which he refused to do.  ford terminated the dependents and also garnished his wages to recover over payment for the dis-enrolled dependents.  He sued and lost because, in the minds of the court, the plan had acted fairly and in accordance with its terms.

What most likely saved Ford in this case was that its plan documents and notices specifically laid out its rights and remedies.  The plan has the right to set its proof for dependent status and as long as that requirement is evenly applied and reasonable, it can also dis-enroll (or deny enrollment) for failure to satisfy those requirements.  Similarly, if the administrative processes are followed as written, the discretionary authority grant in the plan will serve to protect the plan administrator when it makes a decision.

So plans should consider doing audits to make sure they are only covering eligible dependents.  Plus, plan sponsors should undertake to update or amend their plan language to allow them to require proof and state specific remedies for failure to provide proof.  Then, set up administrative guidelines for establishing how those proofs will be treated.  Don't assume you can require proof and terminate without it.  Check your language and work with your plan service providers to make sure you can do what you need to do.

Don't Let Your Plan Become an Orphan

When talking about mergers, acquisitions and maybe even liquidations, retirement plans can sometimes get lost in the shuffle.  Asset purchases that result in the liquidation of the seller company, or acquisitions of assets by buyers, can create problems over legacy retirement plans.  These "orphan" plans just don't disappear and they have to be dealt with properly.

An “orphan plan” is defined as a plan that no longer has a plan sponsor.  The sponsor may have disappeared because of bankruptcy or merger, but the primary factor leading to the "orphan" status is that the reported plan sponsor is no longer in existence.   The plan may have been abandoned or simply forgotten but it still has to be dealt with because the IRS and DOL don't let plans simply disappear.  You also have to be wary of the possibility that an "orphan" plan will lose its tax qualified status.  In order to be a qualified plan, the sponsor has to be an employer and if that is no longer the case, it would not longer maintain its tax favored status.  On top of that, there may be fiduciary concerns related to making appropriate distributions, reporting requirements and managing investments that cannot be left unattended.   

Fortunately there is a process under the IRS's Employee Plans Compliance Resolution System (EPCRS) to deal with orphan plans, so they can be saved.  But beware that correction of an orphaned plan can be more problematic than simply addressing the plan in the first place.  Perhaps the plan can be terminated?  Should it be "adopted" by the buyer?  Will the bankruptcy trustee deal with it?  I have dealt with several orphaned plans over the years and they can be messy undertakings, particularly when the buyer did not expect them and has the matter foisted upon them.  So consider this an introduction to the term and make sure to avoid making your plan an "orphan."

IRS Provides Tips on How to Avoid Identity Theft

Since benefit plans are covered by tax regulations, I regularly read tax publications that come from our friends at the IRS.  While not purely "benefits" related, I did think that the information in publication FS-2012-12 was interesting.  It is the latest in a series of IRS tips on how to avoid identity theft.

Here are some of the top things that the IRS wants taxpayers to know about identity theft  avoidance:so you can avoid becoming the victim of an identity thief.

  1. The IRS does not initiate contact with taxpayers by email to request personal or financial information. The IRS does not send emails stating you are being electronically audited or that you are getting a refund.
  2. If you receive a scam e-mail claiming to be from the IRS, forward it to the IRS at phishing@irs.gov.
  3. If you discover a website that claims to be the IRS but does not begin with ‘www.irs.gov,’ forward that link to the IRS at phishing@irs.gov.
  4. If your Social Security number is stolen, another individual may use it to get a job. That person’s employer may report income earned by them to the IRS using your Social Security number, thus making it appear that you did not report all of your income on your tax return. When this occurs, you should contact the IRS to show that the income is not yours. Your record will be updated to reflect only your information. You will also be asked to submit substantiating documentation to authenticate yourself. That information will be used to minimize this occurrence in future years.
  5. Your identity may have been stolen if a letter from the IRS indicates more than one tax return was filed for you or the letter states you received wages from an employer you don’t know. If you receive such a letter from the IRS, leading you to believe your identity has been stolen, respond immediately to the name, address or phone number on the IRS notice.
  6. If your tax records are not currently affected by identity theft, but you believe you may be at risk due to a lost wallet, questionable credit card activity, or credit report, you need to provide the IRS with proof of your identity. You should submit a copy of your valid government-issued identification – such as a Social Security card, driver’s license, or passport – along with a copy of a police report and/or a completed IRS Form 14039, Identity Theft Affidavit, which should be faxed to the IRS at 978-684-4542. Please be sure to write clearly. As an option, you can also contact the IRS Identity Protection Specialized Unit, toll-free at 800-908-4490. You should also follow FTC guidance for reporting identity theft at www.ftc.gov/idtheft.
  7. Show your Social Security card to your employer when you start a job or to your financial institution for tax reporting purposes. Do not routinely carry your card or other documents that display your Social Security number.
  8. While preparing your tax return for electronic filing, make sure to use a strong password to protect the data file. Once your return has been e-filed, burn the file to a CD or flash drive and remove the personal information from your hard drive. Store the CD or flash drive in a safe place, such as a lock box or safe. If working with an accountant, you should ask them what measures they take to protect your information.

You can get more tips from reading FS-2012-07 and FS-2102-8.

While not specifically directed to plan administrators, I think point 8 above is a useful one to remember if you are submitting forms electronically.  There have actually been reported instances where company and benefit plan identities have been stolen so don't assume identity theft applies only to individuals.

And since we are talking about "identity theft," plan administrators should also be reminded that they have a lot of information about participants and beneficiaries that would be very useful to thieves.  Make sure you have appropriate security protocols built into your administration process to avoid being a source of information that thieves can use to steal participant's identities.

Wellness Programs Save Lives! And Maybe Money Too...

I recently read an article about a company wellness program that consisted primarily of a company health fair.  At the health fair, an employee who thought he was otherwise healthy took a PSA test and discovered he had elevated PSA levels.  He was encouraged to follow up with his doctor, who discovered he had prostate cancer.  He was ultimately cured and his doctor said he probably would have died had it not been for the health fair screening. 

That's a great human interest story and certainly lends some encouragement to companies considering instituting some type of wellness program.  Of course, wellness programs can also be a pain to implement.  Last week I had the opportunity to present a seminar on the legal requirements of wellness programs and identified many important issues, like discrimination and privacy concerns, which would seem to discourage implementation of wellness programs. 

However, taking this story at face value, had the employee not been screened and simply developed full prostate cancer, the health plan costs to treat that cancer would likely have been higher than the treatment to cure the employee with the cancer caught early.  So there could arguably be some savings there.  Plus, over the longer run, statistics seem to support the conclusion that wellness programs decrease overall claims experience for health plans.  But they have to be done right and they have to be done legally (so as to avoid the unexpected costs associated with defending them later).

So consider adding a wellness component to your welfare plan.  But make sure to consult with your benefit professionals as you build the program so your plan does more good than bad.

Insurance For Fiduciaries: Know Your Options

Insurance coverage can be a confusing thing.  Coverage for employee benefit plan fiduciaries sometimes adds a wrinkle to the process that can be overlooked.  Depending on the type of claim asserted, there are a variety of "coverage" options that may apply.  I think the new fee disclosure rules are likely to increase claims for breach of fiduciary duty in the future, but even without that development, it makes sense to at least know whether you have coverage and what your options are.  So let's take a look at some of the options.

  • The ERISA Bond.  Generally, plan's have to have an ERISA bond that applies to anyone who handles plan assets.  The presumption is that handling the assets equates to "discretionary authority" which is the hallmark of fiduciary status.  The bond can be very narrow (covering only fiduciaries and employees) or broad (extending to vendors and person who do not necessarily handle plan assets), but the bond will only provide protection for claims for "fraud and dishonesty."  It does not generally provide insurance coverage for other claims, particularly claims for breach of fiduciary duty not involving fraud or dishonesty.
  • Fiduciary Liability Insurance.  Unlike a bond, Fiduciary Liability coverage pays for claims arising out of the administration of a benefit plan without requiring "fraud" or "dishonesty."  Often it is combined with Employee Benefits Liability Coverage.  This type of coverage is designed to insure fiduciaries acting specifically in their capacity as benefit plan fiduciaries which include claims for breach of duty or mistake in administration of the plan.  Some policies can even be expanded to include coverage for penalties and fines (for a price). 
  • Directors and Officers Liability Insurance. D&O policies generally provider coverage for directors and officers of a company in the event they are sued in conjunction with the performance of their official duties as they relate to the company.  But many D&O policies exclude claims arising from administration of benefit plans.  Others require a specific rider that includes employee benefits coverage (likely for an additional premium).  Don't assume that because you have a D&O policy that it automatically provides coverage for claims arising from plan administration. 
  • Errors and Omissions Insurance. E&O polices rarely provide coverage for ERISA claims (unless the company with the coverage happens to be in the business of providing service to ERISA plans).  Unless specifically included in an E&O policy, this coverage will not likely protect a fiduciary from a claim arising from administration of a benefit plan.
  • Employment Practices Liability Insurance.  EPLI coverage is typically bundled with D&O coverage and generally insures against claims that allege misconduct by the officers of a company in an employment setting.  These claims are typically for things like harassment, discrimination and wrongful discharge.  EPLI coverage does not typically provide protection against claims arising from plan administration unless specifically included (usually with a rider and usually for an extra premium).

Why be concerned?  Frequently I find myself in a position of defending a fiduciary (or an officer or owner of a company alleged to be a fiduciary) who finds him or herself in a position of being "uninsured."  They assume that their general commercial liability policy or D&O policy covers them for ERISA claims, only to find out the carrier has denied coverage.  Depending on the nature of the claim, the size of the claim or the breach alleged, ERISA claims can be very expensive to defend and can result in some hefty damages. 

Of course, insurance is not free and balancing the cost of coverage versus the risk of exposure is a business decision that plan sponsors and fiduciaries have to evaluate on their own.  I certainly recommend that anyone in a fiduciary position have coverage, but it is not required.  However, I do think it is very important for you to check to see if you do or do not have coverage for employee benefit claims.  Look at your policies to see whether or not you have coverage.  If you don't have coverage, maybe you should look at the cost of adding it.  But better to know now whether or not you do than to be surprised later to find out you don't.  And ask if you are not sure.

IRS Issues Guidance on Reporting Health Coverage on W-2s

Still wondering about how to report health coverage on W-2s, which is required by PPACA?  More guidance was issued on January 3, 2012 in IRS Notice 2012-9.  Under the new rules, employers must report the aggregate cost of "applicable employer-sponsored coverage," which generally consists of employer-sponsored coverage under a group health plan (insured or self-funded) that is excludable from the employee's gross income. The reportable cost generally includes the portion of the cost paid by the employer and the amount paid by the employee, regardless of whether paid through pre-tax or after-tax contributions.

Under this most recent guidance, the good news is that the reporting requirement appears to be suspended for employers with fewer than 250 W-2s issued for the prior calendar year.   It also appears that reporting requirements do not apply to coverage under a flexible spending arrangement if contributions occur only through employee salary reductions.  Also, for dental and vision plans, it appears that the standard for determining whether coverage under a dental plan or vision plan is subject to the reporting requirement is whether the benefits are offered under a separate policy, certificate or contract or insurance, or if the participants have the right not to elect the dental or vision benefits and if they do they must pay an additional premium or contribution.

Fortunately, the notice also includes some new Q&A's not contained in Notice 2011-28.   These Q&As include explanations about employee assistance program, wellness program or on site-medical clinic and also provide guidance about contributions to multiemployer plans.  The Notice also provides that this guidance is applicable starting with 2012 W-2s.  So your 2103 W-2s will have to comply with these rules.  But employers should definitely review both of these notices sooner rather than later and make sure they are prepared to make appropriate reportings come January 2013.

Make Compliance Review a Resolution

According to a Towers Watson survey, only 26% of retirement plan administrators regularly conduct operational and compliance reviews of their plans.  The survey interviewed 245 executives and found that while most are concerned about plan compliance, apparently very few are doing anything about it.  Oddly, 62% said they would conduct a review if their plan advisors identified potential risks and 49% say they would conduct a review if they received notice of an IRS audit.  But few do it on their own.  So consider this identification of "potential risks."

I happened to give a talk today about fiduciary duties and Section 404 of ERISA.  I stressed to the group the importance of knowing about your fiduciary status, and also the importance of satisfying your fiduciary obligations.  That necessarily includes making sure your plan is in compliance with all statutory and regulatory obligations.  Given the vast array of benefit plan litigation in the courts these days, and the focus on fees, disclosures and reporting, it seems only logical that a good starting point would be to review your policies and procedures concerning plan administration and make sure they comply with the actual terms of your plans.

One of the first question the IRS asks when conducting plan audits is "are your plan's operations based on the terms of the plan document?"  Do you know if it is?  You should.  It is the start of a new year and budgets have been renewed.  So now is the perfect time to resolve to audit your benefit plans for operational and compliance problems.  Here are some starting points to consider:

  1. When was the last time you updated plan documents?
  2. When was the last time you reviewed the definitions in your plan documents?
  3. When was the last time you verified your definition of eligibility in your plans?
  4. When was the last time you compared investment options in your retirement plan?

If the answer to any of these questions is "I don't have any idea," then resolve to make 2012 your year to conduct a review of your plans.  Collect review and repair as needed, and let your attorney at Fox Rothschild know if we can help.

EBSA Makes 2011 5500 Information Available

Although it is probably not high on the list of priorities for plan administrators, the end of a calendar year usually means means the start of the process of preparing 5500s.  They may not be due right away, but it is always good to know what information you will have to provide when you eventually file them.  The EBSA has made an informational copy of the 2011 5500 available, with instructions, on its website.

Make sure you take a look at the "Changes to Note" section in the instructions to see how 2011 differs from prior years.  Also, remember that you have 7 months from the end of the plan year to make a filing (unless you request an extension).  And finally, make sure you read very carefully to make sure you know whether or not you have to file for your specific plans. 

I also like this site because it gives samples of older forms and instructions just in case you may have forgotten to make a required filing and are looking to voluntarily correct that failure. If you have any questions about filing requirements for 2011 or any prior year, don't hesitate to reach out to your benefits professionals, including your attorney at Fox Rothschild.

Measuring Damages is Tricky in Fiducary Breach Cases

Picking plan investments can be a difficult task.  Chances are your investment strategy will not maximize returns to a plan because, statistically, in any given time frame, there was some investment option that outperformed your investment choices.  Of course this leads to problems for plan sponsors faced with claims of breach of fiduciary duty under ERISA 404, particularly in light of the obligation to sufficiently diversify plan assets and to try to maximize returns to participants.

Recently, the 4th Circuit decided Plasterer's Local Union No. 96 Pension Plan v. Pepper, which happens to be a case about a multiemployer plan, but it also has some significant implications for single employer retirement plans.  The new trustees sued to old trustees for breach of fiduciary duty claiming the old trustees failed to properly investigate alternative investment strategies.  The Court agreed but the issue of damages was key to the ultimate decision.  Some key points that I find relevant to plan sponsors (and trustees):

  1. The expert used determined that from 2003 to 2005, the optimum investment strategy for the fund would have been 50% of the assets in an equity index and the other 50% in an aggregate bond index.  Hindsight being what it is, I wonder if most plans wish they had gone that route.
  2. There must be a causal link between the breach of duty and the losses to the plan.  A breach does not automatically equate to liability and damages.  There has to be a connection where the breach caused the loss.
  3. When assessing damages for a breach, the measure of damages would be those damages actually caused by the totality of the breach, not just a haphazard measurement window. 

Point three is key to defending plan investment decisions because plan participants usually want to pick out a finite window (in this case 2003-2005) and show how they would have made more money investing in something else.  But the Court said you can't pick a measurement period out of the air.  In this case, had they used 1999 to 2005 as a measuring period, there would have been almost not actual damage to the plan.  So there has to be some logical connection between the alleged breach and the time period measured for the damages.

I also think point two is significant because it reminds us that ERISA 404 is not an absolute penalty statute.  In many ways, it encourages fiduciary compliance by setting out a standard for fiduciaries to meet and, as long as they do so in good faith and to the best of their ability, they will not be liable unless there is actual damage associated with an actual breach.  The market ebbs and flows and plan assets can rise and fall.  Fiduciaries who satisfy their 404 duties can sleep somewhat more soundly knowing that just because there might have been an investment option with higher returns, they will not automatically have to make up the difference because they did not choose it.

Of course all of this assumes you are following the rules and satisfying your 404 duties.  So if you are a plan fiduciary that has concerns about what those duties are and how you to satisfy them (and how to document you satisfied them), this decision should also be a wake up call that there is personal liability and while measuring damages may be tricky, you can still be on the hook for them.  Make sure you have sound guidance from your professionals to rely on.

Remember That There Are Limits on Holiday "Gifts" To Employees

Employer gifts may not be part of your "benefit" plans per se, but the IRS does have rules about fringe benefits.  IRS Publication 15-B provides employers with a good explanation for how to handle taxation of fringe benefits generally.  But what about year-end "gifts?"  How are they treated?

Since it is year-end, it is not uncommon for employer to provide "gifts" to employees for a job well done, or for sticking through another tough year.  Either way, employers should remember that gift giving has its limits and the IRS is watching.  The IRS regards some gifts as taxable income for the recipient.  Clearly there is a distinction between whether a gift is given from an individual or from an "employer."  The IRS is more concerned with the latter, so let's consider some of the options.

The IRS considers any cash given from an employer to an employee as compensation.  If an employer gives an employee cash and the cash comes fro the company (not a personal gift from, say,  attorney to legal assistant), it must be treated as compensation and reported for tax purposes.  Gift cards are the same as cash.  They are subject to FICA the same way that any other pay would be treated.  However, the IRS does not consider small non-cash gifts to employees as taxable compensation.  The IRS (on its website for "de-minimus fringe benefits") provides that holiday gifts, as well as things like flowers, fruit and books are not subject to taxation.  But any gift that has a value in excess of $100 is outside of this exception so an employer must report the value of the gift on W-2s and do appropriate withholdings. 

Note: cash gifts, gift certificate and gift cards, regardless of the size, are taxable.  There is no de-minimus exception for cash and cash equivalents.

So cash is taxable, gift card and gift certificates are taxable, small gifts are probably not, but what about the holiday party?  The good news is that the IRS does not consider a company paid holiday party to be a form of taxable compensation provided they are "reasonable."  A year-end trip to the Bahamas might be hard to justify, but dinner at the local steak joint is not going to be an issue.  If you are going to give "gifts" to employees during the holidays, make sure you know the rules and treat them correctly.

And as a side note for employers that have collective bargaining agreements, make sure to check the restrictions in that agreement before giving gifts.  If you give a gift that is taxable as compensation by the IRS, it might be treated as compensation for which contributions are due to benefit plans covering the union employees.  Many disputes have arisen over whether to treat "gifts" as "compensation" for contribution purposes so make sure you know what you are getting in to before giving those gifts. 

Paying for COBRA as Part of Severance? Make Sure You Handle it Correctly

I frequently get asked about paying for a separated employee's COBRA coverage as a partial severance benefit.  Not altogether an unappealing option, but you have to be careful about how you word and administer it.  Unfortunately, many employers think that the solution is just to leave someone on their coverage until the end of the severance period.  But that messes up the COBRA rules and potentially creates a situation where an ex-employee is entitled to COBRA for a full 18 months AFTER the severance period.

The key is to understand what you want to accomplish.  Do you want the employee to remain on your payroll and covered as an employee as part of the settlement?   Or do you want to terminate them and reimburse them for COBRA?  Each would be accomplished in a different fashion.  Say you are giving someone three months of "additional" coverage and pay.  If the severance agreement leaves them on your payroll for three months and then terminates them, the COBRA qualifying event would be the date you actually terminated their employment.

If you want to terminate them as of a date certain, say 12/31, then give them 3 months of coverage as a severance benefits, you have to be careful because their COBRA qualifying event date is their date of termination (12/31).  If you give them 3 months of additional coverage after that, then send them a COBRA notice, they get 18 more months for a total of 21.  Plus, you have the problem of not providing a timely notice of a qualifying event and election option.  You would hate to be sued for not giving notice because you were being nice.

Instead, I have suggested that the appropriate way to handle it is to provide that in the event the ex-employee elects COBRA, the company, as part of the severance benefit, will reimburse the employee for the COBRA premium paid for a period of up to 3 months.  The COBRA time periods for notice and election run as would normally be required and the premium reimbursement is treated as a severance payment for tax purposes.  18 months of COBRA runs from the 12/31 termination date, but the company reimburses the employee for 3 months of premiums.  Some people even suggest grossing up the reimbursement for taxes so there is full premium reimbursement, which is an option.  But it has to be reported as compensation as well.

Option two is definitely preferred for insured plans.  You don't want to have your insurance company question why they are covering employees not actively at work because they were fired.  Plus they won't be happy about the extra 3 months of continuation coverage.  For self-insured plans, you have some more latitude, but you have to be wary of Section 105(h) non-discrimination rules (if you only offer it to highly compensated employees).  Plus you might run afoul of your stop-loss coverage if you are keeping people on the plan that should not really be eligible.  So you may end up truly self-insuring the full amount of the risk.

So the point is that paying for COBRA as part of a severance package can be done, but it has benefits and tax implications that should be fully understood before releases are drafted and signed.  Just "agreeing to continue benefits" is too broad of a statement and you should make sure you lay it out clearly and completely to avoid future fights.  As always, consult, before you act and you will be glad you did in the end. 

Be Prepared for an Audit (Even if you Don't Want One)

Rumors continue to swirl that the DOL is increasing its audits of 401(k) plans.  In previous posts, I talked about the DOL audit program and the audit letters sent to plan sponsors.  However, a diligent plan sponsor would want to be prepared for an audit, even while hoping it never comes.  Plus, preparing for a possible audit provides the opportunity to self-police your 401(k) plan to see if there are any "action items" that need to be addressed. 

A DOL 401(k) audit can be triggered by an employee complaint or even information you have submitted in your retirement plan’s annual Form 5500 filing.  Of course, it can be totally random as well.  So what should you have available for inspection if the audit requests comes along?  Here is a list of the most common documentation requests from the DOL:

  1. The Plan document and all plan amendments
  2. Summary plan description
  3. An Investment policy statement
  4. A copy of the most recent IRS determination letter
  5. Copies of Forms 5500
  6. All plan notices. communications and meeting minutes
  7. Investment analysis and reports
  8. Discrimination testing results
  9. Account statements for participants and beneficiaries and Contribution reports
  10. Loan applications and repayment schedules

Opinions may vary about how much documentation to keep, but the general rule is that you should retain  at least 6 years worth of information.  I recommend keeping it for as long as you can and with the constant improvement of electronic storage mechanisms, I believe best practices can dictate scanning and retaining plan information for even longer periods.  Better to have the information somewhere than to try to explain its destruction later, particular plan documents, summary plan descriptions and regulatory filings.

One of the most common errors identified by the DOL is a failure by the sponsor to have actual signed documents.  Also, it is common for plans to have an incomplete record of amendments.  Investment policy statements are also a big red flag, so not having one can certainly have a negative impact on the audit process.  I have also discovered that plan's with lax loan documentation procedures and repayment schedules can have a more difficult time completing the audit process. 

So while we all hope we are not audited, the best practices are to be prepared that one might occur.  Look over your documentation and practices now and make sure you have everything in place just in case.  And if you have concerns about what you have (or don't have), contact your benefit professionals to get it cleaned up.

Cutting Benefits? Follow the Process

I recently read an article that suggested that 49% of employees surveyed anticipated that portions of their benefit packages would be eliminated or reduced in 2012.  Kind of a bleak outlook, but if that is true, then it also suggests that a lot of employers are going to undertake to change their benefit plan structures over the next year.  And with change, comes potential problems because you might not be able to just cut benefits.  You have to know (and follow) the correct process.

Earlier, I mentioned ERISA Section 206(d) that acts as the "anti-cutback" rule for some benefit plans.  There are also a number of court cases that deal with "vesting" rights related to retirement plans as well as welfare plans.  And there are a number of regulations and cases related to disclosure and retaining the right to amend and terminate benefit plans.  In sum, it is not simply a matter of declaring a change.  You have to know the process specific to the plan of benefits you are looking to change, and also what parts of the required process might be missing from your plan. 

Amendment and termination can be very problematic, both from an implementation perspective, but also from a "results" standpoint.  Something as simple as a change in eligibility requirements can cause discrimination testing concerns or "partial termination" concerns, depending on the size and nature of the plan.  Of course, there could always be collective bargaining issues if you have a union in your company.  There could be administration issues related to notices, communications and elections for the new (or revised) plan design.  And there could be distribution concerns as well as administrative reporting and termination filing requirements that are triggered.

The point is that if you are contemplating a change to your benefit plans, it is important to know what your plan requires to make changes, how the rules and regulations control those changes and the impact the proposed changes will have going forward.  Each of these items should be fully vetted with your benefits professionals BEFORE making the change.  If you have questions about how to make changes, you can always contact your attorney at Fox Rothschild.

Be Careful Who You Pay: Mistakes May Make you Pay Twice

Plan administrators have to be careful about making sure they pay the correct beneficiaries and pay the correct amount.  Even if the plan makes a good faith distribution to someone they think is entitled to the benefits, the plan may still be obligated to make the payment to the participant again, result in the plan paying twice.  Such was the case in Milgram v. Orthopedic Associates Defined Contribution Pension Plan, a recent 2nd Circuit decision. 

Factually what happened was that Milgram got divorced in 1996 and, under QDRO, his wife was to receive a distribution.  As a result of an administrative error, the plan overpaid the ex-wife about $770,000.  When Milgram went to withdraw his account balance from the plan later, the error was discovered.  The plan sued the ex-wife to recoup the overpayment, and Milgram sued the plan to recover his full distribution.  The plan's case against the ex-wife has not concluded or resulted in any settlement.  The plan's defense to Milgram's claim was that until the ex-wife pays the money back, they can't pay the money to Milgram.  The court saw it differently.

The court reasoned that a profit-sharing plan must pay plan assets it owes to Milgram in full regardless of whether the ex-spouse first repays the plan the excess amount.  The plan had argued that ERISA's anti-alienation provision precluded the plan from using plan assets to pay Milgram because they were technically assets of other participants.  In short, the money did not belong to the plan and taking it away from the plan would result in alienation of other participant's benefits. 

The court disagreed and held that  ERISA's anti-alienation provision that precludes the assignment of "benefits provided under the plan" did not apply because undistributed funds held in a defined contribution plan trust for participants do not constitute "benefits" within the meaning of ERISA Section 206(d)(1) (the "anti-alienation" provision).  In other words, Section 206(d)(1) does not prevent pension plan assets from being used to satisfy a judicial judgment against the plan itself.  Thus, Milgram was entitled to his full correct account balance from the plan even though the plan had not yet received the money back from the ex-wife.  The judgment was against the plan itself which has assets.

The problem is that the court did not address what claims the remaining participants might have against the plan for having to pay its assets out to Milgram.  Maybe they would have their own claims for breach of fiduciary duty against the plan administrator.  If the plan never gets the money back from the ex-wife, their accounts will certainly suffer a loss.  So it leaves plan administrators with this warning: double check your payments to make sure they are in the correct amount and going to the right place.  You cannot always rely on the assertion that the plan assets belong to other participants.     

DOL Delays Uniform Summary of Benefits (and other items)

Concerned about the uniform benefit summaries due March 23, 2012?  Under PPACA, plans and insurers are required to furnish participants with a very abbreviated summary of benefits and coverage. This summer, proposed regulations on this requirement, were issued and some sample templates were released.  The DOL recently released some FAQs that provide that plans and insurers will not be required to distribute the summaries until final regulations are issued. The departments expect the final regulations to give plans and insurers sufficient time to comply with the final rules after they are published.  So, for now at least, it looks like the requirements to distribute these summaries is on hold.  Stay tuned.

In other news, the EBSA has created a new consumer assistance webpage (also available in Spanish) that allows users to submit questions and complaints about plans electronically.  The webpage also provides access to basic information relating to health and retirement benefit plans through several links under the following categories: Resources/Tools, Hot Topics, and Publications.  The topics covered include health plan issues such as COBRA eligibility, HIPAA special enrollment rights, and health care reform requirements and retirement plan matters such as filing a claim for benefits and understanding fees and expenses in 401(k) plans, all very hot topics.  Plan sponsors would do well to check it out for assistance in administering their plans.

Finally, HHS has issued information about its new Privacy and Security Audit Program.  This program will apply only to HIPAA-covered entities.  All audits conducted during this initial pilot period will include a site visit and result in a formal report.  Covered entities selected for audit will receive a notification letter approximately 30 to 90 days prior to the site visit.  If you receive one of these audit letters, make sure to respond and let your plan professionals know you have been selected. 

Suprme Court to take On PPACA Cases

As a follow up to last week's entry about the Supreme Court taking on the PPACA cases, today the Supreme Court determined to hear three separate cases on the constitutionality of PPACA.  The Court also  set aside 5 1/2 hours for oral argument, to be held in March.  However, the Court, did not grant all of the issues raised and it chose issues to review only from three of the five separate appeals before it.

The Court will hold two hours of argument on the constitutionality of the requirement that virtually every American obtain health insurance by 2014, 90 minutes on whether some or all of the overall law must fail if the mandate is struck down, one hour on whether the Anti-Injunction Act bars some or all of the challenges to the insurance mandate, and one hour on the constitutionality of the expansion of the Medicaid program for the poor and disabled.  Rather than hear all issues, the Court chose those issues from appeals by the federal government, by 26 states, and by a business trade group.  It opted not to review the challenges to new health care coverage requirements for public and private employers.

The blog of the US Supreme Court reports that the Court's order does the following:

  • Determined to hear the issue of “severability” of the insurance mandate from the other provisions of the law, if the mandate is nullified
  • Determined to hear arguments on the constitutionality of the insurance mandate
  • Directed the Parties to brief and argue whether the lawsuit brought by the states to the insurance mandate is barred by the Anti-Injunction Act (
  • Determined to hear the constitutionality of the Medicaid expansion

Supreme Court observers suggest that this may be a modern record for the amount of time set aside for oral arguments.  Due to the complexity of the issues presented, it is not a surprise that the Court has allotted this much time to argument, and it is also suggested that a decision could be rendered as early as June of 2012, which could significantly impact the upcoming presidential election.

