Blog Home

Author Archive




Implementing Health Reform: The Qualified Health Plan Federal Exchange Participation Agreement And More


October 21st, 2014

CMS continues to put the pieces into place that are needed for the launch of the 2015 coverage year.  On October 16, 2014, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services released at its REGTAP.info website the certification agreement and privacy and security agreement that qualified health plan (QHP) insurers must sign with CMS to access the federally facilitated exchange (FFE), the federally facilitated SHOP (FF-SHOP), and CMS Data Services Hub.  The agreement focuses primarily on obligations that the QHP insurer undertakes to protect personally identifiable information and to ensure secure communications with CMS, although it also addresses the effective date and termination of the agreement and a few other issues.  Most of the terms of the agreement are unremarkable, and this post will only comment on a few.

QHP insurers undertake under the agreement to protect personally identifiable information and to ensure secure communications with CMS in conformity with applicable laws, regulations, and standards.  They must also ensure that their contractors and downstream entities comply with these requirements.  QHP insurers agree to report any personally identifiable information incidents or breaches to CMS within 72 to 96 hours.  This is a far cry from the one-hour breach reporting requirement proposed by CMS last year but never finalized, but perhaps recognizes the difficult of identifying and assessing a security breach.

The agreement expressly recognizes that QHP insurers have developed their products based on the assumption that advance premium tax credits and cost-sharing reduction payments will be available through the marketplace and that QHP insurers could have cause to terminate the agreement if this assumption ceases to be valid.  This could be interpreted as a reference to the Halbig/King litigation which currently threatens the availability of tax credits and cost-sharing reduction payments through the FFE, but could also have been included in recognition of the likely Republican takeover of the Senate and the possibility that the Republicans may accomplish through budget reconciliation or otherwise their longstanding goal of repealing the ACA.  As the agreement is renewable from year to year, this clause may contemplate contingencies in the indefinite as well as the near future

Read the rest of this entry »

Implementing Health Reform: Renewing Coverage For 2015


October 16th, 2014

On October 15, 2014, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) announced, with a month to go before the 2015 open enrollment begins on November 15, that it is beginning to send out notices to enrollees in the federally facilitated marketplace (FFM), explaining to them how to renew their coverage for 2015.

CMS is urging consumers to come back to the marketplace as it opens on November 15 to update their 2015 application and to make sure they are enrolled in the qualified health plan (QHP) that best meets their financial situation and health needs for 2015. The procedure outlined in the announcement is that set out in the FFM redetermination guidance issued in June. State-operated exchanges are also, presumably, beginning to inform their enrollees regarding their own 2015 redetermination processes.

Redetermination Notice

FFM Consumers will receive one of six notices. Consumers who visited the marketplace in 2014 and were determined eligible for coverage but who did not enroll, are being sent a notice urging them to return to the marketplace and enroll when the open enrollment period begins. Consumers who enrolled for 2014 but have not been receiving tax credits either because they were not eligible, did not apply, or were determined eligible for tax credits but declined assistance, are urged to return to the marketplace and reenroll in coverage.

Read the rest of this entry »

Implementing Health Reform: Reference Pricing And Network Adequacy


October 12th, 2014

On October 10, 2014, the Departments of Labor, Treasury, and Health and Human Services issued a frequently asked question (FAQ) regarding the use of reference-based pricing in non-grandfathered large group employer plans.  Although the issue the FAQ addresses specifically is the use of reference pricing, the FAQ is remarkable insofar as it is the first departmental guidance that I am aware of that addresses the use of networks by self-insured ERISA plans.

Network adequacy is an issue that has long been addressed in the nongroup and insured group market in many states by state insurance law.  The ACA also requires qualified health plans, and arguably any individual and small group plan subject to the essential health benefits requirements, to have adequate provider networks.  Special rules implementing ACA section 2719A of the ACA limit cost-sharing for out-of-network coverage for emergency services.

The departments also stated in an earlier FAQ that cost sharing cannot be applied by any non-grandfathered health plan for preventive services provided by out-of-network providers if the services are not available in network.   But I am unaware of the departments otherwise attempting previously to regulate group health plan network requirements, at least under the ACA.

