Skip to content

Workforce

Author: Jerry Geisel

Posted on August 28, 2012August 6, 2018

No Penalties for Employers Not Offering Dependent Coverage: Employer Group

An employer benefits lobbying group has urged the Obama administration to make it clear that the health care reform law does not impose financial penalties on employers that do not offer coverage to dependents.

Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, employers are to be assessed $2,000 per full-time employee if they do not offer coverage to employees in 2014.

Regulators have yet to issue definitive guidance on the penalty. In the absence of such guidance, the ERISA Industry Committee said it is concerned that regulators might interpret the law as imposing the penalty on employers that do not offer dependent coverage.

“This interpretation is not consistent with the statute as a whole,” Scott Macey, ERISA Industry president and CEO, and Gretchen Young, senior vice president-health policy, wrote in a letter sent Tuesday to Jeanne Lambrew, deputy assistant to the president for health policy.

While the law’s shared financial responsibility provisions “refer to health coverage for full-time employees and their dependents, the penalties are based solely on the number of an employer’s full-time employees—dependents do not enter into the penalty calculation,” executives of the Washington-based group said in the letter.

“If Congress had intended to create a dramatic new mandate that penalized employers for failing to offer dependent coverage, Congress would have done so much more directly than the statute achieves with its parenthetical reference to dependents,” they said in the letter.

In fact, the benefits lobbying group said, the reference to dependents in the shared responsibility provisions of the health care reform law was simply a “drafting error” that regulators now should correct.

Jerry Geisel writes for Business Insurance, a sister publication of Workforce Management. To comment, email editors@workforce.com.

Stay informed and connected. Get human resources news and HR features via Workforce Management’s Twitter feed or RSS feeds for mobile devices and news readers.

Posted on August 27, 2012August 6, 2018

Self-Funded Employers Will Pay Billions for High-Cost Coverage

Self-funded employers will have to fork over billions of dollars to help fund an obscure health care reform law-created program that will partially reimburse commercial insurers writing policies for high-cost individuals.

The first-year assessment paid by very large employers—those with at least 100,000 employees—will run into millions of dollars, for which employers will receive no direct benefit.

“It is going to a big number, a lot bigger than some people may have thought,” said Anne Waidmann, a director in Washington for PricewaterhouseCoopers L.L.P.

Insurers also will be hit with the assessments, but they, unlike self-funded employers, will receive much of the $25 billion in assessments authorized by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to be collected from 2014 through 2016.

For self-funded employers, “It is hard to identify a direct benefit, as they are already providing health insurance benefits,” said Gretchen Young, senior vice president of health policy for the ERISA Industry Committee in Washington.

“Employers will get no financial benefit from this at all,” said Rich Stover, a principal with Buck Consultants L.L.C. in Secaucus, New Jersey.

Many crucial details about the transitional reinsurance program have yet to be provided by federal regulators, including the exact amount of the assessment, which will be calculated on a per-participant basis.

Benefit consultants have made preliminary projections. Aon Hewitt, for example, estimates that the 2014 assessment will be in the range of $60 to $80 per health care plan participant, while Towers Watson & Co. puts the first-year assessment range at between $70 and $90 per plan participant.

Consultants don’t expect official guidance on the amount of the fee per participant until at least this fall.

“Regulators are expected to issue a notice this fall that spells out exactly how the per-capita fee will be imposed on plan participants,” Mercer L.L.C. said in a report last week. The guidance will come from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services which, under the health care reform law, was given such regulatory authority.

And there are plenty of other unknowns. For example, guidance is needed on the methodology to be used in counting the number of plan participants. Such guidance is critical, since the number of people enrolled in an employer’s health care plan could vary considerably during a year.

“Employers need to know as soon as possible how much this is going to cost them,” Young said.

Other details are clear. For example, the fee will be assessed for every health care plan participant, regardless of employer size.

“There is no small-employer exemption in this part of the law,” said Amy Bergner, a Mercer partner in Washington.

In the case of fully insured plans, the fee will be paid by insurers. For self-funded plans, third-party administrators are to remit the fee on behalf of their clients. Fees are to be paid quarterly, with the first payment due January 15, 2014.

Certain health care-related plans are exempt from the fee, including stand-alone dental, vision and flexible spending accounts, as well as Medicare Advantage and Medicare Part D prescription drug plans.

