Health and Welfare Plans Archives - Page 70 of 128

Join McDermott Partners at the 2013 ERISA Basics National Institute

by Diane Morgenthaler | Oct 9, 2013 | Health and Welfare Plans, Retirement Plans

Please join McDermott partners, Diane Morgenthaler and Jamie Weyeneth, on October 16-18 at the 2013 ERISA Basics National Institute in Chicago, IL. Designed for in-house and union counsel, benefits specialists, private practitioners, litigators, consultants and accountants, this conference provides an opportunity to hear from the ERISA experts. For more information, click here.

2013 ERISA Basics National Institute

Friday, October 18
10:05-10:55 a.m.
Section 401(k) Plans
Diane Morgenthaler, Partner, McDermott Will & Emery

11:05-11:55 a.m.
Cafeteria Plans
Jamie Weyeneth, Partner, McDermott Will & Emery

IRS and DOL Guidance Clarifies Employee Benefits Impact of Supreme Court’s DOMA Ruling

by Brian Tiemann and Todd Solomon | Oct 2, 2013 | Health and Welfare Plans, Retirement Plans

Recent guidance issued by the U.S. Department of the Treasury, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and the Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA) division of the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) provides some initial clarifications on how U.S. v. Windsor will affect benefits for same-sex spouses. The guidance provides that same-sex couples legally married in a jurisdiction with laws authorizing same-sex marriage will be treated as married for federal tax purposes, regardless of whether the couple resides in a state where same-sex marriage is recognized.

To read the full article, click here.

Additional Affordable Care Act Guidance Clarifies Exchange Notices and 90-Day Waiting Period

by Maggie McTigue | Sep 26, 2013 | Health and Welfare Plans

Recent guidance clarifies the exchange notice requirement and the 90-day waiting period limitation under the Affordable Care Act.

IRS Issues Proposed Regulations on Information Reporting under the Affordable Care Act

by McDermott Will & Emery | Sep 17, 2013 | Health and Welfare Plans

by Amy M. Gordon, Susan M. Nash and Jacob Mattinson

Recently issued guidance clarifies annual information reporting requirements for insurers and employers under the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The required reporting enables the Internal Revenue Service to determine compliance with the employer and individual mandates and individual eligibility for premium tax credits under the ACA.

To read the full article please click here.

FAQ on Notice of Coverage Options for ACA’s New Health Insurance Marketplace

by McDermott Will & Emery | Sep 12, 2013 | Health and Welfare Plans

In a brief Frequently Asked Question (FAQ) document quietly issued yesterday, the U.S. Department of Labor formally clarified there is no penalty associated with provision of the Exchange Notice. The guidance states that employers “should provide a written notice to its employees about the Health Insurance Marketplace by October 1, 2013, but there is no fine or penalty under the law for failing to provide the notice.” Therefore, employers should send out the Exchange Notice, but there would be no penalty if someone is missed. (This FAQ does not state or imply that employers no longer have to send out the notice.)

A link to the FAQ can be found here.

Treasury Department & IRS Issue DOMA Guidance – Adopt a “State of Celebration” Approach

by Brian Tiemann and Todd Solomon | Aug 29, 2013 | Health and Welfare Plans, Retirement Plans

In Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Revenue Ruling 2013-17, the U.S. Department of the Treasury and the IRS today ruled that legally married same-sex couples will be treated as married for federal tax purposes. Importantly, the ruling applies regardless of whether the couple lives in a jurisdiction that does not recognize same-sex marriage. In other words, the Treasury Department and IRS have adopted a “state of celebration” rule rather than a “state of residence” rule. Click here for IRS answers to some frequently asked questions.

As a result, it will be possible for same-sex couples to be what we call “federally-recognized same-sex spouses” even if they are not treated as married in the state in which they currently reside. That situation in fact, could become extremely common if same-sex couples travel to a jurisdiction solely to get married and obtain federal tax recognition of their marriage. (See the Obergefell case, discussed in “Two Federal Courts Recognize Same-Sex Spousal Rights for Residents of States Not Permitting Same-Sex Marriage” as one recent example.)

This situation will require employers in all states – not just the 13 states (and the District of Columbia) that currently permit same-sex marriage – to prepare for same-sex couples to request spousal benefits under the employer’s various benefit programs, particularly those programs where preferential spousal treatment is required by federal law (e.g., spousal protection under qualified retirement plans, special enrollment and COBRA rights under health and welfare plans, etc.) The IRS intends to issue further guidance on the retroactive implications of this position.

Additionally, this new guidance will allow same-sex spouses to claim refunds for open tax years for income and employment taxes they paid on imputed income on the value of health coverage. Similarly, there is a procedure for employers to obtain employment tax refunds based on coverage provided to employees’ same-sex spouses.

Finally, note that the IRS guidance does not apply to registered domestic partners, civil unions or other similar relationships recognized under state law but that are not denominated as marriage under that state’s law.

