New Developments Regarding ACA Contraception Coverage Requirements

by Amy M. Gordon, Anne W. Hance and Susan M. Nash

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the U.S. Department of Labor’s Employee Benefits Security Administration and the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Internal Revenue Service issued a proposed rule on February 1, 2013 presenting a revised approach for the coverage of women’s contraception by certain religious employers under the Affordable Care Act. The proposed rule, which is open for public comment through April 8, 2013, has significant implications for employers, health insurers and third-party administrators (TPAs). 

The Landscape

The Affordable Care Act requires non-grandfathered group health plans and health insurance issuers offering individual and group health insurance coverage to provide first-dollar coverage for select preventive services. For women with reproductive capacity, this includes FDA-approved contraceptive, sterilization procedures and patient education, as prescribed by a health care provider. The agencies adopted an exemption from this requirement for group health plans sponsored by religious employers. The agencies also established a temporary enforcement safe harbor for non-grandfathered group health plans sponsored by certain nonprofit organizations with religious objections to providing contraception coverage for plan years beginning before August 1, 2013. The proposed rule is the agencies’ latest attempt to balance access to these health care services and accommodation of organizations’ religious beliefs.

The Proposed Rule

Exemption for Religious Employers

The proposed rule simplifies the definition of a “religious employer” that is exempt from the contraceptive coverage requirement to mean any nonprofit entity referenced in Sections 6033(a)(3)(A)(i) or (iii) of the Internal Revenue Code.

Accommodation for Eligible Organizations

A separate accommodation will be established for group health plans sponsored by an “eligible organization,” defined as an organization that: (1) opposes providing coverage for some or all of any contraceptive services required to be covered on account of religious objections; (2) is organized and operates as a nonprofit entity; (3) holds itself out as a religious organization; and (4) self-certifies that it meets these criteria and specifies the contraceptive services for which it objects to providing coverage.

Contraceptive coverage will still be made available to women participating in group health plans sponsored by an “eligible organizations” on a no-cost basis.  The proposed rule will require health insurance issuers providing fully-insured coverage to group health plans sponsored by eligible organizations to enroll participants into separate individual health insurance policies that provide contraception coverage without cost sharing or additional premiums. For self-insured group health plans, the applicable TPA would arrange for the enrollment of participants into individual health insurance policies that provide contraception coverage without cost sharing or additional premiums, whether through voluntary enrollment, automatic enrollment or by the TPA becoming the plan administrator for this purpose.

HHS proposes to recognize contraception-only policies as a new category of “excepted benefit” coverage, although certain consumer protections, such as guaranteed renewability and annual/lifetime limit prohibitions, still would apply. 

The proposed rule anticipates that health insurance issuers would offset the cost of providing contraceptive coverage under individual policies issued to participants of self-funded group health plans by claiming a reduction to user fees imposed on issuers participating in Federally Facilitated Exchanges (FFEs).

Next Steps

  • Entities that may qualify for the “eligible organization” accommodation, including religious institutions of higher learning, will need to consider whether they can self-certify to this new status. They also will have to work with their insurer or TPA to address how coverage will be provided to participants.
  • The proposed rule raises numerous legal, financial and operational issues for health insurance issuers, including development of a new type of excepted benefit coverage, coordination of enrollment and benefits with self-funded group health plans, the cost of providing this coverage, and the potential risks associated with requesting a reduced FFE user fee based on costs relating to these new policies. 
  • TPAs will need to consider how they will arrange for contraception coverage to participants of self-funded plan customers that certify to being an eligible organization, a challenging process if different customers seek different approaches. TPAs also will have consider how to recover administrative costs from issuers issuing coverage policies (and receiving FFE reductions). An additional consideration is how to fund contraception coverage from the coverage effective date, September 1, 2013, until dollars become available in connection with the FFE user fees. 

New ACA Regulations Address Minimum Essential Coverage and Exemptions

by Anne W. Hance and Amy M. Gordon

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) released on January 30, 2013, two proposed rules and a final rule relating to the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) requirement that individuals maintain “minimum essential coverage” (MEC) or be subject to a “shared responsibility” payment.