Benefit experts say the fee also will apply to retiree health care plans, as well as to health reimbursement arrangements. But it is unclear how the fee would be assessed when HRAs are involved.

Guidance provided by the IRS this year might serve as a model for how HRAs are treated under the transitional reinsurance program. That guidance involved another health care reform law provision that imposes a small fee on health care plans to fund research on medical outcomes.

Under those proposed rules, an employer with an HRA linked to a self-funded high-deductible health care plan would be liable for the fee only for participants in its health care plan. It would not pay a second fee for participants in the HRA.

On the other hand, the fee would be imposed on HRAs if the arrangement were linked to an insured health care plan. In that situation, the employer would be liable for the fee covering participants in the HRA, while the insurer would be liable for the fee on the insured plan.

Despite the big fees employers face under the reinsurance program, few even know about the program, let alone their potential costs. “It has been a big sleeper issue,” Buck Consultants’ Stover said.

“This has not garnered as much attention as other provisions” in the health care reform law, Mercer’s Bergner said.

But employer awareness is increasing as word of its effect is spreading in the benefits community amid efforts of some trade groups to publicize the provision.

The American Benefits Council, for example, held a webinar this month for its members about the program.

Jerry Geisel writes for Business Insurance, a sister publication of Workforce Management. To comment, email editors@workforce.com.

Stay informed and connected. Get human resources news and HR features via Workforce Management’s Twitter feed or RSS feeds for mobile devices and news readers.

Posted on July 9, 2012August 7, 2018

American Airlines Asks to End Retiree Health, Life Benefit Coverage

American Airlines Inc. and parent company AMR Corp. have filed suit in U.S. Bankruptcy Court asking for a ruling to allow the airline to stop providing retiree health and life insurance to current retirees.

In its suit filed July 6 in U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York, American and AMR said they never promised to provide benefits for life and reserved their rights to modify the plans.

“Because the retiree health and welfare benefits are not vested, and because modifying retiree health and welfare benefits to reduce costs fall within American’s sound business judgment, American may unilaterally modify health and welfare benefits for current retirees,” the airline argued in the suit.

American, which filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy reorganization in November 2011, said it intends to freeze three of its four massively underfunded pension plans.

It also intends to freezea fourth plan—one covering its pilots—assuming the Internal Revenue Service finalizes a proposed rule that would allow employers that have filed for bankruptcy to remove plan participants’ right to receive their accrued benefits as a lump sum rather than as a monthly annuity.

Without such a change, American said it fears that a high number of pilots eligible to retire early would take their accrued benefit as a lump sum and retire, adversely affecting the airline’s ability to operate.

Jerry Geisel writes for Business Insurance, a sister publication of Workforce Management. To comment, email editors@workforce.com.

Stay informed and connected. Get human resources news and HR features via Workforce Management’s Twitter feed or RSS feeds for mobile devices and news readers.

Posted on May 1, 2012August 7, 2018

Employers on Non-Calendar Fiscal Years Seek FSA Mandate Relief

An employer benefits lobbying group is asking the Treasury Department for transitional regulatory relief to ensure that participants in flexible spending accounts with non-calendar years can make the maximum legal contributions to their FSAs during the first year a health care reform law mandated FSA cutback goes into effect.

Under that provision in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which goes into effect on Jan. 1, 2013, the maximum annual contribution employees can make to their FSAs is $2,500. Under current law, there is no annual limit, though employers typically limit annual contributions to between $4,000 and $5,000.

Without regulatory relief, the new limitation would have an “effect of causing health plan FSAs that operate on a non-calendar-year basis to have to comply with the limitation earlier than the statutory effective date,” notes the Washington-based American Benefits Council.

In a letter sent last week to the Treasury Department, ABC cites the example of an employee in an FSA with a fiscal year that begins on July 1, 2012. The employee elects to contribute $3,600 during that plan year, making contributions of $300 a month from July 1, 2012, through June 30, 2013. FSAs typically are designed so employees make level contributions during the plan year.

If the employee elects to contribute $2,500 for the next plan year starting July 1, 2013, the employee would violate the $2,500 annual limitation for 2013, ABC notes.

That is because the employee would have contributed $300 a month for the first six months of 2013 and $208.33 for the last six months of 2013. That total contribution of $3,050 would violate the $2,500 statutory limit for 2013.

