2022 HSA Conference: An HSA Overview

Speakers provided a high-level overview of health savings accounts and provided an in-depth look at some key HSA features and investing options.

A panel of experts assembled for the first session of the 2022 PLANSPONSOR-PLANADVISER HSA Conference discussed the most important health savings account features and the complex taxation and spending rules governing their use.

Beyond covering such topics as eligibility requirements, tax treatment rules and allowable expenses, the speakers also discussed recent regulations and legislation related to HSAs. The speakers included Greg Adams, a consultant with Fiducient Advisors, Samuel Baldwin, an attorney with Verrill, and Inci Kaya, a health care analyst with Aite Group.

For more stories like this, sign up for the PLANSPONSOR NEWSDash daily newsletter.

Recounted below are some highlights from the discussion, which was designed to help benefits professionals and their advisers get up to speed on a fast-growing benefit option and provide timely information and education that can be used to help with HSA design decisions.

Baldwin on What Makes HSAs Unique

“There are a few characteristics that make an HSA an HSA,” Baldwin said. “First and foremost, it needs to be paired with a high-deductible health plan. So, in order to qualify to make HSA contributions, the person needs to be enrolled in a high-deductible health plan and not enrolled in any other coverage that doesn’t meet the high-deductible health plan requirements.

“The big characteristic of an HSA is the tax savings. HSAs enjoy what we call a ‘triple tax savings.’ First, there are tax savings on the contribution. If you qualify to make contributions to an HSA, your contributions are tax-free going in. Second, the money grows tax-free if it’s left in there over time. And finally, when you take the money out of the HSA, if it is used for qualifying medical expenses, those distributions from the HSA are also tax-free.

“Given this framework, the HSA can be a really powerful savings tool. For some people in some circumstances, it can be a really good long-term savings vehicle.

“Unlike a lot of other employee benefits, the HSA is not subject to ERISA, if designed appropriately. Specifically, the HSA is an account that the individual owns, and the employer is just facilitating the access to the HSA. Of course, it is also important to remember that certain approaches or design decisions can create obligations for the employer under ERISA. One of the ways you can accidentally make your HSA subject to ERISA is by telling employees it’s an employer plan.”

Adams on Why Employers Would Want to Offer an HSA

“There are no other types of savings or investment accounts that you can get that triple tax benefit from,” Adams said. “From an employee standpoint, that’s an incredibly powerful tool. From an employer standpoint, in addition to creating health care consumerism, there can be pretty significant savings on the payroll taxes.

“In the event that you are able to allow employees to contribute to an HSA through payroll, the employer is not going to be responsible for the Social Security tax associated with the employee contributions. There can be massive savings to the employer’s bottom line. It can be a powerful tool for the employer to really help improve their profitability.”

Kaya on Post-Pandemic HSA Trends

“Looking at what HSA account owners were spending annually on health care goods and services prior to the pandemic, this figure was in the high $1,600s or maybe the low $1,700s. They were spending this on anything from sunblock to medical devices to doctors’ visits,” Kaya said.

“While people sat at home and postponed or cancelled non-essential medical procedures, it was only natural that the spending in those accounts declined by several hundred dollars. For employers, there were layoffs and there were furloughs, and so, there was a lot of communication and education efforts that shifted to COBRA benefits and the effort to remain compliant on that front.

“More recently, the picture has changed. Now, people are active again and they are out there switching jobs. And so, maybe they are leaving one employer and taking that account with them. Perhaps they are opening a second HSA. These situations require education and communication by employers.

“Approaching the post-COVID phase, we expect, gradually, that the contributions into these accounts and the spending coming out will recover to where they were before. We expect to see something in the vicinity of $2,000 or so on average going into these accounts per year. We are going to see people with multiple HSAs, not unlike how many of us have multiple 401(k)s or retirement plans.”

Adams on Whether Employees Should Invest HSAs

“Employees should 100% be allowed to invest their HSA funds,” said Adams, “because as we have talked about before, there are a lot of components of HSAs that make them incredibly powerful for long-term financial wellness. Being able to invest those dollars to get tax-free returns, and then to use the proceeds for current or future qualified medical expenses, is incredibly powerful. Being able to invest the money in higher-return instruments such as stocks and bonds, as opposed to just a money market or savings account, is going to make a huge difference for individuals over the long term.

“I think one of the biggest trends that I am seeing as far as investing in HSAs goes is a bigger emphasis on education for the individual. It is all following the same trajectory that we saw with qualified retirement plans, where participants did not at first necessarily have a full understanding of how to utilize their 401(k) or 403(b). In addition, we are seeing the development of financial wellness software that is including HSAs and providing next-best-dollar calculations—determining where to spend money on benefits and how to optimally allocate savings and investments.

