Take the Power Back . . . Negotiating Provider Contracts for Benefit Plans

/in , , ,

By Kevin Selzer

Disputes between plan sponsors and plan service providers are not new. As with any contractual relationship, things don’t always go according to “plan” or at least, as the sponsor expects. When that happens, one of the first things sponsors (and their attorneys) will do is review the provider’s contract. Some sponsors will be surprised to find some very provider-friendly provisions, such as:

  • a provision specifying that the provider is permitted by the contract to act negligently (as long as the conduct does not rise to gross negligence or intentional misconduct), or
  • a provision indicating that the sponsor has contractually waived its right to participate in a class against the provider.

Unfortunately for sponsors, a provider’s willingness to fix an error often comes down to how much the provider wants to continue working with the sponsor on a go forward basis. Read more

Better Hide the Wine … Employer Considerations as the DOL Doubles Down on Mental Health Parity Compliance in New Proposed Regulations

/in , , , , , , ,

by Alex Smith

The Department of Labor (DOL), the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and the Department of Treasury (collectively, the Departments) recently issued proposed Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act (MHPAEA) regulations and their second joint report to Congress regarding their MHPAEA enforcement activities as required under the MHPAEA and the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (CAA).

In addition, the DOL issued Technical Release 2023-01P, requesting comments on potential data requirements related to non-quantitative treatment limitations (NQTLs) and network composition. The proposed regulations and Technical Release indicate that employers can expect increased compliance obligations related to NQTLs and the NQTL comparative analysis reporting and disclosure requirements established by the CAA. For additional information about the CAA’s MHPAEA NQTL comparative analysis reporting and disclosure requirements, please see our blog posts from 2022 and 2021. Read more

What Happens in a Small Town Stays in a Small Town … Until the DOL Doubles Down on Mental Health Parity Compliance

/in , , , , , , ,

by Alex Smith

The Department of Labor (DOL), the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and the Department of Treasury (collectively, the Departments) recently issued their joint report to Congress regarding their Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act (MHPAEA) enforcement activities as required under the MHPAEA and the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (CAA). The report contained insights regarding the DOL’s enforcement of the new MHPAEA reporting and disclosure requirements related to non-quantitative treatment limitations (NQTLs) established by the CAA. For additional information about the CAA’s new MHPAEA reporting and disclosure requirements, please see our previous blog post (as well as earlier blog posts). Read more

Stronger . . . Services Agreements for Benefit Plans

/in , , ,

By Kevin Selzer

With the exception of certain small businesses, being an employer generally means offering an array of benefits to remain competitive in the worker marketplace.  As the employer grows, typically so does the list of employee benefit plans being offered.  This naturally translates into more service providers, and for good reason.  Employers typically don’t possess the knowledge and skillset to offer these benefits in-house, and ERISA, which applies to most employee benefit arrangements, requires the plans to be administered in accordance with some of the highest standards of care under law. As a result, employers are frequently hiring and replacing service providers.

Today’s post focuses on some tips for employers in a sometimes-overlooked aspect of the process of hiring a service provider – the contract between the employer and the provider.  In concept, the service provider agreement is relatively simple – it needs to set out each party’s role and responsibility in delivering the employee benefit.  As always though, the devil is in the details.  Below are some tips for employers:

Read more

We Interrupt This Program – Is a Multiple Employer Plan In Your Future?

/in , , , , , , , , , ,

by Kevin Selzer

We interrupt our usual Benefits Dial programming – to take a closer look at developments affecting multiple employer plans (MEPs) as part of our series of posts on the recently enacted benefit plan legislation, including the SECURE Act (background here).  The reform to MEPs is seen by many as the biggest disruptor to the retirement plan industry.  Why?  It facilitates the banding together of retirement plan assets from unrelated employers, helping employers punch above their weight.  By combining together to form a larger plan, smaller employers can leverage assets with regard to plan services, and maybe most importantly, investment fees paid by participants. 

MEPs have long been permitted but many employers have been unwilling to participate in those plans.  The biggest deterrent has been the “one bad apple rule.”   That rule provides that a defect in any participating employer’s portion of the MEP can impact the tax qualification of the entire MEP for other participating employers.  In other words, if one participating employer in the MEP is unwilling (or maybe unable) to correct an error, the whole plan can be disqualified by the IRS.  The SECURE Act helps solve this issue with a special kind of MEP called a pooled employer plan (PEP).  PEPs have a specific procedure for dealing with tax qualification defects.  In short, a participating employer in a PEP who refuses to correct the error, can be discharged (spun off) from the PEP to isolate the disqualification impact. The SECURE Act grants relief under ERISA to boot.  Historically, MEPs were treated as a collection of separate plans unless the underlying employers met a commonality standard.  A PEP (called a “Group of Plans” under ERISA) is also treated as a single plan for ERISA purposes under the SECURE Act.  This means, for example, that such plans would be allowed to file a single Form 5500. 

Read more

A Little Less Conversation, a Little More Action: Major retirement plan legislation is finally signed into law

/in , , , , , , , , , ,

by Brenda Berg

After being on the verge of enactment last spring but failing to pass, the SECURE Act will become law after all. Congress included the Setting Every Community Up for Retirement Enhancement Act of 2019 (H.R. 1994) (the SECURE Act) in the year-end spending legislation needed to keep the government running. The House passed the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020 (H.R. 1865) – which included the SECURE Act provisions – on December 17, 2019. The Senate followed on December 19, 2019, and President Trump signed it on the last day possible for the spending bill – December 20, 2019.

For a summary of the major SECURE Act provisions that impact retirement plans, see our previous article. In addition to including the SECURE Act provisions, the year-end legislation adds a few other provisions impacting retirement plans and other benefits. Defined benefit plans such as cash balance plans can now allow in-service withdrawals once a participant reaches age 59-1/2, instead of age 62. The minimum age for in-service withdrawals from 457(b) plans is also lowered to 59-1/2.

For welfare benefits, the year-end legislation repeals the “Cadillac Tax” which would have otherwise taken effect in 2022. The Cadillac Tax was part of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and would have imposed a 40% excise tax on the insurer or employer for any “high cost” employer-provided health plan coverage.

Many of the benefits provisions are effective in 2020, although some are optional. The legislation generally provides time to amend retirement plans until the last day of the plan year that begins in 2022, and some governmental plans and collectively bargained plans have later deadlines until as late as 2024.

We will be covering many of the specific changes in more detail in upcoming blog posts. Sign up to regularly receive our blog posts (which come more often and on more varied topics than our Alerts).

Come together, right now . . . and join a MEP?

/in , , , , , ,

by Beth Nedrow

In late July, the Department of Labor released a rule allowing small businesses to more easily band together in a joint retirement plan. The idea is that a larger plan will have more leverage to obtain better pricing and better service from vendors. Equally important is the ability of employers to offload some or all of the responsibility for maintaining retirement plans.

The final rule alters the definition of “employer” in ERISA for purposes of who may establish and maintain an individual account defined contribution retirement plan. Under the new rule, a group or association, or a PEO (professional employer organization) can sponsor what the DOL refers to as a “MEP” – a “multiple employer plan.” The regulation is limited to “bona fide” groups, associations and PEOs – which means they must have a business purpose or other common connection, and not merely have the purpose of providing the retirement plan. In this way, the new rule mirrors the DOL’s regulations intended to expand the availability of association health plans (“AHPs”), which is currently stalled due to litigation.

Read more