Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Your Speaker Today: Constance Starkey. What’s New? The Buzz State of the ACA Supreme Court & King v Burwell The MLR California.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Your Speaker Today: Constance Starkey. What’s New? The Buzz State of the ACA Supreme Court & King v Burwell The MLR California."— Presentation transcript:

1 Your Speaker Today: Constance Starkey

2 What’s New? The Buzz State of the ACA Supreme Court & King v Burwell The MLR California

3 New Tools On the Informer Compliance Kit

4

5 Scenarios Scenario #1 Corporation X: Is a large employer who sponsors a health plan that covers all full-time employees as defined under the ACA. Has a maximum orientation period prior to a 90-day waiting period for coverage. Has hired Abby whose start date in a full-time position is October 1. What date is the latest that Abby’s coverage should start?

6 Scenarios Scenario #1: Orientation If Abby’s start date as a full-time employee is October 1, the last permitted day of the orientation period is October 31. From Abby’s start date: One calendar month = November 1 Minus one calendar day = October 31

7 Scenarios Scenario #1: Waiting Period 90 days The waiting period must start November 1, and the 90th day would be January 29 which would indicate coverage must start no later than January 30.

8 Scenarios Scenario #1 Answer: In order to be in compliance with ACA regulations, Abby’s coverage must begin no later than January 1 4 th Calendar Month However, this does not meet the employer shared responsibility requirements that coverage can begin no later than the first day of the fourth calendar month of employment. January 1

9 Scenarios Scenario #2 Corporations A, B and C are members of a Controlled Group for the 2015 calendar year. – Corporation A has 50 FT employees, – Corporation B has 40 FT employees and – Corporation C has 20 FT employees How many employees could Corporation C subtract from their total when calculating a possible penalty?

10 Scenarios Scenario #2: Calculations Corporation A has 50 FT employees Corporation B has 40 FT employees Corporation C has 20 FT employees For 2015 ONLY, for the sake of calculating possible penalties, the employer may subtract 80 employees. However, each entity is able to subtract only their % of employees. Total Number of Employees 110

11 Scenarios Scenario #2 Answer: The employees are divided among the entities whether they are in compliance or not. 110 FT employees Corporation A 50 = 46% 110 FT employees Corporation B 40 = 36% 110 FT employees Corporation C 20 = 18% 46% of 80 = 3736% of 80 = 2918% of 80 = 14 Corporation C may subtract 14

12 Scenarios Scenario #3 Corporations D, E, and F are members of a Controlled Group, Company Y, for the 2015 calendar year. Company Y has a combined total of 110 FT employees. – Corporation D has 50 FT employees, all of whom receive affordable, MV, employer-sponsored coverage – Corporation E has 40 FT employees, 10 of whom receive affordable, MV, employer sponsored coverage, the remaining 30 receive coverage that does not meet MV or the affordability requirements. – Corporation F has 20 FT employees. They are not currently offered employer-sponsored coverage. If this employer changes nothing, what is the potential penalty?

13 Scenarios Reminder:  Each company within a control group is considered a separate entity  Penalties are confined to the entity or entities that are out of compliance  The entities that are in compliance are not penalized based on the other entities.

14 Scenarios Scenario #3 Corporation D: 50 FT Employees Corporation D is in compliance with the law. Coverage for all 50 FT employees: Affordable Meets MV Employer-sponsored Penalty for Corporation D = $0

15 Scenarios Scenario #3 Corporation E: 40 FT Employees Coverage for 10 employees: Affordable Meets MV Employer-sponsored Coverage for 30 employees: Does Not Meet Affordability Requirements Does Not Meet MV Corporation E is NOT in compliance with the law.

16 Scenarios Scenario #3 Corporation E: Penalty Calculations OR 110 40 = 36% Percentage of Employees in Corporation E 36% of 80 = 29 Allowable subtraction 40-29 = 11 Number of Penalties 11 X $2,000 = $22,000 Corp E Penalty 30 Employees Receive Subsidy in the Exchange: 30 X $3,000 = $90,000 The ACA allows employers to pay the lesser of either penalty, therefore, Corporation E would pay $22,000

17 Scenarios Scenario #3 Corporation F: 20 FT Employees  No Employer- Sponsored Coverage  Corporation F is NOT in compliance with the law.

18 Scenarios Scenario #3 Corporation F: 20 FT Employees OR 110 20 = 18% Percentage of Employees in Corporation F 18% of 80 = 14 Allowable subtraction 20-14 = 6 Number of Penalties 6 X $2,000 = $12,000 Corp F Penalty 20 Employees Receive Subsidy in the Exchange: 20 X $3,000 = $60,000 The ACA allows employers to pay the lesser of either penalty, therefore, Corporation F would pay $12,000

19 Scenarios Scenario #3 Company Y Penalties: Corporation D = $0 Corporation E = $22,000 Corporation F = $12,000 Company Y would owe $34,000 in tax penalties $34,000

20 Scenarios Scenario #4 Corporation Z has 110 FTEs. Employee salary range is $30,000 to $70,000 75 employees have monthly wages of $3,200 or more 35 employees each have monthly wages of $2,500 Corporation Z offers all employees Minimum Value, Minimum Essential Coverage Employer-paid premium is $62,000 annually Current employee monthly contribution for employee-only coverage is $300

21 Scenarios Scenario #4 Does Corporation Z owe a penalty and if so, what would the potential cost of the penalty be? Would it be advantageous for this employer to drop coverage and pay a penalty? Why or why not?