Automatic Enrollment: Is It Right for Your Plan?

Is making employees contribute to the 401(k) plan a good idea?  I get this question any time is plan sponsor is considering automatic enrollment as an option.  The DOL and EBSA have a program for encouraging automatic enrollment plans for small businesses.  Some people would argue that automatic enrollment helps plans with discrimination testing because all eligible employees are in unless they opt out.  Others argue that automatic enrollment does not guarantee deferrals and real participation, plus it comes with the risks associated with default elections.

I recently read a study by Vanguard that found that, when automatic enrollment was used as a feature in defined contribution plans, participation rates for blacks rose from 57 percent to 94 percent after automatic enrollment, and 67 percent to 95 percent for Hispanics.  They concluded that automatic enrollment reduced racial disparities in plan participation.  Not exactly a necessary consideration for a plan sponsor, but as an employer, encouraging retirement savings by all employees (including minorities) seems to be a good thing.  

The Vanguard study also found that, after automatic enrollment, about 75 percent of blacks and Hispanics remained in the default fund after automatic enrollment, compared to 68 percent of whites and 60 percent of Asians.  Taking the race component out of the mix, consider that this means that when automatic enrollment is used, a significant portion of your participant population will probably stay in the default election chosen by the plan sponsor.  That certainly puts a premium on the plan sponsor to make a thoughtful choice when electing a default option (if they go the automatic enrollment route).  So adding automatic enrollment as a feature certainly suggests that a large portion of your participants are not going to "actively manage" their accounts.  You have to carefully consider your fees and expense load in your default option as you can bet they won't.

So to answer the question, maybe.  A decision to add automatic enrollment should be made based on a careful consideration of your population, current participation rates and the risks the plan sponsor is willing to undertake associated with choosing a default option.  Plan amendments and plan documentation changes can be easily made to allow for it, but the longer term implications of requiring automatic enrollment have to be considered.  I have recommended automatic enrollment, and also recommended against it, so I have to say neither one is absolutely better.  If you are considering to add, not add or take it away, make sure you walk through it with your plan professionals before making the choice.   

Supreme Court to Consider PPACA Litigation, or at Least to Consider Considering It

There are multiple cases related to health care reform (PPACA) that are now ready for consideration by the US Supreme Court.  These cases include:

  • Thomas More Law Center, Jann Demars; John Ceci; Steven Hyder; And Salina Hyder, v. Barack Hussein Obama, et al. (docket 11-117) (constitutional);
  • National Federation of Independent Business, et al., v. Sebelius (docket 11-393)(dismissed for lack of jurisdiction);
  • State of Florida v. Department of Health and Human Services (two petitions: docket 11-398 and docket 11-400) (unconstitutional); and
  • Liberty University v. Timothy Geithner (docket 11-438)(dismissed for lack of jurisdiction) 

The Court will consider at least 5 petitions related to PPACA during a private conference to be held on November 10.  According to the one source, the Justices will use this conference to decide (a) which petitions, if not all of the petitions, should be reviewed, (b) which issues it is ready to decide, (c) how to line up the lawyers on each side of those issues, and (d) how much time to allow for oral argument.  These cases should be heard during the Court's current term, which is expected to run until near the end of June.  Using this as a benchmark, arguments should be made some time in March or April.

This does not mean that a decision will be issued immediately after arguments and there is certainly no guarantee that a decision will even be rendered in 2012.  But it is good to know that we might have some ruling on the constitutionality of PPACA before the January 2014 deadlines.

Disclose Those Fees: DOL Rules on Electronic Distribution

Remember that pesky fee disclosure thing that won't go away?  Well, just in case you missed it, the DOL issued Technical Release 2011-03  that gives us an "interim" policy regarding the use of "electronic media" that can be used to satisfy the disclosure requirements.

Generally, the new Participant Fee Disclosure Rule requires employers to disclose more information about fees and costs allocated to participants in defined contribution retirement plans (like 401(k)s).  Under the final rule, plans generally have until at least May 31, 2012, to start providing this enhanced information on plan fees and expenses.  2011-03 is a limited technical release that allows for electronic disclosure and distribution of the information required under the final rule.  As with most policies, this could be changed after further review.  But if you are preparing to deliver fee information by electronic means, this technical release helps set the standard for your communications.

The interim policy provides a "safe harbor" for electronic disclosure.  It states that the DOL will not take enforcement action based "solely on a plan administrator’s use of electronic technologies to make the required fee disclosures if the administrator complies with the conditions in the technical release."   For example, plan administrators may furnish fee disclosure information electronically—including via e-mail or a through a website, with proper notice of online availability—if participants who receive this information meet the following requirements:

  1. As to active participants, it applies if they have the ability to access documents furnished in electronic form from any location where the participant is reasonably expected to perform his or her duties as an employee and with respect to whom access to the employer’s electronic information system is an integral part of those duties (most likely a work terminal)
  2. For participants who don't meet the requirements of option 1, like retirees, former employees or active employees who don't have regular computer access through their normal job functions, they can receive the information electronically if they "affirmatively consent" to receiving disclosures through electronic media in the manner prescribed by the regulation.  Note that the form of the affirmative consent remains undefined.

For defined benefit plans, the policy provides that fee disclosures included in a pension benefit statement may be furnished in the same manner that other information included in the same pension benefit statement is furnished.  So if the pension benefit statement information is furnished through a secure continuous access website, then fee disclosures included as part of the pension benefit statement can be furnished electronically in the same manner. Fee disclosures furnished outside of the pension benefit statement may be electronically disclosed to participants and beneficiaries who voluntarily provide an e-mail address for the purpose of receiving disclosures if the plan administrator:

  1. Provides participants and beneficiaries with initial and annual notices that meet specified requirements
  2. Takes appropriate measures to confirm that individuals are actually receiving the electronic transmissions
  3. Takes appropriate measures to protect the confidentiality of personal information in the electronic delivery system
  4. Meets other specified requirements (yet to be fully defined)

The point of this technical release, then, is really to give plan sponsors some guidance on how they can either implement or continue to use electronic notices to comply with the new fee disclosure rules.  What this means is that if you , as a plan sponsor, intend to distribute fee disclosures electronically, you have to design your disclosure process to satisfy these safe harbor rules.  I have long advised that if you intend to distribute plan notices and documents electronically, rules of this type should be followed, so the change should not be drastic.  The good news is that at least now we know we can use electronic medium as a means for relaying these disclosures to participants.

To Insure or Self-Insure: That is a Good Question

So how does one decide to self-insure a health plan or go the fully-insured route?  Not an uncommon question in a marketplace where health insurance premiums seem to be rising almost daily.  But on the other hand, self-insuring a plan has its own set of risks.  So what are some of the things to think about when considering either option?  Here are some issues that I commonly see related to that decision.

Remember that when a plan is self-insured, it means the employer is paying all of the health care costs plus administration costs—not “just” premiums.  So the employer bears the risks and is ultimately on the hook for the costs of coverage.  And compliance.  Plan sponsors of self-insured plans are faced with real dollar-value problems related to high claims levels, maintaining adequate stop loss coverage (and premiums for that coverage) and fluctuating costs of new treatments and medications.  On the other hand, they are not paying for risk.  They are paying for actual claims.  So the actual dollars spent on claims in a given year can be significantly lower than one would pay for comparable insurance coverage.

Insured plans work so that the insurance company is ultimately responsible for the health care costs and the employer pays premiums.  The only costs concern is the premium dollars.  The insurance company bears the risk (which is built into the premium) so fluctuating costs and unexpected high dollar claims are simply absorbed by the carrier.  Sure, they might increase your premiums next year, but a catastrophic high dollar claim won't immediately impact the company bottom line.  Plus, most costs of administration are borne by the insurance carrier, not the employer.

Most companies that move to self-insured plans do so because of the size of their population because it becomes less expensive for them to pay for all of the medical expenses than to pay the premiums required by the insurance company to take on the risk.  Smaller companies can consider self-insuring as an option, but they have to be wary of the possibility that significant claims costs can adversely impact revenue streams.  Companies with stable populations or populations with younger, single employees seem to statistically have lower claims experience and might be better candidates for self-insuring.  However, population stability can be tricky to maintain and companies should be keenly aware of anti-discrimination laws protecting employees based on age and marital status (in other words, don't create a policy of only hiring 25 year old single men to keep health costs low).

Of course any discussion of plan funding should start with an understanding of your annual claims experience, preferably measured over a period of time.  If you are thinking of going to a self-insured plan, or going from self-insured to fully insured, it is best to know what your claims history actually looks like.  It may be that simple plan design changes can be made that make your current funding status more affordable.  And don't forget that whether you are insured or self-insured, you should always be cognizant of the obligations related to being a plan sponsor and the notice and documentation requirements. 

In the end, no one can say automatically which option is best for your plan.  But it is a conversation that you might want to have with your broker, benefits adviser or legal counsel.  But don't make a decision based on a blog you read on the Internet.  Make it based on the facts specific to your company's needs.

Downsizing? Don't Forget About Plan Notice Requirements

In these tough economic times, employers have been cutting employees.  But in doing so, some employers as plan sponsors are forgetting to make sure terminated employees are provided with all appropriate notices and documentation to deal with their benefit plans.

Of course we have the COBRA notice obligations, and this may include COBRA notices and continuation rights under FSAs, dental or vision plans.  But what about retirement plans?  A recent case out of the Fifth Circuit serves as a reminder that failing to satisfy the obligation to provide information to participants can be very costly.

In Kujanek v. Houston Poly Bag, a terminated employee alleged that he was not provided with sufficient information about how to roll-over his 401(k) account balance.  He claimed a loss of almost $184,000 because of the delay.  First there was a debate about whether the employee had requested information from the plan.  Under ERISA 104(b), a plan administrator has to provide certain information to the participant upon request.  But it also appears that the plan forgot the requirements of IRC 402(f) that requires a plan administrator of an employer plan to provide a participant, who is about to receive an eligible rollover distribution from the plan, with a written explanation of the rollover and other tax treatment of the distribution.  There was no indication that the plan had provided this notice at the time of his eligibility for distribution.

While not at issue in this case, group life insurance policies can also have a notice obligation.  Many states require that group life insurance policies provide conversion rights when an employee terminates.  While ERISA generally preempts state law relating to benefit plans, insurance laws (like those governing life insurance policies) are saved from preemption.  There have been multiple cases involving the failure of an administrator of a life insurance plan to provide conversion notices.  Often times the insurance regulations leave that obligation entirely to the policyholder (meaning the employer in most instances).  So failing to give notice of that conversion option would be an ERISA breach and state law may make it the sole responsibility of the plan sponsors to provide the notice.

So when terminating employees, it is good practice to have a notice or form checklist related to all the benefit plans the employee previously participated in and make sure that on their way out the door, they have all the required notices.  If you have any questions about what notices are required for your plans, don't hesitate to contact your attorney at Fox Rothschild.

IRS Announces Retirement Plan Limitations for 2012

If you are planning for your 2012 retirement plan contribution administration, the IRS recently released the 2012 Pension Plan limits.  Some key provisions:

  1. The elective deferral (contribution) limit for employees who participate in 401(k), 403(b) and most 457 plans is increased from $16,500 to $17,000.
  2. The catch-up contribution limit for those aged 50 and over remains unchanged at $5,500.
  3. Effective January 1, 2012, the limitation on the annual benefit under a defined benefit plan under section 415(b)(1)(A) is increased to $200,000.
  4. The limitation for defined contribution plans under Section 415(c)(1)(A) is increased to $50,000.
  5. The annual compensation limit under Sections 401(a)(17), 404(l), 408(k)(3)(C), and 408(k)(6)(D)(ii) is increased to $250,000.
  6. The dollar limitation under Section 416(i)(1)(A)(i) concerning the definition of key employee in a top-heavy plan is increased to $165,000.
  7. The limitation used in the definition of highly compensated employee under Section 414(q)(1)(B) is increased to $115,000.

Most plan service providers will be ready for these changes, but plan sponsors should make themselves aware of these limits.  Also, since we are coming up on another plan year, now is a good time to look at your retirement plan documentation and make sure you have all of your required content, notices and statements.  Get with your benefits counsel and make sure your plans are all up to speed.

COBRA and Gross Misconduct: Give them Notice of Something

It is pretty clear that COBRA is not available for employees that are terminated for gross misconduct.  In my May 13, 2008 post, I looked at what constitutes "gross misconduct."  So what kind of notice do we give to an employee and dependents if he termination is for gross misconduct?  Do we have to give them any notice at all?

That was the issue in Berry v. Frank's Auto Body Carstar, Inc., recently decided in the Southern District of Ohio.  The employee in this case was terminated after a fight with another employee.  The facts pretty clearly supported a finding that the termination was justified.  But the employee still brought an ERISA Section 510 claiming that the employer terminated him in retaliation for his son’s large health insurance claims.  The employee also sued for failure to provide COBRA notices and election forms to him and his family members.

First, the court decided there was no Section 510 violation because the violent altercation was a legitimate and nondiscriminatory reason to discharge the employee.  There was no evidence that it was a pretext for retaliation based on his son’s significant medical claims.  After that, the Court looked at the "gross misconduct" component and clarified that this type of termination is not a "qualifying event" for the purposes of COBRA notice and election.  The Court went on to clarify that when an employee is terminated for gross misconduct, the plan is not required to provide the terminated employee and his family a COBRA election.  In effect, because there was no qualifying event, there is no requirement to provide a notice or election form.

Unfortunately, the Court did not get into what type of notification does have to be issued.  Even though there is no qualifying event, there is still some obligation by the plan to provide notice that there would be no COBRA coverage.  Ultimately, the determination that a qualifying event did not occur creates an issue that can be appealed, so the employee and his dependents had to at least be given some measure of notice that they have appeal rights.  According to the DOL, the Notice of Unavailability of COBRA Coverage" comes into play when group health plans deny a request for continuation coverage or for an extension of continuation coverage, or when the plan determines the requester is not entitled to receive it.  When a group health plan makes the decision to deny a request for continuation coverage from an individual, the plan must give the individual a notice of unavailability of continuation coverage.  The notice must be provided within 14 days after the request is received, and the notice must explain the reason for denying the request.

So if you are planning to deny coverage because of gross misconduct, you still have to provide a notice.  It should probably be provided within 14 days of the termination or at least 14 days from the date the employee asks for COBRA continuation information.  And it has to provide for an appeal right.  You may still be right about denying continuation coverage, but make sure you don't do so in a way that potentially creates some other cause of action (like failure to provide notice).  If you have questions about what to send and when, you can always contact your attorney at Fox Rothschild.

Beware of Being Overly Generous with Health Benefits: The Stop-Loss Conundrum

Often times, administrators of self-insured plans make decision based on particular circumstances.  "When in doubt, err on the side of helping out the covered participant."  But doing so can create other problems for the plan.  Consider the decision in Clarcor, Inc. v. Madison Nat. Life Ins. Co., recently decided in the District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee.

This is a fight between the employer-sponsor of a medical plan and its stop-loss carrier about significant medical expenses incurred by an employee on short-term disability leave.  The employee in question had originally left full-time employment to go on FMLA leave but when she did not return from that leave, the employer-sponsor decided to place her on short-term disability leave and gave her an additional 6 months of coverage under the plan.  She was not offered COBRA until after the 6-month leave expired.  The stop-loss carrier refused to reimburse the expenses incurred during the disability leave, arguing that the employee’s move to short-term disability, without electing COBRA, made her ineligible under the terms of the plan.  The court, noting that the employer continued to ignore the plain language of the plan—under which coverage ended when the FMLA leave ended— concluded that the termination of FMLA leave was the COBRA qualifying event and therefore the employer’s much-later offer of COBRA was not timely and claims should not have been covered by the plan and were thus not eligible for stop-loss reimbursement.

Undoubtedly, the employer did what they did to help out the employee.  But in doing so, ignored the actual terms of its plan.  In the end, the plan paid the benefits and could not be reimbursed from the stop-loss coverage.  So plan administrators should be careful about making decisions to "help people out."  Making a benefits determination that exceeds plan terms, or ignores plan terms, can potentially subject a plan sponsors to claims that it is administering the plan in a discriminatory manner.  It can also give rise to claims that the plan is being administered contrary to its terms, which is itself a potential breach of fiduciary duty.

But in this instance, it result in the plan sponsor being shut out of stop-loss reimbursement.  Stop loss carriers will not reimburse plans for claims it covers that it should not have been covered under the plan terms.  So when considering whether to be "generous" with plan interpretations (like expanding eligibility to someone who is not otherwise eligible) consider the potential repercussions.  Plan sponsors and plan administrators are cautioned to stick to plan terms and not look for ways to bend the rules to help participants out.  The results can be very costly.  For assistance in interpreting plan rules in special situations, and for avoiding potential pitfalls, don't hesitate to contact your attorneys at Fox Rothschild.

Not All Medical Expenses Are Eligible for Reimbursement

If you have an FSA (flexible spending account) or an MRA (medical reimbursement account), remember that not every expense is eligible for reimbursement.  The IRS reminded us of this in two recent "information letters" specifically addressing medical care expenses and reminding plan sponsors that they are not required to pay or reimburse every item or service that qualifies as a medical care expense, and can limit payment or reimbursement to only certain expenses.

IRS Letter 2011-0055 considers a question from a health FSA participant who sought to have hearing aid expenses reimbursed through the FSA.  The provides that while these expenses do qualify qualify as medical care, whether they will be reimbursed depends on the actual rules of the FSA itself.  The letter also notes that the health FSA’s plan documents should identify the expenses that the plan will reimburse and can actually limit reimburseable expenses to those listed in the plan.  Moreover, the plan should also specify that any unreimbursed medical care expenses that otherwise qualify for deduction under Code Section 213(d) can be deducted on the individual’s federal income tax return (to the extent that they exceed 7.5% of adjusted gross income. 

IRS Letter 2011-0027 responds to an inquiry from a participant about whether an MRA could reimburse an annual “medical concierge” fee that provided better or faster access to medical services.  According to the IRS, the MRA administrator had decided that the fee was not reimbursable.  The IRS did not opine as to whether or not the fee would qualify as a medical care expense, but it did provide that that each plan can have its own rules as to which medical expenses it will reimburse and which are excluded from coverage.  In other words, the plan can specify those Code Section 213(d) expenses it will allow.  So just because the IRS says it may be allowed, a plan is not necessarily required to permit it.

Plan sponsors can decide to exclude certain expenses, whether or not they would otherwise constitute medical care expenses under Code § 213(d).  This might be because the plan sponsors thinks they are too difficult to verify or are administratively difficult to reimburse (say because of difficulty in actually substantiating the charges).  But ultimately it is up to the plan sponsor to decide.  Then make sure the plans are administered in accordance with those limitations.  So just because the IRS says it is an eligible medical expense does not mean a plan has to reimburse for it.  Remember, the plan always follows its own terms.  Just make sure you know what they are.

The DOL and The Video Age: What's Available Online

Believe it or not, the DOL publishes videos.  I know, that may not sound exciting, but the DOL actually has made short videos with catchy titles like:

"Know Your Health Benefit Rights" (a video about basic health benefit right)
"Saving Matters" (a video about the importance of retirement savings)
"Protecting Your Employee Benefits" (a slide show for dislocated workers)
"Retirement Plan Options for Small Businesses" (a video about retirement plan options)
"Choosing a Retirement Solution for Your Small Business" (a video designed to help choose retirement plan options)

Most are offered in Spanish and English.  The video page can be accessed here.

As I have discussed in the past, communication is very important for plan sponsors.  But not just your communications.  You also have to know what other communications might be available to assist you in explaining your plans and your plan obligations.  So take a few minutes and see what the DOL has available on-line for not only your own education, but also to possibly assist in educating your plan participants.  And if the videos raise any questions about your current plan administration, you can always ask your attorney at Fox Rothschild for more clarification.

Notices, Notices and More Notices: A Brief Refresher on Required Disclosures

Do you know how many disclosure requirements there are for benefit plans?  If you are a plan sponsor, you probably should and then how often they have to be made.  In an effort to compile everything in one list, I decided to just lay them all out as provided in the Reporting and Disclosure Guide for Employee Benefit Plans published by the DOL.  Admittedly, this is their 2008 so there needs to be some updating for PPACA, but let's hit the basics.  These are documents, disclosures or notices that the EBSA and the DOL anticipate are part of your benefit plan administration:

All plans (retirement or welfare plans):

  1. Summary Plan description
  2. Summary of Material Modifications
  3. Summary Annual Report
  4. Plan Documents
  5. Summary of Material Reduction in Covered Services or Benefits

Specific to Health Plans:

  1. Explanation of Benefits
  2. COBRA Notices
  3. Certificate of Creditable Coverage
  4. General Notice of Preexisting Condition Exclusion
  5. Individual Notice of Period of Preexisting Condition Exclusion
  6. Notice of Special Enrollment Rights
  7. Wellness Program Disclosures
  8. Women's Health and Cancer Rights Notices
  9. Medical Child Support Order Notice
  10. National Medical Support Notice
  11. Medicare Part D Notice of Creditable or Non-Creditable Coverage
  12. HIPAA Notice of Privacy Practices
  13. Notice Regarding Grandfathered Plan Status
  14. Children's Health Insurance Program Re-authorization Act

Note: you should also review the EBSA's Compliance Assistance Guide: Health Benefits Coverage Under Federal Law.

Whew.  But what about those specific to retirement plans:

  1. Periodic Benefit Statements
  2. Statements of Accrued and Nonforfeitable Benefits
  3. Suspension of Benefits Notice
  4. Domestic Relations Order Notice
  5. Annual Funding Notices
  6. Qualified Default Investment Notice
  7. Automatic Contribution Arrangement Notice
  8. And of course, we are on the cusp of fee disclosure requirements so those have to be considered as well.

Now not every plan will have every notice or disclosure as some may not be applicable to your specific plan.  But as a plan sponsor, an employer should be aware of what notices and disclosures are required, and more importantly, when the notices must be distributed.  Some have an annual distribution requirement, some may have more frequent distribution requirements and some might only have to be given out at the time of enrollment.

My point is that a conscientious plan sponsor wants to satisfy these disclosure obligations and remain in compliance.  So learn what they are, when they are due and whether they apply to your plan.  And if you have questions about whether they apply to your plan, when they have to be given out or what they should contain, you can always rely on your attorney at Fox Rothschild for assistance.

Do You Know What You Are? ERISA Titles Matter

The questions may sound like the title to a Dr. Seuss book, but it really has great bearing on how to you are treated under ERISA. Knowing your title also creates clarification as to what your duties are, and what they are not.

Take the term “plan administrator.” The plan administrator is the person responsible for managing the day-to-day operations of the plan. The plan administrator is designated in the plan the plan documentation as administrator. If no one is otherwise designated, the plan administrator is the plan sponsor (unusually the employer). This was relevant in a recent decision finding that an plan sponsor (employer) was not liable for the failure to send a COBRA notice because COBRA requires the plan administrator to send notices, and the plan designated an insurance company as the plan administrator. So if the duty is on the plan administrator, then you need to know if you are a plan administrator.

But plan administrator may not be the same as “claims administrator.” This would be an entity that processes claims, but may not necessarily administer the plan. So designating a claims administrator would not be enough to name someone other than the employer as the plan administrator.

Similarly, “plan sponsor” is just that, the entity that sponsors the plan. This could be the employer or an organization or a group of employers. But status as a plan sponsor or status as a “fiduciary” can be different. Particularly when evaluating the difference between decisions that implicate settler functions (such as the decision to terminate a benefit plan) and those that implicate plan administration functions (such as the obligation to provide appropriate notice about the termination of a plan). Of course, “fiduciary” has its own distinction. A fiduciary in ERISA terms is someone designated s such by the plan, or someone who exercises “discretionary authority” over the administration of the plan. Fiduciaries have specific responsibilities to the plan beneficiaries and can be sued for “breach of fiduciary duty.”

The point of this post is not to answer definitively what you are, but to make sure you know to ask what you are. The point is what you are matters. If you are an employer with a benefit plan, you are one and may be all of the above. What you are defines your risks and responsibilities. So if you have questions about what you are, ask your attorney at Fox Rothschild.

Variety is the Spice of Life, at Least to Avoid Fiduciary Breach Claims

Are your 401(k) fees too high?  Are you breaching your fiduciary duty?  No question that this "fee" issue is becoming an increasingly hot topic, so let's take a look at the Third Circuit's decision in Renfro v. Unisys Corp. that came out last week.

Originally, this action was brought as a breach of fiduciary duty claim where the participants alleged that the fiduciaries had “inadequately selected" the mix and range of plan investment options.  The claim was that the plan might have had the opportunity to offer cheaper options.  Factually, the plan’s investment options consisted of 73 funds, 67 of which were retail mutual funds managed by the plan’s service provider and added as part of a bundled service agreement with the provider.  The participants claimed that the fees on the provider’s mutual funds were excessive when compared to the services they provided, other mutual funds, and other types of investment options that could have been included.  The trial court dismissed the case based on its finding that the plan’s “sufficient mix of investments” did not support a fiduciary breach claim and the Third Circuit affirmed.  In sum, just because other cheaper options may have been out there, at least a variety of options was offered and that was sufficient.

To reach their conclusion, the 3rd Circuit looked to decisions  in the 7th Circuit and the 8th Circuit and determined that the analysis hinges on the the characteristics of the mix and range of the investment options offered.  So the determining factor was the reasonableness of the options offered in the aggregate.  For example, the 7th Circuit concluded that a set of options that 23 retail mutual funds and a brokerage option with access to over 2,500 funds satisfied the fiduciary obligation.  The 8th Circuit determined that a narrower range of options in a plan that offered only 13 investment options, 10 of which were retail mutual funds, was not acceptable and upheld a claim for breach of fiduciary duty.  So the 3rd Circuit decided that because the menu of options available had a “variety of risk and fee profiles, including low-risk and low-fee options,” the breadth of the options weighed in favor of a dismissal of a claim for breach of fiduciary duty.

This is not to say that more investment options will always be better.  The court seemed particularly focused more on the range and mix.  Certainly a variety of options, both in terms of investment strategy and fees, was a key component.  For example, offering 3 large-cap stock funds may not be enough if all three have the same fee component.  Plan sponsors would do well to consider offering a mix of fee options.  To do that, plan sponsors have to make themselves aware of the fees charged.  Which brings us back to the whole debate about reporting.  Participants not only need to know the risk and have various options to control that risk, but they also have to have variety of fee options (and be told which investments cost less).

Earthquakes, Hurricanes and Floods = Hardship Distributions?

In case you missed it, the East Coast has had an odd month or so, what with an earthquake, a hurricane and flooding.  It struck me that in trying to find money to pay for the repairs and clean up, some folks might look to their retirement plan savings as a resource.  So let's take a look at "hardship distributions."

The IRS has a very good FAQ for Hardship Distributions, but here are some of the basics:

  1. A retirement plan may, but is not required to permit hardship distributions.  So there are no distributions unless the plan permits them.
  2. The plan has to set a specific criteria for distributions and making a determination of a hardship.  There has to be a set way to apply for and get approval for the distribution and the rules of the plan have to be satisfied.
  3. The IRS generally defines a hardship as "an immediate and heavy financial need" and the most common examples are medical expenses, purchase of a principle residence, tuition, funeral expenses AND "certain expenses for the repair or damage of the employee's principle residence."
  4. Employees must have all other available distributions and loans from the plan prior to receiving the hardship distribution.
  5. Employees cannot make elective deferrals to the plan for 6 months after receipt of a hardship distribution.
  6. Hardship distributions are generally limited to the amount of the employee's total elective contributions (less any previous withdrawals).
  7. Hardship distributions are generally includable in gross income and may be subject to taxation as an early distribution of elective deferrals.

So generally speaking, hardship distributions may be available to an employee to cover the costs of repair or recovery from a natural disaster, provided the plan permits it and they have no other available financial options.  It is not designed to be the first source of money.  Instead, it should be the option of last resort.  Bear in mind, there can be negative tax implications from the distribution.

Finally, there is something called a "qualified hurricane distribution" that provides for special relief for victims of hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma.  This relief is not presently available for victims of hurricane Irene but it may become available in the future.  For now, there is no qualified hurricane distribution available for victims of Irene.

So to conclude, victims of natural disasters may be able to obtain distributions, but likely as a last resort, and certainly not without some negative implications.  For more information about amending your plan to include for these distributions, or for assistance in administering these distributions, please contact your attorney at Fox Rothschild.

What to Expect When You Are Expecting (An EBSA Audit, that is)

Whether being subject to an involuntary EBSA Audit, or undertaking a voluntary correction program (VCP), there are certain things a plan sponsor should be looking for (and looking out for) if they are going to have the EBSA nosing around their plans.  The EBSA recently held an online seminar about things to anticipate in an EBSA investigation and here are some things I think are important to remember.

The general emphasis in an EBSA review falls into one of 6 categories: review of plan assets, reporting and disclosure, bonding, general plan operations, compliance with plan documents and remittance of employee contributions.  The objective is to make sure that the plan is being operated in accordance with statutory guidelines.  These six areas of focus are what the statutes generally require.

So what are the looking for?  Well, they will certainly check to see if reporting requirements are satisfied, whether required disclosures have been made and whether the fiduciaries are properly bonded.  They will also look at the transactions undertaken by the plan to see if there are any prohibited transaction or a failure to diversify plan investments.  If the plan requires employee contributions, they will want to confirm that these contributions are remitted in a timely manner. 

They will do this by reviewing the plan documentation.  So the will want to see a plan document or trust agreement, the form 5500s for the past few years and the summary plan description.  They will also want to see the summary annual report for the plan, copies of the bond and fiduciary insurance policies, provider services contracts and asset statements.  You should also be ready to produce benefit statements and payroll/contribution records.  If there are meeting minutes or formal resolutions related to plan administration, those will have to be produced as well.

