Advertisement

May 21, 2013

Affordable Care Act Lives On: Focus on Employer Compliance Returns

In a landmark decision today, June 28, 2012, the Supreme Court upheld the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (known as “ACA”), with one exception. The decision in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, which is available at http://www.supremecourt.gov/, means that employers, group health plans, health insurers and others will need to begin implementing changes required by ACA that many had been delaying until the decision was made. This includes, for example, reporting the costs of an employee’s health coverage on his W-2 (effective for most employers in 2012), capping the amounts that may be contributed to health flexible spending accounts (effective in 2013), and removing all pre-existing condition limitations from plans (effective in 2014).

The Supreme Court did invalidate a provision relating to the Medicaid expansion that was part of ACA. Under ACA, the federal government had the authority to cut-off all of a state’s Medicaid funding if the state did not expand Medicaid as required by ACA. The Court held that this provision was unconstitutional.

The fall elections may still impact the fate of ACA, which could be repealed or revised through the political process. We will follow all developments related to ACA closely and will keep you apprised of developments that affect employers and group health plans.

© 2013 Neal, Gerber & Eisenberg LLP.

About the Author

Partner

Jeffrey J. Bakker represents companies with respect to a wide array of executive compensation and employee benefit matters, including: designing and preparing deferred compensation and equity compensation plans; ensuring tax and ERISA compliance of qualified and non-qualified retirement plans (including defined contribution, defined benefit and cash balance plans); advising clients as to their fiduciary responsibilities with respect to employee benefit plans; and counseling clients on the administration of welfare benefit plans (including health savings accounts). His practice also...

312-269-8270

About the Author

Partner

Patricia S. Cain advises employers on a broad range of employee benefit matters, including counseling employers on the design, implementation and administration of broad-based pension and health care plans, executive compensation arrangements and early retirement programs. She represents employers in ruling requests and controversies before the Internal Revenue Service, Department of Labor and Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. She also represents employers in disputes arising under benefit plans, both in the administrative claims process and in federal court.

Patty’s...

312-269-8032

Contributors

Associate

Stephanie Vasconcellos advises corporations, partnerships and tax-exempt entities on a variety of employee benefits issues, including implementing, re-designing, amending and terminating plans, and correcting plan failures. She counsels clients on COBRA, ERISA, HIPAA, the Internal Revenue Code and other federal laws, as well as federal and state data privacy and security laws. Stephanie also drafts policies and procedures, business associate agreements, plan documents and other transactional documents for employers, health plans and health care providers.

312-827-1042

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.