Read the rest of this entry »

Implementing Health Reform: Judge Rules Against Premium Tax Credits In ACA Federal Exchanges (Updated)


September 30th, 2014

On September 30, 2014, Judge Ronald White of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma decided in Pruitt v. Burwell and Lew that the Affordable Care Act does not authorize the federally exchanges to issue premium tax credits.  He held that the Internal Revenue Service rule that provided the contrary is invalid.  Judge White’s decision followed the opinion of the majority of a panel of the District of Columbia circuit’s decision in Halbig v. Burwell, although the judgment in that case has been vacated pending a rehearing of the case by the full D.C. Circuit.  His decision was contrary to the decision of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals upholding the IRS rule in King v. Burwell.  The district courts in both Halbig and King had upheld the IRS rule.

The Pruitt case has a long and circuitous history.  It was originally filed by Oklahoma attorney general Scott Pruitt in 2011 as an individual mandate challenge.  After the Supreme Court upheld the individual mandate in 2012, Attorney General Pruitt amended his complaint to instead challenge the ability of the federally facilitated exchanges to issue premium tax credits.  In an earlier ruling, Judge White refused to allow Oklahoma to sue on its own behalf as a state (a ruling that Judge White did not change in this decision), but concluded that it might have standing to proceed as a large employer.

In his September 30 ruling, Judge White concluded that Oklahoma did in fact have standing to sue as a large employer.  Under the ACA’s employer responsibility provisions, a large employer that does not offer its employees affordable and adequate coverage can be subject to a tax penalty if one or more of its employees receives premium tax credits through the exchange.  If the federally facilitated exchange, which is the ACA exchange in Oklahoma, is unable to grant premium tax credits, Oklahoma, which is a large employer, cannot be subject to a penalty if it fails to offer coverage to its employees.

Read the rest of this entry »

Implementing Health Reform: Excepted Benefits Final Rule


September 29th, 2014

Congress adopted Title I of the Affordable Care Act to increase access to health coverage for individuals by reforming employer group health coverage and health insurance offered to individuals and groups, requiring large employers to offer their employees affordable minimum health coverage or pay a penalty, imposing a penalty on individuals who can afford health coverage but fail to obtain it, and offering advance premium tax credits through the exchanges to individuals who cannot otherwise afford to purchase health coverage.

Coverage has long been available both through groups and for individuals that provides some health-related benefits but is neither a group health plan nor insured health coverage, as those terms are defined in the ACA.  These benefits were originally labeled by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) of 1996 as “excepted benefits,” because they are excepted from the forms of benefits regulated initially by HIPAA and now by the ACA.

On September 26, 2014 the Internal Revenue Service, Department of Labor, and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (“the agencies”) issued regulations expanding access to excepted benefits through insured and self-insured groups.

Read the rest of this entry »

Implementing Health Reform: Complicated ACA Tax Forms Could Cause Problems


September 21st, 2014

In a few months, millions of Americans will be filing either form 8962 to reconcile the advance premium tax credit they received with the tax credit they were actually due, or form 8965 because they owe a tax under the shared responsibility (individual mandate) provision of the Affordable Care Act or claim an exemption from that requirement.

By the close of open enrollment in April, 6.7 million Americans had chosen a qualified health plan with premium tax credits,  and many more have since enrolled in a QHP through a special enrollment period and received tax credits.  Each of them will need to file a form 8962.  The Congressional Budget Office estimates that 30 million Americans are potentially subject to the shared responsibility requirement, and that 23 million of them may qualify for an exemption.  The 7 million individuals who owe the penalty will have to file a form 8965, as will most of the 23 million who claim an exemption.

On September 15, 2014 the Internal Revenue Service released draft instructions for form 8965.  On September 17, 2014, the IRS released draft instructions for form 8962.  It is difficult to overstate how complicated these instructions are.  The tax credit and individual responsibility provisions of the ACA were complicated to begin with, but have become ever more complex as new exceptions and special rules have been created as implementation of the legislation has proceeded.  Many of the mostly low income Americans who will be completing these forms are marginally literate, at least in English, and have been accustomed to filing very simple tax forms like the 1040-EZ (which cannot be used by an individual claiming a tax credit) or perhaps not to filing taxes at all.  They are likely to be confused, frustrated, even angry, and certainly bewildered, completing these forms.  It is to be hoped that most of them will be assisted by well-trained tax preparers.

