Since the Affordable Care Act (“ACA”) became law in 2010, numerous groups have attempted to invalidate the ACA or specific parts of the ACA through litigation. Even after a number of plaintiffs unsuccessfully attempted to invalidate the ACA over the past dozen years, a Federal district court judge in Texas recently invalidated the ACA’s requirement that non-grandfathered group health plans provide preventive care services with an “A” or “B” rating in the current recommendations from the United States Preventive Services Task Force (e.g., certain cancer screenings, depression screening, statins to prevent heart disease, etc.) with no cost sharing. In addition, the court ruled that the requirement that plans cover PrEP HIV medications cannot be enforced against plan sponsors with religious objections. The ACA’s other preventive care mandates remain in effect. Read more
https://www.employeebenefitslawblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/logo_vertical-v2.png00Alex Smithhttps://www.employeebenefitslawblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/logo_vertical-v2.pngAlex Smith2023-04-06 14:35:272023-09-26 14:31:25It’s a Roller Coaster … Employer Considerations After Court Invalidates ACA Preventive Care Mandate
We have now had a couple of months to review and digest SECURE 2.0 (and its roughly 90 provisions impacting retirement plans). If plan sponsors haven’t done so already, it is time to roll up their sleeves and put a triage list together on these law changes. Below are some suggestions on where to start: Read more
https://www.employeebenefitslawblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/logo_vertical-v2.png00Kevin Selzerhttps://www.employeebenefitslawblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/logo_vertical-v2.pngKevin Selzer2023-03-20 10:20:372023-09-26 14:31:48Oceans Rise, Empires Fall, It’s Much Harder When It’s All Your Call … SECURE 2.0—What Comes Next?
One question that often comes up is whether an expense related to an ERISA plan can be paid with plan assets. The decision of whether to use ERISA plan assets to pay an expense is an ERISA fiduciary decision. With the recent IRS guidance clarifying the timing of use of forfeitures, this question may come up even more.[1] Using plan assets inappropriately is a fiduciary breach and subject to possible DOL and IRS penalties. It is important to have a fiduciary process in place for reviewing expenses and determining whether a payment is proper. Read more
https://www.employeebenefitslawblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/logo_vertical-v2.png00Brenda Berghttps://www.employeebenefitslawblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/logo_vertical-v2.pngBrenda Berg2023-03-10 13:04:082023-09-26 14:31:58Should I Pay Or Should I No(t) Now: Which Expenses Can be Paid with Plan Assets?
On February 27, 2023, the Treasury issued proposed regulations intended to simplify and clarify the rules relating to forfeitures within qualified retirement plans.
Defined Benefit Plans
Similar to defined contribution plans, defined benefit plans may use forfeitures to pay eligible plan expenses. However, unlike defined contribution plans, defined benefit plans are prohibited from using forfeitures to reduce required employer contributions. In addition, forfeitures must be used as soon as possible. The proposed regulations eliminate this timing requirement because it conflicts with the minimum funding requirements. Instead, reasonable actuarial assumptions are to be used to determine how expected forfeitures will affect the present value of plan liabilities. The difference between expected and actual forfeitures will then increase or decrease the plan’s minimum funding requirement in future years. Read more
https://www.employeebenefitslawblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/logo_vertical-v2.png00Becky Achtenhttps://www.employeebenefitslawblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/logo_vertical-v2.pngBecky Achten2023-03-03 09:41:252023-09-26 14:32:08One Way or Another … Forfeitures Will Have to Be Administered Under Your Retirement Plan, and the IRS Just Proposed New Regulations That Provide Simplified Guidance
It may be an understatement to say that compliance with benefit plan laws and regulations is becoming increasingly more complicated. In my experience, the COVID era has brought about some of the widest-sweeping changes on the burden of administering benefit plans in some time.
