Court Moves Forward Interference of Health Benefits Suit
May 6, 2014 (PLANSPONSOR.com) – A federal district court has moved forward a lawsuit claiming an employer refused to advance a part-time employee to a full-time position to avoid paying for health coverage.
Amerimed,
Inc. argued that former employee John K. Sanders was never a participant or
beneficiary in its group health plan and was not entitled to benefits as a
part-time employee, and as such, he does not have statutory standing to bring a
claim of interference of benefits under the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act (ERISA) Section 510. However, U.S. District Judge Timothy S. Black of the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, found ERISA’s definition
of participant and evidence by Sanders’ shows he does have standing to sue.
Black
noted ERISA defines “participant” as “any employee or former employee of an
employer, or any member or former member of an employee organization, who is or
may become eligible to receive a benefit of any type from an employee benefit
plan.” He also cited a similar case, Fleming v. Ayers & Associates, in
which the court found “participant” under ERISA includes not only employees who
are currently eligible for certain benefits, but also those employees who “may
become eligible to receive a benefit of any type from an employee benefit
plan.” Black found Sanders had shown he had a reasonable expectation of
becoming a full-time employee eligible for benefits.
According
to the court opinion, proof of this included:
He
applied for several different full-time positions with Amerimed while he was a
part-time or “optional” employee;
Amerimed
accepted his applications for these positions and interviewed him for at least
one of them;
Amerimed
recommended that he obtain an additional certification in order to help him
secure a full-time position, and he did as recommended;
As
an existing employee, his work was already known to Amerimed, and Amerimed had
given him good performance reviews—facts which would ordinarily make him an
ideal candidate to fill an open full-time position;
In
2012, Amerimed specifically told him about a full-time position that would soon
become available and explicitly stated that he would be considered for this
position.
Sanders
alleged in the lawsuit that he was denied a full-time position with Amerimed
because of his age and a permanent medical condition that affected his nervous
system. Specifically, he claimed Amerimed refused to hire him for a full-time
position because it was concerned that he would add substantial medical
expenses to its group health plan.
The court denied Amerimed’s motion for partial dismissal.
May 6, 2014 (PLANSPONSOR.com) – Reactions to new costs and lingering unknowns from the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) are creating a metamorphosis of traditional employer health benefits designs.
For
one thing, according to Frasier Ives, senior vice president and Employee
Benefits Compliance leader in the East area for Wells Fargo Insurance Services,
the ACA will create employee migration in or out of employer health plans. The individual
mandate may drive them into plans, while the cost of unsubsidized coverage and
employer changes to benefit plan designs may drive them out. Employers need to
understand how these drivers affect their employees to understand the risks to
their own costs, Ives told attendees of the Retirement & Benefits Management Seminar,
hosted by the University of South Carolina Darla Moore School of Business, and
co-sponsored by PLANSPONSOR.
Keeping
in mind the new ways employees will have to get health care coverage and the
new costs associated with the ACA, employers are modifying their benefit
programs, Ives also pointed out. He expects to see growth in spousal exclusions
or surcharges. “You don’t want to be the only employer left to insure sick
spouses,” he said. A recent report from the Employee Benefit Research Institute
(EBRI) noted this could also drive employees who were previously covered by a
spouse’s plan back into their employers’ plans (see “Excluding Spouses from Health Coverage Could Backfire”).
Ives
also suggested there may be a reverse discrimination emerging among larger
employers, who will use salary banding to set premium rates for employees,
making employees who are more highly paid pay more for health care coverage,
and subsidizing more of lower-income employees’ premiums. Employers would do
this to encourage participation in the health plan, to reduce their risk
profile and get better premiums.
Ives noted private
exchanges are also growing as a way for employers to shift health care costs to
employees (see “Evidence Suggests Private Exchanges Are a Win-Win”). He expects, over time,
employers will not increase the contributions they make towards employee health
benefits choices, increasing employees share of cost even more.
There
have been reports that some employers will drop health care coverage altogether
in response to the ACA. Ives warned this may seem cheaper, but it doesn’t take
into account tax subsidies for employers for offering health care coverage. In addition, it decreases the total
compensation package employers offer, making them less attractive to new job
candidates.
Ives
noted there is still guidance needed concerning automatic enrollment
requirements of the ACA and nondiscrimination rules, so the benefits landscape
will continue to morph, with the end result as yet unknown.
Ives
told seminar attendees there are certain ACA-related fees for which they need
to budget. The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research fee—which will be assessed
for seven years—applies to essentially all employer-sponsored group health
plans. The Transitional Reinsurance fee will be assessed for three years to
help stabilize public exchange marketplaces. It also applies to essentially all
employer-provided group health coverage (other than stand-alone dental and
vision). The Health Insurers fee is ongoing and applies to insured health plans
(including medical, dental and vision). It is a tax on health insurance
industry by market share—about 2% to 2.5% of premium in 2014; rising to 3.5% to
4.0% thereafter.
Form
W-2 Filing Requirement - Generally requires all employers to report the
aggregate total cost of “applicable employer-sponsored coverage” first
effective January 2013 for 2012 calendar year. Transition relief for 2012 (and
until further guidance is issued) for employers who filed less than 250 Forms
W-2 for the preceding year.
Minimum
Essential Coverage (MEC) Requirement – Requires any entity that provides
“minimum essential coverage” to an individual to report certain information to
the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), and provide a written statement to the
covered individual. Ives says this is needed to enforce the individual mandate
rule. It is delayed until 2015 calendar year (to be first filed in
February/March of 2016).
Large Employer
Requirement – Requires “applicable large employers” to report certain
information about all of their full-time employees concerning the health
coverage the employer is offering, and provide a written statement to each
full-time employee. Ives said this is needed to enforce the employer “play or
pay” mandate rule. It is delayed until 2015 calendar year (to be first filed in
February/March of 2016) (see “Treasury Modifies rules for ACA Employer Mandate”).
Ives
said employers should understand if, and when, the employer “play or pay”
mandate will apply to them. Identify how many “full-time employees” they have
and determine if any of the key transition relief applies to them (i.e.,
midsized employer, non-calendar year, or partial MEC relief).
Employers
should identify and quantify financial risks under the ACA. Determine the
optimal measurement period strategy for determining whether employees are
full-time, and review systems to confirm
management of hours and measurement periods. Employers should also determine
“affordability” and actuarial value of existing plan options.
Finally, Ives suggested
employers assess the potential financial impact of the “play or pay” mandate and
the Cadillac plan excise tax exposure on business operations (see “Retiree Health Benefit Changes Affect Company Reporting”). Assess changes to
be implemented to plan designs, contributions, and eligibility criteria, and start
developing implementation and employee communication strategies.