WASHINGTON—Employers will be given until Jan. 1, 2012, to comply with certain health care reform law requirements, the Labor Department has decided.
One delay involves a reform provision in which health plan enrollees have to be notified of an urgent care coverage decision within 24 hours of receipt by the employer or plan administrator That is a big change from a decade-old Labor Department rule that requires such notifications be made within 72 hours.
In rules issued last July, federal regulators said the 24-hour notification requirement would go into effect Jan. 1, 2011. Then in technical guidance issued in September, the Labor Department said it was establishing an “enforcement grace period” running until July 1, 2011, in which no action would be taken against employers that were working in good faith to comply with the new standard by July 1. The latest Labor Department guidance issued last week extends that grace period to Jan. 1, 2012.
The same Jan. 1, 2012, grace period extension also applies to another new mandate, which requires that notices of available internal and external claims appeals and review processes be provided in a “culturally and linguistically appropriate manner.”
The Labor Department said the delay will enable it to take into account comments it has received on the regulations. It said it will amend those regulations, but gave no indication of what those changes will be.
To read the full article click here.
Monday, March 21, 2011
Monday, February 28, 2011
Obama Supports Easing Health Law Mandates for States
WASHINGTON — Seeking to appease disgruntled governors, President Obama announced Monday that he supported amending the 2010 health care law to allow states to opt out of its most burdensome requirements three years earlier than currently permitted.
In remarks to the National Governors Association, Mr. Obama said he backed legislation that would enable states to request federal permission to withdraw from the law’s mandates in 2014 rather than in 2017 as long as they could prove that they could find other ways to cover as many people as the original law would and at the same cost. The earlier date is when many of the act’s central provisions take effect, including requirements that most individuals obtain health insurance and that employers of a certain size offer coverage to workers or pay a penalty.
“I think that’s a reasonable proposal; I support it,” Mr. Obama told the governors, who were gathered in the State Dining Room of the White House.
To read the entire artile click here.
In remarks to the National Governors Association, Mr. Obama said he backed legislation that would enable states to request federal permission to withdraw from the law’s mandates in 2014 rather than in 2017 as long as they could prove that they could find other ways to cover as many people as the original law would and at the same cost. The earlier date is when many of the act’s central provisions take effect, including requirements that most individuals obtain health insurance and that employers of a certain size offer coverage to workers or pay a penalty.
“I think that’s a reasonable proposal; I support it,” Mr. Obama told the governors, who were gathered in the State Dining Room of the White House.
To read the entire artile click here.
Thursday, February 17, 2011
House panel votes to repeal 1099 reporting requirement
WASHINGTON—The House Ways and Means Committee on Thursday unanimously approved legislation that would to repeal a health care reform law requirement that employers to furnish 1099 statements whenever they do more than $600 in business with a corporate vendor.
The measure, H.R. 4, now goes to the full House.
A similar proposal passed the Senate this month with strong bipartisan support. By the end of the week, the Senate is expected by supporters to approve the broader bill, S. 223, which authorizes funds for the Federal Aviation Administration.
Small employers in particular have complained that the 1099 reporting requirement that is scheduled to go into effect in 2012 is too great a burden.
Full article
The measure, H.R. 4, now goes to the full House.
A similar proposal passed the Senate this month with strong bipartisan support. By the end of the week, the Senate is expected by supporters to approve the broader bill, S. 223, which authorizes funds for the Federal Aviation Administration.
Small employers in particular have complained that the 1099 reporting requirement that is scheduled to go into effect in 2012 is too great a burden.
Full article
Monday, January 31, 2011
U.S. Judge strikes down Health Care Reform law
A federal judge in Florida has struck down the Obama administration's requirement that nearly all Americans buy health insurance, and questioned the constitutionality of the entire health care law.
"I must reluctantly conclude that Congress exceeded the bounds of its authority in passing the Act with the individual mandate," wrote U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson, the second federal jurist to rule against law that Obama signed last year.
Two other judges have sided with the administration on the issue that may well wind up in the Supreme Court.
Obama and his aides said the requirement that all Americans, known as the individual mandate, is essential to financing the plan -- and that is exactly the reason opponents of the health care law have targeted it in a series of federal lawsuits. The law requires nearly all Americans to have health insurance in 2014, or face fines.
Vinson, appointed by President Ronald Reagan in 1983, drew a case filed by GOP attorney generals within hours of the law's signing in March; eventually 26 states joined in the lawsuit.