So knowing what they will be looking for and what they want to see, plan sponsors should take this opportunity to (1) make sure they have the information that would be requested and (2) consider undertaking their own internal review to see if corrections should be made.  The VCP process is designed to permit plan sponsors to fix things on their own without a full blown audit (and it is better to self-police then to get caught late in an audit).  A diligent plan sponsor might take this opportunity to look at what would be looked at if there was an audit and see if there are some things that can be fixed.  For assistance in the review or the fixing, be sure to contact your attorney at Fox Rothschild.

New Rules for Uniform Communications: More Health Care Reform Compliance

Get ready for new required required notices and definitions!  Be prepared to update your communications to plan participants!  Wednesday, the departments of Labor, Health and Human Services (together with the Treasury) gave us the new proposed rules for the "uniform summary of coverage" that is required under PPACA.  Health insurers and group health plans have to provide consumers with clear, consistent and comparable information about their health plan benefits and coverage starting in 2012.

All health plans and issuers would provide a summary of benefits and coverage, along with a uniform glossary of terms, to employees before enrollment.  Health plans and issuers must also provide notice at least 60 days before any significant modification is made in the plan or coverage during the plan or policy year.  You could insert a lot of fancy discussion here about what the purpose of the provision is but, in short, it is simply a dumbing down of the summary of benefits coverage into some simple standard boxes for comparison shopping.  If the exchanges ever actually come into existence, this would allow an employee to compare employer sponsored coverage against other market-available options.

For more details about the proposed regulations, check out the Model Summary of Coverage, the Fact Sheet requesting public comment and, of course, the proposed regulations.  As these are merely proposed, there is nothing final and employers do not have to immediately act, nor can then act until the proposed uniform definitions are drafted.  But employers and plan sponsors should keep this information handy as a reference point for developing a long-term compliance strategy. 

Health Care Reform: Constitutional or Not?

There now appears to be some real conflict over the constitutionality of health care reform.  On Friday, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found that the part of the law that requires individuals to obtain health insurance was unconstitutional.  But the rest of the statute was upheld.  This ruling seems to directly conflict with a ruling from the Sixth Circuit (the only other circuit to have ruled on the law to date) which found the individual mandate constitutional. 

These decisions presumably create a sufficient conflict  between the circuits to get the law before the United States Supreme Court for review.  When and how that might happen is subject to debate as there may be other procedural hurdles that have to be crossed before its gets to the high court.  But the fact that two circuits have ruled, and ruled before the end of the first year of implementation, has some pundits suggesting a final decision could some in 2012.  Stay tuned!

COBRA Subsidies Finally at an End?

Remember those pesky COBRA subsidies?  The federal COBRA subsidy, originally introduced in March of 2009, provided that 65% of the cost of COBRA health insurance premiums would be covered by the employer for up to 15 months.  To be subsidy eligible, recipients must have originally become eligible for COBRA as the result of an involuntary termination of employment occurring between September 2008 and May 2010.

Well, it is possible that they are coming to an end.  The last group eligible recipients (those who began receiving assistance in May 2010) would cease to be subsidy eligible as of August 31, 2011.  That means that if you still have former employees receiving subsidies for COBRA coverage, that should end as of next month.  Also, there is presently no action from Congress pending to extend the subsidy further.

Although there is no specific notice requirement, we recommend that if you have COBRA participants that are still receiving the subsidy, you provide them with some notice that their subsidy eligibility is coming to an end.  Consider a simple notice that the subsidy period has expired and that they are now responsible for 100% of the COBRA premiums if they want to continue coverage.

Health Care Reform and Preventative Care: Pay Attention!

Health care reform includes a provision for first dollar coverage for preventative care.  On August 3, the EBSA release some Interim Rules on coverage for preventative care and left them open for comment before they become final.  There are provisions for immunizations, child care and preventative screenings for women to be developed by the Health Resources and Services Administration.

Coincidentally, on August 1, 2011, the Department of Health and Human Services issued  that one of its agencies, the HRSA, will be adopting guidelines that will apply to non-grandfathered plans as of the first plan year starting on or after August 1, 2012.  So if your plan operates on a calendar year, the guidelines would apply on January 1, 2013.

Under the new guidelines, 8 categories of services and supplies are listed as "preventative" that must be given the 100% coverage:

  1. Contraceptive methods and counseling (with a narrow exception for religious institutions);
  2. Well-woman visits;
  3. Screening for gestational diabetes;
  4. Human papillomavirus testing;
  5. Counseling for sexually transmitted infections;
  6. Counseling and screening for human immune-deficiency virus;
  7. Breastfeeding support, supplies (such as breast pump rental), and counseling; and
  8. Screening and counseling for interpersonal and domestic violence.
  9. Medical management still permissible.

You can check out  the HRSA website for more details.

This is not to suggest that something has to be done immediately.  But plan sponsors who are designing plans and looking at long-term implementation should be clearly aware of the expansion of not just these services, but the likelihood of further definitions of "preventative care" being provided.  So it is important to make sure you keep up to date on the various definitions and requirements of full compliance.

FASB Nixes Unfunded Liability Reporting Requirement

Good news for employers in union defined benefit plans!  The Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) had proposed a rule that would require companies to report to disclose potential withdrawal liability for multiemployer defined benefit pension in which they participated which would have put the pension fund's unfunded liability on the employers' books.  However, on July 27, FASB notified Congress that it has withdrawn this proposal.   

Instead, FASB has now approved a revised accounting standard with disclosures intended to provide more information about an employer’s financial obligations to multiemployer pension plans, including:

  1. The amount of employer contributions made to each significant plan and to all plans in the aggregate.
  2. Whether the employer’s contributions represent more than five percent of total contributions to the plan.
  3. Which plans the employer is in that are subject to a funding improvement plan.
  4. The expiration dates of collective bargaining agreements and any minimum funding arrangements.
  5. The most recent certified funded status of the plan ( the “zone status”) to which the employer makes contributions.  If the zone status is not available, an employer will be required to disclose whether the plan is: (a) Less than 65 percent funded, (b) between 65 percent and 80 percent funded or (c) greater than 80 percent funded. 
  6. A description of the nature and effect of any changes affecting comparability for each period in which a statement of income is presented.

For public entities, the effective date of the new requirements will be for fiscal years ending after December 15, 2011, while for non-public entities, the disclosures will be required in fiscal years ending after December 15, 2012.

If your company participates in a multiemployer plan and you need assistance in obtaining the information or interpreting the information, please contact your attorney at Fox Rothschild.

New York's New Hire Reporting Requirement is in Effect

If you have employees in New York, you have a new reporting requirements.  That is because that as of July 15, New York has implemented a reporting requirements to provide that any employer with employees working in New York (not just New York domiciled companies) must report certain dependent health coverage information to the state on a quarterly basis, as well as when an employee is hired or rehired.  

The requirement works as follows:

  1. Employers must report the employee’s name, address, social security number, the availability of dependent health insurance, and the date the employee is eligible for the dependent health insurance.
  2. Employers must report this information within 20 calendar days after the employee’s hire date, which is the first date worked.
  3. The report is made using the on-line system, Form IT-2104 or Form IT-2104-E, or you may substitute listings or other written formats provided all the required information is included.  The report is made at www.nynewhire.com (which requires registration by the employer).

Note: If you are a multi-state employer that has designated one state for your new hire reporting, you may continue to follow this practice, so long as you include the required information for New York employees. 

If course there is a penalty provision for filing to report, which is up to $20 per employee for whom you failed to report or reported inaccurately.

Then, you have to report quarterly on your population as well.  As part of your quarterly filing of Form NYS-45, you must now disclose whether you made dependent health insurance coverage available to employee through your employer-sponsored health plan.  The form will be updated and made available for the third quarter of 2011 to reflect this new requirement. 

While this seem to only be relevant to people with employees in New York, I also think it should serve as a reminder to other employers in other states to check to see what benefits reporting requirements may have been implemented as states react to health care reform.  While this NY requirement was not made as a specific reaction to health care reform, it does start the process for governmental agencies to be able to track who has coverage, who is providing it and who might later but subject to penalties.

DOL Extends Deadline for Fee Disclosures

Are you getting prepared for the required fee disclosures?  The good news is that the DOL issued the final rule on the extension of the 408(b)(2) and participant-level disclosures applicability dates and extended it until April 1, 2012.  Final regulations are due by the end of the year.  Plans will have to make participant-level disclosures within 60-days after the effective date.

If you have not made yourself familiar with the fee disclosure rules under 408(b)(2), I suggest you take a look at two documents.  The first is the ESBA Final Rules (published in July of 2010).  The second is an Interim Fact Sheet that the DOL published as well.  What is key to remember is that there are several ongoing fee disclosure requirements for plan sponsors.  There are Disclosure of Services and Compensation requirements that service providers have to furnish to fiduciaries, and then there are also ongoing fiduciary obligations to report those fee disclosures back to participants. 

So whether you are a plan sponsor or a plan service provider, get to know these new requirements.  We have some time to prepare.

Is There No Limit to Who Can Be Sued Under ERISA?

Service providers beware!  A recent ruling in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals seems to suggest that anyone who participates in the administration of a benefit plan is a potential defendant under ERISA. 

Generally, we look at claims brought by participants under ERISA Section 502 as limiting of who may bring a suit, and ERISA clearly provides that fiduciaries (including plan administrators) are certainly potential defendants in actions brought under that section.  However, in the recent case of Cyr v. Reliance Standard Life Insurance (9th Cir. 6/22/11), the Court found that Section 502 does not appear to limit which parties may be defendants in a civil action brought under that provision. 

Cyr sued the plan administrator, but also sued Reliance as the actual insurer of the benefits in question.  Reliance was not the administrator but did control approval or denial of the insured disability benefits.  The court reasoned that, based on the holding in Harris Trust v, Smith Barney, there is really not set restriction in Section 502 about who can be sued, so there is no reason to read in such a limitation.  Reliance was a "logical defendant" because it was the ultimate payer and effectively controlled the plan, even though it was not the designated plan administrator. 

So where does this leave us?  Well, companies that participate in the process of providing plan benefits, though not specifically designated as fiduciaries or administrators, are viable defendants if they have authority to accept or reject claims.  The extent of that authority may be subject to debate, but those would be issues raised against any potential defendant.  So be wary that just because you are not "named" as a fiduciary, if you exercise decision making power over claims, you could be a defendant in an ERISA litigation.

With Equality Comes Confusion: NY Passes Same-Sex Marriage Law

In case you missed it, last weekend, New York passed a law recognizing same-sex marriages.  For plan administrators, this change to "marriage" might cause some problems that have to be addressed. Not the least of which is preemption of federal law.  New York employers will eventually have to comply, but generally, all employers and plan sponsors should be aware of some of the confusing aspects of states recognizing same-sex couples.

First, let's review retirement plan concerns.  Qualified retirement plans are generally governed by ERISA and various corresponding tax regulations.  All of these regulations are subject to the impact of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which while currently not being "enforced," is still the law of the federal government.  The net effect is that when considering the term "spouse" in your qualified plans, it does count include a same-sex partner, married or otherwise.  So any provision in a plan that provide for benefit to a "spouse" would not apply to a same-sex spouse even when married under state law.  For example, consider a defined contribution benefit plan distribution (like a 401(k) plan) that requires spousal consent for distribution.  A partner in a same-sex marriage is not required to obtain spousal consent because in the eyes of the plan, he or she has no spouse.  Similarly, any spousal rights that may accrue as a result of the death of the participant under the terms of the plan would not accrue to the same-sex partner.

Second, when we look at welfare plans, all of the dependent coverage definitions in the plan referring to "spouse" would not automatically include the same-sex spouse.  Certainly a plan can add coverage for same-sex partners, but doing so does not grant them the federal protections of things like COBRA (which would not apply since the dependent would not be recognized as a spouse under federal law).  Cafeteria plans cannot provide benefits to same-sex partners, which means that employees cannot pay that portion of their health coverage attributable to same-sex partners with pre-tax dollars.  So plan administrators have to be prepared to exclude same-sex partners from cafeteria plan participation and make sure that same-sex partners' medical bills are not paid out of an FSA.

Also, because of the impact of the Defense of Marriage Act on federal tax laws, the employer paid cost of providing coverage for same sex partners who are not “dependents” under the Internal Revenue Code would be considered regular compensation and would be taxable as income.  Moreover, that portion of the premium that an employee pays that is attributable to the same-sex partners coverage would not be eligible for pre-tax treatment under a cafeteria plan.  This means that employers who have employees who take advantage of the new civil union will have to make sure the value of the partner’s benefit is properly treated for federal tax purposes.

Continue Reading...

Last Chance to Amend Cafeteria Plans: June 30 Fast Approaches

Don't forget to fix your cafeteria plan!  Remember that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act ("PPACA") enacted a provision that provided that FSAs (flexible spending accounts) and HRAs (health reimbursement accounts) have to stop paying or reimbursing amounts expended for over-the-counter medications effective January 1, 2011 (unless there is a valid prescription for it or if it is the purchase of certain specific items like insulin).  So if your plan provides for reimbursements for over-the-counters, you have to amend it to provide for these limitations.

Although these restrictions are already in effect, the IRS granted time to amend plan documents until June 30, 2011.  That is right around the corner.  The amendments can apply retroactively to expenses incurred on or after January 1, 2011, but your plan must have been administered in compliance with this restriction. 

If you have not adopted amendments, or you have not been operating in compliance, or you do not have plan documents for these plans, now would be a good time to remedy those shortfalls.  If you need guidance, your attorney at Fox Rothschild can assist.

To Fee or Not to Fee, That is the Question

Your participants want to sue you!  Yep, that's right.  Apparently there is a whole cottage industry springing up relating to participants suing for hidden fees.  I read 4 articles this morning by people postulating about how much fiduciary litigation there will be in the future over fees and costs passed on to plan participants.

What it caused me to question is how far will it go?  What about health plan administration fees and costs associated with maintaining your benefit plan?  Does the cost of plan administration weigh on the value of overall benefits provided to participants?  Should profit sharing plan sponsors eliminate loads on participants' accounts and bear the full weight of the plan themselves to maximize participant account balances?  What will the "reasonable person" standard under ERISA Section 404 look like in 5 years based on the answers to these questions?

I happened to be looking at a multiemployer health fund for a client where 60% of employer contributions were being used to pay plan administrative costs.  How do you think the participants will feel when that plan starts cutting benefits because it does not have sufficient income to cover claims?  They will want to know what the fiduciaries did to control administrative costs.  Or how about a single employer plan where participants want to know why the employer did not pay administrative fees out of company assets instead of the plan?  Why should my 401(k) balance be lower just because my employer was stingy?

Well, before we try to divine the ultimate decisions of the court, let's try something more practical.  I believe that a "reasonable person" starts by looking for potential problems, so let's check ourselves out first.  I think a good starting point is to make a little chart and list all of your employee benefit plans, list all the fees and costs associated with maintaining that plan annually and then list how they are paid.  Once you know how much and who pays, you can then start evaluating whether the fees are too high and whether you can take steps to minimize the impact on participants.

Of course you don't have to do it alone.  Your benefits professionals and your attorneys at Fox Rothschild are available to help evaluate whether or not your plan practices with respect to fees and costs make you a likely target for participant litigation. 

Don't Forget to Test Your Plans!

Failure alert!  Plan sponsors who forget to actually do discrimination testing run into all sorts of problems, including the possibility that their plan can be disqualified.  Employee health plans, like cafeteria plans and self-funded welfare benefit plans have to do annual discrimination testing to remain qualified.  Insured health plans will eventually be subject to discrimination testing, but they have a reprieve for now.  Size doesn't matter.

To pass the Section 105(h) nondiscrimination rules an employer must meet two separate tests:

  1. 1. The Benefits Test
  2. 2. The Eligibility Test

The benefits test measures whether the plan is "offered in a manner that is discriminatory on its face" and whether the plan is operated "in a discriminatory manner."  All benefits provided for highly compensated employees (HCEs) must be provided for all other participants” and that “all the benefits available for the dependents of HCEs must also be available on the same basis for dependents of all non-HCE participants.”  Required employee contributions must be the same for HCEs and non-HCEs for each benefit level and the same type of benefits that are available to HCEs must be available to non-HCEs.

The "discrimination in operation" occurs, for example, if a plan added a benefit for a particular treatment for one plan year during which an HCE received coverage for that treatment, then terminated the benefits as soon as the HCE no longer needed the treatment. 

Confused yet?  How about the eligibility test...

 An employer passes the eligibility test if it passes any one of the three applies:

  1. At least 70 percent of employees must benefit from the plan.
  2. If at least 70 percent of all non-excludable employees are eligible, the plan benefits at least 80 percent of the eligible employees.
  3. The plan benefits a nondiscriminatory classification of employees.  This test requires (1) eligibility based on a bona fide business classification, and (2) a sufficient ratio of benefiting non-HCEs to benefiting HCEs.

Plan sponsors who skip testing run into trouble because they can't report they are non-discriminatory.  Plan sponsors that test incorrectly might have a failing plan and not know it.  Then benefits become taxable as income.  But I am not writing this just to scare or confuse you.  I am letting you know that Fox Rothschild has the ability to do this testing for you.  If your outside administrator or service provider can't do the testing for you, please contact your attorney at Fox Rothschild and we can certainly help get you though it.

Fiduciaries and the Attorney-Client Privilege

Your communications with your attorney are not privileged.  Wow, that is a scary thought, isn't it? 

Courts have carved out a very broad exception to the attorney-client privilege in the context of fiduciary litigation.  When an attorney advises a fiduciary about the administration of a benefit plan, courts have found that the the attorney's client is actually the beneficiaries of the plan and not the fiduciary personally.   So courts have consistently held that the attorney-client privilege should not be used as a shield against the parties who the fiduciaries are obligated to serve.  Consequently, the 4th Circuit recently confirmed (in Solis v. Food Employers Labor Relations Ass'n) that the attorney-client privilege does not extend to communications between a plan fiduciary and legal counsel related to plan administration.

The fiduciary exception in ERISA litigation is not without limit.  The fiduciary exception applies only when the person receiving legal advice acted in a fiduciary capacity pursuant to ERISA at the time the communication was made.  So in general terms, the fiduciary exception should apply only if the legal advice at issue concerns the administration or interpretation of an employee benefit plan.  The exception should not apply, for instance, to communications concerning a decision to amend or terminate an employee benefit plan because these are settlor functions and an employer does not act as an ERISA fiduciary in these cases.  A plan sponsor owes no fiduciary duty to plan participants and beneficiaries when making a decision to amend or terminate an employee benefit plan.  The duty is owed once the decision is made and how the decision is implemented.

But how do you make those distinctions at litigation time?  Is the corporate counsel who also helps with the plan going to get caught up in the privilege issue?  Who can determine what communications are and are not related to administration as opposed to settlor functions?  What if your business attorney advises about 401(k) administration?  Can he still defend a claim for breach of fiduciary duty?

The answers to these questions can be complex the deeper you go, but a simple start would be to consider having separate employee benefits counsel, someone who specifically limits representation to the benefit plan issues and their administration.  Maybe it is from the same law firm, or from a different law firm, but you should be thinking about this issue BEFORE having to defend a claim.  If you have counsel that limits their advice to fiduciary matters, you can at least know that in a breach of fiduciary duty suit, their communications would not be privileged.  You can base your communications on that "known" factor.

So instead of wondering, why not consider designating a specific attorney as benefits counsel.  That way you can segregate their knowledge and their advice based on an expectation that those communications could be discovered.  I hate to say it, but the less they know about your other business operations, the less likely it is that what they do know could some day be at issues.  At least you would be in control of the information flow, and that ultimately can strengthen the privilege.

2012 Limits for HDHPs and HSAs

Lest we lose sight of upcoming changes attributable to the Affordable Case Act completely, let's recall  changes that were made to HSAs.  First, remember that after January 1, 2011, over-the-counter medications can only be reimbursed with a prescription.  Second, the penalty for non-qualified withdrawals was increased to 20% of the amount of the distribution.  

Now, there are some limit changes that have to be addressed in your 2012 plan documentation.  On May 16, the IRS issued Rev. Proc. 2011-32 that sets the following limits for HDHPs and HSAs for 2012:

  1. Maximum Annual Contribution to HSAs: $3,100 for single, $6,250 for family
  2. Minimum HDHP Deductible (no change): $1,200 for single, $2,400 for family
  3. Maximum HDHP Out-of-Pocket Expense: $6,050 for single, $12,100 for family

The first and third items represent slight increases over the 2011 figures.  So if you have an HDHP with an HSA, take a look at your plan documentation and prepare to make the appropriate changes.  And if you are thinking about adding an HDHP option for 2012, make sure to incorporate these limits accordingly.

 

No COBRA for Your FSA: Not So Fast!

When it comes to COBRA, we all understand it applies to the major medical health plan.  But frequently, plan sponsors overlook the impact of COBRA on flexible spending accounts.  Yes, COBRA does apply to FSAs so let's look at how.

In most cases, employers must offer COBRA of a flexible spending account.  The first thing to determine is whether your FSA plan is an "excepted" benefit.  If your FSA is an excepted benefit, it must offer a limited COBRA option.  The factors for determining whether your FSA is an excepted benefit are:

  1. The annual FSA election amount cannot exceed 2 times the amount contributed by the employee.  If the employer DOES NOT fund the FSA, this requirement is met.
  2. Was a health insurance plan was available to the FSA participant due to his/her employment? The answer here is likely yes if the employer has a medical plan and the FSA and medical plan have the same eligibility guidelines.
  3. The maximum COBRA premium equals or exceeds the maximum FSA benefit.   Before adding numbers, be aware that this requirement is met if the employee is the sole contributor to the FSA

So if you have determined that your FSA is an "excepted" benefit, what type of COBRA do you have to offer?  Well, first know that COBRA must only be offered if the account is underspent.  When the remaining FSA balance (annual election minus claims) is more than the required COBRA premiums, the account is underspent.  Second, COBRA is only offered for the remainder of plan year and not for a full 18 months (it's limited). 

But wait, how is the COBRA premium calculated?  The FSA COBRA premium is calculated based on the remaining FSA annual election.  For example, assume an individual has a $2,400 FSA annual election.  If the employee terminates effective on July 1, he or she would have already paid $1,200 into the FSA.  In order to access those funds after termination, the employee needs to continue to contribute to the FSA for the remaining election amount, which is $1,200.  But those contributions are on a post-tax basis.  So the COBRA premium would be $200 each month from July through December, plus a 2% administration fee (if the employer elects to charge it).

Now, let's assume the employee elected to put $2,400 in the FSA but had only spent $1,200 by his termination date on November 1st.  So they have put $2,000 in and now have $800 left.  The required COBRA premium for the remainder of the year is $408 ($200/month plus 2%).  The account is considered underspent, so the employee must be offered COBRA, but only for November and December.  If the employee had submitted claims for $1900 by their termination date, their remaining balance is $100, which is less than their required COBRA premium.  In this case, the account would be overspent and if the plan is excepted, no COBRA is required.

Note: If your plan is NOT an excepted benefit, you will need to offer COBRA regardless of whether the account is over or underspent AND the COBRA offering runs for the full 18 months.

Employees cannot access the FSA money once they are terminated (except for claims incurred prior to the termination date).  If the employee does not elect COBRA, then any balances are forfeited.

Why do I bring this up?  Because there is a misconception that FSA balances are forfeited at the time of termination of employment and not all sponsors are sending COBRA notices.  Yes there is a COBRA obligation and make sure you know what it might be, how it is calculated and send out the appropriate notices.  If you need help, contact your attorney at Fox Rothschild. 

An SPD is not the Plan: Why Amara v. Cigna is a Mixed Blessing

Since it is hot off the presses, I would be remiss in not at least commenting on the the Supreme Court's recent decision in Amara v. Cigna.  The Court declares quite plainly that plan summaries, like summary plan descriptions and summaries of modifications, are not the "plan" provisions that can be enforced under ERISA.  Instead, the formal plan document is what controls the benefits and courts cannot change the benefits provided by the plan.  Were it that simple, the Amara case would be a huge boon for every plan sponsor struggling with plan communications.

Factually, the case arose from Cigna's conversion of its pension plan into a case balance plan.  The participants sued, claiming that Cigna did not satisfy the ERISA disclosure requirements during the transition.  The District Court agreed and "reformed" the new plan, then ordered Cigna to pay benefits under the reformed plan.  The Second Circuit agreed but the Supreme Court did not.

First, the Supreme Court found that ERISA only grants the ability to enforce plan terms, not to change them.  So the District Court could not modify the terms of the plan.  Second, and something that can be seen as a boon to plan sponsors, administrators and fiduciaries, the Court found that claims for benefits under ERISA 502(a)(1)(B) cannot be based on wrong information in summary documents.  The claim for benefits can only be based on what the plan provides.  Third, the Court rejected the idea that it was enough to show "likely harm" to pursue a claim.  There has to be actual harm.  So plaintiffs have to show they actually suffered some loss.

But it is not all rosy.  The Court went on to find that "equitable remedies" under 502(a)(3) might include monetary damages.  Or it might include equitable estoppel.  Which means that while the District Court could not reform the plan, it might be able to find some other form of remedy to compensate the plaintiffs.  Just not plan benefits.  So while this case affirms that ERISA does not provide specific relief for misrepresentations, it does clear the way somewhat for courts to re-evaluate what equitable remedies might be in these situations.

So what does that mean for us?  Well, step one is to see what our plan document is.  If you have a "wrap document" where the SPD and plan document are rolled into one, this may have no bearing on you.  But if you have separate SPDs and plan documents, now would be a good time to review them to make sure they don't conflict.  More importantly, make sure your plan document actually provides the benefits you think it provides. 

Continue Reading...

Remember: Fiduciaries Can Be Sued For Misrepresentations

Plan administration is a tricky thing.  There is a long history of court cases arising from claims for misrepresentation, but ERISA has generally been found to protect simple state aw claims for negligent misrepresentation.  However, a misrepresentation can give rise to a claim for breach of fiduciary duty.

Take the case of Stark v. Mars, where the S.D. of Ohio recently ruled that a claim for breach of fiduciary duty for misrepresentation could proceed against the benefits committee.  Stark utilized the company website to confirm her retirement benefit of about $5,300 a month.  She also called a company employee and was again told that her monthly benefit would be $5,300.  After she made here election, she was informed that there was an error in the calculation and her true monthly benefit would be $2,300 a month and she had to pay back an overpayment of $15,000.  Naturally she brought a lawsuit.

The Court first found that the complaint failed to establish that the company was a fiduciary.  But it did find that the benefit committee was a fiduciary and was therefore subject to a claim for breach of fiduciary duty.  To the extent the committee was responsible for plan administration, including giving advice to participants about their benefits, that would be sufficient discretionary authority to sustain a claim for breach of fiduciary duty.  Since the case was only at the motion to dismiss stage, the Court did not rule on whether Stark would recover, only that she could proceed with her claim.

Now it is very likely that the members of the benefits committee individually did not have contact with Stark.  But they had a duty to make sure benefit information was communicated properly.  So I think this case serves as a reminder to fiduciaries that one of their duties is to ensure that the plan, service providers and other plan representatives communicate accurate information to participants.  Participants are allowed to rely on representations made by the plan.  If your communication are not accurate (such as miscalculated benefit statements, incorrect eligibility language or missing disclaimers on notices), the participant may not necessarily get the benefit from the plan.  But they can pursue a claim for breach of duty against the fiduciaries. 

So make sure you are providing accurate statements.  And make sure you have your benefits professionals review communications on a regular basis to confirm they are accurate and correct under the current state of the law.  It will go a long way toward avoid claims for breach of fiduciary duty based on misrepresentations. 

How to Tell When You Have A Good Retirement Plan

I read an article in US News and World Report that gives the 5 keys to telling whether or not you have a good 401(k) plan. Here is what they said are the 5 key characteristics:

  1. An active and engaged investment committee
  2. An investment process
  3. A menu of well-diversified investment options.
  4. Low expenses.
  5. Easily accessible investment advice.

I don't disagree with them on these items, but with all due respect and deference, I think they missed a couple of key components. So let's say for the sake of argument, here are a few more.

Good Documentation. No matter what your options are or what process you have, communication to participants is the key to a good benefit plan. Summary plan descriptions, summaries of material modification and annual reports are not just buzzwords pulled out of an ERISA dictionary. They are the links between the participants and the plan that describe how the plan works. Make sure your documentation is in order.

Good Service Providers. Not just knowledgeable, but also responsive. Sponsoring a plan means you might have questions. You might need to make changes. You have need for advice. A good 401(k) plan has good service providers that are ready and willing to help the sponsor with whatever issues arise.

Good Knowledge of the Participants. Ultimately the goal of the plan is to provide benefits to participants when they retire. But to do that, the sponsor has to know something about the population. There are lots of defined contribution benefit plans available and lost of "off the self" products. A plan sponsor should start by considering what type of plan might best suit his or her specific set of participants. Then design a plan around them. The most common complaint I hear about 401(k) plans is that employees don't participate enough. Well, maybe its not the employees, maybe its the plan. A good 401(k) plan fits the population.

Everyone want to say they have a good retirement plan. And plan sponsors want to be sure they offer a good retirement plan. So make sure you define "good" correctly. Consider these characteristics before creating a plan, or look at your current plan and see if you should change. And make sure you have good support, like you will get from your attorneys at Fox Rothschild.

Accidental Death Benefits Not Due For Drunk Driving

Plan administration can be tricky sometimes but it is good to see when a court upholds an administrators determination as "reasonable" when it also makes common sense.  Take the case of Redeaux v. Southern National Life Insurance Company, recently decided by the 5th Circuit.

In this case Redeaux was covered under a life insurance policy (the plan) issued by Southern National Life Insurance Company.  He died in an automobile accident in 2002.  His mother, the listed beneficiary, received the life insurance benefits, but the plan denied her claim for accidental death benefits.  It turns out that Mr. Redeaux died in a single-car accident and the death certificate showed that his BAC at the time of death was .21 (significantly over the .10 legal limit). 

