leevena

A qualified transportation plan (Section 132) covers two types of expenses, parking and commuting. The parking can be either costs for parking near the employers place of work, or, parking at a location where you then use a train or bus to get to work. The commuting costs need to be "mass transit", such as a train. So in your situation, the person cannot claim the commuting costs, but could use the costs of the parking near the employer, if they are incurring this cost.

But we are not pronouncing the 'H', are we? Arent we saying "Ech SA"? yes, I contradicted myself in the earlier post, sorry.

Good point. Personally, I don't know what the rule is, which is why I went to the dictionary. Maybe I should have taken a real English course in high school instead of "Rock and Roll Poetry."

According to the American Heritage Dictionary, the definition of "an" is as follows: The form of "a" used before words beginning with a vowel or with an unpronounced h: an elephant; an hour. So, according to this definition, it would be "a HSA", since you are pronouncing the "H"

Sorry, but I am not saying that the company can pay for the owners and not the non-owners. It's a little more complicated than that. Acceptable classes include PT/FT, union/non-union, exempt/non-exempt, seasonal, different companies, but not owner/non-owner. Beyond that you can then add minimum amount of hours worked, such as 30 hours per week. From what you have written/asked, it sounds like you need to have professional help, either an attorney or benefits counselor to review all the particulars of the group(s) and what your objectives are for each. It should not be difficult to come up with a solution.

It is probably best to seperate the issues. Cafeteria plans (125 plans) are plans that allow for tax advantages. There are certain regulations that need to be followed for a 125 plan to be in compliance. So, to answer one of your questions, "Do the same rules apply to a welfare benefit plan NOT under a cafeteria plan?", the answer is no. Your second question, "May health insurance be offered only to certain individuals?", the answer is yes. A company could have employee classifications (Union/non-union as an example) and offer to one, but not the other. The key is you cannot discriminate within a classification. Your third question, "Can the employer pay different amounts to different employees within the company(ies)?", yes. Your fourth question, "Does the employer have to offer insurance to all employees if they are a part of a control group and/or affiliated service group?", the answer is no. With all that, keep in mind that the carrier may have specific rules that must be followed. Sometimes these will cause problems with the above mentioned rules. For example, what if you have a 15 life group, with two classifications of employees (9 in one, 6 in the other). The dental carrier you are looking at wants 10 enrolled as a minimum. If you only offer to one classification you will not get the min. needed.

I would answer no, that they are not subject to ERISA, but with a caution. I am not an attorney, I do not work with any govt entities, and I have not seen any announcement or document that makes it subject to ERISA.

I cannot say with any confidence whether you have a legal requirement, but I suspect you do. Legal issue aside, I would recommend that you notify everyone about this change. To begin with, this sounds like "bait and switch" for the employee who enrolled already believing unlimited benefit. Secondly, what does this say about the integrity of your company and the staff involved with the enrollment. And lastly, why in the world would you not want to give everyone the correct information?

Chloe...good point, I was not even thinking about the 125 issue. RandalThor...the solution you have come up with, transfer at later date, makes sense. Another thought, which I assume is going to be complex and maybe not worth it. HSA plans are not subject to ERISA (which is a complex set of laws, requirements, etc.) if a variety of requirements are met, such as the HSA is voluntary and the employer does not prevent the employee from moving their funds to another HSA or influence how the investment decisions are made. If you employer does put up some type of restrictions, they would become subject to ERISA. This is just a side note and should not influence your decision. I would go with the transfer into another account. By the way, the employer cannot tell you when you can make those transfers. You could transfer the money immediatly.

Maybe I am a little thick today, but I do not understand your question. Could you please provide more detail? The posting title indicates HSA distributions. But then you discuss "transfers" in two later sentences, which appears to be a feature of the HSA, but I have never heard of this. Sorry.

An HRA, or Health Reimbursement Arrangement, is an employer funded account that can be used by the employee/dependent to pay for eligible expenses. The money does not belong to the employee. So, with a cancellation, the funds belong to the employer. You are correct about cobra, it is not a required option.

You are allowed to set-up your own HSA account, and yes, the employer does need to contribute the same amount for you. As for your benefits department, that is your call. If you prove to them that you can open your own account, will this be a negative for you, or will they take it in stride?

