Boosting HSA Participation and Engagement

Experts say offering company matches and/or seed money, as well as implementing automatic enrollment into the plans, can boost workers’ engagement with HSAs.

Since the COVID-19 pandemic gripped the world, people have become more aware of health savings accounts (HSAs), said Phil Mason, executive vice president, chief operating officer and director of health care services at UMB Healthcare Services, during the virtual 2021 PLANSPONSOR HSA Conference.

“People are now thinking through how they would handle a giant, one-time medical expense,” he said. “We would like to see optimal behavior by HSA account holders, which is different for everyone. There are lot of people who don’t have an HSA who should. We need to educate them about the triple tax advantages of HSAs, get them to think of them as retirement vehicles—and prompt them to take advantage of the investment component of HSAs.”

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

HSA providers need to provide a lot more education about HSAs, noted panelist William Giaconia, vice president, channel development at Fidelity. “One-third of people don’t know that they are not a ‘use it or lose it’ account, and one-third don’t know they can invest the money,” he said.

He said he is hopeful that adding artificial intelligence (AI) to HSA accounts will enable providers to “comb through a lot of data on people and provide them with customized communications to meet them where they are on their HSA journey.

“Communication needs to be more personalized,” Giaconia continued. “People might, for instance, be receptive to information on how to invest. There is a lot of promise in these AI technologies, and they can be scaled to help with overcoming this education deficit plaguing HSAs.”

Brad Arends, co-founder and chief executive officer of intellicents, likened the lack of participant knowledge about HSAs to where 401(k) plans were 20 years ago.

“One factor that was critical to getting 401(k)s on the right path was advice,” Arends said. “There isn’t a single provider out there that will actually give advice—on how to invest, how much to save, what health care plan to select. That is what is missing in the HSA world. This is mission critical in order to get these people engaged, and whether they realize it or not, 401(k) advisers are ideally suited to do this through educational group meetings followed up with one-on-one consultations.”

Besides that, consultants can recommend employers give HSA participants a match or seed money in order to boost participation in the plans, Arends said.

Mason agreed that putting seed money in the plan will increase participation. He also said consultants can boost HSA participation by showing employees how much they can save by choosing a high-deductible health plan (HDHP) paired with an HSA.

Arends added that sponsors can automatically enroll participants in HSAs and give them the right to opt out. He said it would also be helpful for sponsors to default participants into a target-date fund (TDF) if they are using auto-enrollment and if they are not, to reduce the number of options on the investment menu.

Giaconia of Fidelity said he is encouraged by disruptors like Amazon getting into the health care space because they are educating participants about how important it is to shop for health care. “Any innovation and competition can definitely have a positive impact over a period of time, and Amazon’s move can be good for the health care market,” he said.

Arends agreed: “This notion of consumerism with HSAs will prompt participants to ask questions about the difference between medical services and their costs. There can be a price differentiator between health care plans of as much as 40% to 50%.”

Court Rejects Barnabas Retirement Plan Fiduciaries’ Motion to Dismiss Lawsuit

A federal judge found that the plaintiffs had sufficiently pleaded their claims in the suit alleging excessive retirement plan fees.

Judge Kevin McNulty of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey has denied the dismissal of an Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) lawsuit against Barnabas Health and various retirement plan committees and individuals alleged to be fiduciaries of the health care system’s 401(k) and 403(b) defined contribution (DC) retirement plans.

In the original complaint, the plaintiffs alleged that the plan fiduciaries chose high-cost investments when lower-cost alternatives were available by selecting and maintaining funds with high expense ratios. They also suggested plan fiduciaries selected higher-cost share classes for funds when lower-cost share classes were available. The plaintiffs also allege that there were lower-cost alternative funds that performed better over the long-term. Finally, the lawsuit alleged that the fiduciaries failed to monitor or control the plans’ recordkeeping expenses.

Get more!  Sign up for PLANSPONSOR newsletters.

In their motions to dismiss the case, the plan fiduciaries argued that the plaintiffs—participants in the plans—invested in only some of the funds cited, and that they lacked standing to press claims based on the funds in which they did not invest. McNulty found that the participants have alleged an injury to their own investments by virtue of the fiduciaries’ mismanagement, which is sufficient to create a case or controversy for Article III purposes. ERISA then grants them a cause of action to sue on behalf of the plans. “So it follows that ‘a plaintiff with Article III standing’ may sue on behalf of the plan and ‘may seek relief under Section 1132(a)(2) that sweeps beyond [that plaintiff’s] own injury,’” McNulty said, citing a section of ERISA.

“The fiduciaries misconstrue the complaint,” McNulty wrote in his opinion. “The participants allege that the fiduciaries mismanaged the plans. The participants thus allege plan-wide injuries, and as participants in the plans, they may sue to course-correct the plans’ management. For those reasons, I find that the participants have standing to challenge the plans’ management and thereby bring their ERISA claims.”

The judge next turned to whether the plaintiffs have plausibly pleaded a breach of duty of prudence. Because participants usually do not have direct evidence of how fiduciaries reached their decisions, he said the complaint need only provide an inference of mismanagement by “circumstantial evidence,” rather than direct allegations of matters observed firsthand. “The complaint need only plausibly plead that the fiduciary could have reduced costs, and the court will leave to a later day whether the fiduciary should have done so, considering all the circumstances. The necessary allegations are present,” McNulty found.

He said the complaint’s allegations—taken together—create an inference of mismanagement, so he found that the participants have stated a claim for breach of the duty of prudence. McNulty denied the fiduciaries’ motion to dismiss the duty of prudence claim.

Turning to the breach of duty of loyalty claims, McNulty found there are enough allegations to show that the participants could have saved costs had the fiduciaries chosen a different recordkeeper or compensation plan. “This need not imply that the fiduciaries were not acting solely in the participants’ interests, but it could,” he wrote in his opinion. “The fiduciaries may well be able to show why using Fidelity was reasonable; but as allegations, these suffice.”

McNulty denied the fiduciaries’ motion to dismiss the duty of loyalty claim.

«