Search the News Archive

Galen Institute Testimony to House Oversight Subcommittee Hearing Examining the Use of Administrative Actions in the Implementation of the ACA

"The Galen Institute has been chronicling changes made to the Affordable Care Act since it was enacted in 2010, and we count at least 50 changes -- 31 of them made by the administration. In addition, there have been 17 changes passed by Congress and signed into law by President Obama, and two changes made by the Supreme Court.... [This testimony] will discuss [1] examples of actions by the administration that are clearly contrary to the statute; [2] failed and successful congressional actions to provide legal authority to changing the law; and [3] additional changes only now being uncovered."

The Challenges of Obamacare: Testimony of Galen Institute President to House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Health

"While I believe that the unlimited tax exclusion for employer-provided health insurance does need to be capped, the ACA does it in a way that exacerbates the distortions by taxing the insurance company providing the coverage. If employers had more flexibility in structuring their health benefits to accommodate a tax cap, they would be able to engage their employees as partners rather than adversaries in finding more affordable health insurance arrangements."

Testimony of Galen Institute to Joint Congressional Committee on the Employer Mandate: Examining the Delay and Its Effect on Workplaces (PDF)

"Certainly a decision with such significant implications should have been reviewed by those in the administration with responsibility for implementing the law to determine its legality, its implications on other provisions of the law, and its implications for businesses and their employees. Now, employers are more confused than ever about what their responsibilities and liabilities are during this period of 'transition relief' from the reporting requirements. Regulations explaining the details of this announcement are not expected until later this summer, adding further to the uncertainty in their attempts to comply with the law."

Galen Institute Comment Letter to HHS on Proposed Contraceptive Mandate Regs

"The attempt by this tortured regulation to find an accommodation to the coverage mandate shows the extraordinary difficulty -- indeed impossibility -- of attempting to go around the constitutionally-protected right to religious liberty. The only way to ensure that employers' rights are protected is to eliminate the underlying requirement that they provide contraceptive coverage. The exceptions contemplated by the [proposed regulations] are insufficient to counteract the intrusions on personal liberty created by the coverage mandate."

Comments of Galen Institute on Medical Loss Ratio Requirements

"The MLR rules as drafted discriminate against Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) and similar high-deductible health plans in a number of ways. These accounts provide employers, employees, and individuals with an option to purchase coverage with a larger deductible so that the polices function more like traditional 'insurance' -- covering medical expenses above a certain threshold.... The Galen Institute respectfully requests that HHS exempt HSAs and other high-deductible health plans from the MLR requirement[.]"

Opinion or Facts: Medicare Part D and Prescription Drug Prices

Excerpt: Competitive markets always do a better job of finding the price that works best for both buyers and sellers than government experts. This fact sheet was jointly prepared by health policy experts from the American Enterprise Institute, the Galen Institute, The Heritage Foundation, and the Institute for Research on the Economics of Taxation.

Text of Amici Curiae Brief on the Minimum Coverage Provision Issue in Support of Respondents

"Galen Institute, Angel Raich, Docs 4 Patient Care, the Benjamin Rush Society, and the Pacific Research Institute have filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court supporting the 11th Circuit's decision that the individual mandate contained in the health overhaul law is unconstitutional."

Innovation in the Health Care Sector Continues

"The Galen Institute held a conference ... in which speakers from more than a dozen companies described the investments they are making in better health, better health care services, and more efficient care delivery. They demonstrated that the best solutions to the problems in our health sector come not from remote Washington bureaucrats trying futilely to re-engineer our health sector through costly, cumbersome, and confusing rules and regulations, but from innovators who are listening to doctors, patients, and consumers."

Consumer Choice Health Care: Reports From the Field

Excerpt: The consumer choice health care movement is reaching its stride as the new products mature and reach further into the mainstream market. Early results are very encouraging. The vendors presenting at Galen's briefing all showed improvements in cost-containing activities by their enrollees and a new level of health care activism.

Technical Questions and Answers on SPARK Institute's 403(b) Plans Information Sharing -- Minimum and Comprehensive Data Elements, Updated December 1, 2008

"Following the release of Version 1.01 of The SPARK Institute's Information Sharing ?--Minimum and Comprehensive Data Elements ..., The SPARK Institute received a number of technical questions. The SPARK Institute has formed a standing panel, made up of representatives from various member companies that played a significant role in developing the Data Elements. The SPARK Institute and the panel reviewed the questions and developed answers which are posted below. This information is being made widely available in order to assist all others that are adhering to the Data Elements Best Practices. The SPARK Institute will maintain this site and update it periodically with answers to questions it receives."

Institutional Investors and Public Pension Funds Denounce SEC's Push for Forced Arbitration

"A coalition of more than 60 major institutional investors and pension systems, collectively managing trillions of dollars in direct assets and representing over $8 trillion globally through umbrella organizations and associations, released a letter this week strongly opposing the [SEC's] unprecedented policy reversal permitting companies to include forced arbitration provisions into their corporate charters and registration statements."

The HHS Contraceptives Mandate Isn't Fixed

"While the administration has expanded the definition of institutions that could qualify for a 'religious employer exemption,' the 'accommodation' is no different than the notice issued last year. The administration still intends to force health-insurance companies to provide the coverage."