Southern denied the claim for accidental death benefits based on a policy exclusion "for a loss which in any way results from . . . injury or death occurring as a result of the commission of a crime or the attempt to commit a crime."   After removal of the state court action to federal court, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of Redeaux, and Southern appealed.   According to the 5th Circuit, the only issue on appeal is whether Southern erred when it denied the claim on the basis of the policy exclusion. 

the 5th Circuit reviewed Southern's denial using a deferential standard of review because of language in the plan providing for the right to interpret plan provisions.  The question became whether the insured's death occurred as the result of committing a crime.  While the deceased was not charged with a crimes, driving a vehicle while intoxicated is a crime under state law.  The Court found that an actual criminal charge is not required to conclude that he was driving illegally.  As such, the Court concluded that Southern did not err in finding that the accidental death benefit was not payable from the plan because of the exclusion.   The 5th Circuit reversed the lower court's decision and rendered judgment in Southern's favor.

Aside from being appearing to be an extremely rational decision, this also serves a a reminder to plan administrators that language giving the right to interpret the plan provisions to the administrator is good because of the deferential standard.  Plus it reminds us that clearer language may be needed to further protect the plan.  Had Southern said excluded benefits for the commission of a crime "whether or not the insured is actually charged with a crime," that might have eliminated the need for the appeal.  So read language carefully and don't assume what you meant is what every court will read.

For assistance in reviewing your plan language to avoid ambiguities, please contact your attorney at Fox Rothschild.

Retirement Plan Fees and Investments: Your Participants Are Watching

On previous occasions I have referenced the fee disclosure rules for retirement plans with an emphasis on fee disclosures.  Today I discovered that the AARP has just introduced an on-line tool for calculating 401(k) fees.  This was done in conjunction with their release of a survey that had some interesting results:

  1. 62% of respondents were unaware of the fees they were paying in their 401(k) plan
  2. 81% of respondents said fees were very important or somewhat important to them
  3. 71% of respondents believed the paid no fees whatsoever
  4. 32% said they had no idea how fees impacted their retirement savings

As I read these figures, it leads me to believe that as a larger portion of the population gets closer to retirement, fees and efforts to reduce those fees by fiduciaries is becoming increasingly more important.

Then, I happened upon a class action case recently filed in US District Court in Washington that alleges that a pension plan fiduciary breached its fiduciary duty to the participants by over-investing in alternative, risky plan investments.  This allegedly caused the plan to become significantly underfunded, putting pension benefits at risk.  The claim is that the alternative investments were too complex to be given appropriate due diligence by the fiduciaries and that the fiduciaries may have put the company's own interest ahead of the participants.  This case was just filed so there is no ruling in it, but it does bring to bear the fact that participants are becoming more savvy about where their pensions are invested and what the risks and costs might be.

So a careful, prudent fiduciary has to be reminded to take steps to reduce costs, report adequately and follow a prudent investment policy.  Don't overlook the need for an investment policy statement and consider providing more information to participants about fees on their retirement accounts so that they themselves have options.  Make sure your communications are properly vetted by your benefits professionals before they go out, but definitely think about increasing communications.  Sometimes the best defense to a claim for breach of duty is showing in advance steps taken to satisfy that duty.

Do Your Qualified Beneficiary Forms Pass Muster?

Plan administrators are generally aware that qualified retirement plans (401(k) plans, profit sharing plans and pension plans) almost always provide a benefit payable to a beneficiary following the participant’s death.   Most plans provide for the participant to elect a primary and secondary.  Unfortunately, the rules relating to beneficiary designations for plans are often complicated and various state law concerns may jump into the mix.  Plan sponsors should review their designation forms to make sure they eliminate confusion about beneficiary designation and election and also make sure they comply with the current status of both federal and state law.

Question 1 should be whether spousal consent must be obtained for a participant to name a non-spouse beneficiary.  Without appropriate spousal consent, the election is likely going to be "defective" and the plan administrator will be stuck trying to determine the correct payee or risk possibly having to pay the benefit twice. 

Question 2 should focus on the state laws relating to community property.  Community property states provide that retirement accounts are part of communal assets that have to be distributed in a divorce or separation.  Those states may have specific requirements with respect to how those assets are treated.  While federal law may trump state law requirements, it is a good idea for administrators to know what state laws say with respect to the division of community property.

Question 3 relates to same-sex partnerships or civil union laws in particular states.  While federal law does not recognize same-sex marriages or civil unions, some states do and beneficiary designations have to be very carefully drafted to make sure they give appropriate options to participants who are in these types of unions.  As with question 1 and 2, federal law would seems to trump state law, but a plan administrator should not risk the possibility of fighting over distributions with a child, former spouse or same-sex partner when beneficiary designation forms are not clear or spousal waiver rules are not followed.

Take this hypothetical: A (employee) marries B (opposite sexes) and then A and B get divorced. They have children, C and D.  A then remarries E (same sex) in a state recognizing same-sex marriage.  When A passes away, B,C,D and E may all have a claim against the retirement plan account balance of A.

There have been many changes in federal and state law that could potentially impact a participant’s beneficiary designation form.  Beneficiary forms drafted even a few years ago may be outdated and not compliant with current law.   So now is a good time to inventory.  Make sure you have beneficiary designation forms for all participants.  Make sure your current forms are up to snuff.  And make sure to have participants execute new beneficiary designation forms if they want to make changes.  It's not enough to tell us that a spouse waives.  Get the waiver in writing.

If you have any questions about beneficiary designations or retirement plans in general, please contact your attorney at Fox Rothschild.

Free CLE on Withdrawal Liability

If you are interested in learning the basics about multiemployer withdrawal liability, how it is calculated, how it is triggered and how to possibly avoid it, please consider attending a free seminar we are conducting in our Roseland, New Jersey office on Thursday, May 19, 2011.  Unfortunately, it will not be broadcast outside of our Roseland Office, but we might take it on the road later if there is significant interest.  Also, you don't have to be an attorney to attend.  It is simply an opportunity to get some CLE credits if you need them, but non-attorneys who deal with multiemployer pension plans might find it useful.

Details:

Thursday, May 19, 2011
8 to 8:30 a.m. – Registration and breakfast
8:30 to 10:30 a.m. – Program

Fox Rothschild LLP
75 Eisenhower Parkway, Suite 200
Roseland, NJ 07068-1600
 

Join us as we provide a general overview of withdrawal liability and discuss how it is triggered, calculated and disputed. Our presenters will explain ERISA Sections 4201, 4203, 4204, 4219 and 4221 as they relate to employers contributing to multiemployer plans. We'll also provide an actuarial perspective on the computation of underfunding and demonstrate how unfunded liability is calculated to be assessed under ERISA Section 4219. Attendees will receive materials highlighting each code section and showing sample calculations to explain how unfunded liability is calibrated.

Presenters:
Victor P. Harte, EA, MAAA
Principal and Consulting Actuary
Milliman, Inc.

Keith R. McMurdy, Esq.
Partner
Fox Rothschild LLP
 

To Register, click this link.

1099 Requirements Repealed and so are Free Choice Vouchers

As previously noted, Congress passed legislation eliminating the Form 1099 requirements for spending over $600.  Yesterday, President Obama signed into law that legislation and removed the expanded Form 1099 reporting requirement that was part of health care reform.  Incidentally, the legislation also repeals an application of similar rules to landlords, enacted under an unrelated small business law.

But that is not all.  Some other changes were tucked into that legislation and while the details are not yet entirely clear, it also appears that the “Free Choice Voucher” component of PPACA was also eliminated.  Scheduled to take effect in 2014, the Free Choice Voucher system would have provided employers with the option to provide vouchers to employees whose household income is less than 400 percent of the poverty line and whose premium contributions to the employer-sponsored health plan are between 8 and 9.8 percent of household income.  The vouchers would then have been used by these employees to purchase health insurance though a state exchange as an alternative to the employer-sponsored plan.  The voucher would serve as an alternative to an employer paying a penalty if an employee opted out of employer sponsored coverage.

With respect to the voucher option, the major concern of labor unions and employer groups alike was that younger and healthier employees might prefer to buy lower cost, voucher-subsidized insurance from exchanges rather than participate in a more costly (meaning employee contributory) employer sponsored plan.  The effect of the opt-out would mean that there would be lower risk pools and consequently higher premiums for employer health plans.  So the vouchers were perceived as a bad thing when considering the overall cost of health care reform.  However, I thought they were a good thing for penalty avoidance.  We shall have to see how this debate plays out.

I admit that the 1099 mandate and the "Free Choice Voucher" may not seem like a big portion of health care reform, but I think it clearly indicates that the process is not over.  The rumblings are that the voucher option could be re-tooled and come back in another form, and there is also discussion about increasing employer penalties for not offering coverage.  So be aware that additional revisions are likely to come between now and 2014 and plan sponsors should be diligent about keeping up on changing regulation.

Withdrawal Liability: Asset Sales and Exemptions Reviewed

If you are in a multiemployer pension plan as a result of union participation, you should be aware by now of the concept of withdrawal liability.  Basically, withdrawal liability means that portion of unfunded vested liabilities that is allocated to an employer who ceases to have a contribution obligation to the multiemployer fund.  The allocation occurs at the time of the withdrawal.  However, there are certain exceptions to withdrawal liability and one of them is when there is a sale of assets and the buyer agrees to continue to participate in the pension fund in substantially the same way as the seller used to.  If you are not in a multiemployer pension fund, you might want to stop reading now. 

ERISA Section 4204 is called the "asset purchase exception" and it provides that there will not be withdrawal liability solely because of a sale of assets if the purchaser assumes the liabilities.  In a recent case, Central States, Southeast and Southwest Areas Pension Fund v. Georgia-Pacific (2011), the pension fund challenged the word "solely" to determine when in fact a withdrawal occurs.  Georgia Pacific sold its assets to a buyer who assumed the contribution obligation in 2004.  But prior to 2004, Georgia Pacific had gradually taken actions to decrease the numbers of employees in the pension fund without causing a partial withdrawal (which occur when the contribution obligation decreases but is not complete).  

The Fund said "hey, the withdrawal from the fund was not solely from the sale of assets, but occurred over time, so the asset purchase exception does not apply."  In other words, they contended that the word "solely" meant it could be the ONLY occurrence of withdrawal.  Since there had been prior actions that resulted in cessation of contributions, this was not the sole withdrawal.  Fortunately for employers, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed.  The Court said that while this was the first opinion that looked at this issue, it agreed with the arbitrator that the prior reductions should not be treated as a single transaction with the ultimate sale.  These separate reductions had their own potential consequences and could not be tied to the actual final withdrawal.

This decision is important for employers that are considering an asset purchase transaction and possible exemption.  What is says is that the transaction will be viewed as its own withdrawal event.  Prior steps taken to lower potential liability, like partial closing or reductions in force that do not trigger a partial withdrawal, do not cause the ultimate sale to fall outside of the 4204 exception.  So in essence, this affirms that it is you are contemplating a sale in the future, it's OK to act in the present to reduce potential future issues.  Knowing that these actions won't be held against you is a positive.

For questions about withdrawal liability, multiemployer pension funds or union plans in general, please contact your attorney at Fox Rothschild.

IRS Issues Guidance on Health Care Costs W-2 Reporting

After postponing the W-2 reporting requirement for the cost of health coverage until 2012, the IRS has now issued some explanations about how the reporting will be done.  IRS Notice 2011-28 contains guidance on W-2 reporting of the cost of health care coverage. 

Ok, some of the key components:

If your company issues fewer than 250 Forms W-2 for 2011, then in 2012 your company is relieved from tracking and reporting the value of group health care coverage on Forms W-2.

If you have to report (ie. you have more than 250 W-2s in 2011),

  1. The amount that must be reported is the “aggregate cost of applicable employer-sponsored coverage.”   “Applicable employer-sponsored coverage” is defined as coverage under any group health plan that would be excluded from an employee’s gross income under IRC Section 106, except for: (i) coverage for long-term care; (ii) coverage for on-site medical clinics; (iii) coverage under separate dental or vision insurance (unbundled from group health); or (iv) individual hospital indemnity or disease-specific coverage.
  2. The aggregate "cost of coverage" is the employer AND the employee portion, whether or not the employee paid for the coverage on pre-tax basis under a cafeteria plan.  This also includes the cost of coverage provided to over-age dependents even when the cost of this coverage is added to employees’ taxable wages.
  3. Amounts excluded from the aggregate cost of coverage include (a) contributions to an Archer MSA, (b) contributions to HSAs, and (c) salary reduction elections under a health flexible spending arrangement (“FSA”).  When a health FSA is offered under a Section 125 cafeteria plan, the amount the employer must include in the aggregate reportable cost of coverage on Form W-2 is the amount of the employee’s salary reduction for all qualified benefits (not just the health FSA), plus the amount of any employer flex credits or contributions that the employee elects to apply to the health FSA.
  4. An employer may choose from among several methods of calculating the reportable cost under a plan: (a) the COBRA premium cost to the employee; (b) the premiums charged for the employee’s coverage; or (c) a modified COBRA premium (where the employer subsidizes COBRA premiums or bases them on premiums calculated in a prior year. .

The notice also provides explanations about how to report heath care costs for employees who terminate mid year, COBRA reporting and, when an employee transitions employment in the course of a year, as well as dealing with plan year concerns and changes in costs mid-year.

Bear in mind that this is interim guidance and could be changed.  But it is a good idea to read this notice and be familiar with the proposed requirements to see how it might impact your company.

DOL Publishes Guide on Retirement Plan Fees and Expenses

Previously I have posted several comments relating to the proposed changes to 401(k) fees and expenses and regulations relating to reporting of those fees.  Fortunately, our friends at the Department of Labor have provided us with some "back to the basics" explanation of retirement plan fees and expenses, in a handy summary called "Understanding Retirement Plan Fees and Expenses."

If you have ever had questions about what terms like "loads," "commission", "annuity" and "redemption fees" mean but were embarrassed to ask, this booklet provides a good basic explanation of many of the words used in describing benefit plan costs.  It also serves as a gentle reminder to plan sponsors that they have to know these terms and be aware of how they impact plan administration.

Health Care Reform Update: DOL Extends Grace Period for Internal Claims and Appeals Requirements

As a component of health care reform (PPACA), rules were published on July 23, 2010, implementing new internal claims and appeals. The rules were to be effective for plan or policy years beginning on or after September 23, 2010.  These rules for internal claims provide for the following compliance requirements:

  1. The definition of an adverse benefit determination was broadened to include "rescission of coverage." 
  2. The time for a plan to respond to a claim involving urgent care is shortened from 72 hours to 24 hours.
  3. The plan must provide the claimant with any new or additional evidence "considered, relied upon, or generated by the plan in connection with the claim."  This must be provided free of charge and as soon as possible, with sufficient advance of the date on which the review of the claim is done to give the claimant a reasonable opportunity to respond.   Also, before the plan can issue an adverse benefit determination based on a review of new or additional rationale, the claimant must be provided with the rationale (also free of charge). 
  4. The plan must ensure that all claims and appeals are adjudicated in a manner, and with "independence and impartiality of the persons involved in the decision making."  Decisions regarding hiring, compensation, termination, promotion, or other similar matters with respect to any individuals, such as a claims adjudicator or medical expert, must not be made based upon the likelihood that the individual will support a denial of benefits.
  5. The plan must follow "culturally and linguistically appropriate" rules for communicating notices, and the notices must meet new content requirements, including date of service, name of the provider, the claim amount, the diagnosis, treatment and denial codes (with explanations of any codes used).  There must also be a description of the standard that was used in denying the claim. 
  6. For final internal adverse benefit determinations, the notice must include a discussion of the decision and a description of available appeals review processes, including information regarding how to initiate an appeal, and information regarding the availability of, and contact information for, any applicable office of health insurance consumer assistance or ombudsman established under health care reform to assist enrollees with the internal claims and appeals and external review processes. 
  7. If a plan fails to strictly adhere to all the requirements of the internal claims and appeals process, the participant will be deemed to have exhausted the appeals process and is permitted to initiate litigation.

In addition to these new requirements, the regulations implemented a new statutory requirement that a plan must provide continued coverage pending the outcome of an internal appeal.  If applicable, participant with urgent care claims or those undergoing ongoing courses of treatment may be allowed to proceed with expedited external review simultaneously with internal appeals process.

Whew!  Now, on August 23, 2010, DOL Technical Release 2010-01 promptly created an enforcement grace period on compliance with these rules until July 1, 2011.  Now, Technical Release 2011-01 extends and modifies the grace period until plan years beginning on or after July 1, 2011.  But it is not complete relief and has some staggered application dates.

Continue Reading...

Giving Back The Matching: Restoring 401(k) Matching

Last year at this time we were talking about amending 401(k) plans to eliminate matches and employer contributions.  Today, I happened upon an article that suggested that employers are reinstating employer matches.  If you are considering reinstating a 401(k) match (or any employer contribution), there are some things you should be aware of before you make that change.

1.  When should you do it?   Benefit plan administration is always cleaner if you make changes in advance of the plan year.  You have to let participants know of changes prior to the commencement of that plan year, so a decision to reinstate (or even add) matches has to be made and notices have to be issued prior to the change.

You can certainly make mid-year changes to a plan.  If you decide to reinstate a matching contribution mid-year, remember that you still have to do discrimination testing of both employee and matching contributions for the current plan year.  That means that you suspended contributions under a safe harbor 401(k) plan, you can’t resume a safe harbor matching contribution midyear.   You can resume safe harbor status by sending out a new safe harbor notice before the next plan year starts but you have to wait for the next plan year.. 

2.  How much will I match?  You have to be aware of what you previously had and how you ended or suspended.  Are you reinstating a suspended match or are you making a new set of rules altogether?  A lot depends on how you handled the suspension or elimination of the match requirement for prior years.  It is not as simple as simply deciding on a figure.

If you are not certain you want to commit to a set figure, you could adopt a discretionary matching provision, with or without a guaranteed minimum match, and determine the total match (if any) before the end of the plan year.   You could also restrict employer contributions to a profit sharing component.  But be cognizant of safe harbor restrictions and also Section 415 maximum contribution limits.

3. Who Will Be Eligible?  Whether reinstating a suspended employer contribution or adding a new one, discrimination concerns abound.  It is not uncommon for bargaining unit representatives to share a plan with non-union employees.  Check to see if the match is required (or even permitted) under any bargaining agreements.  Also, make sure that the employer contribution does not overly favor highly compensated employees because you will want to avoid discrimination issues.

Giving back the match (or any employer contribution) is not as simple as turning the switch back on.  In many respects, it's like adding an employer contribution for the first time.  So make sure to consult with your benefit plan professionals before taking this step.  It is a sign of good will to give back employer contributions as business improves.  But don't do it without first checking to make sure your are doing it correctly.  And of course, if you have questions you can ask your attorney at Fox Rothschild.

Will "Use-it-or-lose-it" Go Away? Maybe.

I start this entry by saying "THIS IS NOT LAW SO NOTHING HAS CHANGED."  Consider this a news item only.  But it should be of interest to anyone with a flexible spending account and should be placed on your radar to see what develops.

A bill has been introduced in the House of Representatives that would repeal the “use it or lose it” aspect of medical flexible spending accounts  (FSA).  Representatives Charles W. Boustany (R- Louisiana) and John Larson (D-Connecticut) have introduced the bill that would allow participants to cash out any remaining FSA balances at the end of the year, and those funds would be treated as normal, taxable wages.  It would not be carried over, but it could at least be cashed out and the balance would not be forfeited.   

This provision is presumably designed to prevent participants from losing the money that otherwise would be forfeited and it does correctly treat the return of the balance as taxable income.  However, it also overlooks the fact that forfeited account balances are often used to defray administrative expenses incurred by the plan and often offsets amounts paid to participants who withdraw more than they have put into the plan through deferrals when they terminate before the end of the plan year.  So while there is nothing that has to be done immediately, plan sponsors should put this on their radar to see if administrative changes should be made.

We will continue to track the bill for future developments. 

 

 

All Relationships Matter--DOL/EBSA Releases Advisory Opinion Clarifying "Prohibited Transaction" and "Party in Interest" Rules Pertaining to Brokers Providing Services

Dan Kuperstein, an attorney in our Roseland office, brought to my attention that the DOL/EBSA has released an Advisory Opinion clarifying “Prohibited Transaction” and “Party in Interest” rules pertaining to brokers providing services to ERISA plans.  This is important stuff for both brokers and plan sponsors to be aware of so I have included the full text of his summary below:

"On February 11, 2011, the Department of Labor, Employee Benefits Security Administration(“DOL”)released Advisory Opinion 2011-06A (“the Opinion”), which discusses and clarifies the “prohibited transaction” and “party in interest” rules pertaining to broker-dealers that provide services to ERISA plans. 

Under Sections 406, 404 and 3(14) of ERISA, relationships (and transactions) between a benefits plan and other parties become important, as they can lead to significant amounts of liability for those involved when a “prohibited transaction” occurs.  Generally, a prohibited transaction involves self-dealing or selfish interests of an individual or company with important responsibilities with respect to a benefits plan.  “Plan fiduciaries” and “parties in interest,” defined and discussed in these provisions, have heightened responsibilities with respect to plans.

At issue in the Opinion was whether service transactions between a group of brokers and certain employee benefit plans, for which an asset management firm acted as a plan fiduciary, violated ERISA’s prohibited transaction rules because of indirect ownership interests between the brokers and the asset management firm.   Although the Opinion concluded that the ownership interest was not sufficient to find that the brokers were parties in interest, significantly, the Opinion makes clear that general standards of fiduciary conduct under ERISA apply to any selection of a service provider by a plan fiduciary, i.e., even where a plan fiduciary is not dealing with “parties in interest” under ERISA § 3(14).  In the Opinion, the DOL says that whether a fiduciary has an interest in another party that may affect the fiduciary’s best judgment is an inherently factual question and one that requires consideration of all relevant facts and circumstances.  In other words, all relationships (and all the relevant facts) matter when it comes to the issue of whether a prohibited transaction has occurred, not just relationships with parties in interest. 

The Opinion also clarifies that Prohibited Transaction Exemption 84-14, Part I, providing an exemption from the prohibited transaction rules for plan asset transactions determined by independent qualified professional asset managers, provides an exemption only from violations of ERISA § 406(a) (pertaining to transactions between plans and parties in interest), and does not extend relief to transactions that violate ERISA § 406(b) (pertaining to transactions between plans and fiduciaries)."

I think that this opinion should serve as a reminder to plan sponsors and plan administrators that the selection of brokers (and other fund professionals) has to be carefully scrutinized, particularly if there is some other relationship between the parties.  The "relatedness" of the professional has to be a consideration and there has to be some consideration of whether the relationship gives rise to the color of a prohibited transaction.  Don't get caught with a fund professional that could give rise to a claim that the relationship fosters a "prohibited transaction."

If you have questions about prohibited transactions, or administration of your plan generally, please contact your attorney at Fox Rothschild. 

Counting COBRA; Look to Related Companies

Most employers are aware that COBRA exempts from its applicability employers with fewer than 20 employees.  But sometimes there can be more than one employing entity that is "related" and that related entity has to be considered when determining applicability of COBRA.  Take the case of Franco-Santos v. Goldstar Transport, Inc., decided last week.

The terminated employee claimed her employer failed to provide her with a COBRA election notice. The employer argued that it was not required to comply with COBRA because it fell within COBRA’s small employer exception because it had fewer than 20 employees.  The court ultimately ruled that the employer met COBRA’s small employer exception.   But in doing so, the Court considered the employees of a related company to determine whether the 20-employee figure was met. 

The court reminded the parties of the COBRA regulations, which states that an employer has normally employed fewer than 20 employees during a particular calendar year if it employed fewer than 20 employees on at least 50% of its work days that year.   There is also a mechanism for counting part-time employees as a fractional full-time employee.  The court also assumed that the two related companies must be combined as a single employer. The court then found that the number of employees, 19.4, was still below the 20 employees required to subject the plan to COBRA’s requirements.

It is important to note that the Court did not make any further comment on how the companies were related.  However, IRS regulations make it clear that when counting employees, you have to include all employees of all related employers under "common control."  So while this case resulted in a win for the employer, it should also serve as a reminder to smaller employers that just because you have 3 companies, all with fewer than 20 employees, you are not automatically exempt from COBRA.  You have to aggregate your employee count based on the rules of "common control."  If you have any questions about measuring the relatedness of business entities, or about COBRA compliance generally, please contact your attorney at Fox Rothschild.

Lactation Supplies Can Be Reimbursed from FSAs

You might recall that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act contained a provision that requires employers to provide a location for nursing employees to express milk.  For more information about compliance with that regulation, check out our FMLA blog on the topic.  I make reference to it here because in conjunction with that new requirements, the IRS has recently determined that breast pumps and supplies to assist in lactation constitute "medical care expenses" under Code Section 213(d).  This means that they are now reimbursable expenses for FSAs, HSAs and HRAs.

IRS Announcement 2011-14 reverses a 2009 letter ruling concluding that the costs of lactation supplies was not a "medical care expense."  Consequently, these expenses are now eligible for reimbursement.  Oddly, the announcement does not include an effective date, so it is not clear whether 2010 expenses could be submitted for treatment under that plan year.  But it does appear that going forward, nursing mother should be able to request reimbursement for those expenses.  So plan administrators should be prepared to process those requests and should consider amending or revising any plan documentation that specifically excludes these expenses from reimbursement.

Dependent Coverage Up to Age 26: Know Your States

I had the opportunity last week to speak to a number of employers in California and was surprised to learn that California has not adopted its own "age extension" coverage rules beyond age 23.  So extending health benefits coverage for dependents up to age 26 actually had some impact for those employers.  It also reminded me how important it is to be aware of the rules for every state in which you operate or provide benefits coverage.

A survey of the states where Fox Rothschild has offices paints a pretty broad picture.  New York, Pennsylvania and Florida have statutory provisions that can extend dependent coverage on partners' health plans until age 30.  New Jersey extends that coverage to age 31.  Nevada extends coverage to age 24.  Connecticut and Delaware do not have specific age extension statutes for coverage.  Generally these rules apply to insured coverage written in those states.  Some require residency in the state, while others don't.

So the health care reform "age-26" extension should serve as a reminder to employers that not only do they have to make sure their plans extend coverage up to age 26, but they should also double check to make sure they are in compliance with the rules of each state where they have employees.  Don't assume that every policy in every state is the same and be prepared to address state specific questions from employees when it comes to this issue. 

Above all, don't forget to rely on your plan professionals.  If you have questions about your insurance coverage and dependent coverage obligations, don;t hesitate to ask your attorney at Fox Rothschild.

Health Care Reform Seminar for Employers (with or without Unions)

Usually I hate advertising but since I am a speaker, I am sharing the following:

On March 2, 2011, from 8:30 to 10:00 we will be presenting a seminar called "The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act: Issues for the Union-Represented Employer" at our Roseland, New Jersey office.  The address is:

Fox Rothschild LLP
75 Eisenhower Parkway
Suite 200
Roseland, NJ 07068-1600

Join us for this pivotal seminar as we explore recent changes to health care reform, the possible impact of repeal and future treatment of benefits and special issues surrounding health care reform for employers with collective bargaining agreements now and in the years ahead as provisions of the Act go into effect.

You should also attend even if you don't have union employees or are not planning on being "unionized" because we will be looking specifically at recent and potential changes that can influence non-union employers as well.

To register, click on this Registration Link.  Attendance is free and I might even throw in breakfast. 

PPACA is Unconstitutional and 1099 Reporting May Go Away (a rough week for reform)

Last week was a particularly rough week for health care reform as PPACA took some serious hits. 

First, Judge Roger Vinson from the US District Court for the Northern District of Florida ruled that PPACA was unconstitutional as a whole.  The case was brought by 19 states claiming that the statute was unconstitutional.   Because the mandate requiring individuals to buy insurance would penalize individuals who choose not to, Judge Vinson reasoned that "[i]t would be a radical departure from existing case law to hold that Congress can regulate inactivity under the Commerce Clause" of the Constitution.  Moreover, Judge Vinson ruled that because the individual mandate is "inextricably bound" to the remainder of the Act, it cannot be severed from the rest of the law.  Thus, the judge's ruling strikes down the entire health care reform law.

This decision should not have an immediate impact on employers.  There is no restraining order or any restriction on the government continuing to implement the law.  Plus the decision is likely to be appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit.  This decision represents the fourth federal district court to rule on constitutionality of PPACA, and the split is even at 2 -2.

Then, the U.S. Senate, though refusing to repeal PPACA completely, did, by 81-17 vote, pass an amendment that would repeal the 1099 clause, which requires businesses to file a 1099 form with the IRS each time they spend more than $600 a year by purchasing products or services from any other business.   The reporting provision that was slated to go into effect in 2012 would have significantly expanded the 1099 reporting requirements and was generally seen as bad for businesses generally.  Although it has not been finalized as yet, it is expected that the amendment will pass both houses and be signed by the President without much delay.

So when dealing with PPACA, remember that when regulators actively make a change (like delaying the W-2 reporting requirement or eliminating the 1099), then PPACA obligations change with those regulations.  But the Court cases have no direct bearing on administration as yet.  Don't be fooled into thinking you don't have to comply or stay up to speed on what is happening just because the courts are starting to weigh in on the issue.  Assume that PPACA will be with us for a while and act accordingly.  That way you won't be unprepared for the provisions that may end up sticking around.

IRS Releases Additional Guidance on "Over the Counter" Restrictions

Back before the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was passed, most flexible spending accounts provided for reimbursement of "over-the-counter" medicine and drugs.  Many FSA programs began using the "debit card" system that allowed participants to use their accounts like cash without having to actually pay and submit reimbursement claims.  Along came PPACA, which  limit OTC reimbursement to insulin, medicines and drug with a physician prescription and medical care items like bandages, blood sugar testing kits and crutches. 

IRS Notice 2010-59 was issued that prohibited the use of debit card reimbursement for OTC purchases after January 15, 2011 (unless from a pharmacy which had 90% of its gross receipts for qualifying medical care expenses under Code Section 213(d).  For practical purposes, that pretty much eliminated the ability to use debit cards at any large chain drugstore. 