  • IRS Final Rule: The IRS issued final regulations in May 2012 addressing eligibility for the health insurance premium tax credit, which is available to certain low-income individuals purchasing a qualified health plan on a health insurance exchange.  The January 30, 2013 final rule supplements these regulations by finalizing the requirement that “affordability” of coverage available for the employee under an employer-sponsored group health plan is determined based on self-only coverage (and not family coverage).
  • IRS Proposed Rule: The proposed rule addresses (1) the obligation each taxpayer has to make a “shared responsibility payment” for himself, herself and any dependents who, for a calendar month, do not have MEC, and (2) exemptions to this payment obligation.  The limited exceptions for this payment obligation include individuals who lack access to affordable MEC.  The proposed rule addresses the difference in determining affordable MEC for an employee eligible for coverage under a group health plan (as described above) versus affordability for a “related individual.”  A “related individual” is one for whom an Internal Revenue Code Section 151 deduction can be claimed.
  • HHS Proposed Rule: The HHS proposed rule sets forth standards and processes by which a health insurance exchange will make eligibility determinations and grant exemptions from the shared responsibility payment.  This proposed rule also (1) identifies certain types of coverage deemed to be MEC , and (2) sets forth standards by which HHS may designate certain health benefits coverage as MEC. 

    For example, self-funded student health insurance coverage and Medicare Advantage Plans are proposed to be designated as MEC.  Additionally, sponsors of other types of coverage that meet designated criteria, such as providing consumer protections required by the Affordable Care Act, may apply to HHS for recognition as MEC.

Next Steps

Health insurance issuers will want to consider whether the various products they offer or administer will meet the MEC requirements set forth in HHS’s proposed rule, in order to respond to inquiries from customers, to meet notice requirements (including inserting model statements into existing plan documents, as applicable), and potentially to respond to exchanges making eligibility determinations.  If a product does not constitute MEC, issuers may want to consider whether to continue to offer the product in its current form or revise the coverage to meet the MEC requirements.

Sponsors of group health plans will need to consider the separate affordability standards for employees and for related individuals and the implications for group health plan participants, and either modify coverage to meet the MEC standards, or consider the consequences of the shared responsibility payment.

House End of Year Package Would Cut Hospital Funding More than $17 billion

by Karen S. Sealander and Erika Stocker

As the clock ticks down on Congress’ 2011 session and lawmakers look to wrap up outstanding FY 2012 appropriations bills, leaders in both the House of Representatives and the Senate continue to look for a path forward on priority legislation to extend unemployment benefits, renew the expiring Social Security payroll tax cut and prevent a steep cut in Medicare physician reimbursements as part of a large year-end “extenders” package. 

House Republicans released their extenders package, HR 3630, late last week and are working to build support for the measure, with a vote expected early this week. This 369-page legislation would reduce Medicare payments to hospitals by more than $17 billion in order to finance other of the bill’s provisions. Highlights of the health-related provisions are set forth below and a more detailed summary of the health-related provisions can be found here

Should HR 3630 pass the House, it is expected to be soundly rejected in the Senate. Further, President Obama has already indicated his displeasure with certain of the bill’s provisions. As such, we believe that there are two options for an extenders package to make its way to the President’s desk for a signature: (1) House and Senate leaders will need to have an earnest negotiation to agree on a compromise that can pass muster in a Republican-led House, can garner 60 votes in the Democratically-controlled Senate and can avoid the veto pen of President Obama, or (2) the Senate will approve its own extenders package in the nature of a substitute to the House bill, which the House would have little choice but to accept.

