health benefits – Page 5 – ERISA Benefits Law

EEOC Issues Proposed Regulations Regarding Wellness Program Incentives

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has issued proposed regulations under Title II of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) regarding employer wellness programs that are part of group health plans. The proposed rule provides that employers may provide limited financial and other incentives in exchange for an employee’s spouse providing information about his or her current or past health status information.

Background

Title II of GINA prohibits employers covered by the law from using genetic information in making decisions about employment. It restricts employers and other entities covered by GINA from requesting, requiring, or purchasing genetic information, unless one or more of six narrow exceptions applies. In addition, it strictly limits entities covered by GINA from disclosing genetic information. EEOC’s current regulations implementing GINA prohibit employers from offering incentives in return for genetic information. This requirement has come in conflict with the Affordable Care Act (ACA) provisions that encourage employers to use wellness programs, including significant incentives. The proposed regulations should make it easier to comply with GINA while taking advantage of the wellness incentives permitted under the ACA.

One of the narrow exceptions to GINA’s prohibition on requesting, requiring, or purchasing genetic information applies when an employee voluntarily accepts health or genetic services offered by an employer, including such services offered as part of a wellness program.
The statute and EEOC’s GINA regulations say that “genetic information” includes, among other things, information about the “manifestation of a disease or disorder in family members of an individual.” The term “family members” includes spouses.
Because information about the current or past health status of spouses and other family members is genetic information about an employee, EEOC’s current GINA regulations could be read as prohibiting employers from offering incentives in return for a spouse providing his or her current or past health information. The proposed rule explains how employers may lawfully offer incentives for such information under GINA.

The Proposed Rules

The proposed rule would permit employers to offer limited incentives for the employee’s spouse to provide current or past health status information as part of a wellness program, as follows:

An employer may offer, as part of its health plan, a limited incentive (in the form of a reward or penalty) to an employee whose spouse (1) is covered under the employee’s health plan; (2) receives health or genetic services offered by the employer, including as part of a wellness program; and (3) provides information about his or her current or past health status. Information about current or past health status usually is provided as part of a health risk assessment (HRA), which may include a questionnaire or medical examination, such as a blood pressure test or blood test to detect high cholesterol or high glucose levels.
The total incentive may not exceed 30 percent of the total cost of the plan in which the employee and any dependents are enrolled. The incentive may be financial or in-kind (e.g., time-off awards, prizes, and other items of value).
For example, if an employee and his or her spouse are enrolled in self and family coverage that costs $14,000, the maximum incentive the employer may offer the employee and spouse to provide information on current or past health status as part of a wellness program is $4,200 (30 percent of $14,000).
The maximum portion of an incentive that may be offered to an employee alone may not exceed 30 percent of the total cost of self only coverage. So, if the employer in the example above offers self-only coverage at a total cost of $6,000, the maximum portion of the $4,200 incentive that may be offered for the employee’s participation is $1,800 (30 percent of $6,000). The rest of the incentive ($2,400 in the example above) may be offered for the spouse’s participation or for the employee, spouse, and/or employee’s other dependents who are covered by the health plan participating in activities designed to promote health or prevent disease. These could include programs that reward participants for walking a certain amount each week or for attending nutrition or weight loss classes.

The proposed rule also provides that any health or genetic services an employer offers must be reasonably designed to promote health or prevent disease. This means that the service must have a reasonable chance of improving the health of, or preventing disease in, participating individuals. It also means that an employer-sponsored wellness program must not be overly burdensome, a subterfuge for violating Title II of GINA or other laws prohibiting employment discrimination, or highly suspect in the method chosen to promote health or prevent disease.

The proposed rule adds a new provision stating that employers may not require employees (or employees’ spouses or dependents covered by the employee’s health plan) to agree to the sale, or waive the confidentiality, of their genetic information as a condition for receiving an incentive or participating in a wellness program.

