Employers Must Assess HSA Fiduciary Exposure

While HSAs aren’t traditionally thought of as a retirement vehicle, the DOL broadened the scope of conflict of interest rules to include these plans due to their long-term savings and investment aspects.

Chad Wilkins, president of HSA Bank, and Kevin Robertson, senior vice president, recently sat down with PLANSPONSOR to talk about their expectations for health care reform and other hot-button items on the policy agenda in Washington.

The pair had some important commentary to share regarding the implementation of the Department of Labor (DOL) fiduciary rule and related exemptions. It is surely common industry knowledge by now that the DOL rulemaking has greatly expanded the number of advisers and investment/recordkeeping service providers deemed fiduciaries under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). But the pair warned the rules apply not only to traditional retirement products such as 401(k)s, but also to health savings accounts (HSAs).

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

“This fact has generated no small about of confusion and concern among employers who make HSAs available to their employees,” Wilkins suggests. “While HSAs aren’t normally thought of as a retirement vehicle, the DOL broadened the scope of the rules to include these plans due to their long term savings and investment aspects.”

Wilkins and Robertson feel the jury is actually still out regarding the question of whether the employers will become fiduciaries to their HSA-using employees. Advisers making investment recommendations for individuals using HSAs will likely take on some new level of fiduciary responsibility, they expect, but as it pertains to an employer’s own fiduciary exposure, the general consensus within the industry is that the new regulations “probably do not automatically require employers offering HSA plans to be considered fiduciaries.”

As is commonly the case in examining ERISA standards, any given employer’s fiduciary exposure will depend on the particulars of their HSA programming and to what degree they offer advice versus education.

“This is one of the first questions an employer will need to answer for their HSA plan as the DOL rules come into play,” Robertson says. “There may be no technical or legal responsibility of an employer to act as a fiduciary for their HSA plan, but we strongly recommend that employers implement certain features of ERISA best practices, to mitigate risk for themselves and their employees.”

NEXT: Fiduciary management of HSAs 

“While ultimately the steps taken to ensure compliance with the rules will be unique to each employer group, there are some foundational components of the rules that hold true in many cases,” Wilkins says. “Additionally, there are some requirements that apply to all employers, regardless of whether they are a fiduciary or not.”

At a high level, the themes of fiduciary compliance within HSA programs will be very similar to those applying to defined contribution (DC) plans and individual retirement accounts (IRAs):

  • Know and understand the structures of fees within the plan, and specifically the flow of money with regard to what and how providers get paid within the program;
  • Take appropriate measures to ensure that the fees charged to participants within their program are reasonable and fully disclosed;
  • Review their education and communication materials and practices to ensure that they are appropriate and do not constitute investment advice or direct recommendations;
  • Potentially make changes to the investment (or vendor) options within their plans, as prudence requires; and
  • Potentially initiate new contracts or addendums with vendors as a result of the above impacts.

“The four main areas of concern are account structures, appropriate fees and disclosures, investments, and communication and educational materials,” Wilkins explains. “Again, even if an employer is not a fiduciary, we encourage all groups to understand these same concerns and take them under advisement in the evaluation and delivery of their own plans.”

Wilkins and Robertson further recommend employers learn the answers to these questions: “Where are the funds located, and how are they being protected? Are they FDIC insured? What criteria is the vendor using to vet the banks or insurance companies that hold cash, and how often are they being evaluated? What safeguards are in place to ensure the recordkeeping and the assets balance for each participant? What notice is provided when funds are moved among banks or annuity contracts?”

“At first glance, this list of questions may appear to be too detailed, but even if an employer is not a fiduciary under the rule, most will want to perform due diligence on their vendors, and arrive at a determination that their vendors are acting in the best interest of their employees,” Wilkins concludes.

NEXT: New responsibilities are manageable 

“At first glance, this may sound a bit daunting for employers,” Robertson admits. “However, it really isn’t a far stretch from the current processes that most employers undertake in the planning, selection, and delivery of their retirement and benefit programs. The fiduciary rule will require new disclosures. Employers should take full advantage of that information in the vendor selection process.”

Another piece of practical advice is that HSA custodians, “or any vendor for that matter,” should be happily providing the necessary information to the employer so that they can effectively manage their vendor selections and program delivery. Robertson encourages employers to be aggressive in their demands for clarity, transparency and consistency from vendors.

“We also highly recommend that employers engage their own counsel to help with the overview and compliance of their entire retirement and benefit plans, but there should be plenty of support made available from reputable vendors,” he concludes. “Vendors should have systems to provide the necessary information, including full disclosure of account structure, fees, investments, and all elements of their product offering. From there, the employer should be able to quickly and accurately make determinations on the compliance of their plans.”

Additionally, employers may want to review their formal agreements with their vendors. The changes and requirements associated with the expanded fiduciary rule may necessitate either new contracts or addendums in contractual language.

