On May 10, 2018, the IRS announced cost-of-living adjustments to the applicable dollar limits for health savings accounts and high-deductible health plans for 2019. Many of the limits will change for 2019.
Last month, Alexander Lee and Maureen O’Brien joined with Rob Wellner from Velocity Global to discuss the tax and employee benefits complications that arise in cross-border transactions. Key points discussed:
On April 26, 2018, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) increased the 2018 maximum deductible Health Savings Account (HSA) contribution for taxpayers with family coverage under a High Deductible Health Plan (HDHP) to $6,900.
The $6,900 contribution limit for 2018 was originally published in Revenue Procedure 2017-37, but was reduced earlier this year by $50 to $6,850 in Revenue Procedure 2018-18 due to changes in the inflation indexing measure under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. The IRS later increased the limit back to the originally announced amount of $6,900. This relief is published in Revenue Procedure 2018-27 and appears to be the result of pushback from employers, many of whom would face significant administrative costs due to implementing the mid-year change, and governing law requiring the annual HSA limits to be published by no later than June 1 of the preceding calendar year.
Under the guidance, an individual who received a distribution from an HSA in 2018 of an excess contribution based on the previous $50 reduction may repay the distribution to the HSA by April 15, 2019. The repaid amount would not be included in the individual’s gross income or subject to additional taxation. Alternatively, such individual may take no action and treat the $50 HSA distribution as an excess contribution that was timely returned and thus not subject to income inclusion or additional taxation.
Employers who previously lowered their plan’s contribution limit for HSAs to $6,850 should consider how to address the increased limit and whether any changes or employee communications are necessary.
Join us for a webinar on Friday, May 4 as McDermott litigation attorney Chris Nemeth joins employee benefit attorney Judith Wethall to discuss what’s new in employee benefits litigation. Chris will give you a peek into a world you hope never to go! Learn about disturbing trends, traps and how to prevent your employee benefit plans from being targeted.
Friday, May 4, 2018
10:00 – 10:45 am PDT
11:00 – 11:45 am MDT
12:00 – 12:45 pm CDT
1:00 – 1:45 pm EDT
If an employer has employees in San Francisco and is subject to the Health Care Security Ordinance (HCSO), the employer must submit its 2017 Annual Reporting Form by April 30, 2018. Failure to timely submit a report could expose employers to penalties of up to $500 per quarter. To begin, obtain your company’s San Francisco business identification number and submit your report online here.
If you are not sure whether you are subject to the San Francisco’s HCSO, reach out to the author or your regular McDermott attorney.
What if you didn’t have to take time out of your day to see a physician in person when you needed a prescription? What if a diagnosis could be delivered over video chat? What if your psychiatrist was available at the press of a button or swipe on your screen?
These options are fast becoming a reality, as telehealth (or telemedicine) continues to take hold in a health care system that is desperate for increased efficiency and higher quality outcomes. And while telehealth offers exciting new possibilities in terms of convenience and access for patients, it also poses new regulatory challenges for industry stakeholders still learning the new rules of the game in today’s digital health ecosystem.
The Chronic Care Act
One of the biggest drivers of change in the industry right now is the Chronic Care Act. Last month, as part of the House and Senate budget deal to fund the government through March 23, legislators included the Creating High-Quality Results and Outcomes Necessary to Improve Chronic (CHRONIC) Care Act of 2017, which will increase reimbursement for a lot of different telemedicine programs.
For example, if you went to a rural hospital and they didn’t have a stroke neurologist and you were having a stroke, you would have an ED doctor with no stroke specialty diagnosing you—not an ideal situation. With telemedicine, it’s now possible for rural doctors to consult with specialty doctors at renowned sites, which the government will fund thanks to the Chronic Care Act. (more…)
Partner Diane Morgenthaler presented at this year’s first Tax in the City® meeting on March 15, 2018. Below is a recap of the key takeaways from the event.
Employee Benefits impacts of federal tax reform:
Avoid the culture wars and legal issues post-transaction. Join our lawyers Kristin E. Michaels, Maureen O’Brien and moderator Judith Wethall for a discussion of how to best integrate employees and employee benefit plans after a transaction.
On February 26, 2018, the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (covering Connecticut, New York and Vermont) ruled that workplace discrimination on the basis sexual orientation violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII).
The language of Title VII does not expressly prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. However, in 2015, the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) took the position that Title VII prohibits sexual orientation discrimination under the purview of prohibited sex discrimination. In 2016, the EEOC began filing sexual orientation discrimination lawsuits enforcing that position.
Circuit courts are divided on the question of whether claims of sexual orientation discrimination are viable under Title VII. In March of 2017, the Eleventh Circuit held that sexual orientation discrimination does not violate Title VII. The Seventh Circuit held the opposite the following month, and the Supreme Court declined to decide the split in December. With its en banc decision in Melissa Zarda et al. v. Altitude Express, dba Skydive Long Island, et al., the Second Circuit sided with the EEOC and the Seventh Circuit.
As a result of the decision, employers may see increased litigation in the area of sexual orientation discrimination. To protect against potential lawsuits, employers should consider updating their nondiscrimination policies to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. In addition, employers should perform sexual orientation harassment training for employees and managers.
The decision also raises potential concerns for employee benefit plans. Although the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended (ERISA) generally preempts state laws that relate to employee benefit plans, ERISA does not preempt other federal laws, including Title VII. While certain spousal benefits and rights under qualified retirement plans are required by federal law to be extended to same-sex spouses, the same explicit mandates do not apply to welfare plans. Employers should consider whether any of their employee benefit plans discriminate against employees with same-sex spouses (e.g., excluding same-sex spouses from coverage under a self-funded medical plan). Such distinctions may be ripe for legal action as a result of the decision and the EEOC’s ongoing enforcement efforts.
McDermott’s Benefits Emerging Leaders Working Group provides benefit professionals with tools to better serve employees in an ever-changing and evolving benefits landscape.
Presentations will tackle the latest benefits hot topics and best practice solutions, supplemented with important networking opportunities aimed to connect tomorrow’s benefit leaders with a broad network of professionals.
Planned agenda topics include:
Subscribe