Proposed Rules

EEOC Q&As

ACA Automatic Enrollment Repealed

There is good news for employers with more than 200 employees in the recently announced budget deal: The deal repeals the automatic enrollment requirement that was originally enacted as part of the Affordable Care Act.

Section 1511 of the ACA required employers with health coverage that have more than 200 employees to automatically enroll new employees in their plan. The act also required employers to give new employees notice and the opportunity to opt out of the automatic enrollment. The DOL had previously delayed implementation of the provisions. With this repeal, employers will no longer need to worry about implementing this particular ACA requirement.

HR 1314

DOL Opinion Finds Stop Loss Policy is not a Plan Asset

DOL recently issued Advisory Opinion 2015-02A, concluding that an employer’s stop loss policy, purchased to manage the risk associated with its liabilities under a self insured medical plan, was not a Plan asset. This accords with our long held view that neither participant contributions toward the cost of their coverage, nor a stop loss insurance policy, need result in the creation of plan assets or trigger ERISA’s trust requirements. The relevant facts in Advisory Opinion 2015-02A:

The stop loss insurer would reimburse the Plan Sponsors only if, during the policy year, they pay benefit claims required under the Plans in excess of a pre-determined amount, or attachment point.
The insurance would not relieve the Plans of their obligations to pay benefits to Plan participants, and the stop-loss insurer has no obligation to pay claims of Plan participants.
The Plan Sponsors would be the named insured under the Policies.
Reimbursements to the Plan Sponsors would be made at the end of the calendar year after the Plan Sponsors have paid for plan benefits and presented appropriate stop-loss claims to the insurer for reimbursement.
The Policy would reimburse the Plan Sponsors only if the Plan Sponsors pay claims under the Plan from their own assets, so that the Plan Sponsors will never receive any reimbursement for claim amounts paid with participant contributions.
No monies attributable to employee contributions are used for paying premiums on the Policies.
Specifically, participant contributions are paid into the general account of the employer and recorded in a balance sheet. All health claims and other Plan expenses are paid from this general account.
The Plan Sponsor pays premiums for the Policies, or any other stop-loss insurance, exclusively from its general account.

Advisory Opinion 2015-02A

Exchange Notices to Employers When Employees Receive Premium Tax Credits

CMS just announced that, beginning in 2016, all Healthcare.gov exchanges will start to notify certain employers if one or more of their employees has received an advance payment of premium tax credits. As discussed previously here, an unintended consequence of this is that, if not properly handled, the employer’s receipt of these notices could increase the risk of a retaliation claim against employers under the ACA. Talk to your counsel about how you can segregate the information you receive in these notices from HR decision-makers, and whether you ought to respond if you learn an employee is getting a premium tax credit that you don’t think they should be eligible for (based on the coverage you are offering them).

Health Care Coverage Information Returns – Update

Final Versions of 2015 Health Care Information Reporting Forms Now Available

The Internal Revenue Service has released the final versions of two key 2015 forms and the related instructions that employers and insurers will send to the IRS and individuals this winter to report health care coverage they offered or provided. The IRS published these forms in 2014 and released draft forms and instructions for 2015 earlier this summer. The final forms and instructions for 2015 are largely unchanged from the previously released drafts.

The 2015 version of Form 1095-C, Employer-Provided Health Insurance Offer and Coverage, and instructions used by employers with 50 or more full-time employees are now available on IRS.gov.

Form 1095-B, Health Coverage, and instructions primarily used by insurers and health coverage providers, including employers that sponsor self-insured plans, have been released as well.

The related document transmittal Forms 1094-B and 1094-C are also available on IRS.gov.

The health care law requires certain employers and providers to submit the 2015 forms to the IRS and individuals in early 2016. Though the forms were available for voluntary use in tax-year 2014, the upcoming tax season will be the first time that reporting is mandatory.

