US Department of the Treasury Archives - Page 2 of 5

District Court Vacates Provisions of No Surprises Act Final Rule

by Debra Curtis, Kristen O'Brien and Erica Stocker | Mar 10, 2023 | Employee Benefits, Health and Welfare Plans

On February 6, a US district court in Texas vacated provisions of the No Surprises Act final rule related to the independent dispute resolution (IDR) process for determining payment for out-of-network services.

The district court granted summary judgment to the Texas Medical Association, which had brought suit against the US Departments of Health and Human Services (HHS), Labor and the Treasury over the IDR process. The district court held that provisions of the final rule were contrary to law and therefore in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. The order vacated the provisions of the final rule that require IDR entities to look at the qualifying payment amount first and consider other factors only if those other factors are not already accounted for in the qualifying payment amount.

The departments have not yet filed a notice of appeal or amended their sub-regulatory guidance to align with the district court’s order.

Departments Issue Final Rule Implementing Certain No Surprises Act Provisions

by Brian Stimson, Jamie Gelfman, Drew Elizabeth McCormick and Emily Curran | Sep 14, 2022 | Employee Benefits, Health and Welfare Plans

On August 19, 2022, the US Departments of Health and Human Services (HHS), Labor and Treasury posted a final rule revising portions of the federal No Surprises Act (NSA). Generally, the rule finalizes three aspects of the two-part interim final rule that the Departments published along with the Office of Personnel Management in 2021. First, the final rule expands the information about the qualifying payment amount (QPA) that plans and issuers (collectively, payers) must disclose to providers and facilities (collectively, providers). Second, it reinterprets the provisions of the NSA that govern the determination of the appropriate out-of-network rate through the federal independent dispute resolution (IDR) process, and prescribes how certified IDR entities are to weigh the QPA and other considerations when selecting one of the parties’ offers. The certified IDR entity must now consider the QPA first, and then give weight to other considerations only if those other considerations are not accounted for in the QPA. Third, the final rule expands the information that a certified IDR entity must provide in its written payment determination to include a statement explaining why the QPA did not already account for other considerations weighed by the IDR entity.

Read more here.

Responsible Financial Innovation Act: Proposed Tax and Reporting for Digital Assets

by John Lutz, William R. Pomierski, Andrew Granek and McDermott Will & Emery | Sep 8, 2022 | Employee Benefits, Employee Stock Ownership Plans (ESOPs), Retirement Plans

On June 7, 2022, Senators Cynthia Lummis (R-WY) and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) introduced the highly anticipated Responsible Financial Innovation Act (the bill), which sets out to create the first complete regulatory and bipartisan framework for digital assets. The bill is intended to establish some legal clarity for regulators and the industry and to protect consumers by providing a range of disclosures and clarifying settlement conditions and rights over digital ownership. The bill would also treat all digital assets that are not treated as securities as commodities regulated by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. This article discusses key tax considerations raised by the bill concerning taxation and reporting requirements for participants in the digital asset industry.

Read more here.

Safe Harbor Issued for Reporting Healthcare Prices Under Transparency Rules

by McDermott Will & Emery | May 17, 2022 | Employee Benefits, Health and Welfare Plans

The US Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and the Treasury recently released Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) regarding the implementation of certain reporting provisions of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The FAQs were released to provide clarity on the required drug price disclosures identified in the Transparency in Coverage final rule (the Rule) issued on October 29, 2020. As described in this SHRM article, employers are responsible for making sure that these disclosures are ready and available.

Read more here.

Proposed IRS RMD Regulations Present Challenges, Risks for 403(b) Plans

by Teal Trujillo and Todd Solomon | Apr 12, 2022 | Employee Benefits, Employment, Fiduciary and Investment Issues, Retirement Plans

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is strategically working to execute the statutory changes that were outlined by the Setting Every Community Up for Retirement Enhancement Act (SECURE Act) of 2019. However, the IRS’s efforts to streamline the required minimum distribution (RMD) requirements for Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Section 403(b) plans with Section 401(a) qualified plans, such as 401(k) plans, may have unforeseen challenges and risks.

