Subscribe
Categories
  • 403(b) Plans
  • 409A
  • COBRA
  • Commentary/Opinions/Views
  • Deferred Compensation
  • Employment Agreements
  • Equity Compensation
  • ERISA Litigation
  • Executive Compensation
  • Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)
  • Fiduciary Issues
  • Fringe Benefits
  • General
  • Governmental Plans
  • Health Care Reform
  • Health Plans
  • International Issues
  • International Pension and Benefits
  • Legal Updates
  • Multi-employer Plans
  • Non-qualified Retirement Plans
  • On the Lighter Side
  • Plan Administration and Compliance
  • Qualified Plans
  • Securities Law Implications
  • Severance Agreements
  • Tax-qualified Retirement Plans
  • Uncategorized
  • Welfare Plans
  • Archives
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • BC Network
    LATEST POST
    Wednesday, June 13, 2018

    On October 12, 2017, President Trump signed a “Presidential Executive Order Promoting Healthcare Choice and Competition Across the United States” (the “Executive Order”) to “facilitate the purchase of insurance across state lines and the development and operation of a healthcare system that provides high-quality care at affordable prices for the American people.”  One of the stated goals in the Executive Order is to expand access to and allow more employers to form Association Health Plans (“AHPs”).  In furtherance of this goal, the Executive Order directed the Department of Labor to consider proposing new rules to expand the definition of “employer” under Section 3(5) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”).  The Department of Labor issued its proposed rule on January 5, 2018.

    In Part 1 of this “Deep Dive” series, we examined the history of AHPs and the effects of the changes proposed by the Trump Administration by providing a high-level, summary overview of the three types of arrangements that fall under the umbrella of health arrangements sponsored by associations, which include Affinity Arrangements, Group Insurance Arrangements and AHPs.  In Part 2 of this “Deep Dive” series, we compared plan features of the three types of arrangements under current law.  In Part 3 of this “Deep Dive” series, we examined the qualification requirements for AHPs under current law.  In this installment of the “Deep Dive” series, we will examine the qualification requirements for AHPs under the proposed rule, then explain why the new requirements, if enacted in their current form, would result in the polar opposite outcome from the intended result enunciated in the Executive Order.  Rather than facilitate the expansion of AHPs, the proposed rule would result in their decline and ultimate demise.

    Proposed Qualification Requirements for AHPs

    ERISA provides that an employee benefit plan may be maintained by an association of employers that effectively operates like a single employer.  Under the current statutory and regulatory scheme, to be a bona fide association of employers, the members of the association must:

    • have a commonality of interest unrelated to the provision of benefits;
    • exercise control over the benefit plan; and
    • consist of employers with at least one employee.

    In addition, the association itself must

    • be a pre-existing organization; and
    • exist for a purpose other than providing health coverage to its members.

    The proposed rule would retain some of the current AHP requirements and modify or eliminate other existing requirements, as follows:

    • The commonality of interest requirement would be significantly expanded to allow employers who are either in the same line of business or industry or in the same geographic area to join together for the purpose of providing health insurance to their employees. As a result, many more organizations would be permitted to sponsor association health plans than is the case under existing law.
    • The requirement that the AHP consist solely of employers with at least one employee would be eliminated. As a result, sole proprietors and other self-employed individuals would be allowed to participate in AHPs for their own benefit.
    • The requirement that the association be a pre-existing organization would be eliminated.
    • The requirement that the association exist for a purpose other than providing health coverage to its members would be eliminated.
    • The proposed rule would retain the requirement that the employer-members control the AHP and would also require that the AHP have a formal organizational structure with a governing body and bylaws (or similar indication of formality).

    The New Nondiscrimination Requirement – A Death Sentence for AHPs

    While the provisions of the proposed rule discussed above would relax the existing requirements associated with forming an AHP, a new requirement added by the proposed rule would result in a virtual death knell for most existing AHPs and significantly inhibit the formation of new AHPs.

    In a significant and unwarranted departure from current law, the proposed rule prohibits AHPs from varying premiums across groups of employers except in very narrow circumstances.  However, commercial insurance carriers would not be so limited except to the extent of state and federal community rating requirements applicable to small groups.  If the proposed rule were issued in its current form, AHPs would be forced to quote basically the same rates for all member employers, and commercial carriers would quote unhealthy large employer groups at higher rates than healthy groups, ultimately resulting in adverse selection in the AHP market.  Large employer groups with higher-than-average claims would have a financial incentive to join AHPs, and healthier-than-average-groups with lower costs would inevitably choose to purchase health insurance from commercial carriers.  This dynamic would result in AHPs enrolling, on average, more costly groups than commercial carriers in the non-AHP market.  As a result, AHPs would then be required to increase premiums across the board, diminishing the ability to attract even moderately healthy groups, resulting in further market segmentation and destabilizing the AHP marketplace.

    The DOL states in the preamble to the proposed rule that its purpose is to encourage the establishment and growth of AHPs and to expand access of employers and their employees to more affordable health coverage by relaxing the regulatory requirements applicable to AHPs.  It is anticipated that the final AHP rule will be issued soon.  Given the avowed purposed of the rule, we expect the DOL to significantly modify, if not eliminate, the nondiscrimination requirement so that this purpose may be achieved.

    RECENT POSTS
    Tuesday, June 5, 2018

    Last year when the IRS announced that the initial remedial amendment period for 403(b) plans will end March 31, 2020, the natural reaction to this very important (but rather remote) deadline was to immediately put it on the to-do list, […]

    Wednesday, May 30, 2018

    The SEC staff regularly publishes “Compliance and Disclosure Interpretations” (C&DIs) on various securities matters. Recently, the staff issued new C&DIs related to the SEC’s proxy rules. Previously, the interpretations relating to proxy rules were contained in a “Manual of Publicly […]

    Friday, April 27, 2018

    On October 12, 2017, President Trump signed a “Presidential Executive Order Promoting Healthcare Choice and Competition Across the United States” (the “Executive Order”) to “facilitate the purchase of insurance across state lines and the development and operation of a healthcare system that […]

    Monday, March 26, 2018

    On August 10, 2017, in In re Mathias, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held ERISA Section 502(e)(2) venue provisions do not invalidate a forum-selection clause contained in plan documents, in a 2-1 split decision. Case […]

    Wednesday, March 21, 2018

    On October 12, 2017, President Trump signed a “Presidential Executive Order Promoting Healthcare Choice and Competition Across the United States” (the “Executive Order”) to “facilitate the purchase of insurance across State Lines and the development and operation of a healthcare system that […]

    Wednesday, March 7, 2018

    First in a Series On October 12, 2017, President Trump signed a “Presidential Executive Order Promoting Healthcare Choice and Competition Across the United States” (the “Executive Order”) to “facilitate the purchase of insurance across State Lines and the development and […]

    Tuesday, March 6, 2018

    In May 2017, the IRS issued Rev. Proc. 2017-37 announcing the inflation-adjusted health savings account contribution limits for 2018 as $3,450 for self-only coverage and $6,900 for family coverage.   However, this week the IRS issued Rev. Proc. 2018-18, which supersedes […]

    Friday, February 9, 2018

    We turn once again to the sad and difficult task that plan administrators face when distributing the benefits of a participant who has been murdered by his or her designated beneficiary. Sad for obvious reasons.  Difficult because ERISA and state […]

    Tuesday, February 6, 2018

    On December 22, 2017, President Trump signed the bill popularly referred to as the “Tax Cuts and Jobs Act” (the “Act”) into law.  The Act contains significant changes to Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code that are effective for […]