Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Moosepoop

(2,075 posts)
37. Yes, the WSJ is full of shit.
Wed May 22, 2013, 01:48 PM
May 2013
http://www.jonesday.com/affordable_care_act/


The Affordable Care Act at 2½—What Employers Should Expect Now
August 2012


<snip>

III. THE MANDATES FOR LARGE EMPLOYERS

A. "Play or Pay" Mandate

Effective January 1, 2014, the ACA will generally require all employers who employed an average of at least 50 "full-time equivalent" employees during the prior calendar year (which the ACA defines for this purpose as a "Large Employer&quot to either offer health insurance coverage constituting "minimum essential coverage" to full-time employees and their dependents[8] or potentially be subject to a tax equal to $2,000 annually ($166.67 per month) for each full-time employee of the employer in excess of 30 employees. (Code § 4980H(a), (c)(1)). For these purposes, an employer is defined by the controlled group rules of Code section 414. The term "minimum essential coverage" does not require the employer to provide certain types of coverage or maintain certain cost-sharing limits, such as would apply to an "essential health benefits" plan eligible for certification by an Exchange as a "qualified health plan." Minimum essential coverage merely needs to be a group health plan (as defined in Section IV.A.1. below) offered by an employer. (Code § 5000A(f) (defining "minimum essential coverage&quot ). That being said, there are numerous requirements that independently apply to such coverage. The ones added by the ACA are described in Section IV below.


IV. HEALTH BENEFIT-RELATED MANDATES

The ACA imposes a variety of requirements on both "group health plans" and "health insurance issuers." These new requirements include rules governing who must be afforded coverage by such plans and insurers, what types of services must be covered, cost-sharing rules governing such coverage, and what coverage limitations can be imposed. Some of the new requirements build on an existing regulatory scheme first established under HIPAA. Others are added separately. The various requirements apply to different health coverages and have different penalties. Below is a discussion of the rules for certain of the requirements, which are mandates added by the ACA to the HIPAA scheme (herein, the "ACA Coverage Mandates&quot , followed by a list of the various requirements in chronological order by effective date.

A. ACA Coverage Mandates

The HIPAA regulatory scheme is found in the Public Health Service Act ("PHSA&quot , ERISA, and the Code. Some of the new requirements are added to the PHSA and are incorporated into ERISA and the Code by reference through ERISA section 715 and Code section 9815. It is important to understand the forms of employer-provided arrangements to which these mandates apply.

1. Health Benefits Subject to the ACA Coverage Mandates

The term "group health plan" is not defined in the ACA, but it is defined under the earlier HIPAA rules that are incorporated in ERISA, the Code, and the PHSA, and accordingly such definition will govern for ACA purposes. A group health plan is defined to mean "an employee welfare benefit plan … to the extent that the plan provides medical care … to employees or their dependents … directly or through insurance, reimbursement or otherwise." (PHSA § 2791(a)). An employee welfare benefit plan, in turn, means an insured or self-insured health arrangement sponsored or maintained by an employer or union (or both) for employees. (ERISA § 3(1). As such, by imposing new requirements on "group health plans," the ACA effectively imposes them on virtually all employer-provided health benefit arrangements for employees. Furthermore, the term "health insurance issuer" is defined to mean an "insurance company, insurance service, or insurance organization … licensed to engage in the business of insurance in a State and which is subject to State law …." (PHSA § 2791(b)). Thus, the ACA, by also imposing its coverage mandates on health insurance issuers, has effectively imposed mandates on virtually all individual and group insurance market policies.