A proposed rule was published on February 24, 2022, in the Federal Register. The preamble of the rule indicates that the IRS and US Department of the Treasury are considering changes to conform the treatment of Section 403(b) plans more closely with that of Section 401(a) qualified plans for RMDs. Section 403(b) plans are currently treated the same as individual retirement accounts (IRAs) for purposes of applying the RMD rules. As a result, RMDs are not required to be automatically made from Section 403(b) plans like they are from Section 401(a) retirement plans. The IRS’s proposed rule would require any nonprofit organized under IRC Section 501(c)(3) (i.e., hospitals, public schools and churches) with retirement plans to make RMDs going forward.

Though the proposed rule presents the opportunity to simplify and align the treatment of Section 403(b) plans and Section 401(a) qualified plans, it poses administrative difficulties and potential conflicts with state law. Section 403(b) plans can be invested in a variety of funds, including annuity contracts—group and individual contracts—with insurance companies, custodial accounts or retirement income accounts for certain church workers. For individual annuity contracts, this could create a contractual issue. Employers are not a party to individual contracts between plan participants and investment firms, which would limit the ability of employers to compel RMDs. (Note that distributions could still be forced from group annuity contracts between employers and investment firms.) Regardless of the type of annuity contract, every contract will have to be reviewed to ensure it can comply with the proposed rule. To the extent any changes need to be made to these contracts, state-level approval may be required as insurance companies are governed by state law requirements.

In addition, the proposed rule does not take into consideration the effect of the prospective changes on Section 403(b) plans that are exempt from ERISA because of the safe harbor offered by the US Department of Labor (DOL) in 1979 (29 C.F.R. § 2510.3-2(f)). One of the conditions for meeting the safe harbor is that the employer involvement be limited to certain specific activities. If an employer is required to actively negotiate with insurance providers or choose a provider to administer the RMD requirement for participants, it might be violating this restriction and inadvertently subject its program to ERISA. The IRS and DOL will need to coordinate on the impact of this rule in such cases.

The IRS is taking this proposed rule under review and has asked for feedback specifically related to administrative concerns, notable differences in the structure or administration of Section 403(b) plans compared to qualified plans that might affect RMDs, and [...]

Continue Reading

Agencies Clarify How Employers Can Charge COVID-19 Vaccine Premium Incentives

by Sarah Raaii and McDermott Will & Emery | Feb 24, 2022 | Employee Benefits, Employment, Health and Welfare Plans, Labor

US employers have grown increasingly interested in identifying incentives that increase COVID-19 vaccination among employees. The US Departments of Labor, Treasury and Human and Human Services recently issued guidance regarding the application of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPPA) wellness rules to vaccine-related premium surcharges and discounts, clarifying that employers may charge vaccine premium incentives if they adhere to the requirements of activity-only health-contingent programs. In this Employee Benefit Plan Review article, McDermott Partner Judith Wethall and McDermott Associate Sarah G. Raaii outline what this HIPPA guidance means for employers.

Access the article.

Are Out-of-Pocket Costs on Their Way Out? At-Home COVID-19 Testing and Expanded Preventative Healthcare for Women and Children

by Jacob Mattinson and Teal Trujillo | Jan 14, 2022 | Employee Benefits, Employment, Health and Welfare Plans

In response to a directive from the White House, based on provisions of the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA) and the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security (CARES) Act that eliminated cost sharing for COVID-19 diagnostic testing, three federal government departments—the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the US Department of Labor (Labor) and the US Department of the Treasury (Treasury)—issued guidance in the form of frequently asked questions (FAQs) that states group health plans and insurers must also cover over-the-counter (OTC) COVID-19 diagnostic testing. This guidance is effective beginning January 15, 2022.

In addition, the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) updated the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) comprehensive preventive care and screening guidelines for women and children to cover additional services and supplies without a copay or deductible, effective 2023.

COVID-19 AT-HOME TESTING COVERAGE

On January 10, 2022, HHS, Labor and the Treasury together issued FAQs that elaborated on prior guidance and indicated that group health plans and insurers are required to cover OTC COVID-19 diagnostic tests without cost sharing. Because of the recent spike in COVID-19 cases resulting from the rapid spread of the Omicron variant, the guidance will continue for the duration of the public emergency.