There has been major evolution around service provider fee disclosure, DOL reporting and disclosure on mental health parity and disclosure of plan costs, new claims procedure rights, expanded expectations around Cyber Security protections, and expansion of the use of ESG and crypto currency (and on-again, off-again regulatory efforts). Read more
https://www.employeebenefitslawblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/logo_vertical-v2.png00Bret Busackerhttps://www.employeebenefitslawblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/logo_vertical-v2.pngBret Busacker2023-02-27 09:23:552023-09-26 14:32:25It Doesn’t Have To Be That Way: Negotiating Good Service Provider Agreements Is More Important than Ever
While case law regarding the enforceability of arbitration provisions in ERISA retirement plans has been mixed, since the Ninth Circuit’s 2019 decision in Dorman v. Charles Schwab Corp. enforcing a 401(k) plan’s arbitration provision, some employers and plan sponsors have given increased consideration to adding arbitration provisions to their retirement plans based on that decision and the proliferation of class action ERISA lawsuits. However, following the Tenth Circuit’s February 9 decision in Harrison v. Envision Management Holding, Inc. Board, which appears to be the first time the Tenth Circuit considered the issue, employers based in the Tenth Circuit’s jurisdiction (Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah and Wyoming) may want to think twice before adding an arbitration provision to their plans.
https://www.employeebenefitslawblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/logo_vertical-v2.png00Alex Smithhttps://www.employeebenefitslawblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/logo_vertical-v2.pngAlex Smith2023-02-20 09:12:302023-09-26 14:32:34What Happens In A Small Town Stays In A Small Town … Until The Tenth Circuit Rejects ERISA Arbitration Provision
If a 401(k) or 403(b) plan permits employees to take in-service hardship withdrawals in the event of an immediate and heavy financial need, new legislation provides that, effective for plan years beginning in 2023, employers may rely on an employee’s self-certification of the hardship. Prior to this change, an employee was required to substantiate such hardship expenses to receive a distribution on account of financial hardship. Read more
https://www.employeebenefitslawblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/logo_vertical-v2.png00Leslie Thomsonhttps://www.employeebenefitslawblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/logo_vertical-v2.pngLeslie Thomson2023-02-10 09:33:192023-09-26 14:32:42Easy Money…Self-Certify Your Hardships Away
It’s a Roller Coaster … Employer Considerations After Court Invalidates ACA Preventive Care Mandate
/in ERISA, Health & Welfare Plans, Litigationby Alex Smith
Since the Affordable Care Act (“ACA”) became law in 2010, numerous groups have attempted to invalidate the ACA or specific parts of the ACA through litigation. Even after a number of plaintiffs unsuccessfully attempted to invalidate the ACA over the past dozen years, a Federal district court judge in Texas recently invalidated the ACA’s requirement that non-grandfathered group health plans provide preventive care services with an “A” or “B” rating in the current recommendations from the United States Preventive Services Task Force (e.g., certain cancer screenings, depression screening, statins to prevent heart disease, etc.) with no cost sharing. In addition, the court ruled that the requirement that plans cover PrEP HIV medications cannot be enforced against plan sponsors with religious objections. The ACA’s other preventive care mandates remain in effect. Read more
Oceans Rise, Empires Fall, It’s Much Harder When It’s All Your Call … SECURE 2.0—What Comes Next?
/in 401(k) Plans, 403(b) plans, 457(b) plans, Defined Benefit Plans, Governmental Plans, Legislation, Retirement PlansBy Kevin Selzer
We have now had a couple of months to review and digest SECURE 2.0 (and its roughly 90 provisions impacting retirement plans). If plan sponsors haven’t done so already, it is time to roll up their sleeves and put a triage list together on these law changes. Below are some suggestions on where to start: Read more
Should I Pay Or Should I No(t) Now: Which Expenses Can be Paid with Plan Assets?