Read the rest of this entry »

Implementing Health Reform: Resolving Income-Related Data Inconsistencies (Updated)


September 16th, 2014

On September 15, 2014, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) announced a second deadline in its efforts to resolve data inconsistencies remaining from the 2014 open enrollment period.  This second deadline is for the submission of documentation to resolve income inconsistencies for exchange enrollees.  The first deadline was announced in August, when CMS sent final letters to about 310,000 federal marketplace (exchange) enrollees whose enrollments raised citizenship or legal-immigrant status issues, informing them that they must provide verification documents by September 5 or be terminated from coverage as of September 30.

CMS received hundreds of thousands of documents in response to the August request, reducing the number of individuals with citizenship and immigration data-matching issues from 966,000 as of May 31 to 115,000 as of September 14.  These individuals will be terminated as of September 30, 2014, but under the revised bulletin 11, they will be reinstated retroactively if they subsequently produce the documents needed to verify their citizenship or legal alien status. They may also purchase insurance outside the exchange.  Insurers are legally required to offer coverage to individuals who reside in their service area, regardless of citizenship or alien status.

Under the procedure announced on September 15, CMS is sending final notices to individuals enrolled through the federally facilitated exchange who still have income-related data-matching issues, informing them that they must send required information to verify their income as of September 30, 2014 or their premium tax credits and cost-sharing reduction payments will be modified to reflect information reflected in data sources otherwise available to CMS.  For example, if an enrollee’s 2012 tax return reported income higher than that reported by the enrollee on his or her application for advance premium tax credits and cost-sharing assistance, and the enrollee failed to provide verification of the claimed income, the enrollee’s premium tax credits and cost-sharing reduction payments would be modified as of November 1 in accordance with the income reflected in the tax return.

Read the rest of this entry »

Implementing Health Reform: Medicaid Eligibility, 2015 Navigator Grants, And FAQs (Updated)


September 8th, 2014

The decision of the full D.C. Circuit to review the panel decision in Halbig v. Burwell en banc was clearly the big Affordable Care Act (ACA) court decision of the first week in September, but a September 2 decision of the federal district court of the Middle District of Tennessee, Gordon v. Wilson, is also worthy of note.

The Medicaid law has long required state Medicaid programs to determine eligibility for Medicaid with “reasonable promptness,” defined by the regulations to mean within 90 days for applicants with disabilities and 45 days for everyone else. Applicants whose applications are not determined reasonably promptly are entitled by the Medicaid law and by the Due Process Clause of the Constitution to a fair hearing.

Medicaid Eligibility and Tennessee

Tennessee, like all states, was required by the ACA to begin calculating Medicaid eligibility for most recipients using modified adjusted gross income, or MAGI as of January 1, 2014. Tennessee attempted to establish a new computer system for doing this, but when it was not ready by January 1, Tennessee asked the federal exchange to determine Medicaid eligibility until it could get its system operational.

Read the rest of this entry »

Implementing Health Reform: DC Circuit Vacates Halbig Judgement, Grants Rehearing


September 5th, 2014

On September 4, 2014, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia granted a request by the government for a rehearing en banc (by the full court) in Halbig v. Burwell.  A divided three judge panel in the Halbig case had held on July 22, 2014 that an Internal Revenue Service rule allowing federally facilitated exchanges to grant premium tax credits was invalid. The D.C. Circuit’s decision to hear the case en banc vacated the panel’s judgement.

On the same day the Halbig panel decision was released, a three-judge panel of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia, had unanimously upheld the rule.  The conflicting decisions resulted in dueling petitions for review.  The plaintiffs in the King case petitioned the Supreme Court for certiorari, asking the Court to reverse the Fourth Circuit decision and hold the IRS rule invalid.  The government, on the other hand, petitioned the D.C. Circuit for a rehearing en banc.

Read the rest of this entry »

Implementing Health Reform: Exchange Eligibility Redeterminations Final Rule


September 3rd, 2014

On September 2, 2014, as Americans returned to their labors following the Labor Day holiday, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) released its Annual Eligibility Redeterminations for Exchange Participation and Insurance Affordability Programs final rule, the last rule that had to be in place for the 2015 open enrollment period. HHS also released a fact sheet describing the rule and forms for insurers to use when discontinuing or renewing an insurance product.

The rule finalizes a proposed rule issued in June, which I also analyzed on Health Affairs Blog. The proposed rule was accompanied by a guidance describing how the federally facilitated marketplaces (FFMs) intended to handle the 2015 redetermination process. That guidance is unchanged by the final rule.