Sorry about the confusion, but I too am a little confused by the whole thing. Our document is entitled "Stock Option Plan", with the following; Option Grant section, "an option to purchase, showing the number available, and the par value of $1.00. The Option Price is determined by bod as $0.05, Vesting being 18 mos for 50%, 36 mos for 100%. The special deal spoken about in the earlier post was that "each employee could give the company money ($0.05 x each share) and the vesting would then be 100%. Hope this helps.

Yes, we did have an attorney do the original work, but I do not know to what extent an attorney was used for the scenario described above. The president of the company is somewhat hardheaded and likes to do things his way, whether it is right or wrong. That aside, what else do you need to know to help clear up my posting?

I don't know if this is the correct place to ask, but I thought I would give it a try. It has to do with stock options being given to employees. We are trying to figure out if there is any liability on our part for a situation with an ex-employee. All of our employees receive stock options, with a vesting schedule. During a staff meeting (8 ee's) the President announced that the company would allow a one-time opportunity for ee's to pay $0.05 per share (value is $1.00) and have the shares vested immediatly. He stated that everyone would receive a letter shortly outlining the details of the offer, and that people would have 2 weeks from which to reply. An employee left (on good terms) and now claims that she never received the offer letter and has threatend legal action. As best as we can determine, it appears that she did not recieve the letter/offer. In discussing this internally, our president is essentially saying "too bad" for her. Some of us are concerned that there might be possible liability/risk on the organizations part. Any thoughts or comments? Thanks.

Because I contacted my union before taking the job and asked their advice on whether to do so or not. I was told by two different officials that I could take the job as long as I filled out a "T-2" contract (a travelling contract) that the union provided to me. I made it very clear that I did not want to take this job unless the union would accept the employers payments into my health and welfare and I was to pay my own pension. Again, I was told there would be no problem with this. Once I got to China, they backed down and said they couldn't accept these payments. Now I'm stuck in China in a job where I'm getting no health benefits and will probably lose my benefits for next year because I won't have enough paid into the fund. It's too late for me to quit this job and return home to find enough Union work to cover the health and welfare. They are NOW citing that because of the Taft-Hartley Law Section 302 (a), and Clause (5) (b), they cannot accept the employer payments. I looked up the Taft-Hartley text online and it's such legalize that I can't understand it. It SEEMS to me that it has to do with some kind of "payments" as opposed to contributions to my health and pension. Maybe that's semantics, I don't know. I'm just furious that the union gave me the go ahead, told me which form to have my employer fill out and then reneged on it all. I think they should be accountable for the advice they gave me in this situation. With all due respect, You post a question under the heading "Urgent Help Needed" a month ago. Two people reply, and now, thirty days later you reply. How urgent could it have been? Additionally, you state that "I think they should be accountable for the advice they gave me in this situation." How about your accountability? Did you not do your research ahead of time? Did you not ask your union for replies in writing? You further state that it's too late to quit now...why? Just quit and come home. Your comment about cobra cost being astronomical...get real. COBRA costs are the true cost, with a few percentages added for administration. I am sorry, but it sounds like you did not do your homework, nor the work needed to make sure you had the coverage needed, and you now want to blame someone else. You have got to be kidding me. You're reprimanding me now because while I was working my tail off to solve this I didn't post here? If you don't have any helpful answers, then don't answer. But to address your silly accusations: It's very urgent and remains so. Just because I wasn't here doesn't mean I wasn't working on it. I posted questions in many places and it took me a while, while working in China, to try and solve this, I've never stopped. Yes, as I already stated, I DID do my research ahead of time by contacting my union. I contacted two different officials in two different offices (New York and LA) and was told by both that there would be no problems and which contract to use. Getting advice from two different officials seemed at the time enough to cement the approval from the union. So I think I was fully accountable and did what I was supposed to do with my union to make sure I was doing it right. THEY dropped the ball and when they realized that they had given me erroneous information, they stopped talking all together. It's too late to quit because as a conductor/musician there's only so many jobs to go around. You can't just quit one, fly home and jump into another one. It doesn't work that way. I have to have health and welfare credits built up by Oct 1. It would have been impossible to find a start a job that quickly. Get REAL? Are you for real? the costs of cobra in comparison to what we pay now for my insurance are astronomical...almost 4 times what I pay now. I'm sorry for you, because one, you didn't read clearly what I was saying and instead got on your high horse of blame. Two I did what I was supposed to do. I contacted my union for permission which they gave me. I came here for help, not abuse from you. Sorry, I admit I may have come across a little harsh, but you are clearly trying to blame someone else for your errors, lack of understanding and lack of responsibility. I am sick and tired of hearing this type of sad story. 1. You post an "urgent request" and then come back 30 days later, which does not sound urgent to me. 2. You relied on responses from two different people, which is fine, but you don't get anything in writing on something this important. Sure they dropped they ball, but so did you by not getting it in writing. Ultimately it is your responsibility, not theirs. 3. As for the cobra costs, the cobra cost is only a few %'s higher than the actual cost. According to your reply you have been paying 1/4 of the true cost of the health insurance. If this is true, then congratulations, someone else has been paying the other 3/4 for you.