Now is the Time to Determine ALE Status

Employers that are applicable large employers should be taking steps now to prepare for the coming filing season. You must determine your ALE status each calendar year based on the average size of your workforce during the prior year. If you had at least 50 full-time employees, including full-time equivalent employees, on average during 2014, you are most likely an ALE for 2015.

In 2016, applicable large employers must file an annual information return – and provide a statement to each full-time employee..

If you will file 250 or more information returns for 2015, you must file the returns electronically through the ACA Information Reports system. You should review draft Publication 5165, Guide for Electronically Filing Affordable Care Act (ACA) Information Returns, now for information on the communication procedures, transmission formats, business rules and validation procedures for returns that you must transmit in 2016.

Final Rules Regarding Religious Accommodation of Contraceptive Coverage Mandate

On July 14, 2015 the IRS, DOL and HHS will jointly issue final rules regarding no additional cost preventive services, including contraceptive services, under the Affordable Care Act.

The final rules maintain the existing accommodation for eligible religious nonprofits, but also finalizes an alternative pathway for eligible organizations that have a religious objection to covering contraceptive services to seek an accommodation from contracting, providing, paying, or referring for such services. The rules allow these eligible organizations to notify HHS in writing of their religious objection to providing contraception coverage, as an alternative to filling out the form provided by the Department of Labor (EBSA Form 700) to provide to their issuer or third-party administrator. HHS and the DOL will then notify insurers and third party administrators of the organization’s objection so that enrollees in plans of such organizations receive separate payments for contraceptive services, with no additional cost to the enrollee or organization, and no involvement by the organization.

The alternative notice must include:

the name of the eligible organization and the basis on which it qualifies for an accommodation;
its objection based on sincerely held religious beliefs to covering some or all contraceptive services, as applicable (including an identification of the subset of contraceptive services to which coverage the eligible organization objects, if applicable);
the plan name and type; and
the name and contact information for any of the plan’s third party administrators and health insurance issuers.

The departments issued a model notice to HHS that eligible organizations may, but are not required to, use.

Nothing in this alternative notice process (or in the EBSA Form 700 notice process) provides for a government assessment of the sincerity of the religious belief underlying the eligible organization’s objection.

In addition, the final rules provide certain closely held for-profit entities the same accommodations. Relying on a definition used in federal tax law, the final rules define a “closely held for-profit entity” as an entity that is not publicly traded and that has an ownership structure under which more than 50 percent of the organization’s ownership interest is owned by five or fewer individuals, or an entity with a substantially similar ownership structure. For purposes of this definition, all of the ownership interests held by members of a family are treated as being owned by a single individual. The rules finalize standards concerning documentation and disclosure of a closely held for-profit entity’s decision not to provide coverage for contraceptive services.

The final rules also finalize interim final rules on the coverage of preventive services generally, with limited changes.

Final Rules

Model Notice

Supreme Court Obergefell Decision Impacts Employer Welfare Benefit Plans

Today’s Supreme Court decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, requiring all 50 States to license same sex marriages, has two immediate implications for employer-sponsored welfare benefit plans:

1. Do your welfare benefit plan documents define “Spouse”, and if so, how?

If all of your operations are in a state that recognized same sex marriage before today’s ruling, then your welfare benefit plans probably already either do not contain a definition of “Spouse”, or they define “Spouse” by reference to state law. If that is true for you, then you probably do not need to amend your plan documents. You will automatically extend benefits to legally married same sex spouses, just as you have already done, since you operate in a state that recognized same sex marriage before today’s ruling.

However, if you operate in a state that did not recognize same sex marriage before today’s ruling, then your welfare benefit plans might define “Spouse” by reference to one man and one woman. If that is how your plan defines “Spouse”, you ought to discuss with ERISA counsel whether to change that definition.

In addition, even if you maintained an opposite sex definition of “Spouse” for your welfare benefit plans in states that previously recognized same sex marriage, you should revisit this issue in light of today’s ruling.