Highlights of some of the health-related provisions are as follows:

Extenders and Other Changes

  • The bill heads off a 27.4 percent cut in Medicare physician payments, and provides that for CYs 2012 and 2013, physician payments would increase 1 percent in each year. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) scores this provision as costing $38.9 billion over 10 years.
  • The bill would extend several expiring Medicare ambulance add-on payments, including a 2 percent adjustment for urban ground ambulance services, a 3 percent adjustment for rural ground ambulance services and the 22.6 percent increase for ambulance payments for trips originating in “super rural areas,” through December 31, 2012,. CBO scored this provision at $0.1 billion over 10 years.
  • The bill would extend with modifications a program that provides an exceptions process to outpatient therapy caps through December 31, 2013. CBO scored this provision at $1.7 billion over 10 years.
  • The bill would extend the physician fee schedule's work relative value units (RVU) geographic floor through December 31, 2012.  CBO scored this provision at $0.5 billion over 10 years.
  • The bill would re-open physician-hospital ownership restrictions imposed under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) to allow physician-owned hospitals that were under construction, but did not have Medicare provider numbers as of December 31, 2010, to open and operate and qualify for grandfather protection.  The bill also would make it significantly easier for hospitals that were grandfathered under the ACA provisions to expand capacity (presently, grandfathered hospitals are allowed to expand bed and OR capacity only if they meet very limited criteria). CBO scored this provision at $0.3 billion over 10 years.

Offsets

 The bill utilizes a number of offsets, including several that come directly from hospital payments:

  • Reducing hospital outpatient prospective payment system (HOPPS) facility fee payments to hospitals for evaluation and management (E/M) services to be equal to the Medicare payment for the same service when furnished in a physician office. CBO estimates that this provision saves $6.8 billion over 10 years.
  • Reducing the reimbursement hospitals and other providers can receive for bad debts from 70 percent to 55 percent, phased in over 3 years.  CBO estimates that this provision saves $10.6 billion over 10 years. Of note, the President had proposed that the percentage be reduced to 25 percent.
  • Rebasing Medicaid disproportionate share hospital (DSH) payments.  CBO estimates that this provision saves $4.1 billion over 10 years.
  • Increase Medicare Part B and D premiums for high-income individuals by 15 percent, and increase the number of individuals considered to be high-income by lowering brackets from $85,000 for individuals to $80,000, and from $170,000 for couples to $160,000.  CBO estimates that this provision saves $31 billion over 10 years.
  • Reducing by $8 billion the Prevention and Public Health Fund created in the ACA.

Omitted Provisions

The bill is also noteworthy for what it does not include, including:

  • Sole community hospital and small rural hospital hold harmless or “TOPS” protections under the outpatient PPS, which will expire December 31, 2011.
  • Section 508 wage index reclassifications, which expired September 30, 2011.
  • Physician pathology technical component payments that allow independent laboratories to receive payments from Medicare for the technical component of pathology services performed for a hospital patient.
  • Reasonable cost payments for clinical laboratories in low density population areas, which expires July 2012.
  • The Medicare-dependent hospital designation program, which expires September 30, 2012.
  • Low-volume hospital payment adjustments, which expires September 30, 2012.

Webcast: Strategies to Deal with the Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act

Live Knowledge Congress Webcast
Strategies to Deal with the Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act
September 13, 2011, Noon to 2 pm (EST)

Panel includes Susan Nash, Co-Chair of McDermott Will & Emery’s Health and Welfare Benefits Group.

The Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act (PPACA or “Health Reform Bill”) has been the subject of significant legal and policy debate since it was enacted in April 2010.  The legislation has been both hailed as an important victory in the battle to improve the quality and accessibility of healthcare in the United States, and challenged as unconstitutional and ineffective in reducing medical costs and otherwise incenting choice and value in medical care and services.

Amidst this debate, legal and business strategies for dealing with the aspects of Health Reform that have been, or soon will be, implemented are often left in the background.  These strategies are critical for ensuring compliance and optimizing business performance as PPACA rolls out. No matter how the broader policy or legal debate resolves, entities affected by PPACA must consider the Act’s impact on reimbursement, cost protection, and other day-to-day operational issues.

Strategies to Deal with the Patient Protection & Afford Care Act  LIVE Webcast is a must-attend for healthcare professionals, health policy directors, health executives, pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturers and others who are interested in developing practical strategies to deal with healthcare reform.  The Knowledge Group has assembled a panel of key thought leaders and regulators to discuss the fundamentals and updates regarding this topic.

