A recent decision of the federal district court for the southern district of Ohio raises interesting questions under Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) that might also affect employer liability under the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The case involved a challenge by a former employee who was originally hired as a part-time pharmacist.
Understanding Employee Benefits and key developments in the employee benefits field and items of interest to our clients. MORE
Health Plan
ACA Pay or Play: Is Your Dependent Coverage Compliant?
Now that the IRS has issued final regulations under Section 4980H, the so-called “pay or play” provision of the Affordable Care Act, employers are deciding how to determine whether employees are full-time (30 hours or more a week on average), whether the coverage the employer offers is affordable (generally no more than 9½% of the …
DOL Has Helpful ERISA Self-Compliance Tool
The Department of Labor recently issued the Form M-1, an annual report that must be filed by Multiple Employer Welfare Arrangements (MEWAs). In general, a MEWA is an arrangement that offers health or other welfare benefits to employees of more than one employer. Employers that are part of a controlled group of businesses are …
Health Plans Should Make Eligibility Determinations Quickly
In an opinion released earlier this month, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that a self-insured health plan was not entitled to a refund of the nearly $1.7 million it paid to two Wisconsin hospitals for treatment administered to a participant’s newborn child, despite the plan’s ultimately concluding the newborn…
An SPD Can be a Plan Document
In Cigna v. Amara, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the plan document is the governing document for an ERISA plan and that in a conflict between the plan document and the summary plan description (SPD), the plan document must be enforced. A participant misled by an SPD may be able to bring various …
Former Employee Cannot Recover Penalties for COBRA Notice Violation
Terminating employees who lose coverage under an employer’s group health plan are frequently entitled to continue that coverage under the federal law commonly known as COBRA. Employers are required to provide a former employee with a notice at the time of termination of employment describing the employee’s rights to continue coverage and the cost of …
More About HRAs and Some About EAPs
I blogged recently about IRS and Department of Labor (DOL) guidance restricting the ability of employers to subsidize individual health insurance premiums for their employees after December 31, 2013. That IRS and DOL guidance also addressed a few other issues. The guidance provides that HRA amounts credited to an employee can be used to determine …
No More Pre-Tax Premiums for Individual Insurance Policies?
Over the years we have seen some employers, particularly small employers, choose to provide health coverage to their employees by paying all or part of the premium for individual insurance policies that the employees have obtained. Under an old IRS revenue ruling, Rev. Rul. 61-146, that type of premium subsidy could be provided on a …
Maintaining Poor COBRA Procedures Can Be Expensive
I blogged a few months ago about an employer who had to pay more than $83,000 in penalty, attorneys’ fees and costs for failure to give a proper COBRA notice for a dental plan. I warned employers that failure to maintain adequate procedures for COBRA compliance can be costly. That amount pales in relation to …
Health Insurance Carriers Must Also be Careful in What They Tell Plan Participants
I blogged recently warning employers to be careful when enrolling employees in plan benefits because the employer could be responsible to pay life insurance or disability benefits if an employee who is improperly enrolled incurs a claim. The increased liability comes from the recent Supreme Court decision, Cigna v. Amara, allowing certain types of …