While welfare benefit plans are not required to offer spousal coverage, and therefore in concept could extend coverage only to a subset of Spouses (opposite sex spouses), this practice is more risky today than it was yesterday. Given the Obergefell holding – that same sex marriage is a fundamental right protected by the 14th Amendment, there are now significant risks associated with offering spousal coverage that is limited to opposite sex people.

Public sector employers cannot maintain such policies because they would be subject to a direct claim of employment discrimination based on the 14th amendment fundamental rights holding in Obergefell. A direct claim such as this in the private employment market would have significant weaknesses, at least in jurisdictions that do not prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or preference. The reason? The 14th Amendment does not apply to private actors. However, additional circumstances, such as a disparate impact of such a provision on one sex or the other, could make such a claim viable.

Moreover, employers that maintain the opposite sex definition of “Spouse” will increasingly be out of the mainstream. This may be a good or a bad thing, depending on your market.

The point is, check your plan documents and talk to counsel about the implications of leaving them unchanged vs. changing them.

2. Do you offer Domestic Partner Coverage? If so is it limited to same sex domestic partners? Is it limited to domestic partners in states that did not recognize same sex marriage before today’s ruling?

In recent years many employers offered welfare benefits to same sex domestic partners, but may not have done so for opposite sex domestic partners, on the theory that same sex domestic partners could not get married. Other employers may have limited domestic partner coverage to states that did not recognize same sex marriage, again on the theory that this was only an issue on those states. This rationale has been breaking down as more states recognized same sex marriage, and it is now gone entirely.

You should revisit your decisions regarding domestic partner coverage in light of today’s ruling. Employers that limit domestic partner coverage in one of these ways need to decide whether to :

(a) continue offering coverage only to same sex domestic partners,

(b) extend coverage to all domestic partners (both same sex and opposite sex), or

There are serious risks associated with option (a) (continue offering coverage only to same sex domestic partners), for many of the same reasons discussed above, except that now, opposite sex unmarried domestic partners who do not get a benefit offered to same sex domestic partners might challenge those provisions.

Option (b) (extend coverage to all domestic partners) is a legally safer course, though it may have significant financial implications for employers. Extending benefits to same sex unmarried domestic partners was not very costly because not many people took up the offer. Extending those benefits to opposite sex unmarried domestic partners could be attractive to a much larger pool of your employees.

Option (c) (eliminate domestic partner coverage) might make logical sense, and may be the best alternative to (b). Bloomberg reports that this may in fact be a significant result of the ruling:

“A survey of large corporations released earlier this month showed that far fewer of them offer health coverage to unmarried heterosexual couples — 62 percent — than to same-sex domestic partners, at 93 percent.

That gap suggests less of a willingness to cover unmarried couples when legal marriage is an option. More powerfully, 22 percent of the companies said they plan to drop coverage of domestic partners as a response to a ruling that makes gay marriage a viable option nationwide.”

But there are both legal and practical risks associated with taking a benefit away from a group of employees.

Again, think about these issues, discuss them with counsel and make deliberate and informed decisions about how to deal with them, given your unique situation.

COBRA, FMLA and the ACA Employer Mandate

Let’s assume you have diligently designated initial and standard measurement and stability periods to take advantage of the opportunities provided by the final employer mandate regulations to minimize the risk of incurring employer mandate penalties under the ACA (if you have not, let’s do it now – better late than never). But you may not yet have figured out how these designations may impact your FMLA and COBRA administration. To help you do that, let me tell you a story….

Joe Blow worked as a full-time employee for Acme, Inc. for several years. As such, he and his family were covered by Acme’s medical plan. In 2014, Acme designated a November 1 – October 31 standard measurement period, and a January 1 – December 31 standard stability period for ongoing employees such as Joe. In November 2014, Joe was diagnosed with cancer and went out on FMLA leave. In accordance with its long-standing practice, Acme continued Joe’s coverage under the medical plan while Joe was on FMLA leave, until the later of February 28, 2015 (the end of the month in which the 12 week FMLA leave period ended), or the date Joe indicated he would not return to work.