To prevent that from happening, ABC is asking Treasury to provide transition relief to make clear that FSAs with non-calendar years be exempt from the $2,500 cap on FSA contributions for plan years that begin prior to Jan. 1, 2013.

Jerry Geisel writes for Business Insurance, a sister publication of Workforce Management. To comment, email editors@workforce.com.

Stay informed and connected. Get human resources news and HR features via Workforce Management’s Twitter feed or RSS feeds for mobile devices and news readers.

Posted on April 27, 2012August 7, 2018

Health Savings Account Contribution Caps to Rise Slightly in 2013

The maximum contributions that can be made to health savings accounts will increase slightly in 2013, the Internal Revenue Service said April 27.

Under IRS Revenue Procedure 2012-36, the maximum contribution that can be made to an HSA in 2013 will be $3,250 for employees with single coverage, up from $3,100 this year. The maximum HSA contribution for those with family coverage will be $6,450, up from $6,250.

The maximum out-of-pocket employee expense, including deductibles, will rise next year to $6,250 for single coverage, up from $6,050. For family coverage, it will increase to $12,500 from $12,100.

Increases in the HSA limits are tied to changes in the cost of living.

However, the minimum deductible for a high-deductible health care plan to which HSAs must be linked also will rise in 2013 to $1,250 from $1,200 for single coverage and to $2,500 from $2,400 for family coverage, the IRS said.

Under IRS Revenue Procedure 2012-36, the maximum contribution that can be made to an HSA in 2013 will be $3,250 for employees with single coverage, up from $3,100 this year. The maximum HSA contribution for those with family coverage will be $6,450, up from $6,250.

The maximum out-of-pocket employee expense, including deductibles, will rise next year to $6,250 for single coverage, up from $6,050. For family coverage, it will increase to $12,500 from $12,100.

Increases in the HSA limits are tied to changes in the cost of living,

However, the minimum deductible for a high-deductible health care plan to which HSAs must be linked also will rise in 2013 to $1,250 from $1,200 for single coverage and to $2,500 from $2,400 for family coverage, the IRS said.

Jerry Geisel writes for Business Insurance, a sister publication of Workforce Management. To comment, email editors@workforce.com.

Stay informed and connected. Get human resources news and HR features via Workforce Management’s Twitter feed or RSS feeds for mobile devices and news readers.

Posted on April 27, 2012August 7, 2018

Ford to Offer Lump-Sum Pension Payouts to Ex-Workers



Ford Motor Co. said April 27 it will offer 90,000 U.S. salaried retirees and former employees the option to take their monthly pension benefit as a lump-sum payment.

The magnitude of the program, which is part of Ford’s long-term strategy to “de-risk” its pension plan, is the largest ever offered “by a U.S. company for ongoing pension plans,” the automaker said.

Pension experts say the program may be the first of its kind. Typically, lump-sum payments are offered as an option only when an employee terminates employment and is eligible for a pension benefit.

“Historically, lump sum distributions, which allow plan participants to exchange receiving periodic annuity payments for a single lump-sum payout, have been offered to participants only upon separation from active employment,” benefit consultant Towers Watson said in a statement.

When individuals take a lump-sum payment rather than continued monthly benefits, Ford no longer will face such risks as paying more than expected if the individuals live longer than expected. In addition, Ford no longer would face the risk of making additional unexpected contributions to its plans in the future to pay benefits if investment returns slump.

“Providing the option of a lump-sum payment to current salaried U.S. retirees and former employees will reduce our pension obligations and balance sheet volatility,” Ford Executive vice president and Chief Financial Officer Bob Shanks said in a statement.

At year-end 2011, Ford’s U.S. pension plans—including plans covering salaried and retired employees and union employees and retirees—had a funded ratio of 80.7 percent, with $39.41 billion in assets and $48.82 billion in liabilities. That compares with a funded ratio of 85.8 percent at year-end 2010, when the U.S. plans had $39.96 billion in assets and $46.65 in billion in liabilities.

Ford said payouts will start later this year and will be funded from existing pension plan assets. 

Jerry Geisel writes for Business Insurance, a sister publication of Workforce Management. To comment, email editors@workforce.com.

 

Stay informed and connected. Get human resources news and HR features via Workforce Management’s Twitter feed or RSS feeds for mobile devices and news readers.