There may be insurance brokers peddling the cheap, worthless policies to large employers, but if the large employers buy those policies instead of the ones they're required to offer their employees they're going to wind up in a mess, and probably the brokers will, too. It would serve them all right.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

ACA: clusterfuck. KG May 2013 #1
Unless a few states can use its provisions to establish local single payer eridani May 2013 #2
It's praised by many still Puzzledtraveller May 2013 #11
ACA will enable me to retire early without worrying about "medical coverage" Kolesar May 2013 #35
Your opinion about how good that insurance will be is worth about what your opinion-- eridani May 2013 #45
Why? eom Kolesar May 2013 #46
I take it you have a plan of action ready for when your claims get turned down? eridani May 2013 #48
Nah, I'm still going to quit my job and spend my time on DU blogging with these exciting people Kolesar May 2013 #49
"If after internal appeal the plan still denies your request for payment or services, you can ask-- eridani May 2013 #53
This part is scary: Ilsa May 2013 #3
who could have predicted? Enrique May 2013 #5
Oh my, this is so true! How could we have possibly forseen this? It's mystifying! Safetykitten May 2013 #17
Oh brother. City Lights May 2013 #47
"Administration officials confirmed in interviews that the skinny plans, in concept . . . " DrDan May 2013 #4
Still better than what the employees have now.. Bandit May 2013 #6
but they will be uninsured Enrique May 2013 #7
They are uninsured right now Bandit May 2013 #13
No one goes bankrupt over a doctor's office bill. They go Ilsa May 2013 #21
And for want of a copay for an office visit, many don't go to the doctor either. So there you have Safetykitten May 2013 #28
Yes, the insurance needs to be comprehensive Ilsa May 2013 #36
Most of these employers will probably go for the high deductible aka "Consumer Driven" plans dflprincess May 2013 #41
How? An insurance policy that doesn't pay for the insured is just extortion. n/t Egalitarian Thug May 2013 #9
It is extortion if they make employees pay the bill Bandit May 2013 #14
you are making the incorrect assumption that employees of these large corporations are uninsured DrDan May 2013 #16
Legally required. You wrote the problem of this whole train wreck in your reply. Egalitarian Thug May 2013 #20
huh? how is that? DrDan May 2013 #15
Uh, in case you forgot 800,000 about work for WALMART. Safetykitten May 2013 #22
uh . . . and many many more work for IBM, AT&T, GM, etc etc etc DrDan May 2013 #31
We should call them Baucus policies, in "honor" of Max's great service to Zorra May 2013 #8
Perhaps our elected representatives.... Flyboy_451 May 2013 #10
The WSJ ProSense May 2013 #12
And like clockwork... Safetykitten May 2013 #18
Here: ProSense May 2013 #23
Sure, using people as time buyers for what should of been is quite classy. Safetykitten May 2013 #24
Is that supposed to be a sentence? eom Kolesar May 2013 #38
What if paying the fine is cheaper than going along with the plan? nt clarice May 2013 #34
Yes, the WSJ is full of shit. Moosepoop May 2013 #37
Don't Be So Sure..... ill wind May 2013 #42
Welcome to DU my friend! hrmjustin May 2013 #44
Well, let's see...nation's largest employer is Walmart, and...oh, nevermind. Safetykitten May 2013 #19
Wow. That basically amounts to NO coverage. WinkyDink May 2013 #25
Yes, this fact is lost on many. Safetykitten May 2013 #26
thats why my employer just cut our coverage to bare bones, $2500 out of pocket before they pick up Demonaut May 2013 #27
seriously. use the er for service, buy pet store antibiotics. crash the system. its gonna happen galileoreloaded May 2013 #29
Well this will upset the worshippers. n/t L0oniX May 2013 #30
This is just the tasty party snacks part, The full course nightmare is being heated up as we speak. Safetykitten May 2013 #32
HAHA Puzzledtraveller May 2013 #43
Dude, you're on the wrong thread! Kolesar May 2013 #50
Obamacare: Tastes great! Less filling. Or, Obama DOESN'T really care. MotherPetrie May 2013 #33
K&R woo me with science May 2013 #39
kick woo me with science May 2013 #40
Time for single payer and to eliminate ties with the job on point May 2013 #51
and you won't be eligible for subsidies from the exchange because you will have "affordable" antigop May 2013 #52
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Employers Eye Bare-Bones ...»Reply #37