In January 2015, Joe let Acme know that he would return to work on March 1, 2015, but that due to his medical condition he could only work 20 hours per week. Joe was a valuable employee, and Acme wanted Joe to return to work in whatever capacity they could have him. So Acme welcomed Joe’s return.

Now, before the ACA, Acme would have:

terminated Joe’s medical coverage upon his return to work,
retroactively collected from Joe the employee portion of the premium for his coverage for the FMLA leave period, and
offered Joe and his qualified beneficiaries COBRA coverage. The COBRA period would have started running as of March 1, 2015 (the end of the FMLA leave period).

What about after the ACA? When Joe returns to work in March 2015, Acme can no longer terminate his employee coverage, because Joe worked full time during the measurement period that ran from November 1, 2013 to October 31, 2014 (and therefore he satisfies the requirement to be considered a full-time employee for the stability period that runs from January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2015). This would remain true, even if Acme had extended Joe’s leave beyond the FMLA period, into March and April 2015. For example, if Acme had agreed to extend Joe’s leave through April 1, 2015 as an accommodation under the ADA, or if Acme had voluntarily permitted Joe to extend his leave (without terminating employment) through April 1, 2015, Acme would still not be able to terminate Joe’s coverage at the end of the FMLA leave, because of its ACA measurement and stability period designations. Acme needs to continue offering Joe coverage under the Plan through the end of 2015.

What about COBRA after the ACA? Joe works 20 hours per week for the remainder of 2015. Therefore, he does not work sufficient hours during the November 1, 2014 – October 31, 2015 measurement period to be considered a full time employee for the stability period that runs from January 1, 2016 to December 31, 2016, and Acme terminates Joe’s employee coverage as of January 1, 2016.

Under COBRA, the coverage period runs from the date of the qualifying event that leads to a loss of coverage (not from the date of the loss of coverage). Therefore, Joe’s standard 18 month COBRA period would end on August 31, 2016 (18 months after March 1, 2015). So under COBRA, Acme cannot terminate Joe’s COBRA coverage before August 31, 2016.

Alternatively, Acme could design its medical plan to start the COBRA period as of the date coverage is lost (as opposed to the date of the qualifying event). Here, that would give Joe 18 months of COBRA after January 1, 2016. Before it does so, however, Acme needs to make sure that its stop loss insurer is on board (Acme’s plan is self-funded, with a stop loss policy).

As this little tale teaches, regardless of whether Acme’s plan is self-insured or fully insured, and regardless of whether it decides to run the COBRA period from the original qualifying event, or from the loss of coverage at the end of the stability period, Acme should make sure that its insurance policies, plan documents, summary plan descriptions, medical plan eligibility administration, COBRA administration, and leave policies all account for the implications of its designated measurement and stability periods.

Class Action Lawsuit Accusing Employer of Reducing Employees’ Hours to Avoid Providing ACA Health Coverage

A May 8, 2015 class action lawsuit filed in New York alleges restaurant chain Dave & Buster’s, Inc. violated ERISA Section 510, which prohibits interfering with an employee’s attainment of an employee benefit under an ERISA benefit plan, when it converted up to 10,000 employees from full-time to part-time status in 2013 in an effort to right-sized its work force in response to the Affordable Care Act (ACA). This is one of the first lawsuits we are aware of making this allegation.

The Complaint alleges Dave & Buster’s made numerous public statements that the reason they reduced employees’ hours of employment was to avoid the increased costs of providing health benefits to their full-time employees after the ACA. If those allegations are proven true, the restaurant chain will have a difficult time defending their actions.