Indeed, virtually nothing in the proposed rule is changed by the final rule. The preface to the rule offers some additional explanation of the reenrollment and redetermination process in response to the 36 comments received on the proposed rule, but virtually no changes were made other than minor wording changes.

Read the rest of this entry »

Transcending Obamacare? Analyzing Avik Roy’s ACA Replacement Plan


September 2nd, 2014

Avik Roy’s proposal, “Transcending Obamacare,” is the latest and most thoroughly developed conservative alternative for reforming the American health care system in the wake of the Affordable Care Act. It is a serious proposal, and it deserves to be taken seriously.

Roy’s proposal is a curious combination of conservative nostrums (limiting recoveries for victims of malpractice), progressive goals (eliminating health status underwriting, providing subsidies for low-income Americans), and common sense proposals (enacting a uniform annual deductible for Medicare).

Most importantly, however, Roy proposes that conservatives move on from a single-minded focus on repealing the ACA toward building upon the ACA to accomplish their policy goals. He supports repealing certain features of the ACA—including the individual and employer mandate—but would retain others, such as community rating and exchanges. As polling repeatedly shows that many Americans are not happy with the ACA, but that a strong majority would rather amend than repeal it, and as it is very possible that we will have a Congress next year less supportive of the ACA than the current one, Roy’s proposal is important.

Read the rest of this entry »

Implementing Health Reform: Tax Form Instructions


August 29th, 2014

On August 28, 2014, the Internal Revenue Service re-released the draft forms that will be used by employer, insurers, and exchanges for reporting Affordable Care Act tax information to individuals and to the IRS for 2014 and 2015, as well as the instructions for completing those forms.  The IRS also released in the Federal Register requests for public comments on three of those forms — the 1094-Bthe 1094-C, and the 1095-C — under the Paperwork Reduction Act.  This post reports on these forms and instructions and on a guidance released by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

The tax forms had been published earlier and are described in an earlier post.  The instructions for the forms, however, had not been available and had been eagerly awaited by employers, insurers, exchanges, and tax professionals. Forms 1094-C and 1095-C will be used by large employers with more than 50 full-time or full-time-equivalent employees to determine whether the employer is responsible for penalties under the employer shared responsibility requirements of the ACA.  They will also be used to determine whether employees have received an affordable and adequate offer of coverage, rendering them ineligible for premium tax credits.  Employers are required to provide each full-time employee with a form 1095-C and to file each of these together with a transmittal form 1095-B form with the IRS.

The instructions for the 1094-C and 1095-C are by far the most complex of the instructions released on August 28, filling 13 pages with dense, two column, print.  Most of the complexity derives from the options for complying with the employer mandate and the transition exceptions to that mandate that the administration has created.  These alternatives and exceptions were explored in my posts on the employer mandate final rule when it was issued in February, 2014.  These forms are also complicated by the fact that the IRS decided to allow self-insured large employers to file only the large employer 1094-C and 1095-C, rather than requiring them to also fill out the 1094-B and 1095-B forms, which are filed by other entities that provide minimum essential coverage.  Because the employer mandate has been delayed, large employers are not required to file these forms for 2014, although they may do so voluntarily.

Read the rest of this entry »

Implementing Health Reform: New Accommodations For Employers On Contraceptive Coverage


August 22nd, 2014

On August 22, 2014, the Departments of Health and Human Services, Labor, and Treasury released an interim final  and a proposed  rule providing for the accommodation of religious objections on the part of an employer or institution of higher learning to providing their employees or students coverage for contraceptive services.  A fact sheet on the rules was also released,   as was a notice on the revision of the form used to collect information on religious objections to contraceptive coverage.

The proposed rule, which applies to for-profit entities, is being issued in response to the Supreme Court’s decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, which ruled that closely-held for-profit corporations may refuse to cover contraceptives for religious reasons.  The interim final rule responds to the Court’s interim order in Wheaton College v. Burwell  (and to 31 lower court injunctions) that released religious non-profit organizations from accommodations earlier proposed by HHS.

Read the rest of this entry »

Implementing Health Reform: ACA-Related Litigation, Special Enrollment Periods, And Navigator Certification And Training (Updated)


August 13th, 2014

Two federal district courts have issued decisions in recent days in litigation relating to the Affordable Care Act. This post will analyze those cases as well as describe two new special enrollment periods recognized by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) in guidance issued on August 4, 2014.

