Data and Research July 30, 2018

Will Employees Contribute More to HSAs?

Legislation has been passed that would increase HSA contribution limits, but prior data shows few employees actually contribute the maximum.

Reported by

The House of Representatives has passed two health care bills containing a broad array of policy changes.

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

According to the Employee Benefit Research Institute (EBRI), passage of the Increasing Access to Lower Premium Plans and Expanding Health Savings Accounts Act of 2018 would raise the annual limits on contributions to health savings accounts (HSAs) to match the out-of-pocket deductibles of the high-deductible health plans that the accounts were implemented to support. 

The new legislation would nearly double statutory limits on annual contributions to HSAs those with employee-only health coverage—from $3,450 to $6,550—and, those with family coverage could contribute even more—a new total of $13,300, ($6,400 more than the current $6,900 limit for HSA account holders with family coverage).  Account holders older than 55 can contribute an additional $1,000 regardless of their health coverage level.

EBRI asked the question, “Would these limit increases prompt additional funding into HSAs?”

Using data from the EBRI HSA Database, EBRI has found that only 13% of account owners contributed the maximum in 2016. However, EBRI’s research also reveals that account holders who held their HSAs for a longer period of time tended to contribute more.  “The longer someone has had an HSA, the more likely they are to contribute the maximum,” said Paul Fronstin, director of health research. “Only 6% of the HSAs opened in 2016 received the maximum annual contribution, whereas 30% of the accounts opened a decade earlier, in 2006, did,” he said, concluding that the longer an individual contributes to an HSA, the more they may appreciate the benefits of the accounts.

“Still, more education is needed so that workers obtain the full value of HSAs when they are available to them,” Fronstin said.
Compliance July 30, 2018

PBGC Offers Resource for Practitioner Questions

One interesting question addressed is whether spinning off a separate plan during the plan year is a way to reduce PBGC premiums.

Reported by

The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) has established a web page, Staff Responses to Practitioner Questions.

“The interpretations presented below reflect the views of the staff of PBGC. They are not rules, regulations, or statements of the Corporation,” the page says.

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

Questions addressed relate to 430(k) liens, bankruptcy claims, premiums, distress terminations, guaranteed benefits, reportable events, valuations and others.

One interesting question addressed is whether spinning off a separate plan during the plan year is a way to reduce PBGC premiums. According to the PBGC, “Some plans are considering a strategy to avoid paying a significant portion of the statutory VRP [variable rate premium] by doing a two-step transaction under which (1) most plan participants are spun off late in the year into a new plan that is virtually identical to the old plan, but with a new name, EIN, and plan number, leaving only a small group of retirees in the original plan and (2) what’s left of the original plan is terminated (i.e., annuities are purchased for the remaining retirees). If the premium rules noted above apply to plans doing these transactions, the aggregate premium would be significantly lower than the premium that would have been owed had the plan remained intact and simply purchased annuities for that group of retirees.”

The agency notes that PBGC’s premium regulations (29 CFR Part 4006) provide that: A single-employer plan exiting the defined benefit system (via a standard termination) is exempt from the VRP in its final year, and premiums are pro-rated for new plans created as the result of a spinoff from another plan if the new plan’s initial plan year is a short plan year (i.e., less than 12 months). The question is, “Do these special premium rules apply in this situation?”

The PBGC’s short answer is with the strategy noted above, the benefits of the vast majority of the participants who were in the plan at the beginning of the year have not been fully funded or paid in full, and PBGC coverage is still in effect for these participants.

“The federal common law under ERISA and cases that look to the substance and not the form of a transaction suggest that this two-step transaction, and similar types of transactions, should be disregarded and premiums assessed as if such transaction had not occurred.  We are especially skeptical of this strategy because it seems plausible that some plans could engage in this sort of two-step transaction year after year,” the agency says.

«