Most consumers with private health coverage will be able to buy OTC COVID-19 tests and either have the cost covered upfront or be reimbursed later by submitting a claim to their health plan. The new requirement only applies to “diagnostic” OTC COVID-19 testing. It does not include the treatment of COVID-19 or testing that is for employment purposes.

The guidance provides that health plans and insurers must cover at least eight OTC COVID-19 diagnostic tests per covered individual per a 30-day period. Insurers will be able to set up networks of preferred suppliers to provide OTC COVID-19 tests directly to participants without upfront costs. Insurers must still reimburse OTC COVID-19 tests purchased outside the direct coverage program, however, the reimbursable amount is limited to $12 per test if the health plan also provides tests through its preferred pharmacy network and through a direct-to-consumer shipping program without upfront costs.

Besides the risk of increasing the average cost of OTC COVID-19 tests, the new initiative raises concerns over fraud and abuse. For health plans and insurers to protect themselves, the FAQs provide several examples of permissible activities to prevent fraud and abuse, like requiring proof of purchase or an attestation that the test was purchased for proper purposes (i.e., is being used by the covered individual, is not being reimbursed by another source, is not being resold and is not for employment purposes).

HRSA UPDATES ACA PREVENTIVE HEALTHCARE GUIDELINES

On January 11, 2022, HRSA announced that it updated the preventive health and screening guidelines for women, infants, children and adolescents. Under the ACA, certain group health plans and insurers must provide coverage with no out-of-pocket costs for preventive health services within these HRSA-endorsed comprehensive guidelines.

HRSA accepted the updates recommended by the Women’s Preventative [...]

Continue Reading

Agencies Clarify How Employers Can Charge COVID-19 Vaccine Premium Incentives

by Sarah Raaii and McDermott Will & Emery | Nov 2, 2021 | Employee Benefits, Employment, Health and Welfare Plans

On October 4, 2021, the US Departments of Labor, Treasury, and Health and Human Services issued guidance regarding the application of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) wellness rules to vaccine-related premium surcharges and discounts, clarifying that employers may charge vaccine premium incentives if they adhere to the requirements of activity-only health-contingent programs.

Employers have grown more interested in exploring incentives designed to increase COVID-19 vaccination rates among employees. Some employers have announced plans to charge unvaccinated employees higher contributions for health coverage than vaccinated employees, while some have been considering other options, such as excluding coverage for COVID-related illnesses, charging higher cost-sharing for COVID-19-related illnesses and offering more generous plan options to employees who are vaccinated.

Read more here.

Requirements Related to Surprise Billing: Policy Update

by Eric Zimmerman, Kristen O'Brien and Katie Waldo | Sep 9, 2021 | Employee Benefits, Health and Welfare Plans

The US Departments of Health and Human Services, Treasury and Labor, and the Office of Personnel Management issued an Interim Final Rule with comment implementing portions of the No Surprises Act, legislation enacted in December 2020 that bars surprise billing beginning January 1, 2022. Under the law, payers and providers (including hospitals, facilities, individual practitioners and air ambulance providers) are prohibited from billing patients more than in-network cost-sharing amounts in emergency and non-emergency circumstances. This IFR establishes regulations defining the payment methodology. The regulation proposes the methodology payers must use to determine cost sharing; the information payers must share with out-of-network providers; the process for submitting and receiving consumer complaints; and the format and details of the notice and consent requirements.

Read more here.

Treasury/IRS Release Proposed Regulations on Section 4960 Excise Tax

by Ralph E. DeJong and Robert C. Louthian, III | Jun 25, 2020 | Employee Benefits, Employment, Executive Compensation

The US Department of the Treasury has released long-expected proposed regulations regarding the section 4960 excise tax on certain remuneration or separation amounts paid to the five highest paid employees of a tax-exempt organization. The new proposed regulations continue the tough approach previously taken on section 4960 issues, while also providing some new exceptions and important clarifications.

Access the full article.

BLOG EDITORS

STAY CONNECTED

TOPICS

ARCHIVES

RECENT POSTS