 

Posted on March 14, 2012August 8, 2018

Health Reform Law to Slightly Lower Number of Employer Plan Enrollees: CBO

The health care reform law will have only a modest impact on the number of people covered in employer plans, but it will significantly reduce the number of uninsured, according to a congressional analysis.

In 2016—two years after the effective date of key reform law provisions that provide subsidized coverage to the lower-income uninsured and impose financial penalties on employers that do not offer “affordable” coverage or do not offer any coverage at all—the Congressional Budget Office estimates that 155 million people will have coverage through employer plans.

That’s a coverage drop of 4 million, or 2.6 percent, compared with the 159 million people who would have had employer-sponsored coverage had the health reform legislation not been passed.

On the other hand, the number of uninsured will fall to 26 million in 2016. In 2012, the CBO, whose report was released March 14, estimates that 53 million Americans will be uninsured.

A key factor in the drop in the number of uninsured will be the creation of state health insurance exchanges, which in 2016 are expected to attract 20 million enrollees.

The exchanges will be available, among others, to lower-income uninsured individuals—those with incomes of up to 400% of the federal poverty level—who will be able to use federal premium subsidies to buy coverage from insurers offering policies through the exchanges.

An expansion of the federal-state Medicaid program also will reduce the number of uninsured, according to the report.

Jerry Geisel writes for Business Insurance, a sister publication of Workforce Management. To comment, email editors@workforce.com.

Stay informed and connected. Get human resources news and HR features via Workforce Management’s Twitter feed or RSS feeds for mobile devices and news readers.

Posted on February 1, 2012August 8, 2018

American Airlines Wants to Terminate Pension Plans

American Airlines Inc. said Feb. 1 that it will seek bankruptcy court approval to terminate its four massively underfunded pension plans.

The termination, if approved, would shift billions of dollars of promised but unfunded benefits to the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp., resulting in the biggest loss ever for the agency.

“We simply do not see a way we can secure the company’s future without terminating our defined benefit plans,” American Airlines said in a statement.

“If we receive court approval to terminate our plans, every active employee’s and retiree’s vested defined pension benefit will be turned over to the PBGC and guaranteed up to the PBGC’s 2011 maximum benefit limits,” the AMR Corp. unit said.

The airline said it plans to replace the defined benefit plans with a new 401(k) plan. All nonpilot employees would receive a dollar-for-dollar company match of employee contributions, up to 5.5 percent of salary. Pilots would participate in a new defined contribution plan, details of which the airline did not disclose.

If AMR, which filed for bankruptcy reorganization in November, receives bankruptcy court permission to fold the plans, the PBGC would be hit with its biggest loss ever. The PBGC’s deficit last year was a record $26 billion.

According to preliminary PBGC estimates, the four plans have about $8.3 billion in assets and about $18.5 billion in promised benefits for nearly 130,000 participants.

The PBGC said if the plans were to fold, the agency would be liable for about $17 billion in benefits, resulting in an $8.7 billion loss to the agency and eclipsing the $7.35 billion loss incurred in 2005 when the agency took over United Airlines’ pension plans.

The PBGC, though, is expected to oppose American Airlines’ action.

“Before American takes such a drastic action as killing the pension plans of 130,000 employees and retirees, it needs to show there is no better alternative. Thus far, they have declined to provide even the most basic information to decide that,” PBGC Director Joshua Gotbaum said in a statement.

None of the airline’s competitors offers ongoing defined benefit plans.

Aside from United, the PBGC in 2003 and 2005 took over three US Airways Inc. pension plans, incurring a $2.75 billion loss. Then, in 2006, the PBGC took over a Delta Air Lines Inc. plan covering the airline’s pilots at a cost of $1.72 billion. Those terminations occurred in the wake of bankruptcy filings by the two airlines.

In addition, Delta sponsors a frozen plan for nonpilot employees and retirees, as well as three frozen plans covering Northwest Airlines Inc. employees and retirees, which Delta acquired in 2008. Participants do not accrue benefits in frozen plans.

Other major competitors, including Southwest Airlines Co. and JetBlue Airways Corp., do not sponsor defined benefit pension plans.

Speculation about the future of American’s plans has loomed since parent company AMR Corp. of Fort Worth, Texas, filed for bankruptcy reorganization in late November.