A decision on motion to dismiss Indiana case regarding premium tax credits in the federally facilitated exchange.  First, on August 12, 2014, Judge William T. Lawrence of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana issued an opinion in Indiana v. the IRS, one of the cases challenging the legality of the Internal Revenue Service rule recognizing the issuance of premium tax credits through the federal exchanges. There are currently four cases raising this issue pending in federal courts in Oklahoma, Indiana, Virginia, and the District of Columbia.

Read the rest of this entry »

Implementing Health Reform: Medicare And The ACA Marketplaces (Updated)


August 12th, 2014

On August 1, 2014, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services released a set of frequently asked questions on the relationship between Medicare and the marketplaces. This is not the first guidance CMS has published on this topic, and much of the information in the FAQ was already available. The FAQ is also quite repetitive, as it answers the same questions under different headings, such as “general enrollment FAQs” and “consumer messaging,” but does contain useful information. This post briefly summarizes the FAQ.

The FAQ emphasizes the fact that Medicare and marketplaces operate independently, with little overlap. The marketplaces do not enroll individuals in Medicare or in Medicare Advantage plans and do not sell Medicare supplement plans. Indeed, exchanges cannot legally sell coverage to Medicare beneficiaries.

Read the rest of this entry »

Implementing Health Reform: Transferring Information Among The Exchanges, The IRS, And Taxpayers


August 8th, 2014

For better or worse, Congress decided to use our tax system and the Internal Revenue Service to operationalize two of the most important features of the Affordable Care Act (ACA): the premium tax credits that make coverage affordable to many lower and moderate-income Americans and the individual responsibility provision which ensures that healthy as well as unhealthy Americans obtain health coverage.

The tax credits are available to otherwise uninsured Americans with incomes between 100 and 400 percent of the federal poverty level. For 2014, tax credits are being received by 85 percent of marketplace enrollees and are reducing their premiums in the federally-facilitated exchanges by 76 percent.

The individual mandate is enforced through a tax that will be imposed on Americans who do have minimum essential coverage—such as employment-based coverage, individual coverage, or coverage through a government program—and who do not qualify for an exemption. For 2014, these individuals will owe a tax for each month that they lack minimum essential coverage of 1/12th of $95 per adult and $47.50 per child (up to $285 for a year) or 1 percent of their income above the tax filing limit up to the average annual cost of bronze plan ($2,448 per individual up to $12,240 for families of five or more).

In a recent post on Health Affairs Blog, Jon Kingsdale and Julia Lerche offered an excellent analysis of some of the difficulties that may be encountered during the 2014 tax filing season. In another post I described briefly recently released 2014 tax forms, as well as further guidance on tax matters. This post examines how tax reporting and filing will be handled in greater detail.

Read the rest of this entry »

Implementing Health Reform: King Plaintiffs Ask For Supreme Court Review


August 1st, 2014

On July 31, 2014, Michael Carvin, attorney for the plaintiffs in King v. Burwell, one of two parallel cases challenging an IRS rule allowing premium tax credits to be issued by federally facilitated exchange, filed a petition for a writ of certioriari in the United States Supreme Court. The petition asks the Court to review the Fourth Circuit decision affirming Judge James Spencer’s ruling rejecting their claim.

As was described here in detail last week, ACA opponents lost in the Fourth Circuit in a unanimous decision in King v. Burwell but won a split decision in the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals in Halbig v. Burwell. Carvin is thus seeking Supreme Court review based on a split of authority between the circuits that must be resolved by the Supreme Court.

It is not the intent of this post to review the arguments in Carvin’s brief. Carvin argues that judges Griffith and Randolph made the right decision in Halbig, and that judges Gregory, Thacker and Davis in the Fourth Circuit and Edwards in the D.C. Circuit are wrong. There is really only one new argument in the petition that was not made below, namely that Congress’ intent to deny premium tax credits in states that failed to establish exchanges has now been conclusively established by statements made by Jon Gruber two years after the statute was adopted. This disregards the fact that Gruber neither drafted nor voted on the ACA and had earlier stated that premium tax credits were available in federally facilitated exchange states.