Click here to register for the event.

To receive a discount courtesy of McDermott Will & Emery, please enter this code: will8992.

Health Care Reform: An Implementation Checklist for Hospitals

In the months since the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) was enacted, organizations have been inundated with law and consulting firm client advisories, articles and seminars—all focused on summarizing the new health care reform law.  But to what extent have those articles and seminars provided a clear plan of action and said clearly, "Do this"?

This checklist provides that action plan and will help hospital and health system executives make sense of the new health care reform law, and translate it into specific action steps for their institution.

The checklist provides hospital and health system executive leadership with concise implementation recommendations to address each of the key themes of the health care reform law including:

  • fraud and abuse enforcement
  • insurance reforms
  • reimbursement
  • employment matters
  • tax-exempt status
  • information technology
  • corporate governance
  • strategic alliances

The checklist is intended to serve as a “yardstick” by which hospital and health system executives can measure their progress in responding to health system reform changes.

Click here to receive a copy of this checklist.

Additional resources on each of the topics covered and lawyers who specialize in these areas can be found here.

Update on the Early Retiree Reinsurance Program

Assemble your Early Retiree Reinsurance claims!  The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) will hold an event on August 31 to release the list of 1,300 employers that have qualified for the Early Retiree Reinsurance Program under Section 1102 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.  Under the program, these entities, comprising both public and private employers, will be certified to file for reimbursement of early retiree health care expenses.  HHS has already begun sending formal notification today to the employers approved for the program.

  • The notice includes a description of the electronic certifications the plan sponsor will have to make.
  • The notice states that a notice to plan participants will be required, however form notices will be provided by the government in September.
  • Reimbursement will only be made for claims that are Medicare eligible (guidance as to this will be released in September).
  • Payments from the government are anticipated to begin in October.

First-Dollar Coverage of Designated Preventive Services

The Facts

Health care reform requires non-grandfathered group health plans and health insurance coverage to provide first-dollar coverage of certain preventive services furnished by in-network providers.  This requirement is effective with the first day of the first plan / policy year beginning on or after September 23, 2010.

Coverage is mandatory for four general categories of preventive services, referred to as recommended preventive services.  The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) will maintain a complete and up-to-date list of recommended preventive services on its website

Coverage is not required for recommended preventive services furnished by out-of-network providers, and cost-sharing obligations also may imposed.  HHS also has adopted regulations addressing cost-sharing requirements for office visits (and other health care services) furnished at the same time as a recommended preventive service.

What’s at Stake

Group health plans and health insurance issuers offering non-grandfathered plans and policies need to evaluate their plans / policies to assess whether changes are needed, both to comply with this new coverage mandate and to promote in-network provider utilization.

Steps to Consider

Medical management techniques to administer benefits for recommended preventive services are permitted, and group health plans and health insurance issuers will want to consider what techniques may be appropriate.  An additional consideration is whether the claims submission and payment provisions need to be modified to implement the cost-sharing regulations for office visits and other health care services provided at the same time as recommended preventive services.

New Deduction Limit on Compensation Paid by Certain Health Insurers

The recently enacted health care reform laws create a new broad-based $500,000 annual deduction limit on all compensation paid by certain health insurers and their related companies to all employees and other individual service providers.  There are no special exceptions for certain types of deferred compensation, performance-based compensation or commissions.  The new limit generally applies to compensation paid in 2013 and later tax years.

Click here to view the full article. 

PPACA Interim Final Regulations on Pre-existing Condition Exclusions, Lifetime and Annual Limits, Rescissions and Patient Protections

The U.S. Departments of Health and Human Services, Labor and the Treasury have issued interim final rules on pre-existing condition exclusions, lifetime and annual limits, rescission of coverage and patient protections.  Employers and insurers should review their current health plan designs to ensure compliance with these interim final rules.

Click here to view the full article.

