A project of the George Washington University's Hirsh Health Law and Policy Program and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation

IRS and Treasury release FAQs about ACA automatic enrollment, employer shared responsibility, and waiting periods

Posted on February 10, 2012 | No Comments

PDF Version
Details
Library
Implementation Briefs

The Internal Revenue Service answered frequently asked questions related to automatic enrollment, employer shared responsibility payments, and waiting periods under the Affordable Care Act (ACA).  The notice addressed employers’ questions and invited comments on proposals that the Treasury, Labor, and Health and Human Services departments expect to include in future guidance or rulemaking under the ACA.

The notice included the following information:

• Guidance on automatic enrollment will not be ready by 2014.  Until final regulations under FLSA section 18A are issued and become applicable, employers are not required to comply with FLSA section 18A.

• Treasury and the IRS intend to issue proposed regulations or other guidance permitting employers to use an employee’s Form W-2 wages as a safe harbor in determining the affordability of employer coverage.

• IRS and Treasury intend to propose a regulation or other guidance on employer shared responsibility payments under tax code Section 4980H that will clarify how the employer shared responsibility provisions will be coordinated with a 90-day waiting period limitation under Section 2708 of the Public Health Service Act.

• Treasury and the IRS intend to issue proposed regulations or other guidance that would allow employers to use a “look-back/stability period safe harbor” method for purposes of determining whether an employee (other than a newly-hired employee) is a full-time employee.

• Anticipated IRS and Treasury guidance under Section 4980H would give employers, in certain circumstances, six months to determine whether a newly hired employee is a full-time employee.  During that period, the employer would would be exempt from a Section 4980H penalty payment for that employee. The time that an employer would have to determine whether a newly hired employee is a full–time employee would depend on whether the employee is reasonably expected, when hired, to work an average of 30 or more hours per week on an annual basis and whether, at the end of that employee’s first three months of employment, the hours worked reflect the average number of hours the employee would be expected to work annually.

• Employers would not be required to cover part-time employees or any other category of employees when Section 2708 of the Public Health Service Act, which imposes a 90-day limitation on waiting periods, becomes effective in 2014. Under the ACA, small employers will not be penalized for choosing not to offer coverage to any employee, and large employers will not be penalized for choosing to limit their offer of coverage to full-time employees.

• The departments intend to retain the definition of “waiting period” in Section 2708 of the Public Health Service Act, which defines a 90-day waiting period as beginning when an employee is otherwise eligible for coverage under an employer’s group health plan. Additional conditions for eligibility would generally be permissible under anticipated guidance unless the conditions were designed to avoid compliance with the 90-day waiting period limitation. Eligibility conditions such as full-time status, a bona fide job category, or receipt of a license would be permissible.

