Leaderboard

We just recently got a helpful technical clarification post from CMS that addresses the issue: https://www.cms.gov/healthplan-price-transparency/resources/technical-clarification Technical Clarification Questions and Answers Question #37: May a group health plan that does not have its own website satisfy the requirements of the TiC Final Rules with respect to posting the Allowed Amount file and the In-network Rate file on a public website of the plan, if the plan’s service provider posts the Allowed Amount file and the In-network rate file on its public website on behalf of the group health plan?(New 6/17/22) Answer #37: If a group health plan does not have a public website, the plan may satisfy the requirements for posting the Allowed Amount file and the In-Network file by entering into a written agreement under which a service provider (such as a TPA) posts the Allowed Amount file and the In-network Rate file on its public website on behalf of the plan. However, if a plan enters into an agreement under which a service provider agrees to post the Allowed Amount file and the In-network Rate file on its public website on behalf of the plan, and the service provider fails to do so, the plan violates these disclosure requirements. The Departments intend to follow up with the issuance of formal guidance soon.

As long as you are consistent and do a final true up at year end, I don't see a problem with doing it through out the year other than it could be more complicated and more chance for potential errors.

<<if a contribution is made by the due date of the 9/30/2021 Form 5500 - 7/15/2022 - and we therefore show this as applying to the PYE 9/30/2021,>> I don't think a contribution made in July 2022 can be reported anywhere on the Form 5500 (or Schedule SB) for the plan year ending 9/30/2021. Contribution must be made by June 15, 2022 to be included in the financial reporting of the Form 5500. .... Jeff

Yes

ERISA 3(14)(H) would include any employee of the plan sponsor as a party-in-interest. Perhaps the intent of the plan language is that the prohibited transaction exemption for participant loans should continue to apply to a terminated participant who is no longer an employee but who continues loan repayments after termination (assuming the plan so allows).

Although the 408b-2 rule allows a standing disclosure until there is a change, some service providers make one's own business decision to furnish a yearly disclosure even when nothing changes.

True, 408b2 is not typically an annual disclosure.

That happens often - clients want to pay the match through the payroll service provided as the year goes along and the the TPA does a true-up because plan says it's an annual match. I dont' think it's possible to have provided too much match on a payroll basis. The result is always to give more to some - who reach 402g limit early, make changes during the year, etc.

Absolutely cannot add a last day requirement for 2022 as every person in the plan has already satisfied the requirement for a discretionary true-up match for 2022 if one gets made. The exception, you could amend to include a last day requirement for 2022 for anyone who enters the plan (plan entry date, not deferral start date) after the later of the amendment's effective date or adoption date. So if plan entry is monthly and the plan was amended this month, you could impose a last day requirement for people entering the plan on or after 8/1/2022. Of course, this assumes your plan is not a safe harbor. If plan entry is dual then you're stuck until 2023.

I think that cite is in the context of the prohibited transaction exemption for participant loans but I would be surprised if it can be also properly construed to mean the person is considered an ongoing employee for purposes of avoiding an accelerated loan payoff due date or, absent repayment, loan default. Probably not a can of worms they want to open, especially if making due and payable now, but I don't know if I'd sleep easy on this unless ERISA counsel had already opined, IMHO.

I read it to say that employers without a public website for the group health plan may satisfy the disclosure requirements by entering into a written agreement with the TPA to post the files on the TPA’s public website on behalf of the plan. More guidance to come, but that's at least addressing the biggest gap in the guidance previously. The files are for machines to read, so I wouldn't include them in the SPD. It's a way for big data orgs to mine for info on pricing structures that have previously been proprietary. It's not a employee tool. That one comes later starting in '23.

Based on what you presented, I would say yes. I am curious about that language as it would appear to discriminate in favor of trustees who are often HCEs.

I've seen this done many times. Like the original poster, it feels sloppy to fund a contribution sooner than required by the plan document, but the practice probably does not violate what the plan document says.

I agree that it would be an invalid retroactive cutback to add a last day of the plan year condition to the true-up match for the current plan year.

Read Brian Gilmore’s article, which sets out a great logic path for an employer that administers its “self-insured” group health plan. To that article’s smart ordering, I might add another possibility: An internet site designed for much of the content to be “behind the password” might also have some webpages that are deliberately “in front of the password”. For example, a website’s landing page might include hyperlinks to publicly available webpages, which would present or link to information the employer/administrator allows anyone to see with no password or other identifier. Some retirement plans I advise use this format.

I think if participants terminated in 2022 before the adoption of the amendment (regardless of effective date), they are entitled to the true-up match since they met the allocation requirements (none) before they terminated.

The rules on this are unclear at best in my opinion. You may have already read these, but a few helpful articles discussing the lack of clarity in whether/how to link from the employer's public website. (Note that the final regulations place the obligation on the plan, not the employer as plan sponsor.) https://aleragroup.com/news/legal-alert-deadline-to-publish-certain-machine-readable-files-pursuant-to-final-cms-transparency-fast-approaching-03242022/ https://www.newfront.com/blog/where-will-employers-post-links-to-tic-machine-readable-files The second is from Brian Gilmore, who I know is active on here, so maybe he will weigh in. From my reading, and as noted in the first article, the commonly quoted public-website link language is found only in a specific section of the regulations dealing with an aggregated out-of-network "allowed amount" file. I don't read it as a general requirement for every plan (or every employer). The communications from carriers to plan sponsors that I've seen generally have requested links on employer websites under all circumstances, even for fully insured plans, which I think is overbroad. Not sure you're going to find a perfectly clear answer.

Omitting a 404a-5 disclosure presumes that a defined-benefit plan does not provide participant-directed investment.

Yes on 408b2 (service provider contract with sponsor), no on 404a5 (individual expenses against a participant's balance)

In general I distrust union multiemployer arrangements, but most of that is centered on the DB side and the draconian treatment towards the participating employers. Here, I don't have a specific objection; except to question the union motives, retain this option as a future bargaining chip, and/or squeeze some other concession out of them. Otherwise, I would look at them as any other investment provider and apply the regular fiduciary review process; investment choices, fees, participant access, etc. Also, I would do a 180 review, and judge in what position the loss of those assets will leave the transferor Plan?

See IRC 410(a)(3)(A) and Treas. Reg. 1.410(a)-3(e), Example 3.