Early Retiree Reinsurance Program Application is Now Available

Today the Early Retiree Reinsurance Program (ERRP) Application was posted on the Health and Human Services (HHS) website.  Applications are being accepted as of today, June 29, 2010. The ERRP will stop accepting applications once it appears that the $5 billion appropriated for the program will be exhausted; therefore, it is imperative that employers interested in participating in the ERRP submit their application as soon as possible.  The link to the application and instructions are as follows:

http://www.hhs.gov/ociio/Documents/application.pdf

http://www.hhs.gov/ociio/Documents/application_instructions.pdf

In addition, HHS published some Dos and Don’ts with respect to your submission of the application, the link is as follows:

http://www.hhs.gov/ociio/Documents/errp_dos_donts.pdf

For more details, please click here

Grandfathered Health Plan Regulations

The U.S. Departments of the Treasury, Labor, and Health and Human Services recently issued long-anticipated Interim Final Rules defining the term “grandfathered health plan” and clarified other health care reform requirements.  Various mandated benefit requirements of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, apply differently to grandfathered health plans than to non-grandfathered plans.  Employers will need to carefully review their benefit plan offerings to determine whether the benefits of maintaining grandfathered status outweigh the restrictions on plan design and cost-sharing imposed by these Interim Final Rules.

Click here to view the full article.

Agencies Clarify that Health Care Reform Requirements Should Not Apply to Retiree-Only Plans

Interim final rules on grandfathered health plans recently issued by the U.S. Departments of the Treasury, Labor, and Health and Human Services clarifies the departments’ position with respect to the application of certain group health plan mandates to very small health plans, including retiree-only plans. 

Click here to read the full article.

Health Insurers and Health Care Reform Implementation: What, When, and, Most Importantly, How?

The Facts

Health insurance issuers face immediate deadlines as well as long-term timeframes for implementing health care reform.  Several initiatives are underway, such as the Early Retiree Reinsurance Program. Other market reforms, including lifetime and annual dollar limit restrictions, apply to new issues and renewals beginning September 23, 2010, although limited exceptions may exist for grandfathered plans.

Quickly following are federal review of premium rate increases and medical loss ratio (MLR) standards (along with the risk of mandatory rebates if exceeded).  Multiple, and differing, statutory provisions, such as the small groups definitions, add complexities.

What’s at Stake

Implementing these reforms raises several common questions and issues:

  • How do health insurance issuers modify existing products and prepare state product and rate filings to reflect new benefit requirements that are vague or undefined and for which guidance may not yet exist?
  • How should health insurance issuers advise their customers?  Should grandfathered status be preserved, or will the conditions be too limiting to be practical?  The answer may differ for self-funded and fully insured plans.
  • How do health insurance issuers implement new operating requirements, such as MLR standards, where state filings will need to be prepared prior to adoption of the standards?  How should existing small group requirements be reconciled with new definitions for small groups?

Steps to Consider

In addition to monitoring the release of regulations and other guidance, health insurance issuers should consider strategies for implementing reforms for which there is minimal guidance.  Consistency as to approach, coupled with a good faith defense of actions taken following critical legal analysis, may mitigate some of the potential risks.  Developing a schedule for immediate requirements is advisable, while keeping in mind the longer-term reforms that take effect upon launch of health insurance exchanges.

Enacted Health Care Legislation: Effect on Employers

The Facts

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was enacted on March 23, 2010, and the Health Care and Education Affordability Reconciliation Act is expected to be enacted shortly.  This health care legislation contains provisions that will strongly impact employers.  These provisions include the requirement that employers with 50 or more employees offer qualifying health coverage or pay a penalty of $2,000 per uncovered employee, elimination of the Medicare Part D subsidy tax exemption and imposition of a 40 percent excise tax on health coverage that exceeds certain thresholds.  In addition, the legislation limits health care reimbursement account contributions to $2,500 per year and no longer allows over-the-counter drugs to be reimbursed through health reimbursement accounts or health savings accounts unless prescribed by a physician. 

The legislation also requires group health plans that cover dependent children to extend coverage to such dependents until age 26.  Beginning in 2014, this coverage must be extended regardless of whether the dependent has access to other employer-provided coverage.  Further, group health plans can no longer impose lifetime or restrictive annual limits on plan benefits or impose pre-existing condition exclusions on children under age 19, and no pre-existing condition exclusions are allowed beginning in 2014.