Text of IRS Notice 2020-6: Financial Institutions Can Issue Corrected Statements by April 15 to IRA Owners Turning 70-1/2 in 2020 (PDF)

Under pre-amended law, by January 31, 2020, financial institutions acting as IRA trustees, custodians or issuers were required to provide a statement to IRA owners who will turn 70-1/2 in 2020 notifying them about the required minimum distribution (RMD) which would have been needed by April 1, 2021. Under the SECURE Act, the new required beginning date for an IRA owner is April 1 of the calendar year following the calendar year in which the individual attains age 72, not 70-1/2. Hence Notice 2020-6 clarifies that such a statement is no longer due by January 31, 2020 to persons who will attain age 70-1/2 in 2020. In recognition of the short amount of time after the enactment of the SECURE Act that financial institutions have had to change their systems for furnishing the RMD statement, Notice 2020-6 provides that if an RMD statement is (or already has been) provided for 2020 to an IRA owner who will attain age 70-1/2 in 2020, the IRS will not consider such statement to be incorrect, if the financial institution notifies the IRA owner no later than April 15, 2020, that no RMD is due for 2020. The guidance notes that the SECURE Act did not change the required beginning date for IRA owners who attained age 70-1/2 prior to January 1, 2020 and encourages (but does not require) these financial institutions to remind IRA owners who attained age 70-1/2 in 2019, and have not yet taken their 2019 RMDs, that they are still required to take those distributions by April 1, 2020. (Additional guidance is being considered with respect to the SECURE Act, including guidance for plan administrators, payors, and distributees if a distribution to a plan participant or IRA owner who will attain age 70-1/2 in 2020 was treated as an RMD.)

SPARK Institute Comments on Nevada's Proposed Regs (PDF)

14 pages. "[T]he SPARK Institute believes that the fiduciary standard of care applicable to retirement plans and their participants should be established at the federal level, not the state level.... Second, the SPARK Institute is very concerned that the proposed regulations' definition of 'Investment Advice' would inappropriately extend Nevada's fiduciary standard of care and disclosure obligations to cover a wide range of beneficial conversations that our members routinely have with their customers to educate them and encourage them to save for retirement."

Text of IRS Chief Counsel Memo 2017-18: Rollover of IRA Distributions from Failed Financial Institution (PDF)

"[An] IRA distribution made from a failed financial institution by the FDIC as receiver is disregarded for purposes of applying the one-rollover-per-year limitation, provided: [1] neither the failed financial institution nor the depositor initiated the distribution, and [2] no financial institution has assumed the IRAs of the failed financial institution."

Agencies Release New Proposed Rules for Incentive-Based Compensation at Financial Institutions

"The proposed rules replace the proposed rules issued by the agencies in 2011. The new rules will likely not be effective until at least January 2019 ... However, these rules introduce new concepts and rules that Covered Institutions should begin to address sooner, rather than later, to ensure compliance when the rules ultimately become effective.... Generally, the Proposed Rules prohibit Covered Institutions from providing incentive-based compensation arrangements that encourage inappropriate risk-taking by providing a Covered Person with excessive compensation, fees, or benefits; or that could lead to material financial loss to a Covered Institution."

Agencies Invite Comment on Proposed Rule to Prohibit Incentive-Based Pay That Encourages Inappropriate Risk-Taking in Financial Institutions

"Six federal agencies are inviting public comment on a proposed rule to prohibit incentive-based compensation arrangements that encourage inappropriate risks at covered financial institutions. The deadline for comments on the proposed rule ... is July 22, 2016.... Much of the proposed rules would address requirements for senior executive officers and employees who are significant risk-takers at Level 1 and Level 2 institutions. All institutions that would be covered by the proposed rules would be required to annually document the structure of incentive-based compensation arrangements and retain those records for seven years."

Institutionally Priced Retirement Income Solutions Deliver More Income (PDF)

"Plan sponsors can use their bargaining power, scale, ability to standardize, and distribution efficiency to improve the retirement security of plan participants by offering their retiring plan participants a limited selection of retirement income generators (RIGs) that take advantage of institutional pricing rather than retail pricing.... This article examines three RIGs that can be offered in employer-sponsored DC plans: systematic withdrawals, immediate annuities, and guaranteed lifetime withdrawal benefits (GLWB, which are also known as guaranteed minimum withdrawal benefits, or GMWB).... [The authors] compare how each RIG performs assuming institutional pricing typically available within a DC plan relative to retail pricing typically available outside a DC plan."

History of the Employee Benefit Research Institute, Part 1 (PDF)

"This is the first part of a history of the Employee Benefit Research Institute (EBRI), which the EBRI board has asked Dallas Salisbury to fully document between now and his move from EBRI President (after 37 years in that position) to EBRI President Emeritus in 2016.... EBRI opened its doors on December 4, 1978. The Institute's early work supported the 1978 President's Commission on Pension Policy, which generated visibility for both retirement issues and EBRI and led to an expansion of EBRI's membership and horizons."

Text of Testimony of Urban Institute to House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Social Security: 'What Every Worker Needs to Know About an Unreformed Social Security System' (PDF)

"In this testimony before the House Ways and Means Committee Subcommittee on Social Security, Eugene Steuerle, Institute Fellow and Richard B. Fisher Chair at the Urban Institute discusses the fairness, efficiency and adequacy questions that arise almost no matter how much growth Congress maintains in Social Security. In particular he addresses three troubling aspects of an otherwise successful program: unequal justice; middle age retirement; and impact on the young."