Main Menu Back to Page
{ Banner Image }

Showing 57 posts by Mindi M. Johnson.

IRS Announces 2018 HSA Contribution Limits, Out-of-Pocket Maximums and HDHP Minimum Deductibles

The Internal Revenue Service recently released the 2018 cost-of-living adjusted amounts related to health savings account (“HSA”) contribution limits, out-of-pocket maximums and high deductible health plan (“HDHP”) deductibles. Each of the cost-of-living adjusted amounts is set forth below. Read More ›

Categories: Employee Benefits, Tax

Obamacare Repeal and Replacement Plan- What does it mean for Employers?

Legislation introduced to repeal portions of the Affordable Care ActLate in the afternoon on March 6, two committees of the U.S. House of Representatives introduced legislation that would replace and repeal significant portions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, also known as the ACA or Obamacare. The new legislation, titled the American Health Care Act, addresses a number of key complaints that have been raised by employers since the ACA's implementation. Several provisions of the new legislation that are of particular interest to employers are described briefly below. Read More ›

Categories: Employment, Health Care Reform, Providers

OCR Begins Phase 2 Audit Program of Covered Entities and Business Associates

AuditThe U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office for Civil Rights (OCR) recently announced that it has begun Phase 2 of its HIPAA audit program. This audit phase will impact covered entities and their business associates. Read More ›

Categories: Compliance, HIPAA, Hospitals, Providers

Affordable Care Act Reporting Deadlines Extended

Affordable Care Act Reporting Deadlines ExtendedIn the last few days of 2015, the Internal Revenue Service ("IRS") published welcomed relief for employers who are struggling to understand their reporting obligations under the Affordable Care Act ("ACA"): extended deadlines.  Read More ›

Categories: Employee Benefits, Health Care Reform, News & Events

Government Intervenes in Affordable Care Act 60 day Rule Violation Allegation

Government Intervenes in Affordable Care Act 60 day Rule Violation AllegationIn a first-of-its-kind and closely followed case, a U.S. district court denied a New York health system's (Healthfirst’s) motion to dismiss the U.S. government's and State of New York's complaints in intervention under the federal False Claims Act (FCA) and New York state counterpart. This case represents the first time that the government has intervened in an FCA case based upon an allegation that a party violated the "60 day rule." The 60 day rule came into existence with the passage of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in 2010 and subjects parties to FCA liability for failing to report and refund an overpayment within 60 days of identification, even if the defendant received the payment through no fault of its own.

The case, Kane ex rel. United States et al. v. Healthfirst et al., involves three hospitals that were part of the Healthfirst health system network and provided care to patients that were part of Healthfirst's Medicaid managed care plan. Healthfirst received payments from the New York State Department of Health (DOH) in return for services provided to Medicaid eligible enrollees.

The government's allegations stem from overpayments to Healthfirst as a result of a software glitch. Healthfirst was first questioned about the possible overpayments by the New York State Comptroller's office in 2010. The health system tasked Kane, an employee and the eventual whistleblower in the case, to look into the payments. Five months later Kane emailed Healthfirst management a spreadsheet listing over 900 claims totaling more than $1 million that contained an erroneous billing code that may have led to the overpayments. Read More ›

Categories: Billing/Payment, Fraud & Abuse, Health Care Reform, Hospitals, Medicare/Medicaid, News & Events, Providers

The US Supreme Court's Ruling on the Affordable Care Act will not Change Employers' Responsibilities

The US Supreme Court's Ruling on the Affordable Care Act will not Change Employers' ResponsibilitiesOn June 25, 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States issued a ruling related to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (the "Act") in the case of King v Burwell. The issue that the Court addressed was whether tax credits were available to individuals who purchased health insurance coverage through a Health Insurance Exchange ("Exchange") that was established by the Federal government.

An Exchange serves as a marketplace where individuals can compare various health insurance plans and ultimately purchase health insurance coverage. The Act requires an Exchange to be established in each State. If a State fails to establish its own Exchange, the Federal government is required to step in and establish the Exchange for that State. The Court's decision had the potential to preclude tax credits for individuals purchasing insurance through the Federal Exchanges in 34 States, including Michigan.

