Advertisement

May 21, 2013

Employers: Take Steps Now for Affordable Care Act Compliance

The State Legislature might be struggling with a decision on  health care exchanges required under the Affordable Care Act, but that will not excuse employers from taking steps to meet the requirements of the Act now that the Supreme Court has upheld it as law. 

Generally, this ruling means that the Affordable Care Act remains in place.  We have covered many of the facets of the Act in prior client advisories (see links below) and we will continue to provide updates as the various provisions come into effect.  At this point, plans and employers should be preparing for upcoming requirements, including the following:

  • Summary of benefits and coverage.  On either the plan's first open enrollment period or the first plan year beginning on or after September 23 – whichever comes first - plans must provide participants with a summary of benefits and coverage.  A template of this four-page summary is available on the Department of Labor's website (See: Templates, Instructions, and Related Materials heading at this link). 
  • W-2 reporting of employer-sponsored health coverage.  Beginning with this 2012 tax year, employers need to include on employee's W-2s the cost of employer-sponsored health coverage.  This includes both employer and employee portions of the cost of health benefits.
  • Notice of exchange.  Beginning March 1, 2013, employers must provide all employees and new hires with a written notice of the availability of the healthcare exchange.  The notice must inform employees of the existence of the exchange and describe the services provided by the exchange.  It must also inform employees that they may be eligible for a premium tax credit or a cost-sharing reduction through the exchange in certain circumstances.  The Department of Health and Human Services has indicated that it expects to issue a model notice.
  • Limit on FSA salary reductions.  Beginning with plan years after December 31, 2012, there is a $2,500 limit on salary reduction contributions to health flexible savings accounts.  This limit applies to all plans, including grandfathered plans.   Cafeteria plan documents must be amended to reflect the $2,500 limit.

Looking out to the future, beginning in 2014, employers with at least 50 full time employees will need to offer health insurance to employees who average 30 or more hours per week or will pay a penalty for failing to offer coverage.  If an employer chooses not to offer coverage to full  time employees or offers coverage that is not "affordable" under the ACA, the penalty will be equal to $2,000 for each actual full-time employee in excess of 30 full-time employees.  Employers should consider whether they will offer coverage or will simply pay the penalty.

Supreme Court Decision on ACA - Background

On June 28th, in a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court upheld the Affordable Care Act. A total of 26 states, several individuals and the National Federation of Independent Business had challenged the constitutionality of the Act.  Specifically, they questioned the constitutionality of the individual mandate and the expansion of Medicaid coverage to include all individuals whose income falls below 133% of the poverty level. 

With respect to the individual mandate, Chief Justice Roberts, in writing for the majority, concluded that although Congress does not have the authority to require individuals to have health insurance, it does have the authority to tax individuals who do not.  This means that most Americans will be required to maintain minimum essential health coverage.  If individuals choose not to do so, they will be required to make a "shared responsibility payment" to the IRS. 

Additionally, the Court ruled that the Medicaid expansion under the ACA violates the Constitution.  The ACA gives the Secretary of Health and Human Services the authority to threaten states with the loss of existing Medicaid funding if they choose not to comply with the Medicaid expansion.  The Court explained that Congress may not require states to regulate in this way.  The Court concluded, though, that this Constitutional violation is remedied by eliminating the provision that gives the Secretary the ability to withdraw existing Medicaid funds.  The Medicaid expansion otherwise stands.

© 2013 Varnum LLP

About the Author

Partner

Jeff chairs Varnum's employee benefits practice group. He has 25 years of experience working with employers, executives and third-party administrators on a wide range of employee benefit, executive compensation and individual retirement matters, including plan design, plan administration, benefit plan disputes and tax planning for retirement.

He also helps solve complex tax issues in business and investment transactions, especially those involving pass-through entities and...

616/336-6566

About the Author

Partner

Nancy represents a wide range of employers in the design, documentation, administration and taxation of welfare benefit plans, qualified retirement plans and non-qualified deferred compensation plans.

248-567-7426

Contributors

Associate

Jim Gallagher is an associate in the corporate practice group and is active in the firm's Financial Institutions Industry group. Jim's practice focuses on banking and securities regulation. He has worked extensively with a number of banks and holding companies involved in public and private capital raise efforts.

616/336-6494

About the Author

Associate

Kimberley is an associate in the Employee Benefits practice group concentrating on executive compensation and deferred compensation.

616/336-6625

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.