Guest BeneGal Posted March 10, 2003 Posted March 10, 2003 In setting up an HRA with a health plan ($2000 deductible) we want to know if the following two scenarios are acceptable. 1. Set up the HRA for $1000 but it can only begin paying after the employee has expensed THEIR $1000 toward the $2000 deductible. The ee would have to show proof of the first $1000 being applied to their deductible then, claims after that could be submitted for reimbursement up to the $1000 HRA amount. 2. Set up the HRA to pay 50% of the employee's deductible which would again be $1000 but pay it out 50% at a time meaning... ee sends a claim for $300 the HRA reimburses $150 of that and the HRA keeps reimbursing 50% of all claims submitted until it pays out a total of $1000. Can an HRA be set up with these stipulations? Is it violating anything? Seems that in both cases the HRA is still making available the $1000 it is designed to provide (in this case). :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:
Guest Rae Posey Posted April 1, 2003 Posted April 1, 2003 Two questions... why does your plan have such a large deductible, and what entity is administering your HRA plan? In other words, are you locked in to the $2,000 deductible HRA plan? Although either of your suggestions should probably be ok, this can be done in a much more simple way.
GBurns Posted April 1, 2003 Posted April 1, 2003 From what you have posted I understand that there will only be reimbursement for expenses (from the employer) up to $1,000. I understand this to mean that if the employee has only $1,200 in expenses for the year, the employer would only reimburse $1,200 - 1,000 or $200. If this is so, Why do you need an HRA instead of a standard 105 MERP? The only purpose of a HRA is to allow the rollover of unused employer contributions. In your illustration there will be no unused contributions because there is no pre-funding only reimbursement of expenses. George D. Burns Cost Reduction Strategies Burns and Associates, Inc www.costreductionstrategies.com(under construction) www.employeebenefitsstrategies.com(under construction)
Ron Snyder Posted April 2, 2003 Posted April 2, 2003 Each of the provisions you describe could be done legally, but I have to endorse the comment of GBurns: This could be done without an HRA and you evidence no intent to have funds roll over from year to year.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now