/in 401(k) Plans, Corporate Governance in Benefits, Defined Benefit Plans, DOL, ERISA, Fees, Fiduciary Duties, PBGC, Retirement Plansby Brenda Berg
One question that often comes up is whether an expense related to an ERISA plan can be paid with plan assets. The decision of whether to use ERISA plan assets to pay an expense is an ERISA fiduciary decision. With the recent IRS guidance clarifying the timing of use of forfeitures, this question may come up even more.[1] Using plan assets inappropriately is a fiduciary breach and subject to possible DOL and IRS penalties. It is important to have a fiduciary process in place for reviewing expenses and determining whether a payment is proper. Read more
One Way or Another … Forfeitures Will Have to Be Administered Under Your Retirement Plan, and the IRS Just Proposed New Regulations That Provide Simplified Guidance
/in 401(k) Plans, Defined Benefit Plans, ERISA, IRS, Retirement Plansby Becky Achten
On February 27, 2023, the Treasury issued proposed regulations intended to simplify and clarify the rules relating to forfeitures within qualified retirement plans.
Defined Benefit Plans
Similar to defined contribution plans, defined benefit plans may use forfeitures to pay eligible plan expenses. However, unlike defined contribution plans, defined benefit plans are prohibited from using forfeitures to reduce required employer contributions. In addition, forfeitures must be used as soon as possible. The proposed regulations eliminate this timing requirement because it conflicts with the minimum funding requirements. Instead, reasonable actuarial assumptions are to be used to determine how expected forfeitures will affect the present value of plan liabilities. The difference between expected and actual forfeitures will then increase or decrease the plan’s minimum funding requirement in future years. Read more
It Doesn’t Have To Be That Way: Negotiating Good Service Provider Agreements Is More Important than Ever
/in 401(k) Plans, 403(b) plans, 457(b) plans, 457(f) plans, Cafeteria Plans, Corporate Governance in Benefits, Defined Benefit Plans, Employee Stock Purchase Plans (ESPPs), ESOPs, Executive Compensation, Fees, Fiduciary Duties, Fringe Benefits, Governmental Plans, Health & Welfare Plans, Investments, Litigation, Retirement Plans, Severance Plansby Bret F. Busacker
It may be an understatement to say that compliance with benefit plan laws and regulations is becoming increasingly more complicated. In my experience, the COVID era has brought about some of the widest-sweeping changes on the burden of administering benefit plans in some time.
There has been major evolution around service provider fee disclosure, DOL reporting and disclosure on mental health parity and disclosure of plan costs, new claims procedure rights, expanded expectations around Cyber Security protections, and expansion of the use of ESG and crypto currency (and on-again, off-again regulatory efforts). Read more
What Happens In A Small Town Stays In A Small Town … Until The Tenth Circuit Rejects ERISA Arbitration Provision
/in 401(k) Plans, Corporate Governance in Benefits, DOL, ERISA, ESOPs, Fiduciary Duties, Legislation, Retirement Plansby Alex Smith
While case law regarding the enforceability of arbitration provisions in ERISA retirement plans has been mixed, since the Ninth Circuit’s 2019 decision in Dorman v. Charles Schwab Corp. enforcing a 401(k) plan’s arbitration provision, some employers and plan sponsors have given increased consideration to adding arbitration provisions to their retirement plans based on that decision and the proliferation of class action ERISA lawsuits. However, following the Tenth Circuit’s February 9 decision in Harrison v. Envision Management Holding, Inc. Board, which appears to be the first time the Tenth Circuit considered the issue, employers based in the Tenth Circuit’s jurisdiction (Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah and Wyoming) may want to think twice before adding an arbitration provision to their plans.
Read more
Easy Money…Self-Certify Your Hardships Away
/in 401(k) Plans, 403(b) plans, Legislationby Leslie Thomson
If a 401(k) or 403(b) plan permits employees to take in-service hardship withdrawals in the event of an immediate and heavy financial need, new legislation provides that, effective for plan years beginning in 2023, employers may rely on an employee’s self-certification of the hardship. Prior to this change, an employee was required to substantiate such hardship expenses to receive a distribution on account of financial hardship. Read more