October 18, 2019

October 17, 2019

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

October 16, 2019

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

October 15, 2019

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

New Agency FAQs Drive a Stake Further into the Heart of Premium Reimbursement Arrangements and Eliminate a Common Executive Perk

In clear and unambiguous terms, the U.S. Departments of Labor (“DOL”) and Health and Human Services and the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) (the “Agencies”) drove a stake into the heart of two suspect health insurance strategies that have been promoted to business owners across the country.    In addition, the guidance may spell trouble for a common reimbursement strategy used by employers for executives and other key employees.

 

 

Building upon prior guidance, the Agencies have eliminated any reasonable argument that employers can (i) establish any arrangement in which they reimburse employees for obtaining individual insurance coverage either on the Marketplace or directly from an insurer or (ii) provide incentives to high-cost claimants to drop employer coverage and obtain individual insurance.  The guidance, issued on November 6, was released as DOL FAQs Part XXII.

Premium Reimbursement Arrangements

With the advent of Marketplace access for individuals, certain promoters of benefits products pitched to employers an idea that sounded “too good to be true”:  eliminate employer sponsored health insurance and establish accounts to reimburse employees for the cost of individual insurance coverage.  An employer subject to the “pay-or-play” requirements of the Affordable Care Act (“ACA”) would be subjected to the so-called “A Penalty” of $2,000 per full-time employee, but even factoring in the cost of the non-deductible penalty with the amount of the premium reimbursed, the employer would save premium subsidy and administrative costs.

In September 2013, the DOL and IRS addressed this idea and said that health reimbursement arrangements (HRA) not integrated with a group health plan or employer payment plans (collectively, “premium reimbursement arrangements”) are themselves group health plans and therefore violate the ACA because, among other things, the preventive services and annual limitations requirements could not be met.  See DOL Technical Release 2013-03IRS Notice 2013-54.  The September 2013 guidance left open the idea that employers could reimburse individual coverage on a post-tax basis.

The new guidance, however, states that premium reimbursement arrangements are group health plans whether payment or reimbursement is provided on a pre-tax or post-tax basis.  Therefore, employers are no longer permitted to reimburse employees or pay insurers directly for individual health insurance policies.

We note that this guidance has far-reaching implications.  While the Agencies’ clear focus was on the marketeers who continued to promote these reimbursement strategies after the previous guidance, the inclusion of post-tax arrangements into the mix may well spell trouble for employers who routinely reimburse executives and others for their individual insurance costs.  This happens in a number of situations, including when an executive or sales person or other employee lives or has family that lives in a part of the country where the group health plan does not provide good coverage.

 Marketplace Dumping

Another suspect recommendation to employers (especially with self-insured plans) is that they identify high-cost claimants and provide a cash incentive for them to drop employer coverage and obtain individual insurance coverage on the Marketplace.  Proskauer has been asked to comment on this approach in the past and has noted our belief that the suggestion would violate various federal laws, including ERISA’s nondiscrimination rules (added by HIPAA in 1996).  In the FAQ, the Agencies note that this practice discriminates based on one or more health factors for two reasons.  First, the offer of cash actually increases the premium because the individual with an adverse health factor must forgo the cash to elect group health coverage.  Thus, the individual with an adverse health factor effectively pays a higher premium than those without the adverse health factor.  Second, although the HIPAA nondiscrimination rules allow “benign discrimination” (i.e., discrimination that helps individuals with adverse health factors), this practice discourages enrollment in the group health plan and is, therefore, not benign.

What Employers Should Do

  1. Reject any proposal that involves (i) incurring the “A Penalty” and reimbursing  individual premium costs or (ii) identifying high-cost claimants and incenting them to move to Marketplace  insurance;

  2. Those who have are in the process of implementing these strategies should immediately stop and consider consulting with qualified counsel as to whether they might be able to recoup costs incurred; and

  3. Immediately evaluate any arrangement in which an executive or other employee is reimbursed (on a pre- or post-tax basis) for individual insurance coverage (Note, however, that reimbursements on a pre- or post-tax basis for premiums for other group health insurance such as a spouse’s plan or COBRA coverage are still permitted).

 

 

 

© 2019 Proskauer Rose LLP.

TRENDING LEGAL ANALYSIS


About this Author

Peter Marathas, Attorney, Proskauer Law Firm
Partner

Peter Marathas is a Partner in the Employee Benefits, Executive Compensation & ERISA Litigation Practice Center and heads both the Employee Benefits Practice in the Boston office and Proskauer’s Health Care Reform Task Force. As demonstrated by his “Band One” ranking in Chambers USA, Peter has a solid reputation as being among a short list of U.S. employee benefits lawyers who can guide his clients through complex federal and state benefits laws and tax, securities, ERISA and corporate governance issues in a...

617.526.9704
Damian A Myers Labor and employment law attorney proskauer rose
Senior Counsel

Damian Myers is an Associate in the Employee Benefits, Executive Compensation and ERISA Litigation Practice Center, resident in the Washington, DC office.

Damian represents public and private companies on matters related to employee benefits and executive compensation including compliance with ERISA, tax, corporate and securities laws and regulations affecting employee benefit plans, programs and arrangements. He concentrates on all aspects of compensation and employee benefit programs, including the design, implementation, administration and funding of non-qualified retirement plans, equity based compensation plans and executive compensation arrangements. Additionally, Damian assists clients with planning and compliance matters related to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (Health Care Reform). 

202-416-6877