But now, things have changed a little bit.  The IRS issued Notice 2011-5 which provides for a couple of new exceptions to the OTC debit card purchase restriction.  The first "new" exception is that participants can make purchases from drug stores, pharmacies and non-health care merchants that have pharmacies, and also mail order and web-based sellers of prescription drugs using their debit cards if all of the following requirements are met:

  1. The participant has a prescription for the OTC drug and gives it to the pharmacist, who assign is an Rx number in accordance with applicable laws;
  2. The vendor keeps a record of the prescription Rx number, purchaser, date of purchase and amount in a manner that satisfies IRS record keeping requirements;
  3. The vendor makes records available to the employer if requested;
  4. The debit card system is designed so that it will not accept a charge for OTC unless an Rx number has been assigned; and
  5. The transaction meets any other rules or guidelines established for debit or credit card purchases for cafeteria plans.

Sounds confusing but you can bet most stores with pharmacies will make sure they comply.  Still, the participant has to have a prescription.

The second "new" exception is that a debit card can be used to purchase OTC drugs and medicines at health-care merchants (like physicians or vision care providers) provided the health-care merchant has obtained a "health care merchant code" and also meets the same requirements listed in points 2,3 and 5 above. (recording purchase, reporting and satisfying other requirements).  However, there is no prescription requirement and there is no Rx number requirements.  So it looks like you can but OTC drugs from your doctor or eye doctor without having to get a prescription.

So take these two exceptions, coupled with the "90% Pharmacy" exception, and debit cards can be used for OTC reimbursement more that was originally thought when PPACA passed.  Still, it is a considerable amount of change that plan sponsors have to incorporate into their cafeteria plan administration and documentation.

If you have any questions about administration of your cafeteria plan or debit card program, please contact your attorney at Fox Rothschild for more information.

 

Withdrawal Liability: Don't Let it Sneak Up on You!

Employers with unionized employees are all too familiar with the issues that arise in the negotiation and maintenance of collective bargaining agreements.  It is not uncommon for the union to require the employer to participate in the union multiemployer defined-benefit pension plan and contribute toward the employees’ retirement benefits.  Now, more than ever, it is likely that there pension plans are “underfunded.”   So employers have to be keenly aware of the possibility of certain transaction triggering “withdrawal liability.”

What Does Underfunded Mean?

Generally speaking, a defined benefit pension plan promises and employee an amount of benefit after he or she retires.  This is usually paid out periodically until the death of the employee.  For these defined benefit plans, the amount of money currently going in is rarely enough to cover the actual amount of benefits that will be paid.  The plan has to make money through investing the plan assets to generate more income.  The plan makes certain assumptions about how long employees will live, how much of a return the plan will make on investments and how much employers will contribute over time.  Employees continue to accrue benefits based on years of service and vest in their right to receive certain benefits.  At any point in time, the plan’s actuary can calculate the anticipated payout of these benefits and compare it against the value of the total assets of the plan. If the value of the benefits exceeds the value of the plan assets, the plan is said to be “under funded.”  In other words, there is not enough money to pay all the promised benefits.

What is Withdrawal Liability?

Withdrawal liability is the employer’s share of the unfunded liability of the plan.  Under the provisions of the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act (“MPPAA”), an employer who withdraws from a multiemployer pension fund is liable for that portion of unfunded liability that is attributed to the employer under the formulas provided in the statute.  The employer is required to continue payments to the plan to help complete funding of the liability for benefits.  Depending on the amount of under funding, or unfunded liability the plan has, the amount of the withdrawal liability can be substantial.

How is Withdrawal Liability Triggered?

MPPAA recognizes two specific types of withdrawal: complete and partial. A complete withdrawal occurs when the employer ceases to have any obligation to contribute to the plan. This can happen for a variety of reasons, including the expiration of a bargaining agreement, a decertification of the union or because the employer sells or terminates the business. A partial withdrawal can occur when the amount of contributions to the plan drops significantly or when the employer ceases to have an obligation to contribute at one, but not all, of its facilities. Partial withdrawals can occur as a result of substantial layoffs or because of a decertification at one, but not all of the company’s facilities.

 

Continue Reading...

Target Date Funds: More Disclosure Required

More and more defined contribution plans offer "target date funds" as investment options.   Some estimates range as high as 75% of plans make these funds available to participants.  These types of funds tailor investments to a participant’s projected retirement date, meaning they should move from aggressive to conservative as the participant nears retirement age.  Many plans use these funds as “qualified default investment alternatives” ("QDIAs") which would be safe-harbor investments for fiduciaries to select for participants who don’t make their own elections.

In the past, I have suggested that fiduciaries should be aware of the fact that not all target date funds are good options and that fiduciaries should be wary of fees and expenses in these funds before choosing them as an option.  Fiduciaries should also be aware that a target date fund invests in other funds, so performance can vary significantly based on the investment restrictions of the target date fund.  Obviously, the best strategy for using a target date fund is to provide as much information as possible to participants so that they understand that simply because a fund says it has a target date, that does not mean that the target date satisfies the particular investment need of all participants.

Ultimately, though, the problem is that if these funds are in a 401(k) plan, it is very likely that not only are the fiduciaries unsure of how they operate, but that the participants have no idea either.   Whether or not this is the case, the DOL assumes it is, and after having a variety of hearings and other surveys, has issued proposed regulations requiring special participant disclosures for target date funds, even if participants are not defaulted into them, and for other “qualified default investment alternatives”. 

Plans would have to give participants the following:

  1. An explanation of how a target date fund's asset allocation will change over time, and the point in time when it will reach its most conservative position.
  2. A graphical illustration of how a target date fund’s asset allocation will change over time.
  3. For a fund that references a particular date, such as the “Retirement Fund 2030”, an explanation of the relevance of the date to the asset allocation.
  4. A general warning that the target date fund may have losses and does not guarantee that sufficient assets will be available for retirement or any specific return.
  5. If the target fund is the QDIA, there has to be a detailed disclosure of the principal strategies and risks of the QDIA, more information about fees and expenses, and historical performance data.  These will be consistent with the final disclosure regulations that will apply to all participant directed investments.

Ultimately, the DOL is going to provide us with a checklist for fiduciaries who already have or are considering adding target date fund as an investment option.  But until that checklist is issued, fiduciaries that have target date funds as an option should consider expanding their educational efforts to participants and also become more familiar themselves with how the funds operate.  The more you know, the more you can disclose and more disclosure is preferred.

For more information about educating plan participants and disclosure requirements, please contact your attorney at Fox Rothschild.

Non-Discrimination Put on Hold: Insurance Plans get a Reprieve

One of the components to health care reform that has been of great concern is the application of code section 105(h) on insured plans.  Plans that had lost grandfathered status would have been subject to the non-discrimination rules that self-insured or self-funded health plans were subjected to.

I say "would have been" because Notice 2011-1 provides that application of Section 2716 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) is delayed until AFTER "regulations or other administrative guidance of general applicability has been issued."  Cal it a Christmas reprieve (and maybe even a miracle).

Many plan sponsors had been struggling with how to redesign existing insured plans to comply with 105(h) without having any actual guidance on how and what should be done.  If you have already undertaken to change you plan design to make a good faith effort to come into compliance with PPACA Section 2716, there is nothing that requires you to reverse that course.  Simply put, if you have not changed there is no requirement that you do just yet.  If you have changed, then you can at least rest assured that, for now, your insured plan is OK.  And when regulations and guidance are finally issued, we can start all over again.

If you have any questions about the impact of PPACA on your benefit plans, please contact your attorney at Fox Rothschild.

Health Care Reform is Unconstitutional, sort-of, at least maybe.

Before everyone gets excited about engaging in an argument about the constitutionality of health care reform and debating the various cases that are pending on the topic, understand this is not what this posting is about.  I am just bringing out the current status of the various cases challenging the reform so you know what is ahead.

Monday, a Virginia District court ruled in a case brought by the Virgina Attorney General, that the provisions of reform that mandate the individual purchase of insurance is unconstitutional.  This conflicts with some prior district court rulings that found that it was permissible.  Not surprisingly, those decisions also were divided along  party lines depending on which president appointed them.  There have also been a couple decisions tossing out claims made by entities who were determined to not have standing.  There are also other suits filed by other states that remain open that will generate other opinions and they also include a challenge to the laws administration of Medicaid and other mandated benefits. 

The key here is that eventually this issue of the "mandate" will find its way to the Supreme Court where there will be a determination as to whether or not an individual can be required to purchase health insurance coverage.  The concern is that much of the reform currently being enacted is premised on the idea that people will be required to pay premiums so that will eventually pay for the changes.  if people cannot be forced to buy coverage, funding may ultimately become an issue.  We are a long way from having a final answer on that.

But what I do know is this: January 1, 2011, is fast upon us and for most employers and plans, that means the first set of administrative and eligibility changes are due.  These court fights do not give us the liberty to avoid compliance now.  Make sure you have sent required notices, are prepared to deal with discrimination testing and have amended your plans and documents.  No matter how this "mandate" issue plays out in the courts, the administrative and eligibility changes we now see are with us for at least the foreseeable future, so make sure you are prepared.

If you have any concerns about your compliance with the required changes, please contact your attorney at Fox Rothschild.

Supreme Court Looks at Deficient Plan Communications: Fiduciaries Beware?

In the past, I have written about the importance of including accurate language in summary plan descriptions and how significant it is for plan sponsors to include appropriate "discretionary authority" language and "reservation of rights" provisions in plan documents.  These typically give the administrator the ability to interpret and amend the plan without giving rise to claims for breach of duty by participants once changes are made.  Recently, the US Supreme Court heard arguments in the case of CIGNA v. Amara that addresses these provisions.

At first blush, the reaction is to say "wait, they are going to say we can't rely on those provisions when we administer the plan."  And in fact, some commentators have suggested this case is about taking away the ability to rely on these provisions in administration.  But a closer look at the case reveals that its real issue is one about damages and remedies, and that should be the true concern for plan sponsors.

The appeals court decision affirmed a lower court decision that determined when Cigna switched from a traditional defined-benefits retirement plan to a cash-balance plan in 1998, the new summary plan description (SPD) misled employees about the benefits they'd be entitled to.  Specifically, the SPD left employees with the incorrect understanding that they would begin accruing incremental benefits under the new plan immediately.  However, the detailed plan document provided that each worker's cash-balance account had a starting balance that was less than the value of his or her defined-benefit account.  Thus, anyone who left the company before the new account caught up in value with the old one would not, in effect, have earned any new benefits.  Many employees thought, based on the SPD, they were to get the full value of the first plan plus new benefits accruing from the date of the change, so they commenced a class-action case and the lower courts gave them that relief.

 In an odd twist, Cigna does not dispute the finding that its SPD was misleading.  Instead, its appeal is based the lower court determination that all 27,000 participants in the lawsuit suffered "likely harm."  In other words, to recover, the participants do not actually have to show they "detrimentally relied" on the misstatement to recover.  The way the law currently sits, to recover on a claim for misrepresentation, there has to be a showing of detrimental reliance and actual harm.  In this case, there would have to be a showing that "but for the misrepresentation," the participants would not have acted the way they did.

Typically, ERISA relief is limited to benefits you would otherwise have received under the terms of the plan.  So in this case, you would expect the remedy to be limited to those who were either denied benefits, or those who can prove that had they know they were not going to get benefits, they would have acted differently.  But to simply say "everyone in the plan was misled" seems to expand the remedies available to something not intended under ERISA.

Continue Reading...

IRS Comes Through with Guidance on In-Plan Roth Rollovers

Susan Jordan, from our Pittsburgh office, provides the following related to the IRS guidance issued on "in-plan" Roth rollovers:

Included in the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 is a provision whereby amounts accumulated in a 401(k) plan can be converted into Roth accounts through in-plan Roth rollover.  Until that option was added, Roth conversion could be accomplished only by direct rollover from the plan to a Roth IRA.

Immediately after the new law was passed, the IRS strongly cautioned plan sponsors not to permit in-plan Roth rollovers unless and until additional guidance had been issued.  That guidance came in the form of Notice 2010-84-- which was released on the day after Thanksgiving-- and it was no turkey!  To the contrary, it was stuffed with helpful clarification, as well as a bonus in the form of an extended remedial amendment period. 

 

The Notice, issued in question and answer form, makes it clear any vested amount held in a plan account for a plan participant, whether attributable to elective deferrals, employer contributions, or earnings (other than amounts held in a designated Roth account), is eligible for Roth rollover within the same plan, provided that the disbursement is an “eligible rollover distribution.”  Thus, a participant who has not had a severance from employment is eligible for in-plan Roth rollover only if the participant has reached age 59-1/2 (or died, become disabled, or received a qualified reservist distribution.) 

 

Although treated as a distribution for tax purposes, an in-plan Roth direct rollover will not be treated as a distribution with respect to plan loans, elimination of optional forms of benefit, or spousal annuities. This means that spousal consent will not be needed for in-plan Roth rollover.  Likewise, rights to optional forms of benefits will not be eliminated through an in-plan rollover, and amounts transferred to the Roth account through in-plan rollover must be taken into account in determining whether the participant’s account balance exceeds $5,000 for purposes of consent to future distributions.

 

Contrary to some initial interpretations of the in-plan rollover option, the Notice makes it clear that a plan may be amended to permit in-plan Roth rollover by participants who have attained age 59-1/2 but need not permit any other rollover or distribution option for these amounts.  Thus, a plan may be amended to permit in-plan Roth direct rollovers by participants who have attained age 59-1/2, without having to permit in-service withdrawal at the same age.

 

In general, the tax consequence of in-plan Roth rollover is inclusion-- in the participant’s gross income for the year in which the rollover occurs – of an amount equal to the fair market value of the distribution, reduced by any basis the participant has in the distribution.  The special tax rule available to Roth IRA rollovers occurring in 2010 is extended to in-plan Roth rollovers, such that, for an in-plan rollover made in 2010, one-half of the taxable amount will be includible in the participant’s gross income for 2011, and the other half will be includible in 2012, unless the participant elects to include the entire taxable amount in his gross income in 2010.  In any event, in-plan Roth direct rollovers are not subject to mandatory income tax withholding.

Continue Reading...

EBSA Proposed Rule for Annual Notices for Defined Benefit Plans

You might recall that The Pension Protection Act of 2006 (PPA) requires that administrators of all defined benefit plans (including multiemployer benefit plans) to provide an annual funding notice to the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC), plan participants and beneficiaries, labor organization representing participants or beneficiaries.  In the case of a multiemployer plan, the plan also has to send a notice to each employer that has an obligation to contribute to the plan. This funding notice must include the plan’s funding target attainment percentage, a statement of the value of the plan’s assets and liabilities and a description of how the plan’s assets are invested as of specific dates, a description of the benefits under the plan that are eligible to be guaranteed by the PBGC, and other information relevant to the plan’s funded status.

The Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA) published a proposed rule (available here) that implements the annual funding notice requirement for all defined benefit plans.  The proposed regulation outlines the scope of an administrator’s obligations in providing this notice and details the content requirements of the notice itself.  The proposed rule’s appendix contains two model notices, one for single employer plans and one for multiemployer plans.  The notices can be accessed through the EBSA Annual Funding Fact Sheet.  

The purpose of the notices, according to the proposed rule is to “increase the transparency of information about the funding status of plans, affording all parties interested in the financial viability of these plans with a greater opportunity to monitor their funding status and take action where necessary.”  The model notice in the proposed rule, the rule asserts, “is expected to mitigate burden and contribute to the efficiency of compliance.“

The deadline for written comments on the proposed rule is January 18, 2011.

For more information about how these rules and notices apply to your plan, please contact your attorney at Fox Rothschild.

Did You Get a 401(K) Compliance Questionnaire? Don't Ignore It!

In May of this year, the IRS began issuing "Compliance Questionnaires" to some 1,200 401(k) plan sponsors.  The purpose of the questionnaires was not for an external audit, but rather to encourage sponsors to conduct an internal audit to identify and correct any compliance problems.  While the compliance questionnaire is not formally part of the audit process, the IRS has reiterated that employers who do not respond will be contacted directly by the IRS.

The most common problems that are identified by the questionnaire are plan documentation failure, failure in discrimination testing and failure to follow the plan's definition of compensation.  While the IRS will use the questionnaires to plan future educational activities, sponsors can certainly use them as a self-correction guideline. 

Even employers who do not receive a questionnaire should consider this an opportunity to self-audit and self-correct.  The IRS guide to completing the questionnaire is available here if you did not already receive one.  For assistance in responding, or in self-auditing, please contact your attorney at Fox Rothschild.

Changing Insurers Does NOT Compromise Grandfathered Status

When talking about healthcare reform, grandfathered status remains an important concern.  Previously, it was clear that, for self-funded plans, changing third-party administrators would not cause a loss of grandfathered status.  But for insured plans, changing carrier would.  That has now been "clarified."

In recently issued amendments to the interim final regulations on grandfathering, group health plans may now switch insurance companies and still maintain grandfathered status provided the structure of the new coverage does not violate one of the other rules for maintaining grandfathered status.  So employers can still shop for coverage and change carriers without losing this status.  They just have to be careful that the don't change the components of coverage in a way that increases employee-cost sharing beyond what is permitted to maintain grandfathered status.

This amendment applies on tot insured group health plans and not to individual policies.

Penalties for Failing 105(h) For Your Insured Plans

In response to my last entry about 105(h) discrimination, several people have noted to me that the penalties for failing the discrimination testing under PPACA are not levied on the HCEs.  Instead, there is an excise tax of $100 per day per employee discriminated against which is born by the employer.    While we need more guidance and/or regulations, this is correct as it relates to insured plans now subject to discrimination testing.

The problem is that PPACA testing rules for insured plans and existing 105(h) testing rules may not be mutually exclusive.  So don't assume that the current 105(h) penalties not longer apply, or that the PPACA penalties for 105(h) failure are the correct ones either.  Start by acknowledging you have to be aware of discrimination testing and go from there.

So What Does Non-Discrimination Mean? Health Care Reform and Section 105(h)

One of the things that PPACA (or health care reform, or even "Obamacare") adds to the mix of plan administration is the concept that insured health plans will now be subject to "discrimination testing" under IRS Code Section 105(h).  Grandfathered plans do not have to comply, but a plan cannot likely be grandfathered forever.  So if you have always a had an insured health plan and never thought about non-discrimination rules, here is a quick primer of what you have been missing.

In its simplest terms, 105(h) prevents employment-based health plans from "discriminating" in favor of highly compensated employees ("HCEs").  What this means is that you cannot have a plan that gives excessive or extra benefits to HCEs (defined as (a) one of the 5 highest paid officers in the company, (b) a shareholder owning more that 10% of the company stock, or (c) is among the highest paid 25% of all employees).  If the plan discriminates, then the HCEs must include a portion of the benefits as taxable income and employers must report that on their W-2s.  Much the same way that a 401(k) plan gets tested, self-insured health plans have been dealing with this concept for years and now insured plans have to take a look.

There are three coverage tests and the plan must pass one of these three: (1) 70% of all employees benefit under the plan, (2) the plan benefits 80% of eligible employees and 70% of all employees are eligible, or (3) the plan benefits a nondiscriminatory classification of employees.  Same 3 tests as apply for qualified retirement plans and, I might add, cafeteria plans if you are required to test those. 

The IRS regulations require the plan to provide the same benefits for both HCEs and non-HCEs.  Different benefit structures are treated as a separate plan for the purposes of the eligibility tests described above.   The plan discriminates as to the benefit unless ALL benefits provided to participants who are HCEs are also provided to other participants.  You will also have discrimination if you have higher reimbursement levels or better benefit structures for HCEs.  So having an "executive only" buy-up plan that provides higher benefit payments looks an awful lot like discrimination.

Continue Reading...

IRS Announces Cost-of-Living Adjustments for 2011

Each year, employee benefits professionals diligently await the release of the cost-of-living adjustments for the upcoming plan years so that various benefit limits can be properly maintained.  Susan Jordan, from our Pittsburgh office share this year's with us:

In a news release (IR-2010-108) on October 28, 2010, the IRS announced the cost-of-living adjustments to the various dollar limitations applicable to qualified retirement plans for 2011.  Virtually all of the limitations remain unchanged for the second consecutive year.

1. LIMIT ON COMPENSATION: The maximum amount of compensation that may be counted for plan purposes is $245,000 for plan years beginning in 2011, as in 2009 and 2010.

2. LIMITS ON CONTRIBUTIONS AND BENEFITS. The maximum limit on annual additions to a defined contribution plan is unchanged at $49,000. The maximum annual benefit which may be accrued under a defined benefit plan will remain $195,000 as in 2010.

3. 401(k) DEFERRAL LIMIT. For purposes of 401(k) plans, the maximum limitation on voluntary salary deferrals for calendar year 2011 is $16,500 as in the past two years, while the limit on catch-up deferrals by those age 50 or older stays at $5,500.

4. IDENTIFICATION OF HIGHLY COMPENSATED AND KEY EMPLOYEES. Effective for plan years beginning in 2011, as in 2010, a Highly Compensated Employee is any employee who (a) was a 5% owner during the current or preceding year, or (b) who received compensation from the employer during the preceding year in excess of $110,000.  The dollar limit used to define a key employee in a top heavy plan under IRC Section 416(i)(1)(A)(i) is preserved at $160,000.

5. SEP THRESHOLD. As in 2009 and 2010, the compensation minimum for which coverage is required for a simplified employee pension plan (SEP) is $550.

6. TAXABLE WAGE BASE. As announced separately, on October 15, 2010, and as was the case for 2010, Social Security and Supplemental Security Income benefits will not be increased for any cost of living adjustment, since the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W) remains statistically unchanged. In such circumstances, the statute prohibits an increase in the maximum amount of earnings subject to the Social Security tax.  Consequently, the Social Security taxable wage base for 2011 will be $106,800, as in 2009 and 2010.  For plan years which operate on a fiscal year basis, this wage base will remain effective for plan years beginning in 2011.

We frequently are asked to provide the contribution formula needed to maximize contributions for an individual with compensation at or above the maximum limit.  The formula remains the same as applicable in 2010, so for a calendar year profit sharing plan integrated at the Social Security wage base, the contribution formula needed to achieve the maximum permissible allocation for an individual with compensation of $245,000 or more is:
16.78473% up to $106,800, plus 22.48473% in excess of $106,800 (up to $245,000)

For a calendar year 401(k) plan integrated at the Social Security wage base and using the 3% safe harbor design, the profit sharing contribution formula which, in the aggregate (with a $16,500 deferral and $7,350 safe harbor contribution), will achieve the maximum permissible allocation for an individual with compensation of $245,000 or more is:
7.05004% up to $106,800, plus 12.75004% in excess of $106,800 (up to $245,000)

Final Rule issued on 401(k) Fees

You might recall last week I wrote about the DOL's new rule requiring disclosure of fees and expenses associated with management of their 401(k)-type retirement plans.  At that time, the proposed rule was available.  The DOL has now issued the Final Rule on Fiduciary Requirements for Disclosure in Participant-Directed Individual Account Plans.  As anticipated, the Final Rule requires that a plan provide the following information:

  1. General Plan Information
  2. Administrative Expenses Information
  3. Individual Expenses Information
  4. Statements of Actual Charges or Deductions
  5. Investment-Related Information
  6. Performance Data
  7. Benchmark Information
  8. Fee and Expense Information
  9. Internet Website Address
  10. Glossary

For compliance assistance or with questions, please contact your attorney at Fox Rothschild.
 

DOL Proposes New Rule for Defining "Fiduciaries"

The U.S. Department of Labor's Employee Benefits Security Administration has announced a proposed rule to update the definition of "fiduciary."   The proposed rule will further clarify the regulations to more broadly define the term as a person who provides investment advice to plans for a fee or other compensation.

The DOL's website provides the following:

"The proposed rule would amend a 1975 regulation that defines when a person providing investment advice becomes a fiduciary under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.   The proposed amendment would update that definition to take into account changes in the expectations of plan officials and participants who receive advice, as well as the practices of investment advice providers.

According to the proposal, the 1975 rule's approach to fiduciary status may inappropriately limit the department's ability to protect plans, participants and beneficiaries from conflicts of interest that may arise from today's diverse and complex fee practices in the retirement plan services market. The proposed rule is designed to remedy this limitation, and protect plan officials and participants who expect unbiased advice, by giving a broader and clearer understanding of when individuals providing such advice are subject to ERISA's fiduciary standards."

The proposed rule itself is available here.

The introduction to the rule provides that "the proposed rule takes account of significant changes in both the financial industry and the expectations of plan officials and participants who receive investment advice; it is designed to protect participants from conflicts of interest and self-dealing by giving a broader and clearer understanding of when persons providing such advice are subject to ERISA's fiduciary standards. For example, the proposed rule would define certain advisers as fiduciaries even if they do not provide advice on a ``regular basis.'' Upon adoption, the proposed rule would affect sponsors, fiduciaries, participants, and beneficiaries of pension plans and individual retirement accounts, as well as providers of investment and investment advice related services to such plans and accounts."

Written comments on the Proposed Rule may be submitted through January 20, 2011.

DOL Issues Final Rule on 401(k) Fee Disclosures

The U.S. Department of Labor’s Employee Benefits Security Administration announced issuance of a final rule requiring disclosure of fees and expenses associated with management of their 401(k)-type retirement plans.  Under the rule, workers will receive this information in a format that enables them to meaningfully compare the investment options under their plans.

The final regulation requires plan fiduciaries to:

  1. Give workers quarterly statements of plan fees and expenses deducted from their accounts.
  2. Give workers core information about investments available under their plan including the cost of these investments.
  3. Use standard methodologies when calculating and disclosing expense and return information to achieve uniformity across the spectrum of investments that exist in plans.
  4. Present the information in a format that makes it easier for workers to comparison shop among the plan's investment options.
  5. Give workers access to supplemental investment information in addition to the basic information required under the final rule.

The final rule requires that a plan provide the following information:

  1. General Plan Information
  2. Administrative Expenses Information
  3. Individual Expenses Information
  4. Statements of Actual Charges or Deductions
  5. Investment-Related Information
  6. Performance Data
  7. Benchmark Information
  8. Fee and Expense Information
  9. Internet Website Address
  10. Glossary

The DOL Fact sheet provides an explanation of the information contained in each of these categories as well as an explanation of how plan sponsors comply.  The DOL Fact Sheet regarding compliance is available here.  A copy of the rule is available here.

The DOL also prepared a Model Comparative Chart that is available by accessing the DOL website (http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/) and selecting the Model Chart Option under the title "Final Rule to Improve Transparency of Fees and Expenses to Workers in 401(k)-Type Retirement Plans."

For compliance assistance or with questions, please contact your attorney at Fox Rothschild.

How About Some Good News: W-2 Health Cost Reporting Delayed

Health care reform contains a provision that requires reporting of health care cost information that was to be reported on W-2s for the 2011 tax year.  However, yesterday, the Internal Revenue Service announced that it will waive that requirement for 1 year.  Under the reform law, employers were to have given health care cost information on 2011 W-2 statements that are distributed to employees in 2012.  Under the relief, health care cost information will have to be reported on the 2012 W-2s, which are issued in 2013.

The IRS affirmed that this information would be used for "informational purposes only," but also recognized that employers would have difficulty making changes to their payroll and reporting procedures before the 2011 tax year.  So the 1-year extension is intended to give additional time to develop a compliance process.

Additional Guidance on Health Care Reform Issued

The DOL has issued a second "FAQ"  about implementation of health care reform.  The sheet is available here.  I picked out some interesting tidbits that I found interesting:

First, relating to recissions, there has been some debate about whether retroactive termination of coverage because of non-payment of COBRA premiums would be permitted.  The DOL provides that "if a plan covers only active employees (subject to the COBRA continuation coverage provisions) and an employee pays no premiums for coverage after termination of employment, the Departments do not consider the retroactive elimination of coverage back to the date of termination of employment, due to delay in administrative record-keeping, to be a rescission."  So it appears that COBRA remains intact.

Second, as it relates to maintaining grandfathered status, there was a concern that cost sharing changes other than the 6 identified in the interim final regulations might impact grandfathered status.  The DOL clarified that "for a plan that is continuing the same policy, these six changes are the only changes that would cause a cessation of grandfather status under the interim final regulations."  So there is some security that not all changes to a plan cause a loss of grandfathered status.

Finally, there is clarification that separate vision and dental plans structured as "excepted benefits" under HIPAA, they are not subject to reform.  The DOL provides that if a plan provides its dental (or vision) benefits pursuant to a separate election by a participant and the plan charges even a nominal employee contribution towards the coverage, the dental (or vision) benefits would constitute excepted benefits, and the market reform provisions would not apply to that coverage.  

It is important to review these FAQs as the are published to see what impact they may have on your compliance process.  For more information about health care reform, please contact your attorney at Fox Rothschild.

Changes to IRS Treatment of Cell Phone

Sarah Ivy, from our Chester County office, shares the following:

Effective January 1, 2010, the Small Business Jobs and Credit Act of 2010 removes cell phones and similar telecommunication equipment (such as PDAs, blackberry, smart phones and the like) from the "listed property" provisions of Internal Revenue Code section 274(d).  This change eliminates the detailed substantiation requirements imposed on employers in order to take a business deduction for providing cell phones (and related calling/data plans) to their employees and also eliminates the detailed substantiation required for employees to exclude cell phones from gross income as a working condition fringe benefit.

Hopefully, this will eliminate the need for IRS cell phone audits (which has been a common target on employment tax audits).  Further, we are hopeful that he IRS will issue guidance providing that cell phones (and related calling/data plans) to employees is a deductible business expense and generally constitutes either a (1) de minimis fringe benefit, or (2) a non-taxable working condition fringe (at least with respect to phones reasonably anticipated to be used primarily for work), which would result in tax-free treatment (and no more tracking/monitoring actual use).

Health Care Reform: Making Sure You Know What Your Employees Know

As the September 23 date came and went, plan administrators should be in full compliance mode, making sure they are sending notices, finalizing plan changes and coming up to speed on health care reform packages.  I also think it is a good idea for plan sponsors to keep up to date on what is being communicated to the participant population at large, not just from your own communications, but from the government.