Further McDermott guidance on this important development will be forthcoming shortly. In the meantime, please contact the authors or your regular McDermott attorney if you have questions.

IRS Provides Clarity on Whether Professional Employer Organizations Can Offer Eligible Employer-Sponsored Plans

by McDermott Will & Emery | Aug 29, 2013 | Health and Welfare Plans

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has released final regulations on the requirement that individuals maintain health insurance that meets the minimum essential coverage standard (the “individual mandate”). These regulations give clarity to Professional Employer Organizations (PEOs) offering group health plan coverage to employees on behalf of an employer. An individual can satisfy the minimum essential coverage requirement by maintaining coverage under an eligible employer-sponsored plan. The final regulations provide that an eligible employer-sponsored plan includes coverage offered by a PEO on behalf of an employer. Specifically, the definition of eligible employer-sponsored plan in the final regulations (Section 1.5000A-2(c)) provides that an eligible employer-sponsored plan includes, in addition to coverage offered by an employer, (i) group health insurance coverage offered on behalf of an employer to an employee and (ii) a self-insured group health plan under which coverage is offered by, or on behalf of, an employer to the employee. In addition, the preamble to the final regulations explicitly states that organizations such as PEOs can offer coverage under an eligible employer-sponsored plan on behalf of an employer, yet not be viewed as the employer by reason of offering such coverage (“commentators asked whether a plan offered to an employer’s employees by a third party, such as a professional employer organization or leasing company, is an eligible employer-sponsored plan for the employees eligible to participate in the plan. The final regulations are revised to provide that a plan offered by an employer to an employee includes a plan offered to an employee on behalf of an employer. No inference is intended from this treatment that the third party is the employer for this or any other provision of the Code or related laws.”).

The final regulations are expected to be published in the Federal Register on August 30, 2013.

Same-Sex Partner Benefits: Now What?

by Jackie Sinn | Aug 13, 2013 | Health and Welfare Plans

Please join McDermott Will & Emery partner, Todd Solomon, at a Worldwide Employee Benefits (WEB) Network Chicago Chapter event that will cover recent developments in same-sex partner benefits.

A much-anticipated Supreme Court ruling overturned a key part of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA. That much is clear. What is less clear is what long-term impact this will have on employer-sponsored retirement and health benefit plans. How do the federal tax laws apply to health benefits provided for same-sex spouses? How should retirement plans treat same-sex spouses who did not receive a qualified joint and survivor annuity as a default form of benefit? Following this ruling, should plan sponsors consider adopting a definition of spouse based on state law?

If you are confronting these and or other practical questions, you will not want to miss our session focusing on the most recent developments in same-sex partner benefits.

Wednesday, August 28, 2013
11:30 am – 12:00 pm CDT – Lunch
12:00 pm – 1:00 pm CDT – Program

McDermott Will & Emery
227 W. Monroe Street
Chicago, IL 60606-5096

To register and learn more, please click here.

HIPAA Omnibus Final Rule Compliance Date Is Less Than Two Months Away

by McDermott Will & Emery | Aug 6, 2013 | Health and Welfare Plans, Privacy and Data Security

by Daniel F. Gottlieb and Edward G. Zacharias

The compliance date for the omnibus final rule amending the privacy, security, breach notification and enforcement regulations under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) and the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act is less than two months away for health care providers, health plans, other covered entities and their business associates. The changes require covered entities and their business associates to conduct a security risk assessment; revise their existing privacy, security and breach notification policies and procedures; amend their business associate agreements; and retrain their workforce on the revised policies.

The final rule includes the following changes:

Business associates are directly liable for civil money penalties and criminal penalties for violations of the Privacy Rule and Security Rule.
The definition of business associate is expanded to include a subcontractor of a business associate so that subcontractors also are liable for violations of the privacy, security and breach notification standards.
The definition of a breach of unsecured protected health information (PHI) is revised to make it more difficult for a covered entity or business associate to avoid reporting an unauthorized use or disclosure of PHI to the affected individuals and the Office of Civil Rights.
A covered entity generally may not receive cash or other financial remuneration for marketing communications made for a third party’s products or services.
Certain restrictions on the use of compound authorizations in connection with research studies were changed in a way that will simplify secondary uses of PHI for research purposes.

Two Federal Courts Recognize Same-Sex Spousal Rights for Residents of States Not Permitting Same-Sex Marriage

by McDermott Will & Emery | Aug 2, 2013 | Employment, Health and Welfare Plans

by Joseph S. Adams, Todd A. Solomon and Jacob Mattinson

Obergefell v. Kasich and Cozen O’Connor v. Tobits may reflect a growing trend of courts and other bodies to recognize same-sex marriages validly celebrated elsewhere even if the couple’s current state of residence does not recognize such marriages. Pending further guidance, employers should begin discussing plan amendments and administrative procedures that may be necessary to clarify benefit eligibility for same-sex spouses and partners.

To read the full article, click here.

BLOG EDITORS

STAY CONNECTED

TOPICS

ARCHIVES

RECENT POSTS