Employer Strategies for Implementing Health Care Reform

February 27, 2014 (PLANSPONSOR.com) – Employers will need effective strategies to deal with the continuing implementation of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (or ACA).

Consulting firm Mercer has released a list of recommended strategies to help employers navigate the complexities of the health care reform law and fulfill its requirements. The five key topics discussed in the list include avoiding the ACA excise tax, rethinking dependent coverage strategies, classifying part-time and variable-hour employees, next generation wellness strategies and consideration of private exchanges.

Excise Tax Avoidance

Get more!  Sign up for PLANSPONSOR newsletters.

Many employers are already making changes to their medical plans in anticipation of the excise tax in 2018, which is a 40% tax on the value of medical benefits over a set threshold. The cost impact of the excise tax can vary depending on the number of enrollees and the plan’s cost. Organizations likely to hit the tax threshold can phase in changes that will reset benefit costs at a level below the threshold. Research from Mercer indicates that nearly one-third of large employers (those with 500 or more employees) say that concern over the excise tax influenced health plan decisions for 2014. The most common strategies are adding, or building enrollment in, low-cost consumer-directed health plans (CDHPs) and eliminating the highest-cost plan offered today.

Rethinking Dependent Coverage Strategies

In 2015, employers are required to offer coverage to all employees working 30 or more hours per week or potentially face an employer shared responsibility payment. New rules have relaxed the requirement to offer dependent coverage until 2016. The ACA definition of dependents does not include spouses and does not require employers to subsidize or make dependent coverage affordable. Accordingly, Mercer notes an increase in the use of special provisions concerning coverage for spouses with other coverage available. For example, 16% of large employers have such a provision in 2013, which is up from 12% in 2012. The most common strategy is to impose a surcharge for spousal coverage, which 9% of employers do, while 7% do not provide coverage at all. Larger employers are more likely to require a surcharge, while smaller employers are more likely to exclude spouses who have other coverage available. Employers, regardless of size, should take a closer look at how they subsidize dependent and spousal coverage, as well as the attractiveness of their benefit compared to those of their peers in the market.

Classifying Part-Time and Variable-Hour Employees

Mercer research indicates that about one-third of large employers (and nearly half of large retail employers) do not currently offer coverage to all employees working 30 or more hours per week. Extending coverage to those currently ineligible will make up a large part of the increase in health benefit spending due to the ACA. While some employers will attempt to limit the number of newly eligible employees by reducing some workers’ hours, most indicate they will simply make all employees working 30 or more hours eligible for coverage in the full-time employee plan in 2015. Others will add a low-cost plan for the newly eligible, while a small portion say they will take no action and pay the shared responsibility assessment. Regardless of which strategy an organization adopts, it must be prepared to comply with the ACA reporting requirements. Employers need to review and correct employee classifications, ensuring that the systems and tools are in place to track employee hours and maintain records. Employers with a calendar-year plan need to start tracking hours no later than April 15, 2014.

Next Generation Wellness Strategies

Many employers will add or expand health-management programs to reduce health care spending by improving the health of their work force. The ACA allows employers to increase the value of incentives from 20% to 30% of total plan costs, and up to 50% for nonuse of tobacco. While over half of large employers have some type of incentive in place today to encourage participation in health-management programs, a small but growing number have focused on rewarding employees who meet measurable health standards. Such a shift supports the general trend toward consumerism, asking employees to take more responsibility for their health. However, says Mercer, it is important that incentives be introduced and used thoughtfully in the context of a company culture of health.

Consideration of Private Exchanges

Interest in private health insurance exchanges is growing rapidly, according to Mercer. A private exchange allows an employer to better manage costs, and deliver flexibility and choice to its work force. Private exchanges also facilitate an employer’s migration to defined contribution funding as a strategy to manage the year-over-year increase in health and welfare benefits spend to a predefined amount. In a private exchange, an employer can offer an array of choices that give employees an incentive to “buy down” to lower-cost medical coverage and use the remaining dollars for other purchases. Employees have easy access to attractive insurance products that meet other important needs (e.g., life, accident, disability, critical illness, auto) and more control over how they spend their benefit dollars. Mercer’s research shows that one-fourth of all employers are considering switching to a private exchange to deliver benefits to retirees or actives within just two years, with nearly half saying they would consider switching within five years.

These five strategies are the market’s response to changes taking place in benefits delivery, according to Mercer. The firm also notes that the ACA is driving new care delivery approaches and greater consumer accountability. Mercer anticipates that increased demand for primary care services will lead to more providers in retail settings and greater use of telemedicine. In addition, Mercer foresees that the widespread adoption of CDHPs and new transparency tools will facilitate consumer engagement by providing better access to data on care quality and price.