Rather than rehashing the merits, this post will discuss the timing of the petition, the basis on which it can be accepted, and the consequences if it succeeds. Nothing will happen immediately with this petition. The government has 30 days to respond, and can request additional time. The appellants then have 14 days to reply. This puts us into mid-September. It is unlikely, therefore, that the Supreme Court will decide whether or not to accept the petition until it reconvenes in October

Read the rest of this entry »

Implementing Health Reform: Origination Clause Challenge To ACA Dismissed (Updated)


July 30th, 2014

Another Affordable Care Act challenge bit the dust on July 29, 2014, when the District of Columbia Court of Appeals affirmed a lower court decision that dismissed Sissel v. Department of Health and Human Services. Sissel had sued claiming first that the individual mandate “is not a regulation of commerce, but purports to compel affected Americans like [himself], to engage in commerce,” and second that the “shared responsibility payment” is a tax and violates the Origination Clause because it “originated in the Senate, not the House.”

The court had little trouble disposing of Sissel’s first claim, which, the court explained, was based on a misreading of the Supreme Court’s opinion in the NFIB case. Although five justices of the NFIB Court concluded that Congress lacked the authority to enact the individual mandate as a command under the Commerce Clause, a majority of the Court also concluded that the mandate did not in fact order individuals to purchase insurance, but rather imposed a tax on those who failed to do so. The requirement was thus, as the Supreme Court had already held, constitutional.

Sissel’s second claim was based on article 1, section 7, clause 1 of the Constitution, the Origination Clause, an obscure provision few Americans remember from fifth grade civics. It provides that “[a]ll Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as to other bills.” Sissel argued that the individual mandate of the ACA was a bill to raise revenue but that the ACA in fact originated in the Senate, and thus the provision was unconstitutional.

Read the rest of this entry »

Implementing Health Reform: What Makes A State Exchange? (Updated)


July 28th, 2014

One question that has arisen in the wake of the Halbig/King decisions is what exactly is a state exchange? The D.C. Circuit in Halbig and the Fourth Circuit in King seemed unclear as to the answer to this question. The D.C. Circuit counted 14 state exchanges, the Fourth Circuit 16.

A great deal, however, may turn on the answer. Two of the eight federal judges that have ruled on the question so far have held that only state exchanges and not federally facilitated exchanges can issue premium tax credits. Were this conclusion to be adopted in the end by the Supreme Court, which exchanges would count? In other words, how exactly does a state establish an exchange?

A careful reading of the law suggests that a state “establishes” an exchange when, exercising the legal powers of the executive or legislative branch, the state government takes certain actions, discussed below. Establishing the exchange – that is, using the power of state government to enable the exchange to operate and fulfill its responsibilities – is different from the carrying out the day-to-day operations, of the exchange, which might be carried out by public officials, private contractors, or even the federal government.

Read the rest of this entry »

Implementing Health Reform: IRS Releases Premium Tax Credit Rules And Draft Forms


July 25th, 2014

Although the focus of activity the week of July 21 was in the courts, the agencies were not totally silent. On July 24, 2014 the Internal Revenue Service released final and temporary and proposed regulations addressing issues that are presented by the premium tax credit program. The IRS also released drafts of the forms that individuals, insurers, and employers will use for reporting information to the IRS necessary for reconciliation of premium tax credits and for the enforcement of the individual and employer mandate programs. Finally, the IRS set the maximum individual mandate penalty for individuals whose income is high enough that they pay the penalty as a percentage of income rather than a flat dollar amount. This amount is established by the statute as the average cost of a bronze level plan for the applicable family size for 2014 and was set by the IRS at $2,448 per individual annually, up to $12,240 for families of five or more.

The draft forms operationalize the reporting requirements established by rules published earlier. Insurers and self-insured health plans will provide a Form 1095-B to each of their enrollees and members, and file these forms, together with a transmittal form 1094-B with the IRS. Large employers must provide a form 1095-C to each employee, and transmit these, together with a transmittal form 1095-B to the IRS. Exchanges will provide their enrollees a form 1095-A. Individuals who receive premium tax credits will file a form 8962 with the IRS, while individuals claiming an exemption from the individual mandate will file a form 8965. Though the forms are not accompanied by instructions, they are quite straightforward and track closely the earlier released rules.

The final and temporary rules address several situations that will arise under the premium tax credit program that have not yet been addressed by the premium tax credit rules. The temporary rules are identical to the proposed rules and will cease to apply once the proposed rules are finalized.

Read the rest of this entry »

Click here to email us a new post.