“With all of this in mind, employer oversight of HSA plans should be an easily accomplished task.” 

PSNC 2017: Improving Your Plan Through the RFP Process

The time for evaluating a provider can also be opportune for revisiting services, fees and investment options.

Employees of the University of Massachusetts (UMass) have a choice to participate in either the Commonwealth of Massachusetts defined benefit (DB) plan or a 401(a) plan. While either is a good start toward retirement savings success, UMass, a five-campus public university system, realized that more saving was needed.

State-sponsored 403(b) plans are exempt from the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA); however, UMass decided that following the act’s best practices was right for its plan—especially if the school hoped to improve participation and success measures, its target income replacement rate being 80%.

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

Andrew Russell, assistant vice president for the UMass System’s office of human resources (HR), in Shrewsbury, Massachusetts, addressed attendees at the 2017 PLANSPONSOR National Conference last week in Washington, D.C., about how, in keeping with ERISA, the system streamlined its 403(b) plan through the request for proposals (RFP) process.

Up until the passage and effective date of the final 403(b) regulations, in 2007, participants at UMass had 50 recordkeepers to choose from. According to Russell, “We put out an RFP to consolidate recordkeepers, complying with the new regulations and updating the plan structure.” The plan went from 50 recordkeepers to six.

A few years back, also by soliciting RFPs, UMass selected Cammack Retirement Group in Wellesley, Massachusetts, as its adviser/consultant. At the time, UMass wanted help building a 403(b) plan road map. “Looking for an adviser through an RFP was something we weren’t familiar with,” Russell recalled.

The system started by talking to its carriers and providers, peers, and other higher education institutions “to learn which firms were out there,” he said. “We used different industry resources, such as PLANSPONSOR, but you can learn so much from the [RFP] documents. Then you have to look at which providers stand out most. It’s not until the interview that you usually find out how they work, how their team would work with your team.”

NEXT: STREAMLINING THE PLAN

 

 

Last May, with Cammack’s help, the university further streamlined its plan, reducing recordkeeper providers to two.

How did UMass know whom to invite to the RFP? Russell said, “We had to do our homework and, for each RFP, use different resources. We knew lots of recordkeepers from our past relationships, so that was pretty straightforward for us.”

Choosing an adviser is a little different, suggested panelist Michelle Rappa, head of DCIO [defined contribution investment only] marketing for investment manager Neuberger Berman. “Plan sponsors dislike this process because their current adviser can’t help them,” she pointed out. “We try to give them resources and questions to ask possible advisers and help them identify the services they require.”

When it comes to choosing a provider, the adviser has a role, she said. “When a plan sponsor decides to go forward with an RFP, the adviser should be [involved]. Using an RFP is part of the fiduciary process, so finding the right provider through a competitive process is essential. It helps with governance, from the start. It also helps the adviser to set goals and expectations, and the plan sponsor to confirm what services it will receive.”

An attendee asked Russell if putting a current provider through the RFP process is awkward, and “Is that a signal [UMass’s] business is up for grabs?”

“As we are a public plan, providers understand that we need to go through the competitive process,” Russell explained. “So for us it has not been an issue, and the providers we work with are very accustomed to this.”

From the investment manager perspective, Rappa concurred that this is typical of all public plans. As to the investment adviser side, she said, “We encourage advisers to get their plan sponsors to go through the RFP process, to make sure the sponsors and advisers are keeping their governance in check. Everyone gets on the same page, and it’s a good provider review.”

Sometimes, though, the entire process may not be necessary—for example, Rappa said, “for plan sponsors that have worked with us before or that are existing clients, as they understand our organization and have already asked the legal questions. Other plan sponsors that are a little more sophisticated just come in with due diligence questionnaires, updates on the things they need to know versus a full-blown RFP, which may give them more information than they need.”

How many plan sponsors come to the table to improve the plan vs. simply perform the due diligence? “I think sponsors and advisers approach RFPs from both sides, but they’re really necessary if you’re looking for strong governance. You should have a procedure whereby you know that, at certain time intervals, you will go back and just be sure—even if you’re happy—that everything is going well and you’ve done the vetting, and you know that the services you have are competitive.”

Things do change, she continued, so it’s not a bad idea to confirm that the prices you pay for the services you receive are still valid. Doing so will help protect the plan sponsor as a fiduciary.

Additionally, she said, “Technology is speeding up the RFP process. Most of it is done electronically and delivered electronically. There are still requests for paper submissions, but most plan sponsors and providers prefer electronic RFPs. Searching through the spreadsheet electronically, on the receiving end, for the plan sponsor is much easier.”

Russell said, “In the last five years, we’ve done three RFPs, so we’ve been very much in the space. As we’ve matured as an organization, our RFP process has matured. Using the expertise of our adviser and our recordkeepers, we came out of this process well.”

«