lvena

Should not because it appears that the HRA you are considering is a stand-alone and not integrated into the health plan.

Chaz is correct. I would question the effectiveness of this program. The idea that someone would visit a nurse practitioner for a well visit strikes me as a win for the NP (income)and a lose for the employee. What would the NP do, a check-up? To what end? The chance of finding something is very slim. Seems to me that if the employer wanted to provide something of value, this would not be the way to go. Perhaps he should consider another benefit, such as dental, life, DI, etc.

See IRS Notice 2013-54 for the details. It can, but has restrictions.

The non-discrimination rules, which many believed would follow the self-insured non-discrimination rules, were never issued. However, there were rules released as it pertains to non-discrimination of groups of people, such as genetics, LBGT etc. Hope this helps.

Yes. To me she is saying that the medical eligibility and the fsa eligibility are the same, which is usual.

Lou S is correct, what is the eligibility definition in the SPD? Usually the definition is 30+ hours. If so, and if the employer would like to allow for 20+, the plan sponsor will need to amend the SPD.

Change in Status 26 CFR §1.125-4©(1)(i) See above.

With all due respect, I believe you are incorrect. Please provide back-up references to your statements. To begin with, a change in number of employee's dependents (birth, adoption, or placement for adoption)is a qualifying event that may allow an employee to change their elections mid-year. Additionally, your statement "and whatever the plan says or doesn't say you need to interpret it with the limitations in those regulations in mind." is also incorrect. While the IRS does not require mid-year election changes, sponsors are allowed to adopt plan provisions that do allow these changes.

QDROphile is correct, you need to review the 125 plan spd to determine which changes are allowed and which changes are not allowed. However, you may have a bigger issue here, that of what the carrier will allow. Check with the health plan spd/plan documents and with the carrier also. The employee may need to wait till OE.

Maybe I am wrong, but I assumed that the coverage offered satisfied both the affordability and MV. So if the employee was offered affordable and MV coverage on 1/1 and turned it down, the employer cannot be penalized.

I believe you may be confused on the penalty issue, (The rule is quite clear that coverage must be offered to the formerly part-time now full-time employee by the end of the required period (to paraphrase) in order to avoid a penalty) because the penalty is applicable if someone from the group obtains a credit via the exchange. It is possible, though not probably, that an employer could offer a plan of benefits that is not affordable nor meets minimum value and not get fined. If no one obtains the credit, than the employer is ok. That being said, and I am not an attorney, but I believe the employer is ok because they offered the plan to the employee before they were required to offer.

Sorry, but a little confused. If the employee has been offered coverage already because of the 20-hour minimum for coverage, why is there any concern? What am I missing?

thanks so much.

Here you go. https://www.dol.gov/general/topic/health-plans/planinformation

I am not an expert on this matter, but something did jump out at me. I thought all FSA's could only be funded with employee monies? If that is the case, how can the HRA monies be used? My vote would be a 1/2 of no.