Healthcare.gov is the website created and updated by the US Department of Health and Human Services that is being used to provide information to the public in general.  Cynics can call it propaganda, but I think it is worthwhile for plan sponsors and administrators to check it out to see what the government is saying about health care reform.

A particularly interesting tool is the "Find Insurance Option" that allows individuals to search for insurance coverage in the states they reside.  There is also a tab called "Understand the New Law" that provides an explanation of the current and anticipated changes.  It also provides a link to the HHS site for comparing of medical providers under the "Compare Care Quality" tab. 

While we will continue to provide information about legislative updates and other formal information that is released, I thought it was important for you to know what non-regulatory communications are being sent out.  Being well informed will help avoid miscommunication and if you have any concerns about how to clarify those communications, please contact your attorney at Fox Rothschild.

From 401(k) to Roth 401(k): New Law Allows for Conversion

It used to be that you could not convert 401(k) assets to a Roth 401(k).  But that's about to change, thanks to a new law that allows traditional 401(k) participants to convert at least part of their assets to a Roth 401(k).  True, it will be in a more limited way than is currently available to IRA holders, provided their plans allow it, but it is now permissible.  The conversion option is also available to 403(b) and 457 plan participants.

The Small Business Jobs and Credit Act of 2010 provides that, assuming the plan allows for it, employees can convert the portion of their 401(k) that consist of employer contributions into a Roth 401(k) if they meet one of the following criteria:

  1. they are age 59 1/2
  2. they have participated in the plan for at least five years
  3. the money has been in the plan for at least two years.

If the rollover is made this year, the participant could elect to pay the tax on the money in equal parts in 2011 and 2012.  Once rolled over into the Roth 401(k) plan, the money would earn tax-free investment income and participants would not be taxed when they receive a distribution.

To convert, of course, your employer must offer the Roth 401(k) to begin with.  While plans of all sizes can participate, the new provision was crafted with small-business owners in mind.  But because adding a Roth choice will increase the cost of administering a retirement plan, small-business plan sponsors will have to determine whether the long-term benefit of withdrawing Roth funds tax-free (after paying income taxes on the amount converted) is worth the additional administrative expense.

Short and Sweet: The Latest on PPACA

As with most things government, regulation marches on.  The US Department of Labor Employee Benefits Security Administration has made some more information available regarding PPACA (health care reform).  They should be reviewed as part of your overall compliance process.

The first is a release of "FAQs on ACA Implementation", available at http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/faqs/faq-aca.html.  It addresses a number of question, particularly relevant to grandfathereing and to multiemployer plans. 

Technical Release 2010-02, "Interim Procedures for Internal Claims and Appeals", is available at http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/newsroom/tr10-02.html.  This technical bulletin gives additional information about what appeal notices must contain and also timing of the issuance of notices for appeal rights to apply. 

Finally, in conjunction with Release 2010-02, there is a "Revised Model Notice of Adverse Benefit Determination", available at http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/IABDModelNotice2.doc.  It is important to note that this model notice does not only apply to "external appeals."  It also does not define the external appeals process.  It looks like this is the new standard for benefit denials and plan administrators should definitely review it with sponsors and plan professionals to determine its suitability for plan use. 

If you have any questions about this information, please contact your attorney at Fox Rothschild.

IRS Issues Guidance on Over-the-Counter Medications: Notice 2010-59

Let's get right to it.  On September 3, 2010, the IRS issued Notice 2010-59  that provides guidance  regarding the use of tax-favored vehicles (like FSAs, HSAs and HRAs)  to pay for over-the-counter medicines and drugs.

The new guidance is effective for purchases on or after January 1, 2011, so plan years before then are not affected.  The guidance provides for an amendment of  the definition of "medical expenses" under employer-sponsored accident and health plans (FSAs and HRAs) and the definition of "qualified medical expenses" under HSAs and MSAs.  Beginning January 1, 2011, over-the-counter medicines and drugs will only be reimbursable from these plans if the individual obtains a prescription.  The new rules clarify that a "prescription" means a written or electronic order for a medicine or drug that meets the legal requirements of a prescription in the state in which the medical expense is incurred and that is issued by an individual who is legally authorized to issue a prescription in that state.

Note: Insulin is exempt from the new rules and remains reimbursable without a prescription.

The new rules make it clear that this does not affect the reimbursement of medical supplies and diagnostic devices, such as crutches, eye glasses, bandages and blood sugar test kits.  These items can qualify as medical care under IRS Code 213(d)(1) which covers expenses for the "diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment or prevention of disease, or for the purpose of affecting any structure or function of the body." 

Because there is some possible overlap in plan years, the new rules make it clear that medications purchased prior to 1/1/2011 are not impacted, even if the reimbursement is not made until after 1/1/2011.  But be aware that purchases made on or after 1/1/2011 are restricted even if they are intended to be used for reimbursements under a health FSA for the 2010 year account balance under the 2 1/2 month grace period.  So that means that account balances for the 2010 plan year that carry over into 2011 because of the grace period cannot be used to reimburse for over-the-counter medications if they were purchased AFTER 1/1/2011.

For those that use debit cards for their reimbursement accounts, the new rules also clarify that debit cards will no longer be able to be used for over-the-counter medicines or drugs because current debit card systems are not capable of recognizing and differentiating when over-the-counter medicines or drugs are obtained in conjunction with a prescription.   So beginning on 1/1/2011, debit cards cannot be used to purchase over-the-counter medicines and drugs.  Plan participants need to be notified of this change immediately so that they don't encounter unwanted surprises when they go to purchase medications after the first of the year. 

As a side note on this debit card issues, the IRS will not challenge the use of debit cards for over-the-counter purchases made through 1/15/2011 if you currently have a debit card system in place.  However, after 1/16/2011, over-the-counter purchases can no longer be made with the debit card.

Based on the issuance of this guidance, it is clear that plans have to be amended to provide for these limitations and notices should be issued to participants in advance of their 2011 elections.  For assistance in administering these changes, please contact your attorney at Fox Rothschild.

I Can't Find My People: Dealing With Missing Participants

Plans have participants, participants are people and people sometimes disappear.  It is unfortunately a fact of plan administration and it can be a problem.  As I mentioned last week, health care reform has about 5 new notices that have to be sent to participants.  There are annual notices and reporting that requirements that apply to retirement plans.  Even non-qualified plans have notices that have to go out.  But what happens when you can't find a participant?

The general rule under ERISA is that communications have to be made in a manner reasonably calculated to reach a substantial number of plan participants.  Certain specific notices, like COBRA notices, have to be issued in a manner reasonably calculated to reach that participant.  But missing from the regulatory scheme is any set action that a plan sponsor must take in locating participants.  Fortunately, there is no requirement that a plan sponsor actually confirm receipt of notice (although best practices sometimes makes us want to confirm receipt).  But what if we really need to locate them.  For example, what if we are terminating a plan and they have to be told? 

DOL Field Assistance Bulletin 2004-02 provides guidance on locating missing participants in defined contribution plans.  It gives search methods and default treatment of account balances for participants you can't find.  The PBGC has a Missing Participants Program, but its application is limited to locating missing participants when terminating a defined benefit pension plan.  If you are dealing with these situations, follow the rules to the letter and you will be safe. 

But for other plans, maybe all you can do is look.  Some search methods recommended include

  1. • Certified mail.
  2. • Contact participant's designated beneficiary
  3. • Consult related plan records from the employer
  4. • Use of a service that forwards letters. The Internal Revenue Service and the Social Security Administration both offer this kind of service.  The IRS also has a missing participant program.
  5. • Internet search tools
  6. • Commercial locator services
  7. • Credit reporting agencies

It might be worthwhile for a plan to consider adopting certain administrative guidelines for dealing with participants that cannot be located.  For example, if participant consent is required to change administrators (such as in a employee stock plan or some other retirement plan), consider inserting a provision in the plan that provides that if consent is not denied within 30 days from the notice date, it will be deemed accepted.  Or perhaps inserting specific language that obligates the participant to provide the plan with current contact information with the under standing that the plan will rely on that information as current unless told otherwise.

I also think that providing a plan administrator with broad discretionary authority to administer the plan and to take whatever steps are necessary to accomplish the purposes of the plan helps.  This type of "reservation of rights" gives plan administrators more leeway in dealing with issues that arise, like lost participants and how they will be treated.  So think about how you will deal with lost people before you lose them.  That may save time and effort in dealing with missing persons. 

What About the COBRA Subsidy? It's Still Out There

Remember that that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) provided a COBRA premium reduction for eligible individuals who were involuntarily terminated from employment through May 31, 2010.  There may not have been an extension of subsidies to individuals terminated after 5/31/10, but the effects of the subsidy are still with us for at least a few more months.  Recall that individuals who qualified on or before May 31, 2010 may continue to pay reduced premiums for up to 15 months, as long as they are not eligible for another group health plan or Medicare. Those individuals who qualified for the premium reduction were only required to pay 35 percent of the COBRA premium otherwise due to the plan.

So here are some refreshers about how to deal with subsidy eligible individuals for the next few months:

1. If COBRA continuation coverage lasts for more than 15 months, participants will need to pay the full amount to continue your COBRA continuation coverage.  So it might be worthwhile to go into your records and find out who is getting close to that 15 month window and remind them the date on which they have to pay 100% (and not just the 35%).  Correct billing will avoid problems.

2. Make sure you communicate the amount of the full premium for coverage after the first 15 months before sending the bill.  Even though you may not necessarily be required, it is a good "best practice" to alert those receiving subsidies about the cost of COBRA coverage they will be expected to bear. 

3. Set a specific time period for receiving premiums.  Participants will have to pay the remaining 3 months of COBRA at 100% of the premium amount if at all possible.  Make sure you establish what your grace period will be and communicate that.  Without a doubt, someone will send you a check for 35% for the 16th month of coverage and you must be prepared to deal with them.  Are you going to give them 30 days to pay the balance, 14 days or cut them off immediately?  Whatever your position, make sure it is communicated in advance.

4. Make sure you know what is being communicated to participants.  The DOL has recently issued an FAQ to individuals receiving the subsidy, available here.  It not only combines an explanation of subsidy eligibility, but also of the termination of subsidies.  Also, check out this notice here the describes options one might have when losing the subsidy. 

Despite the fact that the subsidy has an expiration date, we should anticipate that its demise will come as a shock to many participants.  Make sure that you warn them before it happens to make your ongoing COBRA administrative burden smaller. 

Pay Attention: Required Notices Under PPACA

Health care reform compliance deadlines are closing in on us.  I have been asked by numerous clients and plan professional about "action items" that should be in place after September 23, 2010.  So I thought I would share them here.  And let's start with notice requirements to participants.

1. Grandfathered Plan Status Notice.  First, you have to understand grandfathering, then decide whether or not you are maintaining grandfathered status.  If you are, participants are entitled to a notice of intent to maintain grandfathered status. 

2. Special Enrollment Notices for Lifetime Limits.  For individuals who have otherwise reached lifetime limits under a plan are entitled to a special enrollment notice identifying that they are now available for coverage.  With the lifetime limit going away, these folks are not coming back on the plan per se, but they will have the ability to have claims paid again.

3. Patient Protection Notice for Physician Choice.  This notice advises participants that they have the ability to designate primary care physicians and to obtain OB/GYN care without prior authorization. 

4. Notice of Age 26 Coverage Extension.  With the expansion of coverage to individuals up to age 26, participants have to be notified of that option and they have to be provided enrollment rights and instructions.

5. Appeal Rights.  With the possible addition of external appeals that applies to non-grandfathered plans, participants have to be told about the new appeals rights.  Plus they should be reminded of the existing appeal rights under the plan.

So step 1, you have to decide what notices are required based on your plan.  Step 2 is to decide who gets those notices and step 3 is to draft the notices and send them out.  Certainly you can rely on the insurance company for these notices provided the insurance company is sending them out.  But ultimately it is the responsibility of the plan sponsor to make sure notices are being correctly sent.  So don't assume.  Ask questions,  Contact the company, your broker and your plan professionals to make sure you are dealing with these new notice requirements.

For assistance in understanding and preparing these notices, please contact your attorney at Fox Rothschild.

Things to Consider About Your Plans: Some Best Practices

Benefit plan design, administration and documentation is not thrilling stuff.  But when things go wrong, it can be very exciting.  As a plan sponsor, there is no "perfect" plan design that you can latch on to for every plan and never have any problems because you still have to administer them.  Still, there are some things about plan design and administration that can reduce risk, so consider the following as things you can do in designing your plan.

1. Don't make the plan sponsor the fiduciary of the plan.  It is not required that the company that creates the plan automatically takes on the role of "fiduciary."  Instead, consider whether creating an Employee Benefits Committee to be named as the fiduciary might be more appropriate.  The committee structure may help differentiate the fiduciary plan functions from the non-fiduciary (i.e., business or settlor) functions, thus reducing potential conflict-of-interest issues as well as concerns over executive v. fiduciary status in making hard business decisions.  Plus the committee could retain separate legal counsel from the company specifically for the plan concerns, thereby further preserving privilege.

2. Along those same lines, avoid naming key corporate officers as fiduciaries.  C-suite executives have loads of information about the company but that knowledge would also be imparted to them in their capacity as plan fiduciaries.  Wearing a high level executive hat AND a plan fiduciary hat carries with it a host of potential conflict-of-interest issues.  Its better to keep the company executives away from the plan if possible.

3. Before you go any further, make sure you have strong reservation of rights language in your plans.  Make sure that plan documents specifically provide for the ability to amend, revise or terminate the plan at the discretion of the fiduciaries.  Also, consider including the reservation of rights language in every communication from the plans.  Though not specifically required under ERISA, caselaw on the topic seems to clearly favor using the disclaimer in all communications.

4. Clearly define roles and responsibilities.  Make sure that everyone who has a role in plan administration knows the role and is held accountable for what has to be done.  Consider creating an administrative manual for the plan that specifies when and how plan administration activities are completed.  Don't get caught wondering whose job it was to take care of something that goes wrong.

5. Don't cut off appeals.  Appeal periods that are too short or procedures that are vague or cumbersome are always a danger.  Make sure the plan documents explain how to exhaust administrative remedies and what the specific steps are to complete the appeals process.  Make sure to follow the process as it is written.  Be aware of the new requirements for external appeal if this applies to your health plan.

6. Keep a history of the plan.  Someone should always know where documents are, how things were done in the past and what service providers were used.  Consider making a written record of all the plan professionals used for each plan year and what services they provided.  Keep track of where plan records are kept, even the old ones, and pass the history down to incoming plan personnel.  Like a family oral history, take the time to share the history of the plan with new generations so they have some idea of "how things were done."

Again, none of these is definitive or absolutely required.  But in an age where benefits administration is getting more and more confusing, a few simple tweaks to your administrative processes can go a long way toward making things easier down the road.  For assistance with your plan administration concerns, you can always contact your attorney at Fox Rothschild.

Don't Forget About Your Cafeteria Plans

While the focus on health care reform has been primarily major medical plans, there is no question that the new laws have a considerable impact on cafeteria plans.  The IRS has recently issued guidance that allows retroactive amendments to cafeteria plans to comply with health care reform.  Additionally, employers must revise their cafeteria plans for changes taking effect during and after 2011.  Plan sponsors and employers need to be familiar with these changes now in order to communicate them during the next open enrollment period and also to properly administer them.

1. Change to Eliminate OTC Reimbursements

Effective for expenses incurred on or after 1/1/2011, FSAs (health flexible spending accounts) in cafeteria plans may no longer provide for reimbursement for over-the-counter (OTC) drugs unless they are prescribed.  Unfortunately, the exact definition of the terms “drugs” and “prescribed” is unclear, and we will need future guidance to be sure.  We do know that the effective date is Jan. 1 even for non calendar-year plans.  The same rule will apply to health reimbursement arrangements (HRAs) and health savings accounts (HSAs).)   So every cafeteria plan with an FSA must be amended by Dec. 31, 2010, to exclude payment for OTC drugs, and this change must be communicated to plan participants so that they can adjust the amount they elect to contribute.

Although not required, plan sponsors may also want to take the opportunity to amend cafeteria plans at the same time to adopt the new $2,500 limit on health FSAs, which takes effect Jan. 1, 2013.

2. Address Changes to Benefit Elections

Remember that under health care reform, the age-26 dependent extension of coverage means that an employee’s child is covered under the health plan tax-free through the end of the calendar year in which the child turns 26.  That means that the value of health coverage for adult children should not be included as gross income for the employee.  Participants with covered “adult” children need to change their cafeteria plan elections to provide for payment of the premiums for such coverage on a pretax basis.  This may also give rise to a mid-year change in the health FSA accounts because medical expenses of adult children are now reimbursable tax-free.

Be aware that the the IRS has identified two problems for cafeteria plans designed to allow such mid-year changes for adult children:

  1. Under the existing cafeteria plan regulations, adding an adult child to the plan would not seem to fit the definition of “change of status” that would justify changes outside of open enrollment..
  2. IRS regulations generally require cafeteria plans to be amended on a going-forward basis, not retroactively.

Fortunately, the IRS has given some relief in Notice 2010-38, which provides that the IRS has determined that it will amend the change-of-election regulations to allow changes in elections for events affecting adult children’s eligibility, whether or not they are tax dependents.  The IRS will also allow amendments to cafeteria plans to allow such changes of election, retroactive to when the plan started allowing such changes as long as the amendment is adopted by 12/31/10.

So remember, not only does health care reform require an adjustment of treatment of over-the-counter reimbursements.  You also have to attend to the changes in elections and make sure your plan is properly amended to account for the intended benefits.  Plus there should be some opportunity to participants to change elections if they are adding adult children.  So don't assume that the major medical plan is all you have to look at.  Pay attention to your cafeteria plan, too.

If you need assistance in amending your cafeteria plan to comply with these changes, please contact me or your attorney at Fox Rothschild.

A Really Basic Checklist for Employee Benefits in Mergers and Acquisitions

 Lately I have been fielding a lot of questions relating to employee benefits issues in mergers and acquisitions.  Whether they be asset deals, stock deals or straight mergers, due diligence about employee benefits should always come sooner rather than later.  There are lots of checklists out there about things you need to look for and specific questions to ask, but what strikes me is that some of them overlook some of the basics that I ask first.  So I thought I would share my initial questions when being asked to consider employee benefit concerns in a deal.

1. What do the entities look like to begin with and what will then end up looking like?

The structure of the entities before the transaction and after the transaction can tell us a lot about what might need to be done with the benefit arrangements.  A parent selling a wholly owned subsidiary may have different issues then two small companies creating a joint venture.  So before you do your employee benefit analysis, make sure you know where you have been and where you are going.  Believe me, it matters.

2.  What have you got that is not wages and what will you keep giving?

Seems like a silly statement, but a good review should start with the assumption that everything provided to employees that is not a straight wage could be a benefit.  Maybe not an ERISA benefit plan, but possibly some type of "plan" or "program" that has to receive special treatment.  Don't assume that simply because it is not a qualified plan it is not relevant for consideration.  I have seen things like wellness programs, commuter benefits, pet insurance and adoption assistance plans become last minute problems that would not have been issues if considered in advance.  So a real inventory is a census of everything you have (on both sides) and what you expect to give when you are done.

3. Who will still be employed when the dust settles?

Sometimes a merger eliminates employees.  Or an acquisition can take one set of employees and moves them to a new employer.  To evaluate continuation (and COBRA) obligations, you have to know who will still be around and who will be losing their employment status.  Do we have any obligations to retirees?  What about people who retiree because of the transaction?  Will job classifications change?  You would be amazed at the amount of litigation that arises related to terminating benefits for former AND continued employees that could have been addressed beforehand by simply considering who was being let go and who was being kept.

4. Do we have any unions involved?

Without going into too much detail, collectively bargained employee benefits issues can be a ticking time bomb for anyone who waits until the last minute to consider them.  Make a list of all unions involved,both before and after, and include any multiemployer benefit fund to which there may be a contribution obligation.  Be cognizant of possible successor liability for any delinquent contributions of the seller entity.

Continue Reading...

Health and Human Services Wants Comments on Exchanges

Step one in the process of creating insurance exchanges required under the PPACA (health care reform) is officially underway.  The Department of Health and Human Services published a request for comments from interested stakeholders - including the employer community that can be accessed here.

PPACA allows each state to establish a health insurance "exchange" to provide for the purchase of of "qualified health plans."  These exchanges will be available to certain smaller employers and individuals.  There will also be a federal exchange for people who live in states that do not offer their own state sponsored exchange.  Exchanges will ideally begin functioning on January 1, 2014.  The DHHS has now published a request for comments to obtain input from interested parties (which includes employers) on issues surrounding how the Exchanges will work.

The request for comment covers a wide assortment of topics, including who gets run the exchanges and how they will operate, time frames for implementation, information and technology needs, qualification criteria of health plans and possible pricing of the exchanges (including permissible cost-sharing components with employees).

Since employers will be impacted by the exchange offering and administration process, employers may be interested in the design and operation of the exchanges.  Beyond the comments requested, DHHS is also interested in input from employers regarding:

  • Design features likely to be most important for employer participation in the Exchanges.
  • Important factors in determining the employer size limit (e.g., 50 versus 100) for participation in an Exchange.
  • Important considerations to facilitate coordination between employers and the Exchanges (e.g., the key issues that will require collaboration).
Comments are requested by October 4, 2010.   If you are interested in obtaining assistance in submitting comments, or would be interested in having us prepare and submit comments on behalf of your company or organization, please contact me or your attorney at Fox Rothschild.

Not Everyone is a Fiduciary

Just because you work with retirement plan money, you are not necessarily a fiduciary.  This is generally good news to service providers who are trying to balance between potential liability under ERISA and their obligations under service contracts to plans and plan sponsors.

In Erickson v. ING Life Ins. & Annuity Co., the U.S. District Court of Idaho recently affirmed that a service provider moved money was not liable as a fiduciary.  At issue concerned moving money as a directed custodian.  The funds were transferred a day late which cost the plan money.  But the court would not allow a claim for breach of fiduciary duty to survive, finding that mere custodial responsibility (meaning acting at the direction of other fiduciaries) did not automatically give rise to fiduciary status under ERISA. 

The court reasoned that fiduciary status requires something more than merely having control of certain ministerial functions involving plan assets, like writing checks or moving money.  To be a fiduciary, one has to be using their own judgment and assume control, not simply acting at the direction of the plan.  Doing what you are told is not the same as assuming authority or control over plan assets for the purposes of being a fiduciary.

It is important to note that the court did not foreclose a possible negligence or breach of contract action against the custodian.  It merely concluded that this was not an ERISA case.  So for plan service providers, a case like this can provide some measure of comfort in the idea that just because you work with plan assets, you are not automatically a fiduciary.  but it also reminds us that service providers should be very clear in their contracts and agreements as to who is giving the directions and making the actual decisions for the plan.

Health Care Reform: Notice the Notices

If you are a regular reader, you know that I have been spending a lot of time addressing health care reform and upcoming plan administration and design issues.  As part of that administration process, it is important that plan sponsors not overlook some of the notice requirements that are hidden within the rules.  It is important to prepare for the required communications and, fortunately, the DOL has give us some samples.  So what is coming up?

1. Notice of Key Plan Design Changes

For most plans, the target date for compliance will be January 1, 2011.  So these notices are probably a good place to focus first.  The DOL has given us a notice for Annual and Lifetime Limit Changes (http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/lifetimelimitsmodelnotice.doc), a notice for Older Children Dependent Eligibility (http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/dependentsmodelnotice.doc), and a model for Primary Care Physician Designation (http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/patientprotectionmodelnotice.doc ).  Of course you will have to modify these notices to fit your plan, but they give us an idea of what will have to be in place.

2. Summary of Material Changes

Some time in 2012, plans or sponsors will have to send participants a written summary of any plan changes at least 60 days prior to the beginning of their plan year.   This is not the SPD or a summary of material modifications but rather will be targeted to summarize what changes are being made to comply with health care reform.  

These notices will be required by March 23, 2012, and ideally we will have DOL models before then.

3.  Summary of Medical Coverage

This plan summary is also due in the 2012 plan year and it will be referred to as a “uniform explanation of coverage.”  Limited to 4 pages and 12-point font, The summary must include specific content and definitions, and be written in language that is “linguistically” and “culturally” appropriate.  Again, this will not replace and SPD, but will likely supplement it as a uniform statement of certain required benefits.  

4.  Summary of Managed Care Programs

2012 looks like a big year for notices as we expect model language on notices that will describe all care management programs.  These will deal with wellness and disease management programs.  So to the extent an employer may not already have its wellness programs fully explained in writing, this notice will require those statements.

5.  Automatic Enrollment

As we get closer to 2014 and the penalties, employers will likely be looking at automatic enrollment and preparing for employees who want to opt-out of employer coverage.  In 2013, we can anticipate providing participants that they are automatically being enrolled in medical coverage and what actions they must take to opt-out.

6. Eligibility for Health Insurance Exchange

Coupled with the employee choice and the creation of the exchanges, we are going to have notices explaining what they are and how to access them.  Presumably, these notices will include information about eligibility rules for premium credits and the differences between an exchange plan and an employer-sponsored plan.  

So start with number 1, getting the 2011 notices and information in place.  Dutifully watch to see what sample or model notices are release next and continue to prepare your plan for full compliance.  And above all, don't miss any notices requirements because communication to participants will be the key to avoiding complaints.

Retirement Plan Fees: Penalities for Failure to Disclose Them

With the heady rush of health care reform changes, we might be overlooking retirement plans.  I have been writing before about the importance of fees disclosures in retirement plans and it turns out the government has not forgotten about it either.

On July 16, 2010, the DOL further clarified its position that fiduciaries must understand the fees and expenses associated with plans that allow participants to direct their investments and participants must be made aware of them.  Beginning July 16, 2011, a failure to disclose will result in prohibited transaction which in turn triggers excise tax penalties of 15 percent of the fees.

Retirement plan providers are now responsible to make the  disclosure if they reasonably expect to receive $1,000 or more in compensation.  The following persons are entities are required to make disclosures under these regulations:

  • Fiduciaries of the plan, including investment managers and anyone else who gives investment advice to the plan for a fee
  • Fiduciaries of plan assets in which the plan has a direct equity investment
  • Registered investment advisers
  • Providers of the plan’s record keeping and brokerage services
  • Other service providers, if they receive indirect compensation – including accountants, actuaries, banks, consultants, investment advisors, lawyers and third party administrators.

The service provider is required to disclose, in writing,  the following information BEFORE before providing services:

  • A description of the services to be provided
  • A statement of the provider’s fiduciary status
  • A description of all direct and indirect compensation to be received for covered services
  • A disclosure of compensation paid to the service provider and affiliates or subcontractors
  • A description of any compensation payable upon termination of the arrangement
  • If recordkeeping services are provided, a separate identification of the cost of the services

These fees are normally reported on the plan's 5500 (typically on the schedule C).  The regulations are available here for closer review.  These regs are substantially the same as were originally considered back in 2007, so there should be no surprises.  But plan sponsors and fiduciaries should now be very careful to make sure plan records maintain a full explanation of plan service fees incurred, and also make sure they are accurately reported.

External Appeals: Initial Guidance Without Direction

Within the Health Care Reform structure there is a provision that adds an external appeals component to claims processing.  In the mad rush to get regulations and guidance in place before the September 23, 2010, start date, the department of Labor issued a Fact Sheet on the appeals process.  It references interim regulations  which in tun references the Uniform Health Carrier External Review Act produced by NAIC(National Association of Insurance Commissioners).

Now the way it is set up, the regs suggest that States adopt the NAIC model for insurance written in their states.  For group health plans not subject to state regulation, or for insurance issued in states that have not adopted the NAIC model, a federal external appeals process will apply.  However, the actual process itself is not yet defined, and is not required to be fully defined until July 1, 2011.  So as best as I can tell, the idea is that the external appeals process is just that, an appeal that occurs outside of the plan.  It is ideally governed by the state insurance appeals process and models give by the NAIC.  And I would assume that the federal model eventually adopted will look like the NAIC recommendations.

So what does this mean?  Well, we still have to wait.  But for now it means they are working on it.  Plan sponsors should take a look at the NAIC model process available and recognize that they should start evaluating the process to see how they would ultimately implement such an external appeals process once actual guidance is finally issued.

Preventative Care: Some Insight Into What it Means

The Departments of Health and Human Services (HHS), Labor, and Treasury issued interim final regulations on July 19, 2010 requiring new plans and issuers to cover certain preventive services without any cost-sharing for the enrollee when delivered by in-network providers.  The interim final regulations do not apply to grandfathered plans and issuers.  A complete copy of the proposed interim rule is available here.

Unfortunately, the rule is not real specific about what services will be considered as preventative and will have to be covered at 100%.  Instead, there is a lot of reference to the recommendations of the United States Preventative Services Task Force (USPSTF) and what it has recommended.  Presumably, the recommendations of the task force will eventually be set into rules that explain what will be the final definition of preventative care.  But don't let the broad language fool you.  The actual rules are in there.

The proposed regs provide for four classifications of preventative care that mus be covered without cost sharing arrangements (that is co-pays or deductibles).  They are:

  • Evidence-based items or services that have in effect a rating of A or B in the current recommendations of the USPSTF with respect to the individual involved.
  • Immunizations for routine use in children, adolescents, and adults that have in effect a recommendation from the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (Advisory Committee) with respect to the individual involved. A recommendation of the Advisory Committee is considered to be ‘‘in effect’’ after it has been adopted by the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. A recommendation is considered to be for routine use if it appears on the Immunization Schedules of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
  • With respect to infants, children,and adolescents, evidence-informed preventive care and screenings provided for in the comprehensive guidelines supported by the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA).
  • With respect to women, evidence informed preventive care and screening provided for in comprehensive guidelines supported by HRSA (not otherwise addressed by the recommendations of the Task Force).

The point to this is that if you look at the USPSTF website, here, you find all kinds of information about A and B rated services, immunizations, counseling and screenings that are recommended based on individual patient needs.  By incorporating these recommendations into the regulations, we are essentially being told go find out that the USPSTF recommends and prepare to cover it.

Admittedly, these proposed regulations are interim and have not yet been finalized.  But a plan sponsor would do well to take the time to read them and find out what is likely going to be required once these are made final. 

