We're celebrating 10 Days of Membership! Today's Gift: $20 off your professional membership with promo 10DAYS20OFF
Training, policies and tools to help HR prevent and respond to harassment claims.
Is your employee handbook keeping up with the changing world of work? With SHRM's Employee Handbook Builder get peace of mind that your handbook is up-to-date.
Develop your HR competencies and knowledge in-person in 12 U.S. cities or virtually.
#SHRM18 will expand your perspective – on your organization, on your career, and on the way you approach HR. Join us in Chicago June 17-20, 2018
HR must stay compliant with ACA obligations despite prospects for future bipartisan relief
updated on July 31, 2017
Even so, advocates for easing the ACA's financial and administrative burdens on employers are hopeful that at least a few of the reforms they've been seeking will resurface in the future, either in narrowly tailored stand-alone legislation or added to a bipartisan measure to stabilize the ACA's public exchanges. Relief from regulatory agencies could also make life under the ACA less burdensome for employers.
"Looking ahead, lawmakers will likely pursue targeted modifications to the ACA, including some employer provisions," said Chatrane Birbal, senior advisor for government relations at the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM). "Stand-alone legislative proposals have been introduced in previous Congresses, and sponsors of those proposals are gearing up to reintroduce bills in the coming weeks."
These legislative measures, Birbal explained, are most likely to address the areas noted below.
The "Cadillac tax" on high-cost employer-sponsored health plans is set to take effect in 2020. Bipartisan legislation has
already been introduced in the current Congress to repeal the 40 percent excise tax "and will likely receive considerable attention," Birbal noted.
A big hurdle, however is "replacing the lost $90 billion in revenue that the Congressional Budget Office expects the Cadillac tax would bring in over a 10-year budget window," said Brian Gilmore, lead benefits counsel and vice president at San Mateo, Calif.-based ABD Insurance and Financial Services, a benefit brokerage firm. "The wrong way to address the lost revenue would be to cap the tax exclusion for employers' health care costs," he noted, expressing a concern that Birbal said SHRM and other employer groups share.
The ACA requires employers with 50 or more full-time employees or equivalents to provide ACA-compliant health care coverage. The employer mandate, also known as the shared-responsibility provisions or the pay-or-play rules, "creates a strong incentive for employers to stay below the 50 full-time employee threshold on average each calendar year," Gilmore said. The rules "also create a strong incentive for employers to satisfy their labor needs through part-time employees. Repealing the pay or play rules should therefore help address the current underemployment problem plaguing many workers still struggling to find full-time work."
One proposal backed by a coalition of centrist Democrats and Republicans who call themselves the "problem-solver caucus" would
raise the threshold for the employer mandate from 50 employees to 500, and full-time work from 30 to 40 hours per week.
"The current employer mandate places a regulatory burden on smaller employers and acts as a disincentive for many small businesses to grow past 50 employees," according to
a summary of the bipartisan plan posted by Rep. Kurt Schrader, D-Ore. "Additionally, the definition of 'full time' under the employer mandate should indicate that a full-time work week is 40 hours," the summary states.
Definition of a 'Full-Time' Employee
The ACA defines full-time employees entitled to receive health coverage from large employees, and who are counted within the ACA's 50 full-time employee threshold, as those who work a minimum of 30 hours per week. Assuming that the employer mandate remains in place, SHRM and other employer groups support proposals to change the definition of full-time employee to 40 hours per week (the standard pre-ACA definition). The current definition "imposes significant costs on employers, particularly in industries with a low-paid workforce," Gilmore said.
In addition, the
monthly measurement and lookback measurement methods for determining employees' full-time status "have presented an unreasonable burden" on employers, he noted.
A SHRM-supported proposal to modify the ACA definition of "full-time" employee for purposes of health care coverage passed in the House of Representatives in 2015, Birbal said.