What’s at Stake

These provisions will cost employers monetarily and increase employers’ administrative burdens.  Employers have many more compliance issues to monitor as a result of this legislation.  Failing to comply with these requirements could result in additional expenses by way of substantial penalties. 

These provisions also have the potential to decrease employer-provided benefits.  For example, employers will find it much more expensive to provide retiree benefits without the prescription drug coverage subsidy tax exemption and active medical benefits, with the threat of a 40 percent excise tax on health coverage beyond the stated threshold and with the new restrictions on plan terms, such as no lifetime limits or pre-existing condition exclusions.  This extra cost may serve as a deterrent to providing some benefits.   

Steps to Consider

  • Take steps to ensure all requirements are met to avoid penalties. 
  • Review effective dates for requirements pertaining to benefits and take action as necessary.
  • Evaluate the impact of future requirements on benefits and take preemptive action.
  • Modify open enrollment materials, summary plan descriptions and plan documents as necessary.

Click here to read a full news alert.

Health Insurance Exchanges - National Versus State-Level Marketplace

The Facts 

Both the House health reform bill, H.R. 3962 (Affordable Health Care for America Act), and the Senate health reform bill, H.R. 3590 (Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act), include provisions establishing one or more health insurance marketplaces (exchanges). The exchanges would serve as an organized and transparent marketplace designed to facilitate access to, evaluation of and purchase of qualified health insurance plans by individuals and small businesses. Premium subsidies would be available through the exchange, and benefit packages would be structured in standardized tiers. An exchange would seek to create a large enough risk pool so that competition among insurers would increase not only with respect to pricing but on quality and service aspects as well. Insurance market reforms in both bills would disallow preexisting condition exclusions and impose medical loss ratio requirements. 

There are key differences between the House and Senate proposals. The House bill would create one national exchange overseen by a new federal agency, the Health Choices Administration (HCA), with an opt-out provision for states under certain circumstances. The HCA would oversee the health plans and premiums charged for policies available through the exchange. Under the House bill, the exchange would be the exclusive marketplace for all individual (non-group) policies, other than grandfathered policies. Insurers would be required to bid to participate in the exchange, with the HCA able to negotiate terms before allowing a plan to participate in the exchange. By contrast, the Senate bill provides for each state to establish and administer its own exchange, subject to compliance with minimum federal standards, with federal intervention if a state does not provide an exchange. 

What’s at Stake

The exchanges will be at the crux of revamping the individual and small business markets. Whether there is a single national exchange or separate state exchanges will have significant implications for providers, payors and consumers. The House proposal could offer greater economies of scale and potential efficiencies for products offered across state lines, but would represent a significant shift from how insurance is currently regulated at the state level. The Senate proposal would retain the benefit of the local market knowledge of the states and would preclude an additional layer of federal regulation. 

Steps to Consider

Understand the impact of the exchanges on structure and oversight of the insurance market, evaluate current plans and prepare for refinements needed to transition to new exchanges.

Political Leaders Reach Agreement with Unions on Excise Tax for Cadillac Plans

The Facts

On January 14, 2010, congressional leaders and the White House announced that they had reached a compromise with labor unions to proceed with the excise tax on so-called Cadillac, or high-cost, health plans. The excise tax was included in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (H.R. 3590) passed by the Senate. The provisions of that bill called for a 40 percent excise tax on insurance companies and plan administrators for any employer-sponsored health coverage whose value exceeded $8,500 per year for individuals and $23,000 for families. The tax was to take effect in 2013.

The compromise reached last week with the labor unions dictates that the thresholds for the tax will be slightly higher than in the Senate bill—$8,900 for individuals and $24,000 for families. These threshold levels would be increased based upon age, gender and geography to prevent the tax from disproportionately affecting people in high-cost groups. Additionally, starting in 2015, dental and vision coverage will not contribute to the thresholds. Most importantly for the labor unions and their employers, the new compromise exempts collectively bargained health plans and state and local government employees from the tax until 2018. This exception was made to accommodate for the fact that many unions negotiated better health benefits for their members at the expense of wage increases.