No Comments

Leave a Comment

Employment-based health benefits are the most common form of health insurance in the United States. In 2010, 58.7 percent of non-elderly individuals were covered by employment-based health plans, with 68.6 percent of working adults covered. However, the percentage of the population with employment-based health benefits has recently been in decline due to the 2007-2009 recession. The percentage of individuals under age 65 with employment-based health benefits fell from 62.4 percent in 2008 to 58.7 percent in 2010, and the percentage of workers with coverage through their own employers fell from 54.2 percent in 2007 to 51.5 percent in 2010, its lowest level since 1994. The Employee Benefit Research Institute (EBRI) recently published an Issue Brief to examine the state of employment-based health benefits among workers with respect to offer rates, coverage rates, and take-up rates. It also examines how the state of employment-based health benefits has changed since the mid-1990s, reasons why workers do not have employment-based health benefits from their own employers, and how these reasons have changed since the 1990s. The estimates presented in this paper can also serve as a baseline against which to measure the impact of the Affordable Care Act of 2010 (ACA) on employment-based health benefits in the future.
The Affordable Care Act (ACA) was designed to build off of the existing employer sponsored health insurance that currently covers most Americans. A displacement of the privately financed employer sponsored insurance (ESI) could have made the ACA's coverage subsidies for low-income households, now covered through tax credits and Medicaid, politically unfeasible due to financial constraints. Although the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the Rand Corporation, the Urban Institute, and others have concluded that ESI will remain intact under the ACA, there are speculations regarding a wholesale shift away from ESI. Specifically, prominent economists worry that the ACA's incentives will cause a diversion from employer based health insurance, thereby encouraging workers to take advantage of publicly subsidized coverage. This brief, funded by The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and authored by The Urban Institute, considers how employers might react to provisions of the ACA and offers an analysis of factors that likely will influence their decision regarding the retention of ESI. The authors explain that although the ACA will leave the ESI largely intact, the decision to continue or drop ESI will be determined by whether employers and their employees stand to benefit more from ESI or from coverage available through state insurance exchanges.
The National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) published "Small Business and Health Insurance: One Year After Enactment of PPACA," in order to report on small-business owner reaction to the passage of the ACA, provide current projections for the adoption and elimination of health insurance as an employee benefit, and outline expected response to market and legal changes that may develop. Health insurance remains a principal issue for small employers. It likely will remain near the top of their issue list for a long time, if not for its direct impact on its provision as an employee benefit, but for its budget and tax implications. The survey interviews 750 small employers of firms with 50 or fewer people.
In "An Offer You Can't Refuse: Estimating the Coverage Effects of the 2010 Affordable Care Act," the Employment Policy Institute shows that the predictions of the share of workers who will keep their current employer-sponsored insurance (ESI) are quite sensitive to two behavioral assumptions. At present, 74.29% of workers have ESI. Depending on how workers and employers react to ACA implementation, that share could increase to 78.62% or decrease to 65.89%. The first behavioral assumption is to what degree firms and their workers will alter their current contracts with respect to workers' share of the premiums. The second factor pertains to vague language of portions of the ACA. The language in doubt is whether the affordable coverage rule applies to single coverage or family coverage for workers with families.
The Affordable Care Act included a number of insurance market reforms designed to make health insurance more affordable and available. During consideration of the ACA, one criticism of the private insurance market was that the lack of standardization in descriptions of health insurance policies available made shopping for coverage both difficult and time consuming. The ACA included provisions designed to assist consumers in better understanding their health insurance coverage, and to assist in comparing their insurance policy with other available options. Among those provisions are requirements for plans offered in both the group and individual insurance markets to provide a summary of benefits and coverage and a uniform glossary of terms commonly used in health insurance policies.
Under federal law, employers are not required to offer health insurance coverage to their employees; however, most do voluntarily. In fact, employer-sponsored health insurance is the primary source of health care coverage for most Americans, with roughly 60 percent of the non-elderly receiving health coverage through the workplace. Initially offered as a way to attract workers during wartime wage freezes and price controls, health insurance coverage is still used as a way to recruit and retain workers, and as a means of improving employees’ health and productivity. However, not all workers have health insurance. Indeed, three-fourths of the approximately 50 million uninsured Americans are working people and their dependents.
The Affordable Care Act (ACA) included a new requirement that health plans in the group and individual markets disclose plan information to consumers in a standardized, accessible format in order to facilitate comparison of plans and improve understanding of plan terms. On August 22, 2011, several federal agencies jointly issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) setting forth proposed disclosure requirements, including templates for the disclosures. Comments are due on October 21, 2011.
The Affordable Care Act (ACA) requires that all health insurance issuers offering products in the individual and small-group markets, including both the state Exchange market as well as the non-Exchange market, provide coverage of certain “essential health benefits.” An earlier Implementation Brief explored the concept of “essential health benefits.” This Brief summarizes a new U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) report on benefits covered in a “typical” employer plan and identifies key implementation issues for the federal Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
The health reform law establishes minimum federal standards, preserving states’ ability to require more stringent standards for insured plans.