Jerry Geisel writes for Business Insurance, a sister publication of Workforce Management. To comment, email editors@workforce.com.

Stay informed and connected. Get human resources news and HR features via Workforce Management’s Twitter feed or RSS feeds for mobile devices and news readers.

Posted on November 18, 2011August 8, 2018

Employer Health Care Reform Law Communication Mandate Delayed

Employers have more time to comply with rules dictated by the health care reform law that will require them to revamp how they communicate and explain their health care plans.

In a notice published Nov. 17, the Labor Department said the reporting requirements would not go into effect until after final rules are published.

“It is anticipated that the … final regulations, once issued, will include an applicability date that gives group health plans and health insurance issuers sufficient time to comply,” the Labor Department said.

At the time the proposed rules were issued by the Health and Human Services, Labor and Treasury departments, federal regulators said they would go into effect on March 23, 2012.

However, benefit experts said such a deadline for producing the summary of benefits and coverage would have been impossible to meet, and that the proposed rules were flawed in many ways.

“This is great news for employers since the initial guidance left much of how the (summary of benefits and coverage) would apply to large employer plans unaddressed,” said Rich Stover, a principal with Buck Consultants L.L.C. in Secaucus. New Jersey.

Among other things, the proposed rules would require employers to provide employees with an “easy-to-understand” summary of benefits and coverage and, upon request, a glossary of commonly used health care coverage terms, such as deductible and copay.

The summary of benefits and coverage would have to include the portion of expenses a health care plan would cover in each of three situations: having a baby, treating breast cancer and managing diabetes.

Additional examples might be added in the future, according to the rules.

Jerry Geisel writes for Business Insurance, a sister publication of Workforce Management. To comment, email editors@workforce.com.

Stay informed and connected. Get human resources news and HR features via Workforce Management’s Twitter feed or RSS feeds for mobile devices and news readers.

Posted on November 17, 2011August 8, 2018

Analysis Notes More Large Employers Freeze Defined Benefit Plans

More than 40 percent of Fortune 1000 companies that have defined benefit pension plans have frozen at least one such plan, according to a new analysis.

Of the 584 employers on this year’s Fortune 1000 list that sponsor defined benefit plans, 237 have frozen at least one plan, according to New York-based benefit consultant Towers Watson & Co.’s analysis of Securities & Exchange Commission filings.

That 40.6 percent is up from 2010 when 35.5 percent of 586 Fortune 1000 companies had frozen at least one defined benefit plan.

In 2004, as the corporate drive to freeze defined benefit plans was picking up momentum, only 45, or 7.1 percent of 633 Fortune 1000 companies with defined benefit plans, had frozen at least one plan.

In a freeze, a company continues its defined benefit plan, but future accruals for some or all participants stop.

Employers have frozen their plans for a variety of reasons, including cutting retirement plan costs and reducing the volatility of required contributions, which can fluctuate significantly due to changes in interest rates and investment results.

The most recent Fortune 1000 company to announce a pension plan freeze was R. R. Donnelley & Sons Co. The Chicago-based printing company said it would freeze the defined benefit program at the end of 2011, while restoring and enhancing its 401(k) plan matching contribution.

Jerry Geisel writes for Business Insurance, a sister publication of Workforce Management. To comment, email editors@workforce.com.

Stay informed and connected. Get human resources news and HR features via Workforce Management’s Twitter feed or RSS feeds for mobile devices and news readers.

Posts navigation

Previous page Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Next page

 

Webinars

 

White Papers

 

 
  • Topics

    • Benefits
    • Compensation
    • HR Administration
    • Legal
    • Recruitment
    • Staffing Management
    • Training
    • Technology
    • Workplace Culture
  • Resources

    • Subscribe
    • Current Issue
    • Email Sign Up
    • Contribute
    • Research
    • Awards
    • White Papers
  • Events

    • Upcoming Events
    • Webinars
    • Spotlight Webinars
    • Speakers Bureau
    • Custom Events
  • Follow Us

    • LinkedIn
    • Twitter
    • Facebook
    • YouTube
    • RSS
  • Advertise

    • Editorial Calendar
    • Media Kit
    • Contact a Strategy Consultant
    • Vendor Directory
  • About Us

    • Our Company
    • Our Team
    • Press
    • Contact Us
    • Privacy Policy
    • Terms Of Use
Proudly powered by WordPress