Tax-Advantaged Relief and Retirement Savings: HSAs Shape the Way for the Millennial Generation

Jamie Janvier, with ConnectYourCare, discusses how to get Millennials to understand the value of health savings accounts and other tax-advantaged savings.

Critics have long argued that health savings accounts (HSAs) are designed with the wealthy in mind—those whose incomes allow pre-tax contributions to build up year over year—but the latest research is proving otherwise. HSAs are undeniably being recognized as a tax-advantaged way for the Millennial generation to save for health care costs not only in the moment, but in retirement.

Before discussing the HSA, let’s first understand the audience and its journey. Those that make up the Millennial generation, including the younger population born between the 1990s and the mid-2000s known as Generation Z, are predicted to be working into their 70s, mainly due to financial uncertainties spurred by historically high student loan debt, shrinking median income and the soaring costs of home ownership. As a result, this largest living generation—having recently overtaken Baby Boomers to earn this distinction, according to U.S. Census data—is inevitably getting by, paycheck to paycheck, and stashing less away in savings. What savings these young workers do accrue is likely kept in cash value, vs. informed investment opportunities.

Get more!  Sign up for PLANSPONSOR newsletters.

But this is not to say that Millennials do not spend beyond practical means; despite financial struggles, Millennials tend to spend on luxuries they come to trust—items they believe in. Having been born into innovation, they find the latest tech gadgets, for example, important to them, as well as items pertinent to their health, such as gym memberships, fitness trackers, and nutritional foods and supplements.

So, if health is indeed worth the extra spend, is health care up there as a trusted necessity? Not exactly.

Numerous studies have indicated that health insurance and medical care do not make the cut as one of Millennials’ top priorities. Specifically, more than one-third of the generation ranks physical health as its absolute top priority, while less than one in 10 consider obtaining affordable health insurance and access to quality health care as their items of highest importance. Also evident is the absence of routine doctor visits for Millennials, counter to generations preceding them who place a high value on customary physicals and the doctor-patient relationship.

NEXT: Hope … in the form of an HSA

Whether Millennials have a general distrust in modern health care, or apprehension over the cost of high premiums or deductibles, opportunities abound for employers to educate and empower these younger workers when it comes to health benefits and tax-advantaged plan offerings that yield significant cost savings potential—for the here and now, and in preparation for retirement. The time is ripe for the Millennial generation to understand the ins and outs of an HSA, particularly the underutilized savings opportunities that carry sky-high potential for storing away tax-advantaged, interest-bearing funds for the future.

Contributions to an HSA reduce taxable income, and the interest earned on HSA balances and investments is tax free. The result is triple tax savings: Contributions, interest from investments, and ongoing and future qualified distributions can all be tax exempt under normal circumstances. Because an HSA enables individuals, and families, to set pre-tax dollars aside—along with any employer contributions—the funds help to offset high deductibles. Further, the account is portable, meaning that it belongs to the employee and goes with him wherever he goes, should he change employers. And, unlike a flexible spending account (FSA), there are no “use it or lose” policies at the end of a plan year; funds roll over, year after year.

Drawing many favorable comparisons to the traditional 401(k), the HSA is now widely recognized as a true, tax-advantaged way to save for health care costs in retirement. By future-proofing funds in an HSA, young employees in their 20s could, theoretically, start making careful investments and save enough to meet their retirement needs by age 60 for both lifestyle and health-care expense coverage.

For example, if a 25-year-old employee contributes $3,000 a year to his HSA each year until retirement, uses $1,500 a year for medical expenses, earns 6% a year in interest and investments, and reinvests all earnings, the value of the HSA could be about $246,000 by the time he turns 65. This estimate does not include potential contributions from the employer—an increasingly popular option, as the money employers save by driving enrollment into lower-cost high-deductible health plans (HDHPs) can be apportioned to help jump-start employees’ HSAs early in the plan year.  

NEXT: Stacking up the savings

Beyond the HSA, other types of accounts can have tax advantages that can really add up if Millennials maximize every benefit opportunity available to them. Realization of such savings is all about understanding the near- and long-term financial benefits of tax-advantaged accounts, and how they stack up and complement each other on an annual basis. ConnectYourCare recently shed light on these scenarios when it conducted a modeled analysis called the Health Care Stack, which illustrates the pre-tax dollars consumers can contribute for both health and lifestyle expenses, ahead of retirement.

The pre-tax savings are vast when notional accounts are factored into the equation. With approved Internal Revenue Service (IRS) limits of a $2,600 per year maximum for FSAs, $5,000 per year maximum for dependent care FSAs, and $6,120 per year maximum for commuter/parking reimbursement plans, this currently equals $38,470 of pre-tax contributions that younger consumers could save by offsetting the tax burden and then invest toward retirement.

The road to retirement, paved with pre-tax savings  

While a one-size-fits-all savings strategy has ceased to exist, it is fundamentally important for Millennials to gain awareness of their options and subsequently understand how the HSA and other pre-tax accounts play an important role in shaping future retirement planning. It’s never too early to plan out a retirement savings strategy. And, as earnings increase over time, so can contribution levels and investments, creating a financial cushion to cover individual and family medical expenses—and to enjoy life comfortably.