Trustees, Beware of Conflicts: Glenn Applies to Taft-Hartley Plans

You might recall from a previous posting that I discussed the Supreme Court's decision in Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. v. Glenn.  In that case, the Court held that there is an inherent conflict affecting insurance companies that both decide and pay claims for benefits.  This conflict must be considered in determining whether an insurance company abused its discretion in denying a claim for benefits.  This does not eliminate the application of the "arbitrary and capricious" standard of review that ordinarily applies to benefit determinations. Instead, is creates a  two-step analysis for courts that are asked to review claims determinations.  The first is to determine whether a structural conflict exists which occurs when the administrator both evaluates claims for benefits and pays for them.   If this is the case, then step two applies and the court then must determine how much weight the conflict should be afforded in determining whether the administrator abused its discretion in denying the claim.

Subsequent to Glenn, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled in Durakovic v. Building Service 32 BJ Pension Fund, that, like insurance companies, Taft-Hartley funds are inherently conflicted when making benefit determinations, and that this conflict needs to be considered by federal district courts when reviewing plan determinations under an arbitrary and capricious standard of review.  This could have significant implications for these multiemployer plans and their future benefit plan determinations.

By way of background, Taft-Hartley (or multiemployer plans) are generally administered by a board of trustees, with equal numbers of union and management trustees. Appeal of benefit determinations are made to the board that ultimately makes a ruling on the appeal. The assumption is always that the balance of union and management takes away any perceived conflict because both sides would be equally represented in a decision process.

In Durakovic, an employee applied for disability benefits from her union-sponsored plans.  The plans provided benefits to those deemed to be disabled.  The plans denied her claim for disability benefits after a review of her appeal and she subsequently filed suit in federal district court challenging the funds’ decision.  On appeal, it was agreed that the challenged decision was subject to an arbitrary and capricious standard of review by the court. However, both parties disagreed with the district court’s decision that the Fund’s “conflict” was a relevant factor.  The plans argued that they were not conflicted within the meaning of Glenn because Taft-Hartley funds are administered by an entity composed equally of union and employer representatives. Durakovic argued that the conflict should have been accorded more weight.

Continue Reading...

Even More Health Reform Guidance: Patient Protections Clarified

While I was on vacation last week, The Departments of Health and Human Services, Labor and Treasury issued interim final regulations that provide guidance on these provisions of the new law.  The rules regarding preexisting conditions exclusion, lifetime and annual dollar limits, and rescissions apply to all group health plans regardless of grandfather status.  The “patient protection” provisions apply only to plans that do not qualify as grandfathered health plans.

To recap, the Health Care Reform legislation includes provisions designed to ensure that individuals can obtain and keep their health coverage regardless of their health status or other factors.  The law includes prohibitions on preexisting condition exclusions and the imposition of annual and lifetime dollar limits on health benefits.  The proposed interim regulations are available here.

Preexisting Conditions

The health reform law provides that effective for plan years beginning on or after September 23, 2010, group health plans and insurers may not impose any preexisting condition exclusion on enrollees under age 19.  An exclusionary period that applies to an enrollee at the time the prohibition goes into effect must end.  For example, if a child enrolled in October 2010 has a preexisting condition that is subject to a six-month exclusionary period, the exclusion must end on January 1, 2011 if the plan is operated on a calendar year basis.

Plans and insurers may continue to apply preexisting condition exclusions consistent with the HIPAA portability rules on enrollees age 19 and older until the 2014 plan year, at which time no preexisting condition exclusions will be permitted.

Also, non-grandfathered plans must notify participants of the choice of provider rules whenever the plan or issuer provides a participant with an SPD or other similar description of benefits.  In conjunction with this guidance, the DOL issued a Patient Protection Model Disclosure that is available here.

There is also a Model Language for Notice of Opportunity to Enroll in connection with Extension of Dependent Coverage to Age 26 available here.

Lifetime and Annual Dollar Limits

The new law generally prohibits group health plans from imposing lifetime or annual limits on the dollar value of “essential health benefits.”  This prohibition applies to group health plans, without regard to their grandfathered status, for plan years beginning on or after September 23, 2010 (January 1, 2011, for calendar year plans), except that “restricted annual limits” on essential health benefits are allowed for plan years beginning before January 1, 2014.  The prohibition on lifetime and annual dollar limits does not prohibit a complete exclusion of benefits for any particular condition (although other laws, such as the Americans With Disabilities Act, might), but if coverage is provided to any extent with respect to a condition, the annual and lifetime dollar limit rules apply.

Remember that “essential health benefits” generally includes, but is not limited to, the following categories and items and services covered within the categories: ambulatory patient services; emergency services; hospitalization; maternity and newborn care; mental health and substance use disorder services, including behavioral health treatment; prescription drugs; rehabilitative and habilitative services and devices; laboratory services; preventive and wellness services and chronic disease management; and pediatric services, including oral and vision care.   Unfortunately, no guidance has been issued to date regarding which other benefits qualify as “essential health benefits.”  Until guidance is issued, the regulators have stated that for plan years beginning before additional guidance is issued, they will take into account consistent and good faith efforts to comply with a reasonable interpretation of the term “essential health benefits.”

In conjunction with this guidance, a Model Language Notice Lifetime Limit No Longer Applies and Enrollment Opportunity is available here.

Continue Reading...

Pension Relief Ahead? 2010 Pension Relief Act is Now Law

This morning, President Obama into law the "Preservation of Access to Care for Medicare Beneficiaries and Pension Relief Act of 2010" that includes a six-month so-called "doc-fix," pension funding relief, and an anti-Medicaid fraud information disclosure measure. It's not all pension relief, but there is some in there.

In June of this year, Medicare physician payment rates are scheduled to be reduced by more than 20%. The "doc fix" would reverse that reduction and provide a 2.2% update to physician payment rates through Nov. 30, 2010. The bill pays for the "doc fix" in part by providing for pension funding relief, namely temporary, targeted funding relief for single employer and multiemployer pension plans that suffered significant losses in asset value due to the steep market slide in 2008. The theory for the revenue offset is that funding relief would increase employers' taxable income thereby boosting government revenue.

Under the pension relief provision, employers that elect the relief would be required to make additional contributions to the plan if they pay compensation to any employee in excess of $1 million, pay extraordinary dividends, or engage in extraordinary stock buybacks during the first part of the relief period. Additional relief is available to certain plans sponsored by charitable organizations. Employers that opt out of requirements to pay more into their pension funds to offset losses would still have to make additional contributions if they pay compensation to any employee in excess of $1 million, pay “extraordinary dividends,” or engage in “extraordinary stock buybacks” during the relief period.

Many plan sponsors have been interested in this type of relief because of concerns over improving their funded status under rehabilitation plans. For sponsors of single employer and multiple employer defined benefit pension plans, it is expected that this relief will make it easier for plans to retain their “green” status and improve their funded status as measured under the Pension Protection Act of 2006. Stay tuned for more details on this relief and the various agencies weigh in on its true implications.

IRS Proposes Assessment of Listed Transaction Penalties Upon Small Businesses

Harvey Katz, a benefits partner in our New York office, shares the following:

Some of our clients have adopted certain welfare plan arrangements under section 419(e) of the Internal Revenue Code. In recent years, the IRS has attacked these arrangements as devices to funnel tax-deductible dollars to shareholders and has classified these arrangements as “listed transactions.” Taxpayers who engage in a “listed transaction” must report such transaction on IRS Form 8886 every year that they “are engaged” in the transaction. Section 6707A of the Code imposes severe penalties ($200,000 for a business and $100,000 for an individual) for failure to file Form 8886 with respect to a listed transaction. The Tax Court does not have jurisdiction to abate or lower any penalties imposed by the IRS.

Many taxpayers adopted 419(e) plans based upon representations of insurance professionals that the plans were legitimate welfare benefit plans and had no idea they were engaging in a listed transaction. Vociferous complaints from these taxpayers caused Congress to impose a moratorium on assessment of section 6707A penalties. The moratorium expired on June 1, 2010, and the IRS immediately began sending out notices proposing imposition of 6707A penalties and requesting lengthy extensions of the statute of limitations for the purpose of assessing tax.

Clients who receive notices from the IRS regarding 6707A penalties should take these letters extremely seriously. The attorneys in our Employee Benefits & Compensation Planning Group are available to provide advice to those taxpayers who the IRS deems have participated in a listed transaction or any taxpayer who believes that he or she participated in such a transaction.

To get a complete copy of this alert, click here.

Health Care Reform: First Round of Regulations Issued on "Grandfathered" Plans

Yesterday, the three primary agencies charged with regulating and enforcing the federal government’s health care reform effort (Department of Treasury, Department of Health and Human Services, and Department of Labor) released interim final regulations that address the applicable exemptions for grandfathered health plans and the changes that may and may not be made to plans seeking to retain their grandfathered status.  Recall from prior posts that a "grandfathered" health plan is an employment-based group health plan (insured or self-funded) or individual insurance coverage existing as of March 23, 2010.   The final regulations answer a few burning questions about the applicability of health care reform to these plans and how they must conform (or not).

Plans seeking to maintain their grandfathered status have to make sure they don't do certain things that cause a loss of the status. These interim final regulations provide that a group health plan or health insurance coverage no longer will be considered a grandfathered health plan if a plan sponsor or an issuer:

  1. Eliminates all or substantially all benefits to diagnose or treat a particular condition. The elimination of benefits for any necessary element to diagnose or treat a condition is considered the elimination of all or substantially all benefits to diagnose or treat a particular condition;
  2. Increases a percentage cost-sharing requirement (such as coinsurance) above the level at which it was on March 23, 2010;
  3. Increases fixed-amount cost-sharing requirements other than copayments, such as a $500 deductible or a $2,500 out- of-pocket limit, by a total percentage measured from March 23, 2010 that is more than the sum of medical inflation and 15 percentage points.
  4. Increases copayments by an amount that exceeds the greater of: a total percentage measured from March 23, 2010 that is more than the sum of medical inflation plus 15 percentage points, or $5 increased by medical inflation measured from March 23, 2010;
  5. For a group health plan or group health insurance coverage, an employer or employee organization decreases its contribution rate by more than five percentage points below the contribution rate on March 23, 2010; or
  6. With respect to annual limits (1) a group health plan, or group or individual health insurance coverage, that, on March 23, 2010, did not impose an overall annual or lifetime limit on the dollar value of all benefits imposes an overall annual limit on the dollar value of benefits; (2) a group health plan, or group or individual health insurance coverage, that, on March 23, 2010, imposed an overall lifetime limit on the dollar value of all benefits but no overall annual limit on the dollar value of all benefits adopts an overall annual limit at a dollar value that is lower than the dollar value of the lifetime limit on March 23, 2010; or (3) a group health plan, or group or individual health insurance coverage, that, on March 23, 2010, imposed an overall annual limit on the dollar value of all benefits decreases the dollar value of the annual limit (regardless of whether the plan or health insurance coverage also imposes an overall lifetime limit on the dollar value of all benefits).

On top of creating a standard for maintaining "grandfathered" status, the interim regulations also provide some specific clarification related to applicability of the reforms to grandfathered plans:

  1. “Excepted benefits,” such as dental-only, vision-only, and health flexible spending account plans, are exempt from the health care reform plan design and operational changes.
  2. There is no broad exemption for collectively bargained insured plans that are subject to bargaining agreements in effect on March 23, 2010; such plans are simply deemed to be grandfathered health plans until the termination of the last collective bargaining agreement in effect on March 23, 2010, and are subject to all of the health care reform changes that otherwise apply to grandfathered health plans (e.g., the adult child coverage rules apply, but the new appeal procedures will not apply).
  3. The delayed effective date for collectively bargained insured plans does not extend to self-funded health plans.  Self-funded collectively bargained plans will be subject to the same requirements as other self-funded employment-based health plans.
  4. Adding existing employees as new enrollees in an employment-based group health plan after March 23, 2010, will not affect the plan’s status as a grandfathered health plan.
  5. A plan that has multiple benefit packages may have both grandfathered and non-grandfathered benefit packages; the rules apply separately to each benefit package.
  6. Retiree-only health plans generally are exempt from the health care reform plan design and operational changes (e.g., extension of coverage to adult children up to age 26, coverage of preventive care without cost-sharing, etc.).
  7. In general, plan changes adopted before March 23, 2010, with an effective date after that date will not cause a loss of grandfathered status.  If an employer/plan sponsor made changes to a group health plan since March 23, 2010, that would cause a plan to lose its grandfathered status under the new guidance, the employer/plan sponsor may reverse those changes before the first plan year beginning on or after September 23, 2010 (generally, the 2011 plan year) and preserve grandfathered health plan status.

We will continue to monitor developments in the law and provide updates, but we can anticipate that between now and September 23, we will get lots more information. 

DOL Issues Final Regulations on Domestic Realtions Orders

The Department of Labor has finalized its regulations on "domestic relations orders" (DROs).  The regulations, originally issued in 2007, were required under the PPA to clarify certain issues relating to the timing and order of issuing DROs under ERISA and the Code.  The final regulations are effective August 9, 2010. 

The good news is that the regulations rely heavily on examples to illustrate general principles which can make the regulations easier to understand.  But the bad news is that the DOL makes it very clear that the examples are not intended to represent the only circumstances to which the general principles apply.  A couple of the key provisions:

  • Subsequent DROs.  The regulations confirm that a DRO won’t fail to be a QDRO solely because it is issued after, or revises, another order.  For example, a second order involving the same parties is issued that reduces the benefit awarded in the first order.  The final regulations clarify that the result would be unchanged if the second order increased the benefit.
  • Timing of DROs.  The regulations clarify the principle that a DRO won’t fail to be a QDRO solely because of the timing of when it was issued.   For example A DRO can still be a QDRO if it is an order issued after the death of the participant or an order issued after the parties’ divorce.

While the DOL clarifications are useful, they don't significantly deviate from original narrow guidelines and while helpful, the examples don't necessarily make any significant changes to the administration of DROs and QDROs.  A complete text of the regulations are available here.  If nothing else, it will give benefits and matrimonial attorneys something in common to discuss.  For more information, please contact your attorney at Fox Rothschild.

COBRA Subsidy Appeal Process: Remedies Have to Be Exhausted

While Congress has not yet determined to extend the COBRA subsidy further, one of the first court decisions dealing with subsidies, and more importantly, a denial of subsidy, has been decided.  Dorsey v. Jacobson Holman, from the DC district court deals with denial of the COBRA subsidy.

Dorsey applied for the COBRA subsidy and her employer denied the subsidy application saying she voluntarily terminated.  Dorsey did not return from an FMLA leave of absence.  After checking with the DOL, Dorsey informed her employer that the DOL considered the termination to be involuntary.  In fact, the DOL representative also contacted the employer and told them so.  But Dorsey did not actually file an appeal with the DOL.  Instead, she filed this lawsuit.

The Court dismissed the lawsuit finding that Dorsey had failed to exhaust administrative remedies, which is generally a precursor to filing a case under ERISA.  The court decided that since the ARRA provides a specific appeals process, that appeals process has to be exhausted before a suit can be brought.

This decision does not necessarily result in the employer avoiding the subsidy, but it does provide some guidance and assurance to plan sponsors that the subsidy process is tied into and consistent with the normal components of plan administration.  It appears that ERISA protections and responsibilities will apply.  Thanks to Susan Jordan, a partner in our Pittsburgh office, for bringing this to my attention. 

Winning Isn't Everything: Attorneys Fees in ERISA Cases

The award of attorneys fees under Section 502(g) of ERISA (29 U.S.C. 1132(g)) is a pretty misunderstood concept.  502(g)(2) gives a plan or fiduciary the ability to recoup attorneys fees for cases involving delinquent contributions under Section 515 when the fund "prevailed" or was successful in its action.  But 502(g)(1) has remained a bit of a mystery because it simply provides that in suits by participants or fiduciaries brought to enforce ERISA, the court can award attorneys fees to either party in its discretion.

Most courts look to apply a 5-factor test to an award of attorneys fees: (1) culpability or bad faith of the opposing party, (2) ability to satisfy a fee award, (3) deterrence effect, (4) whether the decision benefits all participants or resolves a significant legal questions, and (5) relative merits of each party's position.  While 502(g)(1) does not specifically require a party to prevail to get an award for attorneys fees, many courts have found that in order to get them, you first have to win.

In Hardt v. Reliance Standard Life, the United States Supreme Court has now weighed in to find that there is no "prevailing party" requirement in 502(g)(1) that would require a win before fees could be awarded.  The Court determined that "some success" by the applicant on the merits of the case which is not merely trivial or procedural is required in order to support an award.  However, "some success" does not mean an complete and final determination on favor of the applicant.  Moreover, the Court completely rejected the traditional 5-factor test, finding it has no relation to ERISA laws as written.

In the Hardt case, the apparent success was an award remanding the claim to the plan for a second review.  It was not a determination that benefits were improperly denied.  So that was "some success."  But the Court's decision does not provide any further clarification as to what "some success" will mean going forward, only that it is less than a complete victory that may have previously been the default measurement.

So by eliminating the 5-factor test, and requiring only "some success," the Court has probably muddied rather than cleared the waters.  In theory, because Reliance also had some success, it too could have been awarded attorneys fees.  But since the award would be fully in the discretion of the lower Court, could that Court still have considered the traditional components of the 5-factor test even if it was not applied specifically?  It remains to be seen how courts will deal with this further.  But plan administrators should now be prepared to consider attorneys fees as a possible litigation risk even if it appears a plaintiff will not fully succeed on their claim.  Even a partial win could be a full win when it comes to fees.

Free Health Care Reform Seminar

I will be speaking at a complimentary breakfast seminar called "Understanding Health Care Reform and Its Impact on New Jersey Employers and Their Employees" on June 22, 2010.  The seminar will be held at the Hilton Woodbridge,120 Wood Avenue South, Iselin, NJ 08830-2709.  Registration begins at 8:30, with the seminar to be conducted from 9:00 to 11:30.   

Join employment lawyers, employee benefits specialists, accountants and employer advocates from New Jersey Chamber of Commerce, The NIA Group, a Marsh & McLennan Agency LLC company, Coughlin Duffy LLP, Fox Rothschild and Amper, Politziner & Mattia, LLP.

Get an overview of the health care reform bill, including:

  1. Deconstruction of the Bill and Its Provisions
  2. A Timeline of Provisions and Employer Responsibilities
  3. Practical Steps to Comply with the Law
  4. Anticipated Changes to Benefit Plan Design, and the Role of Wellness Programs
  5. How to Plan and Pay for Impending Tax Changes in a Difficult Economy
  6. The Impact of the Law on the New Jersey Business Community, and
  7. The Role Employers can Play in Reforming Health Care in the Garden State

Click here ro register.

Collective Bargaining and Health Care Reform: Some Thoughts About 2014

Several employers have approached me with questions about the health care reform changes and the potential impact it will have on collective bargaining agreements that extend beyond January 1, 2014.  While not purely a "plan administration" issue, there should be some reason for employers to pause and wonder how they should address health care reform in upcoming negotiations.

Since there is no real guidance or regulations that have come out yet, we are all waiting for explanations, but employers about to sign bargaining agreements that obligate them to contribute to a multiemployer health fund may not be able to wait.  For example, what will happen if employees decide to opt out of the fund and get into an exchange?  Who will be responsible for payment of penalties?  What is the fund does not meet the definition of a "qualified health plan" (which will eventually be defined)?  What impact will grandfathering have on coverage obligations and contribution obligations, if any?  What if the new rules will render the fund unsustainable and it ceases to exist mid-contract?

There are not really answers to these questions yet.  There are just too many variables that are not yet defined.  But one of our labor attorneys here suggested to me that maybe the best option is to consider including a "mid-term reopener" in the collective bargaining agreement that allows the employer, at its option, to reopen the agreement and bargain to address these issues once regulations are finally issued.  In other words, a provision that unlocks the agreement before its conclusion so that both employer and union can deal with what might be serious concerns regarding health benefits coverage.

So to the extent you as an employer may be looking at negotiating a new agreement that will carry past January 1, 2014, you should consider raising this issue at bargaining.  Since we know changes are coming, it seems logical that both parties would be best served by addressing it now rather than hoping nothing bad happens later.  Your Fox Rothschild attorney would be happy to assist.

Don't Forget Your Fiduciary Duties: The Big 4

Recently, I have been working on a number of cases that involve allegations of breach of fiduciary duty.  Having read a number of court decisions and article on this issue, it strikes me that while there are a number of duties that a fiduciary has to plans, there are 4 that have jumped out at me as the big ones.

Section 404 of ERISA provides that a fiduciary shall discharge duties with the case, skill, prudence and diligence under the circumstances then prevailing that a prudent person acting in like capacity would under the same circumstances.  404 also sets out two of the largest duties. 

First, there is the duty of loyalty.  The fiduciary has to act solely and exclusively in the best interests of the plan to provide benefits for participants and defray expenses for administration of the plan.  This means no self-dealing, but it also means watching how the dollars that are spent elsewhere to see that they are properly spent.  Fiduciaries have to know what is reasonable to pay for services rendered to the plan.

Second, there is the duty of diversification or prudent investment.  A fiduciary has to make investment decisions so as to minimize the risk of large losses, unless under the circumstances it is not prudent to do so.  It is interesting that the statute does not require fiduciaries to maximize return.  So fiduciaries should be wary of investment decisions that promise greater returns if those returns come with higher risk. 

Third, there is a duty to properly communicate.  Though specifically articulated in Section 404, there are many court cases that address failure to communicate or miscommunication of plan terms.  Fiduciaries must avoid misleading information and should seek to make sure participants are fully informed of the terms of the plan, and also any changes that occur.

Fourth, there is a duty to maintain the trust.  Sometimes referred to as a record keeping obligation or a segregation obligation, this duty requires fiduciaries to keep accurate records of the plan and also to keep plan assets separate from other assets.  No co-mingling with corporate assets is permitted.  There must e accurate accounting and reporting of plan assets, returns and withdrawals.

Certainly there are more duties that can be read into these and interpreted from them.  But if a prudent fiduciary focuses on these four and makes sure that they are diligent in their exercise of these duties, the risk of claims for breach of fiduciary duty will be lowered. 

The Festivities Commence: Initial Guidance Issued on Dependent Coverage to Age 26

In prior entries, I made reference to the fact that the new Health Care Reform provisions will require lots of regulations and guidance from the various federal agencies.  The US Department of Labor has issued its first round of guidance that address the extension of coverage to dependents up to Age 26.

By way of background, The Affordable Care Act requires plans and issuers that offer dependent coverage to make the coverage available until a child reaches the age of 26.  Both married and unmarried children qualify for this coverage.  This rule applies to all plans in the individual market and to new employer plans.  It also applies to existing employer plans unless the adult child has another offer of employer-based coverage (such as through his or her job).  Beginning in 2014, children up to age 26 can stay on their parent's employer plan even if they have another offer of coverage through an employer.

Some interesting points on this initial guidance:

  • For plan years beginning after 9/23/10, plans are going to have to give written notice and open enrollment rights to these eligible dependents
  • The Dependent can not be required to pay more for the coverage than similarly situated individuals.
  • Coverage is not offered to children of children or spouses of the eligible dependent.
  • Age 26 Dependent coverage can be purchased with pre-tax dollars.
  • The coverage terminates on the date the dependent turns 26 (not through age 26)

The regulation available here.   A fact sheet is available here.   Finally, an FAQ sheet is available here.  We will continue to monitor and provide updates about any guidance issued.  In the interim, please contact your attorney at Fox Rothschild if you have any questions about reform and its impact on your company or plan.

Wellness Programs: DOL Disability Laws Revisited

My last entry dealt with wellness programs and the possibility of discrimination in their implementation.  As luck would have it, this morning, the US Department of Labor released an interactive, online "Disability Nondiscrimination Law Advisor," designed to help employers quickly determine which federal disability nondiscrimination laws apply to their business or organization and their responsibilities under them.

The DOL website can be accessed here.   To be fair, it is not really intended to provide too detailed advice to employers so the links provided to other resources and advisory materials are pretty generally written.  But it is a nifty starting point for employers interested in researching the various disability laws that apply to employers and what considerations may have to be given when instituting a wellness program.

Don't Let Your Wellness Program Make Your Company "Sick"

There is no question that corporate wellness programs are increasing in popularity.  From requiring medical checkups to smoking cessation and weight loss, many health plan sponsors are implementing wellness programs in an effort to improve employee health and decrease overall health care claims experience.  The new health care reform laws include provisions that encourage small employers to implement these programs, and even provide some measure of subsidy.  But employers must be careful about looking at a "one size fits all" program as a solution.

The most common question is to employee a carrot or a stick.  The IRS certainly recognizes that there can be up to a 20% penalty (which will increase to 30% under the new reform laws) for non-compliance.  But at the same time, HIPAA requires that plan participants have to be offered reasonable alternatives to meeting certain health goals depending on their own limitations.  Further, there are individual state laws addressing discrimination that have to be a concern.

I spoke at a seminar last week where one of the other presenters opined that a wellness program was just a gateway for an employment discrimination suit.  For example, Scotts Miracle-Gro implemented a no-smoking program and fired an employee who tested positive for nicotine.  He sued over the off-site smoking ban and they settled for an undisclosed figure.  So a termination "stick" might not be the best approach.  But charging higher premiums creates problems as well, particularly if an individual claims that a particular disability prevents them from complying with the wellness program, thereby discriminating against them.  Would charging higher premiums to those who don't quit smoking give rise to a claim for disability discrimination if it is successfully argued that nicotine addiction is a disability?  Would requiring decrease in body mass index improperly discriminate against employees with weight issues?

In a recent survey conducted by MetLife, 58% of respondents said they participated in wellness programs because of reduced costs, while only 30% said they participated because of fear of penalty.  Unfortunately, there is little case law defining the limits of mandated participation in wellness programs.  It is pretty clear that communication and education about the program is key, but design and implementation remains a minefield.

I believe that, in the end, an good wellness program is only as effective as the population that it serves.  So start by evaluating your population.  Are they carrot or stick driven?  How likely are they to comply?  What "wellness" issue are most important to them and which ones most heavily impact your plan?  It is better to start with a limited program based on known data then to assume you can put any program in place and make it work.  Knowing your options is the best way to avoid a wellness program that makes your company "sick."

Supreme Court Upholds Deferential Review for Plan Administrators

Some things did happen this week that had nothing to do with health care reform or COBRA.  Notably, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an opinion yesterday in Conkright v. Frommert, a case that some real positive implications for plan administrators.  I have written in the past about the deferential standard of review and this case further outlines its importance.

By way of background, in Firestone v. Bruch, the Supreme Court confirmed that if the benefit plan contains a provision that gives the administrator "discretionary authority" to interpret plan provisions, then that interpretation could only be overturned if it was "arbitrary and capricious."  This gives administrators the ability to reasonably interpret provisions that could otherwise be disputed as long as they did not do so in an unreasonable manner. 

In Conkright, a dispute arose over how to interpret plan provisions regarding reduction in benefits for past pension distributions for people who were re-hired after taking lump sum distributions.  The plan had a provision giving the administrator discretion to interpret.  The District Court applied the deferential standard of review and ruled in favor of the plan.  The Second Circuit reversed and remanded, finding the administrator's decision was "unreasonable."  The second time around, the District Court did not apply a deferential standard and found in favor of the employees.  The Second Circuit affirmed saying the district court could refuse to apply the deferential standard.

The Supreme Court said "not so fast."  The Court found that the Second Circuit erred in its holding that the District court could refuse to apply a deferential standard.  The Court affirmed that if the plan reserves the right to interpret and puts it in the hands of the administrator, that interpretation cannot be disturbed if it is reasonable.  The Court did not say the interpretation was correct, only that it must be viewed with the deferential standard.

Why is this important?  Well, first it reminds plan sponsors to include the ability to interpret (discretionary authority) in the plan.  Second, there are changes on the horizon associated with health care reform, and probably with respect to retirement plans and their administration.  Administrators should be cautioned to apply reasonable interpretations to plan provisions, but should also continue to be assured that the deferential standard will apply when considering those interpretations.

COBRA Subsidy Extended Once Again

Late yesterday, President Obama signed into law another short-term extension of COBRA health insurance premium subsidies for employees who are terminated involuntarily.   This law takes immediate effect and is retroactive to April 1, 2010.

Effectively, the new law takes the last extension and replaces the "March 31, 2010" date with the new "May 31, 2010" date.  The 15-month 65% federal premium subsidy is now extended so that employees who were involuntarily terminated between April 1 through May 31 are eligible.  As with the previous extension, only Assistance Eligible Individuals (AIs) qualify for the subsidy.   To be assistance eligible, the employee has to have an involuntary termination of employment.    If the individual lost coverage as a result of a reduction in hours which was then followed by an involuntary termination of employment, that person is eligible for the subsidy if that involuntary termination occurs on or after March 2, 2010, and on or before May 31, 2010.   This part does not apply to terminations prior to March 2, 2010.

The new law does not change the length of the COBRA maximum coverage period. It is still based on the original reduction in hours Qualifying Event date.  Also, the subsidy period (up to 15 months) is unchanged.

Health Care Reform Part 7: And A Word About Grandfathered Plans

Part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, or the “Health Care Reform Act” as I have been referring to it, includes the idea of "grandfathering" certain plans.  Grandfathering applies to allow certain plans to avoid immediate application of some of the new rules.  Note, I said "some" and not "all."  Grandfathering does not apply to all of the new rules. 

A “grandfathered" health plan is defined as any group health plan that was in effect when the Act was passed, which was March 23, 2010.  The idea behind grandfathering is exempting the plans from having to comply with certain provisions of the new Act and allowing them to remain generally the same as they were in prior years, or for prior "pre-Act" enrollment periods.   

What this means is that new employees (and their families) may be added to the plan after March 23, 2010, and individual can even re-enroll in a "grandfathered" health plan after March 23, 2010, and the plan would still be grandfathered.  Likewise, an individual who was covered by a grandfathered health plan may add his or dependents to the plan after March 23, 2010, without negating the plan’s grandfathered status as long as the plan allowed for dependent/family coverage on March 23, 2010.