Congressional Republicans who fought the health care bill last year hailed the ruling.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., sakid the decision confirms that "the health spending bill is a massive overreach and Democrats 'exceeded the bounds' of Congressional authority." Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, praised the ruling, saying that "Congress does not have the legal authority to tell Utahns and other Americans that they must buy health insurance or else."
For the entire article click here
"I must reluctantly conclude that Congress exceeded the bounds of its authority in passing the Act with the individual mandate," wrote U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson, the second federal jurist to rule against law that Obama signed last year.
Two other judges have sided with the administration on the issue that may well wind up in the Supreme Court.
Obama and his aides said the requirement that all Americans, known as the individual mandate, is essential to financing the plan -- and that is exactly the reason opponents of the health care law have targeted it in a series of federal lawsuits. The law requires nearly all Americans to have health insurance in 2014, or face fines.
Vinson, appointed by President Ronald Reagan in 1983, drew a case filed by GOP attorney generals within hours of the law's signing in March; eventually 26 states joined in the lawsuit.
Congressional Republicans who fought the health care bill last year hailed the ruling.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., sakid the decision confirms that "the health spending bill is a massive overreach and Democrats 'exceeded the bounds' of Congressional authority." Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, praised the ruling, saying that "Congress does not have the legal authority to tell Utahns and other Americans that they must buy health insurance or else."
For the entire article click here
Bill would repeal employer health care coverage mandate
WASHINGTON—The health care reform law mandate that requires employers to offer coverage to employees or pay a penalty would be repealed under legislation introduced by Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah.
“The employer mandate would force businesses to let people go or raise the cost of doing business to such an extent that they don’t start hiring,” Sen. Hatch said in a statement last week. “Let’s repeal this job-crushing provision so businesses can (get) back in the business of hiring,” he said.
Sen. Hatch’s proposal, S. 20, has 23 co-sponsors, all Republicans.
Effective in 2014, the health care reform law will require employers with more than 50 employees to offer qualified health care coverage or pay an annual assessment of $2,000 for each employee working at least 30 hours a week. In computing the amount of the assessment, the first 30 employees are excluded.
For the full article click here
“The employer mandate would force businesses to let people go or raise the cost of doing business to such an extent that they don’t start hiring,” Sen. Hatch said in a statement last week. “Let’s repeal this job-crushing provision so businesses can (get) back in the business of hiring,” he said.
Sen. Hatch’s proposal, S. 20, has 23 co-sponsors, all Republicans.
Effective in 2014, the health care reform law will require employers with more than 50 employees to offer qualified health care coverage or pay an annual assessment of $2,000 for each employee working at least 30 hours a week. In computing the amount of the assessment, the first 30 employees are excluded.
For the full article click here
Thursday, January 20, 2011
House Passes Repeal of Health Care Law
WASHINGTON—After a spirited debate, the House of Representatives Wednesday approved, on a near party-line 245-189 vote, legislation to repeal last year’s health care reform law. Just three Democrats voted in favor of the measure.
The vote on the measure, H.R. 2, introduced by Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., with 181 cosponsors, is largely symbolic, fulfilling a campaign promise made by GOP leaders during the 2010 congressional elections.
Few observers expect the Democratic-controlled Senate to join the House. Still, the House action marks the beginning of efforts to amend the law. Republicans and Democrats are united, for example, on stripping a provision from the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act that requires employers to furnish 1099 reporting statements if they do more than $600 of business with a corporate vendor starting in 2012. Small employers in particular complained that the reporting burden is too great.
Republicans are looking for Democratic support to repeal provisions that will require most employers to offer coverage or pay a $2,000-per-full-time-employee penalty and mandate that individuals enroll in a qualified plan or face financial penalties, beginning in 2014.
Republicans also are exploring ways to deny funding to federal agencies charged with developing regulations to help implement the law.
The democratic controlled Senate has already vowed to block any chance of repeal there and President Obama has also promised a veto were a repeal to make it to his desk.
The vote on the measure, H.R. 2, introduced by Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., with 181 cosponsors, is largely symbolic, fulfilling a campaign promise made by GOP leaders during the 2010 congressional elections.
Few observers expect the Democratic-controlled Senate to join the House. Still, the House action marks the beginning of efforts to amend the law. Republicans and Democrats are united, for example, on stripping a provision from the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act that requires employers to furnish 1099 reporting statements if they do more than $600 of business with a corporate vendor starting in 2012. Small employers in particular complained that the reporting burden is too great.
Republicans are looking for Democratic support to repeal provisions that will require most employers to offer coverage or pay a $2,000-per-full-time-employee penalty and mandate that individuals enroll in a qualified plan or face financial penalties, beginning in 2014.