Jamie Janvier is the program marketing manager at ConnectYourCare, a provider of consumer-directed health care account solutions. For more information, please visit www.connectyourcare.com, email the author at Jamie.janvier@connectyourcare.com, or follow the company on Twitter @ConnectYourCare.  

NOTE: This feature is to provide general information only, does not constitute legal advice, and cannot be used or substituted for legal or tax advice. Statements by the authors do not necessarily reflect the stance of Strategic Insight or its affiliates.

Brown University Faces Familiar Allegations in 403(b) Lawsuit

Individual annuity contracts and a large plan investment lineup are targets in the Brown University lawsuit, just as they are with most other lawsuits against higher education institutions’ 403(b) plan fiduciaries.

With wording that seems to be duplicated from filings against other higher education institutions, a complaint has been filed against Brown University and fiduciaries of its Deferred Vesting Retirement Plan and Legacy Retirement Plan.

As with other lawsuits, the complaint alleges that because the marketplace for retirement plan services is established and competitive, and because the plans have more than $1 billion in assets, the fiduciaries have tremendous bargaining power to demand low-cost administrative and investment management services and well-performing investment funds, but instead, they caused the plans to pay unreasonable and excessive fees for investment and administrative services.

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

In addition, the complaint says the retirement plans’ fiduciaries selected and retained investment options for the plans that historically and consistently underperformed their benchmarks and charged excessive investment management fees. It also alleges the fiduciaries failed to negotiate fixed fees for recordkeeping services, rather than asset-based fees, and retained share classes for funds that charged higher fees than other less expensive share classes that were available for the plans for the same funds.

Also similar to other lawsuits against higher education institutions, the complaint says that instead of regularly monitoring all the plans’ investment choices and for periodically reviewing and evaluating the entire investment choice menu to determine whether it provided an appropriate range of investment choices into which participants could direct the investment of their accounts, the fiduciaries offered a “bewildering array” of investment options in the plan. At one time, the Legacy Retirement Plan offered 175 investment options through Fidelity Investments and an additional 24 investment options through TIAA, which included numerous duplicative investment choices (e.g., target-date funds from each recordkeeper), the complaint says. In addition, at one time, the Deferred Vesting Retirement Plan offered 177 investment options through Fidelity and an additional 26 investment options through TIAA, which also included numerous duplicative investment choices.

The complaint also calls out the use of individual annuity contracts offered by TIAA that only allowed participants to withdraw funds in ten annual installments unless they paid a surrender fee of 2.5%.

Finally, the lawsuit alleges fiduciaries approved a TIAA loan program that required collateral as security for repayment of the loan, charged “grossly excessive” fees for administration of the loan, and violated U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) rules for participant loan programs.

NEXT: How will 403(b) plan excessive fee lawsuits play out?

It’s been fairly recent that the plaintiffs’ bar has added Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) 403(b) plans as targets for excessive fee lawsuits similar to those filed against 401(k) plans for years.

However, before new Internal Revenue Service (IRS) 403(b) regulations were passed in 2007, even ERISA 403(b)s operated very differently than 401(k) plans. The lawsuits attack the 403(b) plan design model of offering an extensive amount of investment options, including individual annuities, and using multiple recordkeepers. Before new 403(b) regulations were passed in 2007, there was little plan sponsor oversight of 403(b)s. Often annuity providers were allowed to meet with employees and set up individual annuities for them, which resulted in many plans having hundreds of investments. “I’m surprised the plaintiffs' bar has turned to 403(b)s,” says David Levine, a principal with Groom Law Group, Chartered in Washington, D.C. “These lawsuits are in a lot of ways clones of 401(k) lawsuits, completing disregarding some of the distinctions between the two plan types.”

Since the 403(b) regulations were passed, plan sponsors have been trying to consolidate recordkeeprs and investment options, and recognize this is better for participants, especially as related to costs. However, what is especially challenging about mapping legacy 403(b) annuity assets into a new lineup of mutual funds is that participants invested in these legacy assets often have full discretion over their money. The plan sponsor cannot force them out.

One can only speculate whether courts and judges know the distinctions between the two plan types or will consider this as it is presented to them by plans’ attorneys.

In the case against Emory University, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia granted dismissal of the claim that the plan included too many funds in the investment lineup. The plaintiffs argue that having too many investment options is imprudent. Similar to the Brown University lawsuit, plaintiffs assert that the plans offered 111 investment options, and that many of those options were duplicative. Instead, the plaintiffs allege that the plans should have offered fewer options and used more bargaining leverage with those investment options to obtain lower fees. The judge did not agree with the plaintiffs’ theory. “Having too many options does not hurt the plans’ participants, but instead provides them opportunities to choose the investments that they prefer,” he wrote in his opinion.

However, a judge for the case against Duke University’s 403(b) plan let a similar claim move forward.

«