Are You Ready to Provide Your MHPAEA Disclosure?

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

DOL and HHS FAQs Provide Important Insights

by Bret F. Busacker

We previously blogged about the new Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act (MHPAEA) reporting and disclosure requirements established by the Consolidated Appropriation Act, 2021 (CAA). As a refresher, employers and carriers that sponsor group health plans are now required to provide upon request a full analysis of the process followed by the plan in establishing non-quantitative treatment limitations (NQTLs) for the plan and the impact these NQTL’s have on mental health and substance use disorder (MH/SUD) benefits provided by the plan. This disclosure requirement went into effect on February 10, 2021. 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

Bridge Over Troubled Water: 2021 Flexible Spending Account Relief in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021

/in , , , , , ,

by Bret F. Busacker

On December 27, 2020 Congress passed the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (CAA). The CAA provides relief for employees whose dependent care and health care FSA accounts were impacted by the pandemic. This relief will allow employers to amend their FSAs to essentially eliminate the so called “use it or lose rule” for FSA balances not used by the end of 2020 and 2021. This relief is accomplished by giving participants up to an additional year to use the unspent amounts in their FSA accounts. Please see a more detailed description of this relief here.

In addition, the CAA also permits employers to amend their dependent care and health care FSAs to permit contribution election changes (e.g., to start, stop, increase or decrease FSA elections) throughout 2021 for any reason. Please see a more detailed description of this relief here. Read more

US District Court Pushes Back on DOL’s ERISA Plan Ruling Finding It Arbitrary and Capricious

/in , , , , ,

by Bret Busacker

As with many of the issues at stake in the upcoming Presidential election, the future of how Americans will obtain healthcare is a core issue this November. The Trump administration previously outlined its view that healthcare could be provided through Association Health Plans that consist of loosely related employer groups, including self-employed individuals. This Association Health Plan rule was then struck down by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, which concluded the Rule was too aggressive; and exceeded the scope of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).

A recent US District Court case in Texas throws new fuel on the debate fire of whether healthcare coverage may be offered through ever-more expansive and creative employer sponsored arrangements; or whether ERISA should be interpreted to limit employer coverage to more traditional employer-employee structures.

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).

Wake me up when September ends

/in , , , , , ,

by Lyn Domenick

Final rules released by the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services and Treasury on June 13, 2019 have the potential to transform how employers pay for health care coverage for employees.  The rules permit the use of a new type of health plan called an individual coverage health reimbursement arrangement (“ICHRA”).   Under an ICHRA, the employer provides an amount that can be used by the workers to pay for all or some of health coverage obtained in the individual market.  These plans will presumably be utilized by employers that want to offer a health benefit to employees without maintaining a full (major medical) group health plan.  However, an important notice deadline is approaching.   Employers that want to adopt an ICHRA for 2020 (effective January 1, 2020) must provide a notice to employees by no later than October 3, 2019.  The new ICHRA guidance is complex and includes rules related to enrollment, classes of employees, opting out, substantiation of expenses and the annual notice requirement described above.   Given the short time frame to analyze whether to proceed under the new rules, work out the details and issue the required notice, many employers may take a wait and see approach and defer this decision to the 2021 plan year or beyond.  Early adopters, however, need to act soon if this is on their agenda for 2020. 

If you have questions about the new ICHRA health plans, reach out to a member of the Benefits Law Group and we will be glad to assist. 

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