Republicans also are exploring ways to deny funding to federal agencies charged with developing regulations to help implement the law.
The democratic controlled Senate has already vowed to block any chance of repeal there and President Obama has also promised a veto were a repeal to make it to his desk.
Thursday, January 13, 2011
Revisions regarding OTC Drugs Effective 1/16/11
The Internal Revenue Service on Dec. 23, 2010, issued IRS Notice 2011-5allowing the continued use of health flexible spending account (FSA) and health reimbursement arrangement (HRA) debit cards for the purchase of over-the-counter (OTC) medicines and drugs for which the taxpayer has obtained a prescription.
The guidance does not address health savings account (HSA) debit cards, in part because FSA and HRA purchases must be substantiated at the point of sale while HSA purchases are self-substantiated, with documentation saved by the purchaser and presented in the event of an IRS audit; inappropriate or "nonqualified" HSA distributions would then be subject to income tax plus a 20 percent penalty.
However, the accompanying frequently asked questions issued by the IRS note that under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act "only prescribed medicines or drugs…and insulin (even if purchased without a prescription) will be considered qualifying medical expenses and subject to preferred tax treatment" for FSAs, HRAs and HSAs.
New Procedures:
Effective Jan. 16, 2011, in accordance with the guidance, the use of FSA and HRA debit cards to purchase OTC medications must comply with procedures reflecting those that pharmacies (as well as mail-order and web-based vendors) follow when selling prescribed medicines or drugs. These include requirements that:
• Prior to purchase, the prescription for the OTC medicine or drug is presented to the pharmacist or other authorized vendor.
• The OTC medicine or drug is dispensed in accordance with applicable law and regulations.
• The debit card system does not accept a charge for an OTC medicine or drug unless an Rx number has been assigned.
• The pharmacy or other vendor retains a record of the prescription number, the name of the purchaser (or the name of the person for whom the prescription applies), and the date and amount of the purchase.
• All of these records are available to the employer or its agent on request.
If all requirements are met, the debit card transaction will be considered fully substantiated at the time and point of sale.
In addition, the guidance clarifies that:
• The prescription requirement applies to OTC medicine and drug purchases made on or after Jan. 1, 2011, and not to purchases made in 2010 even if reimbursed after Dec. 31, 2010.(As noted above, Jan. 16, 2010 is the date on which FSA and HRA debit card over-the-counter purchases must comply with all point of sale substantiation procedures.)
• The requirement applies only to OTC medications. It does not apply to other health care expenses such as medical devices, eyeglasses and contact lenses.
The guidance does not address health savings account (HSA) debit cards, in part because FSA and HRA purchases must be substantiated at the point of sale while HSA purchases are self-substantiated, with documentation saved by the purchaser and presented in the event of an IRS audit; inappropriate or "nonqualified" HSA distributions would then be subject to income tax plus a 20 percent penalty.
However, the accompanying frequently asked questions issued by the IRS note that under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act "only prescribed medicines or drugs…and insulin (even if purchased without a prescription) will be considered qualifying medical expenses and subject to preferred tax treatment" for FSAs, HRAs and HSAs.
New Procedures:
Effective Jan. 16, 2011, in accordance with the guidance, the use of FSA and HRA debit cards to purchase OTC medications must comply with procedures reflecting those that pharmacies (as well as mail-order and web-based vendors) follow when selling prescribed medicines or drugs. These include requirements that:
• Prior to purchase, the prescription for the OTC medicine or drug is presented to the pharmacist or other authorized vendor.
• The OTC medicine or drug is dispensed in accordance with applicable law and regulations.
• The debit card system does not accept a charge for an OTC medicine or drug unless an Rx number has been assigned.
• The pharmacy or other vendor retains a record of the prescription number, the name of the purchaser (or the name of the person for whom the prescription applies), and the date and amount of the purchase.
• All of these records are available to the employer or its agent on request.
If all requirements are met, the debit card transaction will be considered fully substantiated at the time and point of sale.
In addition, the guidance clarifies that:
• The prescription requirement applies to OTC medicine and drug purchases made on or after Jan. 1, 2011, and not to purchases made in 2010 even if reimbursed after Dec. 31, 2010.(As noted above, Jan. 16, 2010 is the date on which FSA and HRA debit card over-the-counter purchases must comply with all point of sale substantiation procedures.)
• The requirement applies only to OTC medications. It does not apply to other health care expenses such as medical devices, eyeglasses and contact lenses.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
