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

This is the End: Employers Must Provide Notice of the Expiring COBRA Subsidy Period

/in , , , ,

by Brenda Berg

The COBRA subsidy from COVID-19 stimulus bill – The American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARPA) – is nearing an end and in many cases requires employers to provide notices by September 15. The COBRA subsidy covered 100% of COBRA premiums for assistance-eligible individuals for periods of coverage beginning on or after April 1, 2021 through September 30, 2021. We previously covered the details of the subsidy in these posts: These Boots Are Made For Walking…But If You Quit, You Might Not Get the COBRA Subsidy and Lean on Me…New Guidance on Federal COBRA Subsidy. Because eligible individuals have 60 days to elect COBRA, there are still a couple months of coverage periods for which individuals may still be able to elect the subsidy. Read more

I Can’t Go For That, No Balance Billing

/in , , ,

by Leslie Thomson

The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 (“CAA”) established, among other things, new protections from surprise billing and excessive cost-sharing for consumers receiving health care items and services (“No Surprises Act”).

Most group health plans and health insurance issuers that offer group or individual health insurance coverage have a network of providers and health care facilities that agree to accept a specific payment amount for their services. Providers and facilities that are not part of a plan’s or issuer’s network usually charge higher amounts than the in-network providers and facilities. Group health plans and issuers typically do not cover the entire out-of-network costs, leaving the individual with higher costs than if they had been seen by an in-network provider. In many cases, the out-of-network provider may bill the individual for the difference between the billed charge and the amount paid by their plan or insurance, unless prohibited by state law (known as “balance billing”). Read more

Lean on Me . . . New Guidance on Federal COBRA Subsidy

/in , , , ,

By Kevin Selzer

We posted on April 6th about the COBRA subsidy that was made available through the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARPA).  In short, the law gives certain individuals who are entitled to COBRA due to a reduction of hours or involuntary termination of employment a 100% subsidy for health coverage that is continued under COBRA or equivalent state laws. Read more

Matchmaker, Matchmaker, Make Me a Match … Based on my Student Loan Repayments

/in , , , ,

by Beth Nedrow

For the last several years, a hot topic for policymakers has been how to address the nation’s massive student loan debt. At the same time, the pressure remains to develop ways to encourage Americans to save for their own retirement. Legislation is in the works that proposes marrying those two goals.

Earlier this week, the U.S. House of Representatives Ways and Means Committee passed a bipartisan retirement reform bill, the Securing a Strong Retirement Act of 2021 (or “SECURE 2.0,” to reflect its role in following in the footsteps of the SECURE Act passed in December 2019). Among other provisions, SECURE 2.0 would permit employers to make matching contributions under a 401(k) plan, 403(b) plan or SIMPLE IRA with respect to “qualified student loan payments.” Such arrangements have been touted as a way to make sure employees burdened with student loans don’t miss out on employer retirement contributions since they may be unable to afford both student loan repayments and elective deferrals to a retirement plan. Read more

These Boots Are Made For Walking…But If You Quit, You Might Not Get the COBRA Subsidy

/in , , , ,

by Brenda Berg

April 8 UPDATE: The COBRA subsidy model notices referenced in this article are now available: https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ebsa/laws-and-regulations/laws/cobra/premium-subsidy. Employers should be working with their COBRA administrator on how to notify eligible individuals about the subsidy.

The COBRA subsidy from the most recent COVID-19 stimulus bill – The American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARPA) – is now in effect. An assistance-eligible individual can have 100% of COBRA premiums subsidized for the periods beginning April 1, 2021 through September 30, 2021. All plan sponsors must offer the subsidy – it is not optional.

Eligible former employees and spouses/dependents (qualified beneficiaries) can receive the subsidy if they are already on COBRA. In addition, individuals who declined or dropped COBRA coverage can elect into COBRA under a “second bite at the apple” election process, if they are still in the remaining period of COBRA coverage that would have applied originally. Read more

Into the Mystic . . . Employee Benefit Considerations for Returning Workers

/in , , , , , , , ,

by Kevin Selzer

Many employers are venturing into uncharted waters as significant numbers of employees are being rehired or returning from extended leaves of absence (e.g., furloughed employees). In this environment, it can be easy to overlook the employee benefit plan implications of this workforce shift. Below are some best practices for employers faced with employees returning to work.

Ensure that retirement plans are crediting service for returning employees correctly. In most cases, employers will not be able to treat a rehired employee as a new employee for retirement plan purposes. This means that the employer will have to consider the employee’s prior service for purposes of determining proper eligibility and vesting credit. This is a good time for employers to check and confirm that any systems that track service (e.g., payroll systems and the retirement plan administrator’s systems) are configured correctly to credit prior service.

Read more

We Interrupt this Program – What in the SECURE Act Do Retirement Plan Sponsors Need to Pay Attention to in 2020?

/in , , , , , , , ,

by Brenda Berg

After being on the verge of enactment last spring but failing to pass, the SECURE Act is now law. The Setting Every Community Up for Retirement Enhancement Act of 2019 – the SECURE Act – was enacted on December 20, 2019 as part of the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020.

Although this legislation is considered major retirement plan legislation, it doesn’t have many immediate impacts on most employer retirement plans. Plan sponsors need to pay attention to the following items – for the most part, the other changes (such as pooled employer plan opportunities and annuity payouts) do not require immediate action.

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).