Handicapping healthcare reform’s impact on retailers
By Alden J. Bianchi, [email protected]
Federal healthcare reform is now the law of the land, and the Federal agencies with principle jurisdiction over the new law as it affects employers — the IRS, Department of Labor and the Department of Health and Human Service — are busy issuing rules governing key reforms that will apply to employer-sponsored group health plans in 2011 for calendar year plans. These reforms include further limits on pre-existing conditions, first dollar coverage of preventative care, rules governing payment for emergency care, among (many) others. For the most part, it is the state-licensed insurance carriers that will bear the brunt of complying with this first wave of new rules.
Commencing in 2014, however, the healthcare reform rules governing “employer responsibility” take effect. Unlike the insurance reforms that are getting all the attention currently, the compliance burden and cost of these rules rest squarely with employers. While the employer responsibility rules do not require employers to offer healthcare coverage to employees, the failure to do so can results in costly non-deductible excise tax penalties. These rules are complex; they will affect different employers and business sectors in different ways; and they will not be kind to many retailers.
Sometimes referred to as a “free-rider” surcharge, the employer responsibility rules apply only to “large” employers, i.e., employers with 50 full-time equivalent employees (there is a very limited exemption under which “seasonal” employees are not counted for this purpose). The rules work differently depending on whether an employer offers coverage to all full-time employees. Where an employer fails to offer coverage to all its full-time employees, and where more than 30 employees qualify for low-income health insurance subsidies through state-based insurance exchanges, then the annual penalty of $2,000 (in practice, penalties will be determined and assessed on a monthly basis) multiplied by the number of the employer’s full-time employees in excess of 30, including those who do not qualify for any subsidies. Full-time for this purpose means employees who work 30 or more hours per week.
Where the employer offers coverage to all full time employees, then the penalty is $3,000 multiplied by the number of the employer’s full-time employees who qualify for the subsidy. (However, the penalty under this “coverage” prong can never exceed the penalty that the employer would have paid had it offered no coverage.) There is a further wrinkle. Where the value of the plan coverage dips below a certain level, employees need only establish that their household income is less than 400% of the Federal poverty limit in order to qualify for the subsidy. But where the value of the plan coverage exceeds that threshold, employees must also establish that their premium cost for the employer’s plan exceeds 9.5% of their household income.
These rules have some important implications. First and foremost, industries and sectors that have not traditionally furnished group health plan coverage will be hit the hardest. These include many medium and small retailers, most staffing firms, and more than a few franchise operations. Also hard hit will be companies that have a large cohort of minimum wage or low-income workers, since the employer responsibility penalties are tied to the number of full-time employees who have access to healthcare premium and cost-sharing subsidies by virtue of their income.
Importantly, the employer responsibility rules test coverage under an employer’s plan and the level of benefits that the plan provides. There is no requirement that the employer pay a particular percentage of premium cost. An employer provides coverage to all its full-time employees for purposes of these rules even if the plan is entirely employee paid. As the amount of premium cost to the employees increases, however, so too does the number of employees whose premium cost might exceed 9.5% of household income, thereby increasing penalties in the aggregate. The challenge for employers, then, is to arrive at the right premium balance, i.e., one that reduces overall healthcare plan costs taking penalties into account.
Because the employer responsibility requirements don’t take effect to 2014, the regulators have not yet issued guidance, and they are not likely to do so for some time. In the meantime, employers are starting to consider their alternatives, including whether to abandon health coverage altogether and simply pay the fine. While it’s too soon to say for certain, because there is no minimum employer premium requirement, this approach is not likely to be the optimal choice in most cases. What is clear, however, is that while the compliance calculus differs radically from industry-sector to industry-sector, retailers face some of the biggest challenges.
Alden J. Bianchi is the practice group leader of the Employee Benefits and Executive Compensation practice at Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, PC. He is based in Boston. He can be reached at [email protected].
this wonderful post that you have provided for us. I assure this would be beneficial for most of the people.jogos de casino
Where the employer offers coverage to all full time employees, then the penalty is $3,000 multiplied by the number of the employer’s full-time employees who qualify for the subsidy.fat loss benefits from raspberry keytones
While the employer responsibility rules do not require employers to offer healthcare coverage to employees, the failure to do so can results in costly non-deductible excise tax penalties. Chatrandom
this is my first time and here and I am pleased that i was able to find such an excellent informationBisnis Pulsa | Pulsa Elektrik | Bisnis Pulsa Elektrik created by Chip Sakti
Due to lack of proper utilization of health care service; in America we have still found the worst condition of health care system. Which directly or indirectly influence the health care reform programs, therefore to promote and repair the current condition of health care system in America health organization are liable to take a number of beneficial steps towards providing an advanced health care system. urgent care Texas
In the United States of America we have been found that health care systems are suffer from various lacks and proper utilization issues; that's why in most of the region’s the handicapping health care reforms programs are directly and indirectly puts a biggest impact on retailers. Due to less utilization of health care resources a common man is not able to get positive results from health care systems. Therefore government and other health care organizations are introduced several health care platform to deliver better health care programs. Medifast shakes
I just got to this amazing site not long ago. I was actually captured with the piece of resources you have got here. Big thumbs up for making such wonderful blog page! clubmz e-spy cell phone listening
maybe you should answer to this question: site?
I agree with you, I had the same feeling. I will stick around your website for more news.
I really like the way your write articles. I would really like to read more about it. thanks!
That is very interesting Smile I love reading and I am always searching for informative information like this. This is exactly what I was looking for. Thanks for sharing this great article. cell phone spy
Każdy kto frapuje się sektorem SEO wie jak podstawowe jest pozyskiwanie odsyłaczy nader dużej jakości. Nasz katalog witryn pomimo wieku jest porządny oraz moderowany. Warto umieścić wpis w takim katalogu witryn internetowych tak długo jak jest darmowy. Zajmującą opcją jest dołączenie wpisu wyróżnionego, pojedynczym wymogiem jest umieszczenie łącza zwrotnego do naszego sensacyjnego katalogu. Wpis wyróżniony znacząco wyniesie widoczność Twojej firmy w wynikach poszukiwania. Nasz katalog adresów jest ustawiony na wyśmienitym skrypcie SEOkatalog. suknie ślubne częstochowa
Safeway names SVP government affairs
PLEASANTON, Calif. Safeway announced that it has appointed 16-year veteran Jonathan Mayes to SVP government relations, public affairs, corporate social responsibility and philanthropy.
“Jonathan is an exceptional leader and has successfully represented the company and its stakeholders in his role as our key Government Affairs person,” said Larree Renda, EVP, chief strategist and administrative officer. “Certainly he will bring the same level of excellence and commitment to these other functions that interact on a daily basis with our customers and communities.”
Mayes joined Safeway in 1994 as a senior attorney focused on employment law, business litigation, and consumer protection matters. In 1996, he joined the company’s government relations team as a director and was promoted to VP of that function in 1999. In 2008, Mayes was named group VP government relations in charge of the team of professionals that focus on local, state and federal government matters in the geographies in which Safeway operates in the United States and Canada.
Before joining Safeway, Mayes was senior corporate counsel for Lucky Stores, and an attorney at Donahue Gallagher Woods LLP.
No comments found
Diddy goes green for M&M’s
HACKETTSTOWN, N.J. Mars Chocolate North America announced that Ms. Green is officially America’s favorite M&M’S character, and Sean “Diddy” Combs will produce a special M&M’s Green party in her honor.
Diddy will plan the party for “Party Like Diddy” Sweepstakes winner B.C. Ashmall-Liversidge and 20 of her friends. The party will take place in New York City this summer.
No comments found