A project of the George Washington University's Hirsh Health Law and Policy Program and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation

IRS releases guidance for large employers

Posted on December 29, 2012 | Comment (1)

PDF Version
Details
Key Developments
Library
Implementation Briefs

On Friday, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) of the Department of Treasury issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) addressing the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA’s) employer mandate. The IRS also released a series of questions and answers, highlighting the key provisions in the NPRM. The 144-page document explains how to determine which companies constitute large employers and which employees qualify as full-time. In the guidance, IRS also said that large employers must offer coverage not only to employees, but to their families as well. 

Comments on the proposed rule are not due until March 18, 2013, and a public hearing will be held on the proposal on April 23, 2013. This comment period contrasts the 30-day comment periods imposed on the proposed market reform and essential health benefits rules recently released by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

Comment (1)

  • Bruce Hammond says:

    Was the deadline pushed back for employers to send out the SBC?

    ANSWER: YES. The original compliance date was March 23, 2012, but that was pushed back by six months. As of September 23, 2012 or soon after, health insurance issuers and group health plans are required to provide individuals with an easy-to-understand summary about a health plan’s benefits and coverage.

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) issued a proposed rule discussing the minimum value of employer-sponsored health coverage and the ability of employees to receive premium assistance tax credits. According to the proposed rule, IRS states that the minimum value would be determined by dividing the cost of certain benefits to the standard population by the cost of all benefits for the population, including employee cost-sharing and plan payments, and converting that value to a percentage. Several values, such as the amount contributed by employer's to health savings accounts, will be considered in determining the employer's share of costs. However, IRS has also proposed that employer contributions to wellness incentive programs does not count toward health plan minimum value. Additionally, the proposed rule also states that employee-sponsored large group plans are not beholden to every essential health benefit category (EHB), nor must they design their plans to mimic the EHB standards that apply to qualified health plans offered in the Exchange. Adherence to the minimum value requirements will prevent employers from paying the employee shared responsibility payment penalties and will render their employees ineligible for premium assistance tax credits in the Exchange.
Last week, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) issued a notice regarding safe harbor methods that employers may use to determine which employees will be considered as full-time employees for purposes of the shared employer responsibility provisions under the Internal Revenue Code, as added by the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The guidance expands on the previous guidance by including a safe harbor method that may apply to newly-hired employees. The notice provides employers with the option to use a look-back measurement period of up to 12 months to determine whether new employees are full-time employees, without being subject to a payment for this period with respect to those employees. Also last week, the IRS, Department of Health & Human Services (HHS), and Department of Labor (DOL) issued a notice regarding the 90-day waiting period limitation in Public Health Service Act (PHS Act). The PHS Act provides that, for plan years beginning on or after January 1, 2014, a plan or issuer offering group health insurance coverage shall not apply any waiting period that exceeds 90 days.
The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and State Health Access Data Assistance Center released a report finding that 60% of all insured Americans receive insurance through their work. This percentage is down from 70% in 2000, indicating a difference of 11.5 million individuals. The study notes that the decrease in receipt of employer coverage began prior to the 2010 implementation of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), and is caused by a combination of employers no longer offering coverage and employees no longer accepting it. Rising insurance costs is identified as the culprit responsible for the decline of employer-based health insurance.
A Congressional Research Service (CRS) report released last week clarified confusion associated with how companies treat their part-time and seasonal workers, and how this treatment may make them eligible for employer penalties under the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The CRS report includes updated information on employer penalties, which was provided by IRS guidance released late last year. According to the ACA, employers with a minimum of 50 full-time equivalent employees must offer affordable and adequate health insurance to their employees, or run the risk of receiving significant penalties under the law. The confusion on the issue stems from the difference in calculating which businesses are subject to penalties, and the IRS guidance helps to clarify this issue by explaining the ACA's classification of a full-time employee and provisions related to seasonal workers.
According to a new study for the National Institute for Health Care Reform (NIHCR), offering employer-sponsored health insurance will continue to make fiscal sense for businesses employing most workers (81%) now offered insurance. The study found that the economic incentives to offer coverage will remain strong under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) for most larger, higher-wage firms,  but will weaken for small and low-wage employers. These smaller firms are the companies already more likely to drop coverage to due rising costs. Pre-ACA, all businesses had the option to offer health insurance coverage. After 2014, employer premium contributions remain tax exempt, and two new policies will take effect. First,  larger employers that do not offer affordable health insurance will be penalized and second, premium tax credits for lower-income people to purchase insurance in new state exchanges if they lack access to affordable employer coverage will be available. The economic incentive to cover employees is calculated by adding the dollar value of the employer-sponsored insurance tax subsidy and the value of avoiding the penalty for not offering insurance, and then subtracting the value of the premium tax credits that eligible workers could use in an exchange if their employer does not offer coverage. After 2014, the largest firms (500 or more workers) will continue to have a strong economic incentive, with an average incentive of $2,503 per employee. However, the smallest firms (fewer than 50 workers) will face lower economic incentives because they are exempt from the penalty. Certain industries, such as food service, entertainment, agriculture, forestry and fishing, will have less incentive to offer employer coverage, as their workers will be eligible for exchange subsidies. The study draws on data from the 2008-2010 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey.
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report yesterday which reviews estimates of the impact of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) on employer-sponsored coverage. According to some researchers, the ACA's Medicaid expansion and subsidized coverage for low- and moderate-income people who buy health insurance through Exchanges beginning may discourage employers from offering coverage. However, other researchers believe that the financial penalties imposed by the ACA will actually encourage employers to offer coverage. The GAO report examines 27 studies published between January 1, 2009 and March 30, 2012 that offer estimates regarding changes in employer-sponsored health coverage as a result of the ACA.
According to a new Gallup survey, fewer Americans got their health insurance from an employer in 2011 (44.6%) than in 2010 (45.8%), continuing the downward trend Gallup and Healthways have documented since 2008. As employer-based health insurance has declined, the percentage of Americans who are uninsured has increased, rising to 17.1% this year, the highest seen since 2008. The 25.2% of Americans who had government health insurance (Medicare, Medicaid, or military/veterans' benefits) has not changed since 2010. Two factors appear responsible for the increase in uninsured...
A new paper authored by researchers from the Urban Institute and funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation examines how the Affordable Care Act (ACA) affects employer-sponsored insurance. The paper, "Employer-Sponsored Insurance under Health Reform: Reports of Its Demise Are Premature," finds that the ACA will have little overall effect on employer-based health coverage.
Under federal law, employers are not required to offer health insurance coverage to their employees; however, most do voluntarily. In fact, employer-sponsored health insurance is the primary source of health care coverage for most Americans, with roughly 60 percent of the non-elderly receiving health coverage through the workplace. Initially offered as a way to attract workers during wartime wage freezes and price controls, health insurance coverage is still used as a way to recruit and retain workers, and as a means of improving employees’ health and productivity. However, not all workers have health insurance. Indeed, three-fourths of the approximately 50 million uninsured Americans are working people and their dependents.
The Affordable Care Act (ACA) requires that all health insurance issuers offering products in the individual and small-group markets, including both the state Exchange market as well as the non-Exchange market, provide coverage of certain “essential health benefits.” An earlier Implementation Brief explored the concept of “essential health benefits.” This Brief summarizes a new U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) report on benefits covered in a “typical” employer plan and identifies key implementation issues for the federal Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).