Defining "full-time" as an employee working 30 hours a week "is inconsistent with standard employment practices in the U.S. today and other federal laws," according to
a SHRM position paper. "Some employers have opted to eliminate health care coverage for part-time employees, while others have re-engineered staffing models to reduce employee hours below the 30-hour threshold that triggers the coverage requirements."
Definition of Seasonal Employee
The ACA requires that large employers cover their full-time employees, but the final regulations provide that seasonal employees do not qualify as full-time employees
under certain circumstances, even if they work 30 hours or more per week.
For instance, whether or not large employers must offer coverage to full-time but seasonal employees is based on two factors: how long these employees work for the employer, and which measurement period the employer chooses to use.
Navigating this exception is complex, Birbal noted, and employers would welcome a simplified approach if the employer mandate isn't repealed altogether.
[SHRM members-only HR Q&A: Do applicable large employers (ALEs) have to provide coverage to full-time seasonal employees if they do not wish to pay a penalty?]
Annual Information Reporting
Employers have sought to ease the
employee tracking and IRS reporting requirements for employers offering health coverage to their employees. To
prepare and file Form 1095-C, for instance, involves tracking the hours worked by variable-hour employees each month.
Employers will be looking for ACA legislation to simplify their reporting obligations, Birbal said.
In addition to congressional action, regulatory guidance is anticipated from the departments of Labor, Treasury, and Health and Human Services, as well as from the Internal Revenue Service—the agencies responsible for ACA oversight, Birbal said.
"Recall that President Trump issued an executive order in January
directing federal agencies to minimize the ACA's regulatory burden where possible," she noted. "These regulatory burdens may include easing employer reporting requirements and the employer pay-or-play penalties."
While any reduction in the ACA's administrative burdens through rule-making would be welcome, major changes may require new legislation, which will need bipartisan support to pass, Birbal pointed out.
"Since day one of the Trump Administration, the team at HHS has taken numerous steps to provide relief to Americans who are reeling from the status quo, and this effort will continue," Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price said after the July 28 defeat of the Senate's "skinny repeal" bill,
Washington Examiner reported.
For Now, Business as Usual
It bears repeating that unless and until the law or federal rules are altered, "for employer group health plans, it's business as usual,"
noted Edward Fensholt, senior vice president and director of compliance services at Lockton, a benefits brokerage and consultancy based in Kansas City, Mo., and Rory Kane Akers, an ERISA compliance attorney at the firm. "The ACA, its employer mandate, the year-end reporting, and all the rules regarding the benefits a health care plan must offer and who they must offer them to, remain in full force and effect," they said.
Items on Employers' Health Care Agenda
"Both parties have to step back, take a breath, and decide how best to proceed," said James Klein, president of the Washington, D.C.-based American Benefits Council.
In a July 31 memo to the council's members, Klein highlighted ideas that could now get congressional consideration including:
bills were passed by the House this spring relating to association health plans (the Small Business Health Fairness Act) and stop-loss coverage (the Self-Insurance Protection Act). These "could now get a serious look by Republicans in the Senate," Klein said.
Related SHRM Articles:
HSA Provisions in Failed GOP Bills Could Return in Future Legislation. Should They?,
SHRM Online Benefits, July 2017
Health Care Reform Resources for Employers
Was this article useful? SHRM offers thousands of tools, templates and other exclusive member benefits, including compliance updates, sample policies, HR expert advice, education discounts, a growing online member community and much more. Join/Renew Now and let SHRM help you work smarter.
You have successfully saved this page as a bookmark.
Please confirm that you want to proceed with deleting bookmark.
You have successfully removed bookmark.
Please log in as a SHRM member before saving bookmarks.
Your session has expired. Please log in again before saving bookmarks.
Please purchase a SHRM membership before saving bookmarks.
An error has occurred
Recommended for you
Five key facts about High-energy visible (HEV) a.k.a. “blue light”
HR Education in a City Near You
SHRM’s HR Vendor Directory contains over 3,200 companies