The tax is expected to raise $90 billion in revenue over the next 10 years. By contrast, the original Senate bill would have raised $149 billion over 10 years.

What’s at Stake

Businesses with high-cost health care plans hiring non-union employees would feel the effects as early as 2013 under this compromise proposal. Businesses with collectively bargained health care plans are likely to benefit from the exemption from the excise tax until 2018, which gives unions time to renegotiate their agreements with employers.

Steps to Consider

Businesses should evaluate their health care plans to determine to what extent they will be affected by this tax. Insurers should assess the impact of the tax on the coverage they offer.

Health Care Reform May Discourage Employers from Providing Retiree Medical Benefits

The Facts

Both the recently passed Senate and House health care reform bills contain provisions that affect retiree health benefits. Both bills remove the tax exemption for Medicare Part D subsidies received by employers who provide retiree prescription drug coverage. In addition, the House bill prohibits employers from changing a retiree’s available benefits once the individual has retired, and the Senate bill contains a 40 percent excise tax on retiree health benefits that exceed certain thresholds ($9,850 for single coverage and $26,000 for family coverage). Both bills decrease the Medicare prescription drug coverage gap by $500 (with the House bill completely eliminating the gap by 2019) and provide a 50 percent discount on brand-name drugs to retirees affected by the coverage gap.

What’s at Stake

These provisions have the potential to decrease employer-provided retiree health and prescription drug benefits. Employers will find it much more expensive to provide these benefits without the tax exemption for the prescription drug coverage subsidy and with the threat of a 40 percent excise tax on health coverage beyond the stated threshold. This extra cost may serve as a deterrent to providing such benefits. In addition, the inability to alter the benefits offered to retirees provides an incentive to decrease or eliminate retiree benefits so employers are not obligated to provide such coverage indefinitely. Further, the reduction in the Medicare coverage gap and discount on drugs will influence employers to eliminate prescription drug coverage because these increases bring the Medicare drug benefit to a level closer to that of employer-provided coverage. 

Steps to Consider

  • Review the progress of the proposals to determine next steps, such as plan redesign.
  • Consider weighing in with your congressional delegation explaining the impact of the various provisions and indicating your views on them.     
  • Evaluate the impact of the final law on retiree health and prescription drug benefits, and consider adjusting benefits accordingly.

Proposed COBRA Changes

The Facts

Health reform legislation approved by the House would extend COBRA coverage until the earlier date on which a COBRA-eligible individual becomes eligible for coverage under an employer plan, or is eligible for coverage under a plan offered in an insurance exchange. Under current COBRA rules, COBRA-eligible individuals may elect COBRA for up to 18 months based on the employee’s termination of employment or loss of coverage due to a reduction in the employee’s work hours, or up to 36 months for divorce, death or loss of dependent eligibility. The reform bill would not extend the 65 percent COBRA subsidy program that is scheduled to sunset December 31, 2009, although other legislation pending in the House (H.R. 3930) and Senate (S. 2730) would extend and expand this subsidy. President Obama supports extending the COBRA subsidy.

H.R. 3930 would extend the eligibility period to June 30, 2010, and would increase the maximum period of the subsidy from nine to 15 months. H.R. 3930 would not increase the amount of the government subsidy beyond 65 percent or expand the eligibility criteria, but it would extend the current 18-month period of COBRA coverage to 24 months for eligible individuals terminated from employment between April 1, 2009, and December 31, 2009. S. 2730 also would extend the subsidy period but would additionally increase the subsidy amount from 65 percent to 75 percent of the COBRA premium. S. 27390 would expand eligibility for the subsidy to include workers who experience a loss of health coverage as a result of an involuntary reduction in hours.

What’s at Stake

Because COBRA is typically elected by less healthy participants, extending COBRA beyond the typical 18-month period and increasing the government subsidy may drive up the cost to group health plans for this extended coverage.

