Advertisement

May 24, 2013

Supreme Court Upholds Health Reform Coverage Mandate

 

Last Thursday, we all heard the big news.  The 2010 health care reform law survived its encounter with the Supreme Court virtually intact.

With the constitutionality of the individual coverage mandate now settled, employers should be taking a close look at what they still need to do to comply with the various health care reform requirements.  For example:

  • Employers must start providing the new “summary of benefits and coverage” to applicants and enrollees starting with open enrollments conducted this fall.  We will be covering this topic in a future alert.
  • For many employers, W-2 reporting of the cost of employer-sponsored health coverage will be required starting with the 2012 tax year.
  • The $2,500 annual cap on health flexible spending accounts goes into effect for plan years beginning on or after January 1, 2013.  Employers will need to amend their plans to comply with this requirement.
  • Play or pay” penalty tax provisions go into effect starting in 2014.  Employers subject to these provisions will have to pay IRS penalties if they fail to provide affordable health coverage to full-time employees.

Of course, it is possible that the health care reform law will be repealed.  Come November, we might even conclude that repeal of the law seems likely.  Nevertheless, it is all but impossible to predict what will happen in Washington, and for that reason employers should not make implementation decisions based on the expectation of any provisions of the law being repealed.

© 2013 Poyner Spruill LLP. All rights reserved.

About the Author

Partner

Hugh practices in the areas of ERISA and Employee Benefits. He is currently representing corporations and other entities in the design and operation of retirement and welfare benefit plans and executive compensation packages, including matters concerning ERISA and Internal Revenue Code compliance. In his experience, Hugh has represented qualified plan sponsors in restating their plans to comply with the Tax Reform Act of 1986 and other changes in tax law, represented sponsors of employee stock ownership plans in connection with plan purchases of employer securities, including leveraged...

919-783-2908

About the Author

Partner

David practices in the area of employment litigation.  He regularly advises and defends clients in race, age, disability and sex discrimination and harassment cases; reviews handbooks and termination issues; and provides compliance advice on matters of employment law.

Representative Experience

McNeil v. Scotland County - Obtained summary judgment for employer where plaintiff alleged race discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act as well as violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Successfully...

919-783-2854

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 w