Of course, there are exceptions to the grandfathering and so here are the ones that are EXEMPT from grandfathering, which means plans have to comply with them even if they were in effect prior to March 23, 2010.  For plan years beginning after September 23, 2010: 

  1. Pre-existing conditions. Pre-existing condition exclusions have to be removed from group health plans for children under the age 19.  Not for everyone.  That comes later.
  2. Dependent coverage.  Group health plans must provide coverage for adult dependent children up to age 26 only if the child is not eligible to enroll in other employer-provided coverage (other than in a grandfathered plan). 
  3. Rescissions.  Plans will not be able to cancel coverage after someone has submitted medical claims.  Rescission would still be permitted if an individual committed fraud or made an intentional misrepresentation of a material fact. 
  4. Coverage limits.  Group health plans must removed lifetime maximum limits on coverage of essential benefits and the eliminate of certain annual limits.

Provisions generally effective Jan. 1, 2014 for calendar-year grandfathered plans:

  1. Dependent coverage.  Group health plans will have to provide coverage for adult dependent children up to age 26.
  2. Excessive waiting periods.  Enrollment waiting periods cannot exceed 90 days.
  3. Pre-existing conditions.  Elimination of pre-existing condition exclusions entirely, not just for children under 19.

It is not all bad.  There are come provisions that are not applicable to grandfathered plans.

  1. IRS Code Section 105(h) (Amount paid to highly compensated individuals under a discriminatory self-insured medical expense reimbursement plan) will not apply to insured group health plans.
  2. The new rules for processing claims appeals do not apply to grandfathered health plans.
  3. The requirement that women be permitted to select an OB-GYN of their choice.
  4. The requirement that certain preventative care benefits be provided under group health plans.

A special note about collectively bargained plans:

Collectively bargained multi-employer and single employer plans that are in place as of March 23, 2010 are not subject to the new rules until the date on which the last of the collective bargaining agreements relating to the coverage terminates.  The Act specifically provides, however, that a collectively bargained plan is permitted to be amended early for some or all of the new rules. This voluntary amendment will not be treated as a termination of the collective bargaining agreement which might otherwise subject the plan to an earlier Reform Act compliance deadline.

However, once the bargaining agreement expires, a collectively bargained plan is then subject to health care reform rules and, assuming it remains grandfathered (based on the rules then in effect), it would have to comply with the requirements for grandfathered plans.

So grandfathering may not require your plan to make every change, but it will certainly have to make some of them.

Health Care Reform Part 6: And now for the Costs

Since before the HCRA was passed, people have been debating about how to pay for it, what it will cost and how it will impact the economy.  I am not going to debate those issues.  Instead, let's look at the change in cost structure the Act provides that will potentially impact employers.

The Costs

The addition of the PHSA sections referenced above lay out what the additional (or amended) requirements will be for employer sponsored health plans and multiemployer plans.  They provide both administrative requirements and benefits limits.  So they tell us what plans have to look like going forward and how they have to work.  But they do not set out any specific requirements with respect to employers and their obligations to provide any particular group health plan.

In fact, there is no requirement that an employer offer any group health plan. Instead, there are penalties that apply if an employer DOES NOT offer qualified coverage.  More importantly, there will be penalties associated with offering coverage that is not as good as what is otherwise available and employee choose not to take that coverage.

For months beginning after Dec. 31, 2013, an “applicable large employer” (generally, one that employed an average of at least 50 full-time employees during the preceding calendar year) that is not offering coverage for all its full-time employees, is offering minimum essential coverage that is unaffordable, or is offering minimum essential coverage that consists of a plan under which the plan's share of the total allowed cost of benefits is less than 60%, that employer will have to pay a penalty if any full-time employee is certified to the employer as having purchased health insurance through a state exchange with respect to which a tax credit or cost-sharing reduction is allowed or paid to the employee.  The penalty for any month will be an excise tax equal to the number of full-time employees over a 30-employee threshold during the applicable month (regardless of how many employees are receiving a premium tax credit or cost-sharing reduction) multiplied by one-twelfth of $2,000.

Also, an applicable large employer that offers, for any month, its full-time employees and their dependents the opportunity to enroll in minimum essential coverage under an employer sponsored plan will be subject to a penalty if any full-time employee is certified to the employer as having enrolled in health insurance coverage purchased through a State exchange with respect to which a premium tax credit or cost-sharing reduction is allowed or paid to such employee or employees.  So if an employee elects to participate in the State exchange, and is eligible for premium tax assistance, the employer will still be subject to a penalty.  This is designed to force employers to keep the employee cost of coverage down because if it is cheaper for an employee to get coverage under an exchange rather than an employer plan, the employee who elects the exchange coverage causes a penalty to the employer.

Remember back at the beginning we talked about bronze (60%) silver (70%), gold (80%) and platinum (90%) levels of coverage?  This is where the concept of “qualified plan” becomes important to employers on a penalty-payment basis.  The new law creates a concept called “exchanges” which has yet to be fully defined, but generally is intended to mean a vehicle whereby individuals can go and buy coverage for themselves. They level of coverage will have a set price. If a large employer has employees who purchase coverage through an exchange, that employer will be subject to the penalties if certain conditions are met:
1. The employer has more than 50 employees (computing part-time employees as a percentage of full time employees based on 30 hours per week)
2. the employee who purchases the coverage does so with tax-credits or cost sharing reductions; and
3. the employer is not offering coverage, is offering sub-bronze coverage or the coverage is unaffordable

Free choice vouchers. After Dec. 31, 2013, employers offering minimum essential coverage through an eligible employer-sponsored plan and paying a portion of that coverage will have to provide qualified employees with a voucher whose value can be applied to purchase of a health plan through the Insurance Exchange.  Qualified employees are those employees:
... who do not participate in the employer's health plan;
... whose required contribution for employer sponsored minimum essential coverage (if they did participate in the plan) exceeds 8%, but does not exceed 9.5% of household income; and
... whose total household income does not exceed 400% of the poverty line for the family.

After 2014, the 8% and 9.5% will be indexed to the excess of premium growth for the preceding calendar year.  The value of the voucher is equal to the dollar value of the employer contribution to the employer offered health plan and is not includable in income to the extent it is used for the purchase of health plan coverage.  If the value of the voucher exceeds the premium of the health plan chosen by the employee, the employee is paid the excess value of the voucher.  The excess amount received by the employee is includable in gross income.  If an individual receives a voucher, he is disqualified from receiving any tax credit or cost sharing credit for the purchase of a plan in the Insurance Exchange.  Similarly, if any employee receives a free choice voucher, the employer is not assessed a shared responsibility payment on behalf of that employee.

Tax credits for small employers offering health coverage. For tax years beginning after Dec. 31, 2009, an eligible small employer will be given a tax credit for nonelective contributions to purchase health insurance for its employees.  An eligible small employer generally is an employer with no more than 25 full-time equivalent employees (FTEs) employed during the employer's tax year, and whose employees have annual full-time equivalent wages that average no more than $50,000.  However, the full amount of the credit is available only to an employer with 10 or fewer FTEs and whose employees have average annual full-time equivalent wages from the employer of less than $25,000.  These wage limits will be indexed to the Consumer Price Index for Urban Consumers (“CPI-U”) for years beginning in 2014.

For tax years beginning in 2010 through 2013, the credit will be 35% for small employers with fewer than 25 employees and average annual wages of less than $50,000 who offer health insurance coverage to their employees.  In 2014 and later, eligible small employers who purchase coverage through the Insurance Exchange will be eligible for a tax credit for two years of up to 50% of their contribution.

Excise tax on high-cost employer-sponsored health coverage. For tax years beginning after Dec. 31, 2017, a 40% nondeductible excise tax will be levied on insurance companies and plan administrators for any health coverage plan to the extent that the annual premium exceeds $10,200 for single coverage and $27,500 for family coverage.  An additional threshold amount of $1,650 for single coverage and $3,450 for family coverage will apply for retired individuals age 55 and older and for plans that cover employees engaged in high risk professions.  The tax will apply to self-insured plans and plans sold in the group market, but not to plans sold in the individual market (except for coverage eligible for the deduction for self-employed individuals).  Stand-alone dental and vision plans will be disregarded in applying the tax.  The dollar amount thresholds will be automatically increased if the inflation rate for group medical premiums between 2010 and 2018 is higher than the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates in 2010.

Employers with age and gender demographics that result in higher premiums could value the coverage provided to employees using the rates that will apply using a national risk pool. 
The excise tax will be levied at the insurer level.  Employers will be required to aggregate the coverage subject to the limit and issue information returns for insurers indicating the amount subject to the excise tax.

Cost of employer sponsored health coverage included on Form W-2.  For tax years beginning after Dec. 31, 2010, employers must disclose the value of the benefit provided by them for each employee's health insurance coverage on the employee's annual Form W-2.

Increased tax on nonqualifying HSA or Archer MSA distributions. For distributions made after Dec. 31, 2010, the additional tax for HSA withdrawals before age 65 that are used for purposes other than qualified medical expenses is increased from 10% to 20%, and the additional tax for Archer MSA withdrawals that are used for purposes other than qualified medical expenses is increased from 15% to 20%.

Deduction for employer Part D is eliminated. For tax years beginning after Dec. 31, 2012, the deduction for the subsidy for employers who maintain prescription drug plans for their Medicare Part D eligible retirees will be eliminated. 

Since we have yet to see what the exchanges will look like, we can't be sure what types of plans employers will have to offer.  But employers should be aware of the cost load associated with offering coverage, not offering coverage, or offering "substandard" coverage to project how their particular benefit plans might be impacted in the future.

Health Care Reform Part 5: The Coming Storm

Where the HCRA gets most cumbersome and confusing is analyzing what happens next.  After the initial changes in 2010, we get into 2011, which provides a provision where small employers that establish wellness programs can get grants for up to five years to support those programs.  Employers will also have to disclose the value of welfare benefits provided to employees on W-2s.  2012 and 2013 will be relatively quiet years, although 2013 will impose a hard cap of $2,500 on FSA contributions (unless the reconciliation bill does not pass and then this cap will apply in 2011).  Then comes 2014.  That will be a year of big changes.

Effective for Plan Years on or After January 1, 2014

First, let's look at required plan design changes, referred to as "Health Insurance Reforms."  These are changes that will occur to the health plans.  The provisions of part A of title XXVII of PHSA that are added by the Sec. 1201 of the Health Care Reform Act (effective for plan years beginning on or after Jan. 1, 2014) and that are incorporated by reference in the Code, include:

SEC. 2701. FAIR HEALTH INSURANCE PREMIUMS.
This provision will prohibit Discriminatory Premium Rates by limiting rating to things like whether such plan or coverage covers an individual or family, geographic rating area, age and tobacco use.
SEC. 2702. GUARANTEED AVAILABILITY OF COVERAGE.
Each health insurance issuer that offers health insurance coverage in the individual or group market in a State must accept every employer and individual in the State that applies for such coverage.
SEC. 2703. GUARANTEED RENEWABILITY OF COVERAGE.
If a health insurance issuer offers health insurance coverage in the individual or group market, the issuer must renew or continue in force such coverage at the option of the plan sponsor or the individual, as applicable.
SEC. 2704. PROHIBITION OF PREEXISTING CONDITION EXCLUSIONS OR OTHER DISCRIMINATION BASED ON HEALTH STATUS.
A group health plan and a health insurance issuer offering group or individual health insurance coverage may not impose any preexisting condition exclusion with respect to such plan or coverage.
SEC. 2705. PROHIBITING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST INDIVIDUAL PARTICIPANTS AND BENEFICIARIES BASED ON HEALTH STATUS.
A group health plan and a health insurance issuer offering group or individual health insurance coverage may not establish rules for eligibility (including continued eligibility) of any individual to enroll under the terms of the plan or coverage based on any of the health status-related factors.
SEC. 2706. NON-DISCRIMINATION IN HEALTH CARE.
A group health plan and a health insurance issuer offering group or individual health insurance coverage shall not discriminate with respect to participation under the plan or coverage against any health care provider who is acting within the scope of that provider's license or certification under applicable State law. This section shall not require that a group health plan or health insurance issuer contract with any health care provider willing to abide by the terms and conditions for participation established by the plan or issuer. Nothing in this section shall be construed as preventing a group health plan, a health insurance issuer, or the Secretary from establishing varying reimbursement rates based on quality or performance measures.
SEC. 2707. COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE.
(a) Coverage for Essential Health Benefits Package- A health insurance issuer that offers health insurance coverage in the individual or small group market shall ensure that such coverage includes the essential health benefits package required under section 1302(a) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
(b) Cost-sharing Under Group Health Plans- A group health plan shall ensure that any annual cost-sharing imposed under the plan does not exceed the limitations provided for under paragraphs (1) and (2) of section 1302(c).
(c) Child-only Plans- If a health insurance issuer offers health insurance coverage in any level of coverage specified under section 1302(d) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the issuer shall also offer such coverage in that level as a plan in which the only enrollees are individuals who, as of the beginning of a plan year, have not attained the age of 21.
(d) Dental Only- This section shall not apply to a plan described in section 1302(d)(2)(B)(ii)(I).
SEC. 2708. PROHIBITION ON EXCESSIVE WAITING PERIODS.
A group health plan and a health insurance issuer offering group or individual health insurance coverage shall not apply any waiting period (as defined in section 2704(b)(4)) that exceeds 90 days.
 

In my next entry, we will look at the 2014 changes that go outside of the plan itself and will directly impact employers.

Health Care Reform Part 4: More Changes for 2010

Yesterday we looked at two changes that the HCRA brings for health plans in 2010.  Here is a list of all of the changes that have to be made now:

Effective As of September 23, 2010

The provisions of part A of title XXVII of PHSA that are added by the Sec. 1001 of the Health Care Reform Act (effective on Sept. 23, 2010) and incorporated by reference in the Code, include:

SEC. 2711. NO LIFETIME OR ANNUAL LIMITS. (See my April 7, 2010 posting)
SEC. 2712. PROHIBITION ON RESCISSIONS
A group health plan and a health insurance issuer offering group or individual health insurance coverage cannot rescind such plan or coverage with respect to an enrollee once the enrollee is covered under such plan or coverage involved, except that this section shall not apply to a covered individual who has performed an act or practice that constitutes fraud or makes an intentional misrepresentation of material fact as prohibited by the terms of the plan or coverage.  Such plan or coverage may not be canceled except with prior notice to the enrollee, and only as permitted under section 2702(c) or 2742(b).
SEC. 2713. COVERAGE OF PREVENTIVE HEALTH SERVICES.
In general, a group health plan and a health insurance issuer offering group or individual health insurance coverage shall, at a minimum provide coverage for and shall not impose any cost sharing requirements for things like immunizations and preventive care and screenings.  The “United States Preventive Services Task Force” will set guidelines.
SEC. 2714. EXTENSION OF DEPENDENT COVERAGE. (see my 4/7/2010 post)
SEC. 2715. DEVELOPMENT AND UTILIZATION OF UNIFORM EXPLANATION OF COVERAGE DOCUMENTS AND STANDARDIZED DEFINITIONS.
Within 12 months after the date of enactment of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the Secretary of Labor shall develop standards for use by a group health plan and a health insurance issuer offering group or individual health insurance coverage, in compiling and providing to enrollees a summary of benefits and coverage explanation that accurately describes the benefits and coverage under the applicable plan or coverage.  This is going to look a lot like the rules of ERISA regarding content of summary plan descriptions.
SEC. 2716. PROHIBITION OF DISCRIMINATION BASED ON SALARY.
In general, a plan sponsor of a group health plan (other than a self-insured plan) may not establish rules relating to the health insurance coverage eligibility (including continued eligibility) of any full-time employee under the terms of the plan that are based on the total hourly or annual salary of the employee or otherwise establish eligibility rules that have the effect of discriminating in favor of higher wage employees.  But this section shall not be construed to prohibit a plan sponsor from establishing contribution requirements for enrollment in the plan or coverage that provide for the payment by employees with lower hourly or annual compensation of a lower dollar or percentage contribution than the payment required of similarly situated employees with a higher hourly or annual compensation.
SEC. 2717. ENSURING THE QUALITY OF CARE.
Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the Secretary shall develop reporting requirements for use by a group health plan, and a health insurance issuer offering group or individual health insurance coverage, with respect to plan or coverage benefits and health care provider reimbursement structures measure and report the quality of care that plan participants are receiving.  This will include reporting about wellness and prevention programs.
SEC. 2718. BRINGING DOWN THE COST OF HEALTH CARE COVERAGE.
A health insurance issuer offering group or individual health insurance coverage shall, with respect to each plan year, submit to the Secretary a report concerning the percentage of total premium revenue that such coverage expends—
(1) on reimbursement for clinical services provided to enrollees under such coverage;
(2) for activities that improve health care quality; and
(3) on all other non-claims costs, including an explanation of the nature of such costs, and excluding State taxes and licensing or regulatory fees.
The Secretary shall make reports received under this section available to the public on the Internet website of the Department of Health and Human Services.  There will then be objective measures for whether insured are receiving “value” for their premiums.
SEC. 2719. APPEALS PROCESS.
A group health plan and a health insurance issuer offering group or individual health insurance coverage shall implement an effective appeals process for appeals of coverage determinations and claims.  Again, we already have this under ERISA, but it is modified slightly to allow for a external review process as well as an internal appeals process.  This will be an interesting challenge for self-insured plans and we will have to wait to see what HHS ultimately requires.

Note that the provisions of PHSA Sec. 2716 (prohibition on discrimination based on salary), and Sec. 2718 (bringing down the cost of health coverage), do not apply with respect to self-insured group health plans.  Thus, the provisions of the Code and ERISA continue to apply to self-insured group health plans as if PHSA Sec. 2716 and PHSA Sec. 2718 had not been enacted.

For plan sponsors of self-funded plans (including multiemployer plans), they will have to amend those plans to provide for compliance with these provisions to begin the first plan year after the effective date.  Additional guidance regarding these changes is anticipated before September 23, 2010, so plan sponsors should make a conscious effort to watch for that guidance and be prepared to act once it is issued.

Tomorrow, we will look at changes for subsequent years.

Health Care Reform Part 3: Changes that Have to Be Made Now

In Step 2 of our Health Care Reform analysis, we were looking at the how the new laws would interface with existing employee benefits laws, particularly ERISA.  I had concluded that in order for the new laws to apply to these plans, the new law actually has to specify that it applies to them. We will be looking for phrases such as “as if included in the Code and ERISA” to tell us when these ERISA benefit plans are impacted.  So let's look at two immediate changes that have to take place for "group health plans."

A. No Lifetime or Annual Limits

Generally, ERISA plans are not subject to the Public Health Service Act, and insurance companies issuing policies to individuals are not subject to ERISA.  The Department of Labor enforces ERISA and not the Public Health Service Act.  Those lines are now blurred.

Under the 2010 Health Care Reform Act, the provisions of part A of title XXVII of the Public Health Service Act (PHSA)—Sec. 2701 through Sec. 2737, as amended by the Act—apply to (i) “group health plans,” and (ii) “health insurance issuers” providing “health insurance coverage” in connection with group health plans, as if included in the Code and ERISA.  PHSA Section 2711 is amended to provide that:

A group health plan and a health insurance issuer offering group or individual health insurance coverage may not establish—
(A) lifetime limits on the dollar value of benefits for any participant or beneficiary; or
(B) except as provided in paragraph (2), annual limits on the dollar value of benefits for any participant or beneficiary.

By inserting the reference to ERISA and the Code, PHSA Section 2711 is incorporated into those laws by reference, meaning that self-insured or multiemployer “group health plans” are now subject to this restriction.  The DOL can now require plans within its jurisdiction to comply with the PHSA requirement of no lifetime or annual cap. 

B. Extension of Dependent Coverage

The same holds true for extension of dependent coverage until age 26.  PHSA Section 2714 provides that any group health plan or a health insurance issuer that offers group or individual health insurance coverage that provides coverage of dependent children, must continue to make dependent coverage available for an adult child (who is not married) until the child turns 26 years of age.  This would include ERISA plans by reference.

Some other interesting observations about this Age-26 extension:
a). There is no requirement for a plan or issuer to provide health insurance coverage for anyone, including dependents.  But if coverage is provided for dependent children, then the coverage must continue until the children turn 26.
b). Presumably, an adult child would have to continue to meet the plan's definition of “dependent”—other than the otherwise applicable age requirement—to remain covered under the group health plan up until age 26.  Remember that the tax code has a definition of “qualifying relative” and “qualifying child” that might counteract this definition.
c). Nothing in the rule above will require a health plan or a health insurance issuer to make coverage available to a child of a child receiving dependent coverage.

So now, after September 23, 2010, there can be no annual or lifetime caps on benefits and they have to cover dependents up to age 26.  For calendar year plans, this appears to be effective January 1, 2011.  Tomorrow, we will look at some additional changes effective 9/23/10.
 

Health Care Reform Step 2: Defining A Health Plan

In yesterday's entry, we saw how the concept of "qualified health plan" is being modified under the Health Care Reform Act (HCRA).  Now, we look at what is a "health plan."

2. Defining A “Health Plan”

To the extent Section 3(1) of  ERISA gives us the definition of a “welfare benefit plan,” the new law gives us an additional term that differentiates away from other welfare benefit packages.  Remember that under ERISA, welfare benefits include things like disability, life and other not-necessarily-health benefits.  Under the HCRA, the term “health plan” means both “health insurance coverage” and a “group health plan.”  The funding status is irrelevant. It become a function of whether or not that plan provides the health benefits required to be “qualified.”  So we are going to have "group health plans" that are "welfare benefit plans." 

The term “health insurance coverage” means benefits consisting of medical care (provided directly, through insurance or reimbursement, or otherwise and including items and services paid for as medical care) under any hospital or medical service policy or certificate, hospital or medical service plan contract, or health maintenance organization contract offered by a health insurance issuer.  And the term “health insurance issuer” means an insurance company, insurance service, or insurance organization (including a health maintenance organization) which is licensed to engage in the business of insurance in a state and which is subject to state law which regulates insurance.  However, a health insurance issuer does not include a group health plan.

The term “group health plan” has the same meaning given that term by section 2791(a) of the Public Health Service Act.  Section 2791 states that:

"The term “group health plan” means an employee welfare benefit plan (as defined in section 3(1) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 [29 U.S.C. 1002 (1)]) to the extent that the plan provides medical care and including items and services paid for as medical care) to employees or their dependents (as defined under the terms of the plan) directly or through insurance, reimbursement, or otherwise. "

Note how Section 2791 references back to the ERISA definition welfare benefit plan but limits the application to providing health benefits.  This is important because it should serve as the distinction between whether an employer is offering a “group health plan” and whether an individual has “health insurance coverage.”  An employer may be offering coverage through a health insurance issuer as the means of funding the benefit, but in fact, the employer is sponsoring a “group health plan” not “health insurance coverage.”

Oddly, except to the extent specifically provided by the 2010 Act, the term “health plan” does not include a group health plan or multiple employer welfare arrangement (MEWA) to the extent the plan or arrangement is not subject to state insurance regulation under Section 514 of ERISA.  What this means is that funding IS important for understanding when the new rules apply.  Self-funded, self-insured and multiemployer plans are not subject to state insurance regulation.  Therefore, in order for the new laws to apply to these plans, the new law actually has to specify that it applies to them.  We will be looking for phrases such as “as if included in the Code and ERISA” to tell us when these ERISA benefit plans are impacted. 

In my next entry, we will look at some instances where the HCRA specifically denotes changes that have to occur to "group health plans" and the interplay with ERISA.

Health Care Reform Step 1: Defining a "Qualified Health Plan"

Because of the relative complexity of the Health Care Reform Act, I am breaking my analysis down into a series of discrete issues that I think will be relevant to employers.  The first part of the summary deals with the creation of the concept of a "qualified health plan."

Before the 2010 Health Care Act, there was no federal program making health care coverage available to all individuals, and the concept of a “qualified health plan” did not exist.  We had used the term “qualified” to refer to ERISA health plans meaning that they qualified for treatment as an employer sponsored health plan, and most people believed the term “qualified” meant self-funded.  Now, we have a new standard by which health plans will be measured, thereby “qualifying” them as sufficient under the terms of the Act.

Note that it appears throughout the regulations that the funding status of the plan is of little significance.  So whether it is an insured plan, self-insured or self-funded, it still has to meet these “qualifications.” ERISA “qualified” status will still have some significance for the purpose of preemption of state law.  But for the remainder of this discussion, the term “qualified” will mean what it does under the 2010 Health Care Act.

1. Defining a “Qualified Health Plan”

For purposes of the 2010 Health Care Act, a “qualified health plan” is a “health plan” that:
(1) has in effect a certification (which may include a seal or other indication of approval) that the plan meets certain criteria for certification, issued or recognized by each Exchange through which the plan is offered;
(2) provides the “essential health benefits package”; and
(3) is offered by a health insurance issuer that:
    (a) is licensed and in good standing to offer health insurance coverage in each state in which the issuer offers health insurance coverage under the Act;
    (b) agrees to offer at least one qualified health plan in the silver level, and at least one plan in the gold level, in each exchange; 
    (c) agrees to charge the same premium rate for each qualified health plan of the issuer without regard to whether the plan is offered through an exchange, or whether the plan is offered directly from the issuer, or through an agent; and
    (d) complies with the regulations that apply to exchanges, and any other requirements that an applicable exchange may establish.

The term “essential health benefits package” means, with respect to any health plan, coverage that:
(A) provides for “essential health benefits”;
(B) limits cost-sharing for such coverage; and
(C) provides either bronze, silver, gold, or platinum level of coverage (i.e., benefits that are actuarially equivalent to 60%, 70%, 80% or 90% (respectively) of the full actuarial benefits provided under the plan).

The essential health benefits must include at least the following general categories (sometimes referred to as “minimum essential coverage”), and the items and services covered within the categories:
... ambulatory patient services;
... emergency services;
... hospitalization;
... maternity and newborn care;
... mental health and substance use disorder services, including behavioral health
    treatment;
... prescription drugs;
... rehabilitative and habilitative services and devices;
... laboratory services;
... preventive and wellness services and chronic disease management; and
... pediatric services, including oral and vision care.

Incidentally, HHS is required to establish the criteria for certifying a qualified health plan. That criteria has to require that, to be certified, a plan must:
... meet certain marketing requirements;
... ensure sufficient provider choice;
... include essential community providers that serve low-income and medically-
    underserved individuals;
... be accredited for clinical quality, patient experience, consumer access, and quality
    assurance;
... implement a quality improvement strategy;
... use a uniform enrollment form;
... use a standard format for presenting plan options; and
... provide information on quality standards used to measure plan performance.

What this means is that at some point, we can anticipate that plan sponsors will have to have their plans “certified” as “qualified” by meeting the required standards set forth by HHS.

These qualified health plans can cross state lines and become a “multi state qualified health plan.” Generally, a multi-state qualified health plan is a plan that offers a benefits package that is uniform in every state, and consists of the essential benefits described above. In addition, the plan must satisfy all of the requirements for a qualified health plan, as described above, including requirements relating to the offering of the bronze, silver, and gold levels of coverage and catastrophic coverage in each state exchange (which we will define later).

So having created a concept of a "qualified" health plan, we will next look to see what a "health plan" will be.

The HIRE Act: In Case You Did Not KNow It Was Out There

Sarah Ivy, from our Chester County office, shares the following with me about the HIRE Act, recently signed into law by President Obama:

I am writing to give you an overview of the key tax changes affecting private business in the recently enacted Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment (HIRE) Act. Please call me for additional details of how the new changes may affect your specific business.

Payroll tax holiday and up-to-$1,000 credit for employers who hire unemployed workers. To help stimulate the hiring of workers by the private sector, the new law exempts any private-sector employer that hires a worker who had been unemployed for at least 60 days from having to pay the employer’s 6.2% share of the Social Security payroll tax on that employee for the remainder of 2010. A company could save a maximum of $6,621 if it hired an unemployed worker and paid that worker at least $106,800 – the maximum amount of wages subject to Social Security taxes – by the end of the year. As an additional incentive, for any qualifying worker hired under this initiative that the employer keeps on payroll for a continuous 52 weeks, the employer is eligible for an additional non-refundable tax credit of up to $1,000 after the 52-week threshold is reached, to be taken on their 2011 tax return. In order to be eligible, the employee’s pay in the second 26-week period must be at least 80% of the pay in the first 26-week period.

Employers of qualified workers hired after the date of introduction of the legislation (February 3, 2010) are eligible for the payroll tax forgiveness and the retention bonus, but only wages paid after the date of the new law’s enactment receive the exemption for payroll taxes.
Here are some additional features of the new hiring incentive:
• The tax benefit of the new incentive is immediate. It puts money into an employers’ cash flow immediately, since the tax is simply not collected in the first place.
• The tax benefit generally applies only to private-sector employment, including nonprofit organizations – public sector jobs are generally not eligible for either benefit. However, employment by a public higher education institution would qualify.
• There is no minimum weekly number of hours that the new employee must work for the employer to be eligible, and there is no maximum on the dollar amount of payroll taxes per employer that may be forgiven.
• For workers that would otherwise be eligible for the “Work Opportunity Tax Credit,” the employer must select one benefit or the other for 2010 – no double dipping.
• An employer cannot claim the new tax breaks for hiring family members.
• A worker who replaces another employee who performed the same job for the employer is not eligible for the benefit, unless the prior employee left the job voluntarily or for cause.
• For the hiring to qualify, the new hire must sign an affidavit, under penalties of perjury, stating that he or she has not been employed for more than 40 hours during the 60-day period ending on the date the employment begins.
• The incentive is not biased towards either low-wage or high-wage workers. Under the measure, a business saves 6.2% on both a $40,000 worker and a $90,000 worker.
• The payroll tax holiday does not apply with respect to wages paid during the first calendar quarter of 2010, but the amount by which the Social Security payroll tax would have been reduced under the payroll tax holiday provision during the first calendar quarter is applied against the tax imposed on the employer for the second calendar quarter of 2010.
• The credit for retaining qualifying new hires is the lesser of $