I do not know the particulars (I am in California) but your legislature has passed HB818 (Small Group Reform) which covers a variety of things, one being the it would require a POP plan be provided by the carrier in certain instances. The bill is being sent to the Gov for sign/veto.

Austin, I do not disagree with you in general. If you read my comments, I start by saying that there are various variations of this type of employee, and that you should read the contract between the physician and the leasing company. Our company, which is a new start-up, entered into a similar arrangement and leased employees. These employees are not ours, but belong to the leasing company.

If these employees are truly "leased", then they do not work for the physician. I say "truly leased" because there are variations to the level of services provided by these types of companies. Two easy ways to determine if these employees work for the physician or the leasing company is; 1) read the contract, or 2) check the employees payroll information. Leased employees will get their payroll, their W-2's, etc.

There is no requirement that the plan years match. Why do you believe this to be true? If you do want to make them all match, you would need to work with the carriers to change their plan years, which may or may not happen.

Because I contacted my union before taking the job and asked their advice on whether to do so or not. I was told by two different officials that I could take the job as long as I filled out a "T-2" contract (a travelling contract) that the union provided to me. I made it very clear that I did not want to take this job unless the union would accept the employers payments into my health and welfare and I was to pay my own pension. Again, I was told there would be no problem with this. Once I got to China, they backed down and said they couldn't accept these payments. Now I'm stuck in China in a job where I'm getting no health benefits and will probably lose my benefits for next year because I won't have enough paid into the fund. It's too late for me to quit this job and return home to find enough Union work to cover the health and welfare. They are NOW citing that because of the Taft-Hartley Law Section 302 (a), and Clause (5) (b), they cannot accept the employer payments. I looked up the Taft-Hartley text online and it's such legalize that I can't understand it. It SEEMS to me that it has to do with some kind of "payments" as opposed to contributions to my health and pension. Maybe that's semantics, I don't know. I'm just furious that the union gave me the go ahead, told me which form to have my employer fill out and then reneged on it all. I think they should be accountable for the advice they gave me in this situation. With all due respect, You post a question under the heading "Urgent Help Needed" a month ago. Two people reply, and now, thirty days later you reply. How urgent could it have been? Additionally, you state that "I think they should be accountable for the advice they gave me in this situation." How about your accountability? Did you not do your research ahead of time? Did you not ask your union for replies in writing? You further state that it's too late to quit now...why? Just quit and come home. Your comment about cobra cost being astronomical...get real. COBRA costs are the true cost, with a few percentages added for administration. I am sorry, but it sounds like you did not do your homework, nor the work needed to make sure you had the coverage needed, and you now want to blame someone else.

Jacmo...so if I understand this correctly, a group of 10 offers health insurance to the employees, one selects an HSA, the other select non-HSA. If the employer offers a $500 per year hsa contribution, the other 9 employees in the non-hsa option also get the $500 per year?

Jacmo--do you mean to say that the employer must see that every employee has an hsa, or that every employee is eligible for an hsa, and if elelects the hsa option, the employer could then contribute to the hsa.

Yes, the employer can do this, if there are two legitimate groups set-up by the employer, such as; union/non-union, management/non-management, etc. As for the taxation question, no there would be no tax consequence to the management staff. All contributions by the employer are tax free. You may have an issue with the carrier, but that is a different story.

But is the existence of insurance coverage really PHI? I've had the understanding that it's not. http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacysummary.pdf “Individually identifiable health information” is information, including demographic data, that relates to: • the individual’s past, present or future physical or mental health or condition, • the provision of health care to the individual, or • the past, present, or future payment for the provision of health care to the individual, and that identifies the individual or for which there is a reasonable basis to believe can be used to identify the individual. Existence of coverage does not give any indication to: physical condition, the actual provision of health care, or payment of claims for actual provision of health care. You are correct, the existence of insurance coverage is not PHI. Some of the information contained within that coverage (medical condition, name, etc.) is the PHI.