A copy of the list of strategies can be requested here.

Industry Groups Raising Alarms About Tax Reform

February 27, 2014 (PLANSPONSOR.com) – A U.S. House leader has introduced a sweeping tax reform bill that has many in the retirement industry alarmed about its proposals concerning retirement plans.

While the 979-page document introduced by U.S. House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp (R-Michigan) does not include taxation of retirement contribution amounts and benefits caps President Obama suggested in earlier budget proposals, there are similar or new provisions industry groups say will result in double taxation and discouraging retirement plan benefit offerings.

Under current law, the limits on contributions to qualified retirement plans are indexed for inflation. The Camp proposal would freeze these increases in the contribution limits for 10 years. Therefore, individual elective deferrals to qualified retirement plans would be capped at $17,500 (or $23,000 for individuals eligible to make catch-up contributions) for the next decade. This provision would raise more than $63 billion in the next 10 years to pay for tax reform, according to an analysis by the Association of Pension Professionals & Actuaries’ (ASPPA) Congressional Affairs Manager Andrew Remo.

Never miss a story — sign up for PLANSPONSOR newsletters to keep up on the latest retirement plan benefits news.

The Camp proposal would subject all elective deferrals into qualified retirement plans above 50% of statutory limits ($8,750, or $11,500 for individuals eligible to make catch-up contributions) to Roth tax treatment—taxing them up front, rather than upon distribution. In addition, the proposal would require all employers with more than 100 employees to amend their plan documents to allow employees to make Roth contributions (if Roth contributions are not already permitted). Encouraging Roth savings accelerates the revenue flowing into government coffers in the short term, raising $143.7 billion over the next 10 years to pay for tax reform, Remo says.

Camp’s proposal would place a 25% cap on the rate at which deductions and exclusions (including those relating to retirement savings) reduce a taxpayer’s income tax liability. This is similar to a provision included in President Obama’s past budget proposals (see “Savings Cap Could Affect up to 5% of Participants”). Should this proposal become law, it would subject individuals in the new 35% tax bracket to a 10% surtax on all contributions made to a qualified retirement plan—that is, both employer and employee contributions. (Obama’s proposed cap did not apply to employer contributions.)

“The result of the 10% surtax is double taxation of plan contributions. It totally ignores the fact that these contributions are tax deferrals, not a permanent exclusion, and will be subject to ordinary income tax when they are withdrawn after retirement,” says Brian Graff, ASPPA’s executive director and CEO, in a statement. “Should this proposal become law, a small business owner could pay a 10% surtax on all contributions made to a qualified retirement plan today, then pay tax again at the full ordinary income tax rate when they retire.”

Graff adds: “Penalizing small business owners for contributing to a plan is going to make them think twice about sponsoring a plan at all, and their employees could lose their workplace retirement plan as a result. Double taxation is hardly what we hoped to see in any tax reform proposal.”

Graff also expresses concern about the impact of the proposed freeze on contribution limits until 2023. “After all, the cost of living in retirement is not going to be frozen,” he points out. “On top of the double taxation mistake, this is a real blow to employer-sponsored retirement plans, and to American workers’ retirement security.”

Graff says ASPPA is very disappointed to see these provisions, and would have accepted the proposal if the reduction to retirement savings tax incentives was limited to requiring 401(k) contributions above 50% of the contribution limit to be Roth only. “Unfortunately, that is not the case, and we must strongly oppose this tax reform proposal given its negative impact on American workers’ retirement security,” he concludes.

The Plan Sponsor Council of America (PSCA) also issued a statement saying several provisions in Chairman Camp’s proposal will diminish the retirement savings opportunities for working Americans. “The requirement that employee contributions above a certain amount to a 401(k) or similar plan be made on a Roth basis will add complexity and increase administrative costs,” the council notes. 

In addition, it expresses concern that rules that limit top earners’, often small business owners, ability to claim a full deferral for contributions made to their savings account will reduce the willingness to offer a plan to their employees, and the repeal of the small employer pension plan startup credit removes a valuable incentive to owners considering establishing a plan for their workers. 

“Additionally, eliminating inflation adjustments for contribution limits for ten years provides another reason for a business owner to decide against offering a plan. Many workers will also be affected by the limit freezes,” ASPPA continues.

The Camp tax reform proposal also makes changes in other areas, according to Remo’s analysis, including elimination of new Simplified Employee Pensions (SEPs) and Savings Incentive Match Plan for Employees (SIMPLE) 401(k) plans going forward—existing SEPS and SIMPLE 401(k)s could continue to exist, modification of retirement plan distribution rules, and changes in the rules governing individual retirement accounts (IRAs) to encourage Roth savings and combat leakage.

«