“When looking at investment elections, you want to be cognizant of whether you are a spender, or somebody that is putting money in and taking it out each year. Alternatively, you may be a saver, trying to build up a little bit of a buffer for more major medical expenses in your future. Finally, you may be an investor and really have a long-term perspective on having this money grow over time—having it be there for you potentially in retirement. Because of those three components, we are seeing slightly different investment elections inside HSAs relative to the traditional retirement plan.

“From an employer standpoint, when it comes to investments, selecting an HSA provider will not make your plan subject to ERISA. But, if you start getting into exercising discretion over the investment menu, this is where things get a little bit dicey. Choosing a provider is okay. Having an outside third party select the investments is okay. On the other hand, employers want to stay away from any situation where they are actually selecting investments or exercising discretion over the investments.”

$7.5M Settlement Struck in Washington University ERISA Suit

The settlement agreement also spells out a variety of non-monetary requirements, including a new fiduciary training regimen for members of the university’s retirement plan administration committee. 

A settlement agreement has been struck in the Employee Retirement Income Security Act lawsuit filed against Washington University in St. Louis in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.

Though the defendants admit no wrongdoing in the settlement agreement, they have agreed to pay $7.5 million into a gross settlement account from which the funds will be distributed to class members and used to pay the plaintiffs’ sizable attorneys’ fees. The settlement agreement also includes various non-monetary stipulations to be followed by the Washington University defendants. These requirements are to be followed during a special three-year settlement period, during which the defendants agree to comply with additional settlement terms.

Get more!  Sign up for PLANSPONSOR newsletters.

One of these terms requires that defendants provide annual fiduciary training for all members of the Washington University Retirement Plan Advisory Committee. According to the settlement agreement, the defendants will also provide this training to any new RPAC members “at or around the start of their tenure” on the committee. As part of this annual training, the agreement stipulates, each voting member of the RPAC “shall acknowledge that he, she or they serve in a fiduciary capacity and understand his, her or their obligations as a fiduciary.”

The terms also require the RPAC to evaluate the plan’s investment policy statement at least annually, with input from the plan’s investment consultant, and implement any updates to the IPS that the defendants deem appropriate. Further, the plan’s fiduciaries must issue a request for proposal for plan recordkeeping services before the conclusion of the settlement period, and they must work with the plan’s current investment consultant, CAPTRUST, to monitor the plan’s investment options and administrative fees.

The case was originally filed in June 2017 against Washington University in St. Louis, alleging multiple violations of ERISA over the school’s selection and monitoring of its 403(b) plan investments. Mirroring the many other ERISA fiduciary breach lawsuits filed against major U.S. universities in recent years, the suit also challenged the prudence of the university’s selection and monitoring of plan recordkeepers and the plan’s loan program.

In this case, the original lawsuit was consolidated with a second complaint alleging that plan officials “utterly abdicated their fiduciary duties to act prudently and loyally by turning the plan over to TIAA and Vanguard Group.”

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri issued the initial ruling in the case, rejecting the plaintiffs’ allegations of various fiduciary breaches. However, a subsequent appellate ruling emphasized that the case was “only at the pleading stage” and that outright dismissal of the claims was inappropriate.  

“At this point, the complaint only needed to give the district court enough to infer from what is alleged that the process was flawed,” the appellate ruling stated. “It did not have to go further and directly address the actual process by which the plan was managed. Circumstantial allegations about the fiduciary’s methods based on the investment choices a plan fiduciary made can be enough. The first claim clears this pleading hurdle. It alleges that fees were too high, and that Washington University should have negotiated a better deal.”

The filing of the new settlement agreement comes in the wake of an already-influential Supreme Court ruling issued in January in the case known as Hughes v. Northwestern University. Expert attorneys say that case, which included substantially similar allegations, has reaffirmed that retirement plan fiduciaries have an obligation to continuously monitor all the investments on their menu, regardless of the menu’s size, and to remove any options that become imprudent. In other words, a plan fiduciary cannot simply offer a lot of choices and think that they have demonstrably satisfied their fiduciary duties in the eyes of a federal court.

In practice, attorneys agree, the standards set out by Hughes v. Northwestern University make summary dismissal of ERISA lawsuits less likely, opening the door for settlements intended to curtail what could otherwise be a lengthy and expensive litigation process.

«

 

You’re viewing the first of three free articles.

 Subscribe to a free PW Newsletter! 

…subscribing gets you free access to PW’s online content!

If you’re a subscriber, please login.