And worse is yet to come. As we began warning employers back in September 2013 and October 2013, the risk of lawsuits challenging workforce restructuring and reductions in force is greater since the employer mandate and the individual mandate went into effect, due to anti-retaliation provisions included in the ACA, which prohibit any adverse employment action in retaliation for receiving subsidized coverage through the Marketplace. As we explained back in 2013:

Imagine that Employee A … receives a federal subsidy for his marketplace coverage,…. [a few months later], your company determines it needs to conduct a reduction in force due to a business slowdown. Your HR manager works with senior management to carefully select RIF participants based on their skills, length of service with your company and the expected needs of your business.

The HR manager makes sure the RIF does not disproportionately impact people based on all of the protected classifications (race, nationality, sex, age, disability, etc.). …. Employee A is laid off ….

Employee A files a claim against your company with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, alleging that your company chose Employee A for the RIF because he received subsidized coverage through the marketplace.

Employee A can establish a case of retaliation under the Affordable Care Act merely by providing evidence that his receipt of a subsidy was a “contributing factor” in the RIF decision. And under the OSHA rules that have been proposed to enforce the retaliation prohibition, Employee A will be able to meet his burden merely by showing that the HR manager knew he was receiving a subsidy at or near the time he was laid off.

The burden then shifts to your company to establish by clear and convincing evidence (which is a high bar to clear) that it would have laid Employee A off even if he had not received the subsidy.

Inside Tucson Business, October 25, 2013.

The lessons to draw from all of this include:

If you are planning a RIF (or any other adverse employment action), consider whether anyone making the employment decisions knows that any of the affected employees is or has received subsidized coverage through the marketplace.
- If so, address it like you would for other protected classifications like age, race, sex, national origin and disability status (by documenting your reasons for the decision before you take the action).
- If not, include that fact in the documentation you create before taking the adverse employment action.
And above all, don’t shoot yourself in the foot by proclaiming to the world that you are reducing employees’ hours because you are trying to reduce your risk of incurring the employer mandate.

EEOC Proposes Amendments to ADA Regulations regarding Employer Wellness Programs

On April 20, 2015 the EEOC released proposed amendments to regulations under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) related to employer wellness programs. The proposed rule provides guidance on the extent to which employers may use incentives to encourage employees to participate in wellness programs that are part of their group health plans, and that include disability-related inquiries and/or medical examinations. The proposed rules explain how a wellness program that includes incentives for participation can satisfy the “voluntary medical examination” exception to the ADA’s prohibition on “making disability-related inquiries or requiring medical examinations”. The exception allows “voluntary medical examinations, including voluntary medical histories, which are part of an employee health program available to employees at that work site.”

This is the latest action in an ongoing turf battle between the EEOC (which administers the ADA) and the Departments of Labor, Treasury, and HHS (which administer the HIPAA nondiscrimination rules). HHS has taken a liberal approach, allowing wellness programs to impose a 30% penalty for failure to participate in wellness programs (and up to 50% in the case of tobacco prevention or reduction programs), in accordance with the Affordable Care Act’s policy of encouraging wellness programs. The EEOC has traditionally taken a more conservative view, holding such a large incentive would violate the ADA because it would render the program not voluntary.

The proposed rules permit incentives as high as 30% to encourage participation in a wellness program that includes disability-related inquiries or medical examinations, as long as participation is voluntary. Voluntary means that the employer:

(1) does not require employees to participate;

(2) does not deny coverage under any of its group health plans or particular benefits packages within a group health plan for non-participation or limit the extent of such coverage (except pursuant to allowed incentives); and

(3) does not take any adverse employment action or retaliate against, interfere with, coerce, intimidate, or threaten employees who do not participate.

In addition, an employer must provide a notice that clearly explains what medical information will be obtained, who will receive the medical information, how the medical information will be used, the restrictions on its disclosure, and the methods the covered entity will employ to prevent improper disclosure of the medical information. Finally, the proposed rule allows the disclosure of medical information obtained by wellness programs to employers only in aggregate form, except as needed to administer the health plan.

The Proposed Rules

EEOC Q&As on the Proposed Rules