This issue was of significant importance because of its implications for the Act's Employer Mandate, which generally requires large employers to offer health insurance coverage to their full-time employees. The tax credits provided under the Act serve as the lynchpin for liability under the Employer Mandate. Despite the fact that a large employer may fail to offer health insurance coverage to its full-time employees, it will not be penalized if those employees do not obtain coverage through the Exchange and receive a tax credit. Therefore, large employers located in States that have a Federal Exchange could arguably avoid penalties for their failure to offer coverage to their full-time employees; such employees would not receive a tax credit when purchasing health insurance coverage on the Exchange and would not trigger the penalty. Read More ›

Categories: Employee Benefits, Health Care Reform, Health Insurance Exchange, News & Events, Tax

The IRS Provides Temporary Relief for Certain Health Reimbursement Arrangements

health reimbursement arrangementsOn February 18, 2015, the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) provided further guidance related to the issue of how certain employer health insurance reimbursement arrangements are treated under the Affordable Care Act (“ACA”).

As we explained in a previous post, after the Health Insurance Marketplace opened for business, many employers recommended that their employees use it to purchase individual health insurance policies, with the promise that the premium costs would be reimbursed by the employer. In fact, such employee reimbursement strategies were aggressively marketed to employers as a solution to reduce costs and comply with the requirements of the ACA. Little did these employers (and marketers) know, such arrangements exposed the employers to significant penalties under the ACA. 

Prior guidance made clear that such arrangements – whether funded on a pre- or post-tax basis – may be subject to the ACA’s market reforms. Employers that offer reimbursement arrangements that violate the ACA are subject to a $100 per day per affected employee penalty.

Notice 2015-17 clarifies previous guidance and provides transition relief to certain small employers from ACA penalties. Key aspects of the new guidance are noted below. Read More ›

Categories: Compliance, Employee Benefits, Health Care Reform, Health Insurance Exchange, Medicare/Medicaid, Tax

Reimbursing Individual Health Insurance Policy Premiums May Result in Significant Penalties for Employers

Health InsuranceEmployers, including municipal employers, have historically struggled to develop a health insurance benefit program for their employees that provides quality benefits and is cost-effective. After the Health Insurance Marketplace opened for business, many employers recommended that their employees use it to purchase individual health insurance policies, with the promise that the premium costs would be reimbursed by the employer. In fact, such employee reimbursement strategies were aggressively marketed to employers as a solution to reduce costs and comply with the requirements of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“ACA”). Little did these employers (and marketers) know, such arrangements exposed the employers to significant penalties under the ACA.

In September 2013, the IRS issued Notice 2013-54 that made clear that an employer arrangement that paid for employees’ individual health insurance policy premiums on a pre-tax basis violated the ACA. An employer that offered such an arrangement would be subject to a $100 per day per affected employee penalty ($36,500 per year, per employee). 

Read the full article in our December 2014 Municipal Law News>

Categories: Employee Benefits, Health Care Reform, Health Insurance Exchange

U.S. Supreme Court will hear ACA subsidies case

U.S. Supreme Court will hear ACA subsidies caseOn Nov. 7, the U.S. Supreme Court decided it would hear a case concerning the health insurance subsidies provided to millions of Americans under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. A June 2015 decision is expected in the case of King v. Burwell, which challenges the Internal Revenue Service’s authority to regulate tax-credit subsidies for coverage purchased through health insurance marketplaces established by the federal government (such as the Michigan health insurance marketplace). Nationwide, more than four out of five people who have received coverage through a federal marketplace are getting a tax credit. Read More ›

Categories: Health Care Reform, Health Insurance Exchange, Tax

PPACA's Employer Mandate Draws Near…Non-Calendar Plans Beware!

As is well known by now, transitional relief from the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act's Employer Mandate in 2015 is available for certain applicable large employers that sponsor non-calendar year health plans. This transitional relief allows the employer to avoid penalties for those months of 2015 that predate the first day of the non-calendar plan year. What is not so well-known, however, are the requirements that must be met in order for the employer to be entitled to receive the transitional relief. Read More ›

Categories: Compliance, Employee Benefits, Health Care Reform, Providers