Steps to Consider

Although it is unclear whether these COBRA extensions and expansions will be added to the health reform legislation, group health plans should carefully monitor developments and plan for the possibility of these changes.

Senate Finance Committee Health Reform Plan Contains Revenue Raisers that are Vastly Different from House Health Reform Package

The Facts
The health care reform plan put forth September 16, 2009, by Senator Max Baucus (D-MT), Chair of the Senate Finance Committee, contains revenue raising proposals, along with savings from Medicare and Medicaid, that together would finance the expected $774 billion cost of reform over 10 years. Following are highlights of the revenue raising provisions in the Baucus plan: 

  • Impose an excise tax of 35 percent on insurance companies and plan administrators for health insurance plans above the threshold of $8,000 for individual coverage and $21,000 for family coverage, to raise $214.9 billion over 10 years.
  • Limit the amount of contributions to health flexible spending accounts to $2,000 per year, to raise $16.5 billion over 10 years.
  • Eliminate the deduction for the subsidy for employers who maintain prescription drug plans for their Medicare Part D eligible retirees, to raise $4 billion over 10 years.
  • Conform the definition of qualified medical expenses for health savings, health flexible spending accounts and health reimbursement arrangements to the definition used for the itemized deduction, to raise $5.4 billion over 10 years.
  • Increase the penalty for distributions from health savings accounts prior to age 65 not used for qualified medical expenses from 10 to 20 percent raises $1.3 billion over 10 years.
  • Require information reporting for businesses that pay corporate providers of property and services any amount over $600, raises $17.1 billion over 10 years.  
  • Impose non-deductible annual flat fees on pharmaceutical manufacturers and importers, health insurance providers, clinical labs and medical device manufacturers based upon relative market share, to raise $93.2 billion over 10 years.

What’s at Stake

  • Insurance coverage limits may be reduced to avoid the 35 percent excise tax. 
  • The costs of pharmaceutical drugs, insurance lab work and medical testing fees could increase as a result of any new fees imposed on these companies. 

Steps to Consider

  • Affected entities should carefully evaluate the impact of the proposed new taxes and fees. 
  • In addition to the revenue raisers included in the Chairman’s mark, additional revenue raisers will likely be offered during Finance Committee consideration of the legislation as any amendments offered must included offsets to pay for the cost of the amendment. 
  • The financing mechanisms selected by the Finance Committee merit serious review. The mechanism contained in the House health reform bill (an income tax surcharge on families with incomes above $350,000 and individuals with incomes about $280,000) will likely be significantly scaled back, giving more prominence to the Finance Committee’s proposals. 

Senate Finance Eyeing Health Benefit Tax Changes

The Facts
In May 2009, the leadership of the Senate Finance Committee announced a set of options for financing a mammoth health care reform proposal, including capping the exclusion from income for health insurance, reducing the tax benefits of flexible spending accounts and health savings accounts, and limiting the definition of qualified medical expenses. Under current tax laws, employer contributions towards health insurance and health care for active and retired employees are excluded from an individual’s income and employment taxes. The Senate Finance Committee proposals would limit these tax exclusions in several important ways:

  • Place a cap on the income tax exclusion for employer provided health insurance based on various indices, with some proposals phased out for taxpayers with high adjusted gross incomes (AGI)
  • Repeal the Code Section 213 deduction for medical expenses in excess of 7.5 percent of AGI
  • Eliminate the exclusion from income and employment taxes for contributions made through health flexible spending accounts and health reimbursement arrangements

What’s at Stake
The Congress’ Joint Committee on Taxation estimated that as stand-alone proposals, each of the proposals would result in a reduction in the number of people receiving employer sponsored health insurance in the range of 10 to 12 million people based on a full repeal of the tax exclusions, and in the range of one million people if the tax exclusions for health insurance were to be capped. Of course, the outcome could be different if the tax proposals were included as part of a comprehensive reform of the health care system. 

Steps to Consider
Employers should analyze the impact of these proposals on the group health plans they sponsor for employees. Employers should also consider analyzing the effect of these proposed tax changes on additional employee income and employment taxes.