22 Scenarios Scenario #4 Answer: Does employer owe a penalty?  Employee contribution is $300 per month  Annual employee contribution is $3600 $300 X 12 months $3,600 annual

23 Scenarios Scenario #4 Answer: Does employer owe a penalty?  Employee contribution is $300 per month  Annual employee contribution is $3600  $3,600 is 9.5% of $37,894 per year $3600 / 9.5% 3600.095 = $37,894

24 Scenarios Scenario #4 Answer: Does employer owe a penalty?  Employee contribution is $300 per month  Annual employee contribution is $3600  $3,600 is 9.5% of $37,894 per year  Annual salary must be at least $37,894 to meet affordability requirement 75 employees earn $38,400 or more Employer contribution meets affordability requirement for 75 employees 35 employees earn $30,000 annually Employer contribution does not meet affordability requirement for 35 employees

25 Scenarios This employer does not meet the affordability requirements, and is subject to penalty Scenario #4 Answer: Does the Employer Owe a Penalty?  75 employees meet affordability requirements 75 110 = 68% 68% < 70%  35 employees do not meet affordability requirements  75 = 68% of total employees (110)  ACA requirement = affordable coverage to 70% of employees (note: this goes up to 95% for 2016)

26 Scenarios Scenario #4 Answer: What would the penalty be? Employer would pay lesser of the penalties, so, maximum penalty would be $60,000 Penalty 1 $60,000 110 employees - 80 30 X $2,000 OR All 35 Eligible Employees Receive Subsidy in the Exchange: $105,000 Penalty 2 35 employees X $3,000 $60,000 For 2015 ONLY employer may subtract 80 employees. From 2016 on, employers may subtract 30 employees.

27 Scenarios Scenario #4 What would be your recommendation? A.Do nothing B.Increase Employer Contribution C.Increase salaries for those 35 employees D.Drop coverage and pay the penalty

28 Scenarios Scenario #4 : What if they do nothing?  Employer currently pays $62,000 annual premium  Penalty would be $60,000 If the employer does nothing, the cost to the employer would be $122,000 62,000 + 60,000 $122,000

29 Scenarios Scenario #4: What if they increase employer contribution? $30,000 X.095 $30,000 X 9.5% $2,850  Lowest wage is $30,000/year  Maximum employee contribution for affordable coverage is 9.5%, or $2,850

30 Scenarios Scenario #4: What if they increase employer contribution?  Lowest wage is $30,000/year  Maximum employee contribution for affordable coverage is 9.5%, or $2,850  Currently, employees are paying $3,600 per year $3,600 Current employee contribution -$2,850 Maximum employee contribution Additional employer contribution required $ 750  Employer must increase contribution by $750 per employee

31 Scenarios Scenario #4: What if they increase employer contribution?  Lowest wage is $30,000/year  Maximum employee contribution for affordable coverage is 9.5%, or $2,850  Currently, employees are paying $3,600 per year  Employer must increase contribution by $750 per employee $ 750 X 110 employees $82,500  Cost of increase for 110 employees is $82,500

32 Scenarios Scenario #4: What if they increase employer contribution?  Lowest wage is $30,000/year  Maximum employee contribution for affordable coverage is 9.5%, or $2,850  Currently, employees are paying $3,600 per year Total cost with increased employer contribution: $144,500  Employer must increase contribution by $750 per employee $62,000 Current employer- paid premium + $82,500 Additional employer contribution Total cost with increased employer contribution $144,500  Cost of increase for 110 employees is $82,500

33 Scenarios Scenario #4: What if they increase wages? What we know:  With current employee contribution of $300/month  Wages must be $37,894/year to meet affordability requirement of 9.5% $37,894  35 employees earn $30,000 per year - $30,000 $7,894 Wage adjustment required to meet affordability  Employer must increase 35 employee wages by $7,894

34 Scenarios Scenario #4: What if they increase wages? Increasing the wages of the 35 employees from $30,000 to $37,894 would cost the company $276,290 + $62,000 in annual premium would equal $338,290 What we know:  With current employee contribution of $300/month  Wages must be $37,894/year to meet affordability requirement of 9.5%  35 employees earn $30,000 per year  Employer must increase 35 employee wages by $7,894 $7,894 X 35 $276,290

35 Scenarios Scenario #4: What if the employer drops coverage?  Employer would pay $2,000 penalty per employee for all employees (minus 80) Total employer cost by dropping coverage would be $60,000 110 - 80 employees 30 X $2,000 $60,000 penalty For 2015 ONLY employer may subtract 80 employees. From 2016 on, employers may subtract 30 employees.

36 Scenario #4 Answer: Recommendation: Increase Employer Contribution Scenarios Do Nothing 2015 Employer Cost $122,000 2016 Employer Cost $222,000 2015 Employer Cost $144,500 2016 Employer Cost $144,500 Increase Employer Contribution Increase 35 Employee Wages 2015 Employer Cost $338,290 2016 Employer Cost $338,290 Drop All Coverage 2015 Employer Cost $60,000 2016 Employer Cost $160,000

37 Questions Constance Starkey Public Affairs & Policy Analyst 1-818-518-2087 cstarkey@lisibroker.com

38 THANK YOU


Download ppt "Your Speaker Today: Constance Starkey. What’s New? The Buzz State of the ACA Supreme Court & King v Burwell The MLR California."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google