New Professional Member Special>>> Save $15 and receive a SHRM tote bag
HR professionals can play a key role in creating business efficiency—starting with their own department.
Save $15 on a Professional Membership and Receive a FREE Tote Bag.
Get the HR education you need without travel expenses or time out of the office.
We don't just visit a city, we take it over. Join us in NOLA -- June 18 - 21, 2017.
Federal agencies might ease some reporting and coverage requirements
President Donald Trump's
Jan. 20 executive order directing federal agencies that oversee the Affordable Care Act (ACA) to waive or delay taxes, penalties and regulatory burdens "to the extent permitted by law" could affect employer plans' coverage mandates and fees, but won't do so immediately.
While the executive order has been seen as a strike against the statute's individual mandate, which requires Americans to obtain coverage that meets ACA specifications, less attention has been paid to how the order and resulting agency actions might affect the employer mandate that requires organizations with 50 or more full-time employees (or equivalent part-timers) to provide ACA-compliant coverage to their full-time workers and to meet annual reporting and notification obligations.
The order applies to agency actions to implement the ACA& that affect health care providers, purchasers, patients and insurers, among others.
"Interestingly, the executive order did not specifically mention employers, but the broad language would seem to sweep them in as a group that is similarly burdened by the ACA," said Joy Napier-Joyce, Baltimore-based principal and leader of the employee benefits group at law firm Jackson Lewis.
If the IRS concludes that the order directs it to soften the burden on employers in their capacity as health insurers or insurance purchasers, "it might waive, defer or grant exemptions from the employer mandate penalty and the reporting obligation, because the mandate and its reporting obligation impose a tax, penalty or regulatory burden on employers," remarked Edward Fensholt, senior vice president and director of compliance services at Lockton, a benefits brokerage and consultancy based in Kansas City, Mo.,
in an alert from the firm.
Among the federal agencies with ACA oversight responsibilities—primarily the Departments of Labor (DOL), Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Treasury, which includes the Internal Revenue Service —"the most immediate focus will be whether the IRS acts to delay the reporting requirements under the employer mandate," Napier-Joyce said.
Last November, the IRS announced that it would give
employers an additional 30 days to distribute the ACA's tax year 2016 information-reporting forms to employees, extending the deadline from Jan. 31, 2017, to March 2. But the due dates for filing Forms 1094 and 1095 with the IRS remain unchanged: Feb. 28 for paper/mail submissions or March 31 for electronic filing.
Further easing these deadlines going forward "is something the IRS has the discretion to do without following the formal rulemaking process," she noted. "Since employer reporting is the lynchpin to assessing employer penalties under the employer mandate, this may be the next piece we see."
In the meantime, "the ACA is still the law of the land," advised Scott Behrens, a benefits compliance attorney at Lockton. "Prudent employers will want to continue to comply with the ACA, including the play-or-pay mandate and reporting requirements"—including furnishing Forms 1095-C to employees and making all required filings with the IRS—"until formal guidance relieves them of those compliance obligations."
Similarly, "Another area which could see further relief is with respect to the filing of IRS Forms 1094 and 1095," noted John Barlament, a partner in the Milwaukee office of law firm Quarles & Brady,
in an online post. However, "We do not expect any significant relief with respect to 2016 coverage (i.e., the forms which will be filed in the next few months)."
Barlament also pointed out that in November 2016 the IRS issued a one-year extension of the "good faith" standard for these forms. Under that standard, the IRS generally will not penalize employers for "good faith" mistakes on those forms, if the errors involve incorrect or incomplete information.
"Perhaps the IRS could extend that relief for 2017 and beyond," Barlament suggested. "The IRS could justify such relief by noting that the information reporting obligation may disappear entirely after the ACA is revised or repealed and, therefore, employers should not be penalized for devoting few resources to this reporting.
To date, the IRS has not imposed noncompliance penalties under the employer mandate for tax year 2015 reporting, for which filings were due in early 2016—"so employers will be eager to hear from the IRS on any formal changes or direction in enforcement," Napier-Joyce said.
However, many of the requirements under the employer mandate were formalized through regulation, so "in order to effectively reverse course, formal rulemaking processes would need to be followed at the agency level, and the executive order expressly indicates that the directive is not attempting to bypass those requirements," she noted. "We will have to wait to see how and when the agencies, particularly the IRS, choose to exercise discretion."
While the agencies can use the rule-making process to mitigate some of the statute's requirements, "the bottom line is that congressional action is required to outright repeal the employer mandate penalties," said Chatrane Birbal, the Society for Human Resource Management's senior advisor for government relations.
[SHRM members-only HR Q&A: What are the consequences under ACA if an employer offers no health coverage?]
Taxes and Fees
Among the ACA's taxes and fees on employers that could be suspended before a formal repeal and replacement plan can be passed in Congress, Fensholt said, include:
However, before assuming that these assessments won't need to be paid, "plans sponsors must await the response from the IRS, DOL and HHS to the executive order. We suspect they will not need to wait long," Fensholt said.
Currently Delayed Provisions
Barlament pointed out that certain provisions of the ACA, such as nondiscrimination rules for nongrandfathered, fully insured health plans, remain in limbo—on the books, but not enforced because the Obama administration never finalized implementing regulations. "Presumably the Trump administration will, at a minimum, continue to hold those provisions in limbo" and "those provisions almost certainly will continue to be delayed," he noted.
Required Health Benefits
And what about the ACA's requirements that all health plans cover
preventive care and
women's contraceptives on a first-dollar basis, outside of plan deductibles? Or that small-group plans provide coverage for a list of
essential health benefits?
"If the plan is insured through a group insurance policy, state insurance law imposes mandates and requires the insurance company to comply with them," said Fensholt.
"We have already seen some states step in to the conversation with the intent to require insurers within their state to cover contraceptives and medically necessary abortions—for instance, New York state, through the release of
draft executive orders by Gov. Andrew Cuomo. The same may be true for preventative services," said Napier-Joyce.
Different coverage requirements may emerge among the states, she expects, and among employer-sponsored plans that are self-insured, for which state insurance mandates are preempted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.
"From an employer standpoint, the changes may represent the opportunity to differentiate from competitors by continuing to offer robust benefits, even where no longer mandated," she noted. "Although some compliance burdens may eventually be alleviated, new options in coverage will require employers to make some hard decisions as to the level of coverage they choose to offer" in order to attract and retain a competitive workforce.
"Prior to passage of the ACA, many employers had voluntarily offered the health services and benefits that fall under 'essential health benefits' to their employees," SHRM's Birbal noted.
"Self-insured sponsors could try to remove the mandates from their plan documents but would risk challenges from employees under the theory that federal law requires plans to honor the mandates" despite nonenforcement by regulatory agencies, cautioned Fensholt, "and failure to administer the plan accordingly" might be viewed as a breach of fiduciary duty.
Related SHRM Articles:
IRS to Accept Tax Returns Lacking Health Care Status; Employer Reporting Unchanged, SHRM Online Benefits, February 2017
ACA Is a Prime Target for the Trump Administration and 115th Congress, SHRM Government Affairs, January 2017
SHRM: 'Repeal and Replace' Must Strengthen Employer-Based Health Care,
SHRM Online Benefits, January 2017
Price Stresses Health Care Affordability and Choice at Confirmation Hearings,
SHRM Online Benefits, January 2017
SHRM Health Care Reform Resource Page
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
New Pro Member Special
SHRM’s HR Vendor Directory contains over 3,200 companies