.gif)
The IRS has issued the cost of living contribtuion and coverage adjustments for 2013. They are as follows:
2013 Individual Deductible: $3250
2013 Family Deductible: $6450
2013 Catch Up Contrib: $1000
2013 Maximum Out-of-Pocket Amounts: $6250 (ind) / $12,500 (fam)
2013 Minimum Deductible Amounts: $1250 (ind) / $2500 (fam)
To view the IRS release click here
Monday, April 30, 2012
Monday, April 23, 2012
IRS Proposed Rule on Comparative Effectivness Fee
Proposed Internal Revenue Service regulations would resolve numerous questions employers and others have raised about a fee that is to be imposed on health care plans issued by insurers and self-funded employers.
That fee—mandated by the health care reform law to fund research on medical outcomes—will be $1 per plan participant for the first plan year ending after Sept. 30, 2012, and $2 per participant in succeeding years. For plan years starting after Sept. 30, 2014, the fee would be indexed to reflect the percentage increase in national medical expenditures as published by the Department of Health and Human Services.The fee is to be paid annually by July 31 of the next plan year. Many questions have been raised about the fees and to which type of health plans they would apply. “This has been on employers' 2012 health care reform radar screen,” said Andy Anderson, a partner with Morgan, Lewis & Bockius L.L.P. in Chicago.
For example, the proposed regulations that the IRS issued Thursday make clear that the fee would be imposed on retiree-only health care plans, even though such plans are largely exempt from the health care reform law.In addition under the proposed rules, an employer with a health reimbursement arrangement linked to a self-funded high-deductible health care plan would be liable for the fee only for participants in its plan. It would not pay a second fee for participants in the HRA. On the other hand, the fee would be imposed on HRAs if the arrangement were linked to an insured health care plan. In that situation, the employer would be liable for the fee covering participants in the HRA, while the insurer would be liable for the fee on the insured plan.In short, “there will be two fees to be paid,” said Rich Stover, a principal with Buck Consultants L.L.C. in Secaucus, N.J.The proposed regulations also give examples of methodologies that health plan sponsors could use to determine the number of participants in their health care plans for calculating the amount of the fee they would owe.
To view the full article click here
That fee—mandated by the health care reform law to fund research on medical outcomes—will be $1 per plan participant for the first plan year ending after Sept. 30, 2012, and $2 per participant in succeeding years. For plan years starting after Sept. 30, 2014, the fee would be indexed to reflect the percentage increase in national medical expenditures as published by the Department of Health and Human Services.The fee is to be paid annually by July 31 of the next plan year. Many questions have been raised about the fees and to which type of health plans they would apply. “This has been on employers' 2012 health care reform radar screen,” said Andy Anderson, a partner with Morgan, Lewis & Bockius L.L.P. in Chicago.
For example, the proposed regulations that the IRS issued Thursday make clear that the fee would be imposed on retiree-only health care plans, even though such plans are largely exempt from the health care reform law.In addition under the proposed rules, an employer with a health reimbursement arrangement linked to a self-funded high-deductible health care plan would be liable for the fee only for participants in its plan. It would not pay a second fee for participants in the HRA. On the other hand, the fee would be imposed on HRAs if the arrangement were linked to an insured health care plan. In that situation, the employer would be liable for the fee covering participants in the HRA, while the insurer would be liable for the fee on the insured plan.In short, “there will be two fees to be paid,” said Rich Stover, a principal with Buck Consultants L.L.C. in Secaucus, N.J.The proposed regulations also give examples of methodologies that health plan sponsors could use to determine the number of participants in their health care plans for calculating the amount of the fee they would owe.
To view the full article click here
Monday, April 2, 2012
Express Scripts Closes Medco Acquisition .
Expess Scripts Inc. said it completed its $29.1 billion acquisition of Medco Health Solutions Inc. after the Federal Trade Commission determined that the combination of the two largest pharmacy-benefits management companies in the U.S. wouldn't stunt competition in the sector.
The FTC in a majority vote of 3-1 decided that the deal wouldn't change dynamics in the PBM market, ending an eight-month investigation. In a statement the panel said its probe found a "competitive market for PBM services characterized by numerous, vigorous competitors who are expanding and winning business from traditional market leaders."
The probe also showed that Express Scripts and Medco "are not particularly close competitors, the market today is not conducive to coordinated interaction, and there is little risk of the merged company exercising monopoly power," the FTC said.
In a dissenting opinion, FTC Commissioner Julie Brill called the merger "a game changer" and stated, "I have reason to believe that this merger is, in fact, a merger to duopoly with few efficiencies in a market with high entry barriers--something no court has ever approved."
Ms. Brill called on the commission to conduct a retrospective study on the merger in three years' time.
To view the entire article click here.
The FTC in a majority vote of 3-1 decided that the deal wouldn't change dynamics in the PBM market, ending an eight-month investigation. In a statement the panel said its probe found a "competitive market for PBM services characterized by numerous, vigorous competitors who are expanding and winning business from traditional market leaders."
The probe also showed that Express Scripts and Medco "are not particularly close competitors, the market today is not conducive to coordinated interaction, and there is little risk of the merged company exercising monopoly power," the FTC said.
In a dissenting opinion, FTC Commissioner Julie Brill called the merger "a game changer" and stated, "I have reason to believe that this merger is, in fact, a merger to duopoly with few efficiencies in a market with high entry barriers--something no court has ever approved."
Ms. Brill called on the commission to conduct a retrospective study on the merger in three years' time.
To view the entire article click here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
