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

Previous

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3

Next

Hour of Decision

February 1, 2013

  •    
  •    
  •    
  •      
 

•Employers may want to increase employees' compensation with the intent that additional compensation can be used to purchase coverage on the federal- or state-based exchanges. Alternatively, employers can provide employees with additional pretax flexible spending credits that can be used to pay for other health and welfare benefits.

•Sending employees to either the government-sponsored or private exchanges will now be viewed by regulators as if you were providing no health coverage to your employees, even if you provide employees with money to purchase exchange coverage.

•Employers should compare the quality of exchange coverage to its current group health plan offering, and also evaluate what peer employers are doing from an employee retention and recruiting perspective.

•Employers should weigh the fact that depending upon the demographics of its employees, a low-paid employee may be eligible for a government subsidy toward the cost of his or her coverage through the government-sponsored exchanges, making the government-sponsored exchanges a more affordable option for that employee and his or her family.

•If an employer is the only one in its peer group or geographical area not offering group health coverage, the employer will need to consider the competitive disadvantage of eliminating group health coverage. On the other hand, if the employer is the last in its field that continues to offer group health coverage to its employees, it also may be at a competitive disadvantage.

Should your company continue to offer retiree medical coverage? Both pre- and post-65 retirees are typically expensive to insure. Now that coverage will become even more expensive:

•Beginning January 1, 2013, the tax deduction for the Medicare Part D ­subsidy was no longer available to employers.

•If your retiree medical plan is not a stand-alone plan but a part of your active employee plan, all of the coverage mandates of the act will also apply to your retiree population. For example, there will no longer be any lifetime or annual limits on essential health benefits.

•The state and private exchanges may offer an affordable avenue for pre-65 retirees to obtain health coverage for themselves and their dependents. So this may be a good time to terminate retiree plans and send retirees to the exchange. This may also, perhaps surprisingly, result in more employees taking early retirement.

•Employers may want to provide retirees with a flat dollar amount that can be used to purchase coverage on the private or state-based exchanges.

Continue reading

Previous

  • 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. Minority-Owned Firm Makes Microsoft's Premier List
    •      
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