Corporate Counsel
  • Home
  • News
  • Surveys
  • Resources
  • Lawjobs
  • Advertise
  • Subscribe
  • Bookstore
  • Contact

Topics » IP Insider | Labor & Employment | From the Experts | On the Job | Moves | DC Watch | International

Home > Hour of Decision

Font Size: increase font decrease font

Hour of Decision

Employers have some hard choices to make in light of health care reform.

By Amy M. Gordon and Susan M. Nash All Articles 

Corporate Counsel

February 1, 2013

  •    
  •    
  •    
  •      
 

Last June, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld most provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which presents employers with a multitude of crucial compliance-related choices to make regarding their employer-provided health coverage. It also provides plenty of options to employers with respect to the delivery of health benefits.

Three basic approaches will now become available. Many companies will want to continue providing employer-sponsored health insurance coverage to their employees and dependents. Others will choose to take advantage of federal or state insurance exchanges or purchase insurance on private exchanges. Other employers are likely to take a renewed look at their retiree medical coverage.

Companies that continue to provide group health coverage have a singular set of issues to consider, in light of the effects of the new law on some often highly entrenched insurance positions. The state and federal exchanges are scheduled to go into effect in 2014. And many private exchanges offered through health plan vendors and insurance companies are already up and running as of early 2013.

Will your company be better off continuing to provide group health coverage to employees, or should you send employees to a government or private exchange? As of this writing, eight states (Colorado, Connecticut, Kentucky, New York, Massachusetts, Maryland, Oregon, and Washington) have received conditional approval to operate health insurance exchanges, as has the District of Columbia. Ten other states (California, Hawaii, Idaho, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nevada, New Mexico, Rhode Island, Utah, and Vermont) have submitted applications for approval. The exchanges provide employees an avenue to purchase individual health insurance policies, and may also provide these employees with premium subsidies from the federal government.

If your company decides to continue providing group health coverage to your employees, then you need to consider the following for 2014:

•Coverage may become more costly, given requirements under the act. For example, for nongrandfathered plans, certain preventive services and immunizations, as recommended by the U.S. Preventive Service Task Force, the Centers for Disease Control, and the Health Resources and Services Administration, must now be covered on a first-dollar basis under certain circumstances. This means a group health plan may not impose deductibles, coinsurance, or copays for these services. Effective January 1, 2014, all plans must eliminate preexisting condition exclusions. In addition, nongrandfathered group health plans will be subject to expanded claim and appeal rights. So group health plans must establish internal and external review procedures consistent with minimum standards.

You will now need to engage independent review organizations to perform external reviews of adverse benefit determinations under your plans. These same organizations will also issue final internal adverse benefit determinations under state or federal external review procedures. And all group health plans will be required to eliminate lifetime and annual limits on essential health benefits. As a result, many employers may wish to continue to sponsor a group health benefit plan for their employees while also incorporating additional features such as wellness programs, health savings accounts, and health reimbursement arrangements.

•To avoid having to pay a nondeductible excise tax under the act, large employers (more than 50 employees) will need to provide coverage that is affordable to its employees. If the coverage is unaffordable, a nondeductible excise tax will be assessed on the employer. This will be equal to the lesser of: $3,000 per full-time employee who receives a federal subsidy under the exchanges; or $2,000 per FTE in excess of 30 employees. Coverage is deemed unaffordable if: it exceeds 9.5 percent of the individual's household income; the employee falls within 100–400 percent of the federal poverty level; and the plan's share of allowed costs is below 60 percent. There is a safe harbor provision that allows a company to base the 9.5 percent on an individual employee's income. Employers that want to continue to offer health insurance coverage and avoid excise taxes will need to evaluate the plan design with an eye toward ensuring that it is both properly subsidized by the company and within the 9.5 percent range of affordable premiums based on the particular employee's W-2 income.

If your company decides to eliminate group health plan coverage in whole or in part and send employees to the state or private exchanges, you need to consider the following:

•A nondeductible excise tax will apply to large employers that provide no health coverage to their employees. A nondeductible excise tax of $2,000 per full-time employee in excess of 30 employees will be assessed if even one FTE obtains a tax credit or cost-sharing assistance from the government and buys coverage on the exchange.

A browser or device that allows javascript is required to view this content.

Continue reading

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3

Next



Subscribe to Corporate Counsel

You must be signed in to comment on an article

Find similar content

Firms mentioned

    
  • McDermott Will & Emery

Companies, agencies mentioned

    
  • Medicare Part D
  • U.S. Preventive Service
  • Centers for Disease Control
  • Supreme Court of the United States

Key categories

    
  • Corporate & Business Law

Most viewed stories

    
  1. Safeguarding Brand Reputation In Social Media
    •      
  2. Another SEC Whistleblower, More On the Way
    •      
  3. Patent Board's SAP Ruling is First Under New AIA Rules
    •      
  4. Are GCs More Than Just Legally Trained Executives?
    •      
  5. What to Look for in a Board's Risk Director
    •      
lawjobs.com

TOP JOBS

MORE JOBS

POST A JOB

From the Law.com Network

In-House Counsel Go to Privacy Boot Camp

In-House Changes at News Corp Ahead of Corporate Split

Proskauer, Former CFO Settle Bias Suit

Global Firms Cope With Istanbul Unrest

D.C. Circuit Nominations a Defining Moment

D.C. Circuit Nominees Widely Respected Within the Bar

Nine Tips to Avoid Starring in a Spreadsheet Horror Story

Snapshot: Tom Gelbmann

The Recorder 25: California Golden Again for Many Firms
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Capital Accounts: Judicial Branch's Brothers Don't See Eye to Eye
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Miami Photographer Sues Pop Star Justin Bieber
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Jeremy Alters Settles With Argentinian Firm For $1 Million
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Alcotest Should Be Discontinued Right Away, DWI Lawyers Say

Lawyer's Fudging of Forms Draws N.J. High Court Censure
  •      
    • Subscription Required

The Affordable State-Specific Practice Solution
Available in NY, NJ, PA and CT editions - research, draft and prepare even the most complex cases with ease.

Ties to Senecas Cannot Shield Golf Course Developer, Panel Says
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Circuit Decision Costs Prevailing Attorneys $200,000 Fee Award
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Corbett Signs Bill to Eliminate Traffic Court

Christian College Granted Injunction In Obamacare Suit
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Sorry, Charlie, Your Wife Won't Support You

Top Reasons to Take Your Husband's Name

Interim Dean Named at Texas Wesleyan University School of Law
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Water Works: H2O Kept Lawyer-Lobbyists Busy
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Boosting Lawyers And Saving Lives
  •      
    • Subscription Required

11th Circuit Conflicted On Juveniles Stance
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Chimp Attack Victim Is Denied $150M State Lawsuit

Auto Body Case May Lead To CUTPA Reassessment

  • About Corporate Counsel   |
  • Contact Corporate Counsel   |
  • Advertise with Us   |
  • Sitemap
  • About |
  • ALM Properties |
  • ALM Reprints |
  • Customer Support |
  • Privacy Policy (updated 6/14/13) |
  • Terms & Conditions |
  • ALM User License Agreement
ALM Media