post Category: Uncategorized post Comments postMarch 2, 2010

 

Time and Date

Friday, March, 5; Seminar Length (1.5 hours)

10.00 AM Central Standard Time, 11.00 AM Eastern Standard Time, 9.00 AM Mountain Time, or 8.00 AM Pacific Standard Time.

Adult Child Premiums (40 Minutes)

Many states have enacted Adult Children Coverage mandates. The idea is to cover adult children by extending the employee’s coverage to a specific age i.e. 27. These mandates create tax issues for employees, and payroll administration problems for the employer. Did you know that if an employee elects to have an adult child on insurance there are tax and reporting requirements? Did you know there are new payroll rules surrounding who pays what taxes? Do you know how these rules will affect your Cafeteria/FSA/Flex plan? There are many moving parts such as payroll, employee communication, and reporting to the correct tax department…for example IRS or state? The confusion is growing, but we have the answers for you! This seminar is geared toward HR and payroll staff. Agents should understand the consequences for employees electing coverage for adult children, and be poised to capitalize on new marketing opportunities for their clients.

The states affected are: AZ, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, IA, ID, IL, IN, KY, LA, MD, MI, MN, MO, MT, ND, NE, NH, NJ, NM, NY, OR, PA, RI, SD, TN, TX, UT, VA, VT, WA, WI and WV.

Business Associate Seminar (40 minutes)

The Internet agent discussion groups are full of concerns regarding Business Associate Agreements (BAA). In this second Webinar, we’ll discuss HIPAA Business Associate Agreements. What do agents and employers need to change in their business associate agreements under the new rules…. IF ANYTHING? What will be the new conduct of the agent be under the new HITECH rules?

This seminar is designed to answer questions regarding BAAs. The learning outcomes are whether or not a new Business Associate Agreement is even needed, and the changes to the old BAA to meet the requirements. This seminar is designed for agents and HR staff.

Speakers

Ric Joyner, MBA, CEBS, GBA, CFCI and CEO of eflexgroup.com with Todd Martin, JD and Partner of Reinhart Law will be presenting these urgent compliance issues in a lively, fast-paced fashion.

Please join us for both important Webinars.

Cost

Seats are limited. Clients are free. (Clients are defined as brokers and employers who have one of our products for their employees. One seat (you may use a speaker phone for staff) $25.00

Brokers who want additional seats for client attendance: $99.00 (have each client use the comp code b=client)

Payment  (Note for those who attended the first seminar the second seminar is free)

Register

post Category: Uncategorized post Comments postMarch 1, 2010

By Ric Joyner, MBA, CEBS, CFCI

Nancy Pelosi and the White House are now saying that a new bill is going to be offered by President Obama  on Wed. This is said to attempt to cover 30,000,000 million more people and have some items the republicans will  like such as, purchasing insurance across state lines and possible tort reform.

What some of the democratic pundits have said on the talking head shows are that this bill will have a good chance of passing.

The treasury on Friday afternoon (to avoid the news cycle of the week and catch attention) gave a report on the health of the national debit and it is not good. We are 12.53 Trillion dollars in the hole! http://fms.treas.gov/fr/09frusg/09guide.pdf

A digress. If you go to treasury.gov and research the history of taxes what you see is that an income tax came after the turn of the century (1900) (flat tax btw) and after the income tax, the government grew like weeds and so do more social programs. More social programs equal more debt and more taxation.

Now we are looking at another entitlement called  health care.

post Category: COBRA post Comments post

From the KS Health and Welfare Team:

On February 25, the House approved a bill that would extend unemployment benefits, the COBRA subsidy and certain other expiring programs.  This bill extends the COBRA subsidy by one month - until March 31, 2010.  It also makes other changes to the operation of the COBRA subsidy program, including changes with respect to employees who incur a reduction in hours.  As of this morning, the Senate has not yet passed the bill, and it is currently being held in limbo due to budgetary discussions between Republicans and Democrats on how to pay for the cost of all the extensions. 

We will keep you updated as the events of this week unfold.  If you have any questions, please let us know.

Thanks,

Mark

 
Mark L. Stember
Kilpatrick Stockton LLP
Suite 900
607 14th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20005
t 202-508-5802
f 202-585-0018

post Category: Adult Children Premium, HIPAA post Comments postFebruary 20, 2010

Time and Date

Thursday, February 25 Seminar Length 1.5 hours

10.00 AM Central Standard Time, 11.00 AM Eastern Standard Time, 9.00 AM Mountain Time, or , 8.00 AM Pacific Standard Time. 40 minutes

Adult Child Premiums

Many states have enacted Adult Children Coverage mandates. The idea is to cover adult children by extending the employee’s coverage to a specific age i.e. 27. These mandates create tax issues for employees and payroll administration problems for the employer. Did you know that if an employee elects to have an adult child on insurance there are tax and reporting requirements? Did you know there are new payroll rules surrounding who pays what taxes? Do you know how these rules will affect your cafeteria/FSA/Flex plan? There are many moving parts such as payroll, employee communication and reporting to the correct tax department…for example IRS or state?

The confusion is growing, but we have the answers for you! This seminar is geared toward HR and payroll staff. Agents should understand the consequences for employees electing coverage for adult children and be poised to capitalize on new marketing opportunities for their clients.

The states affected are: AZ, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, IA, ID, IL, IN, KY, LA, MD, MI, MN, MO, MT, ND, NE, NH, NJ, NM, NY, OR, PA, RI, SD, TN, TX, UT, VA, VT, WA, WI and WV. 

Business Associate Seminar 40 minutes

The Internet agent discussion groups are full of the concerns regarding Business Associate Agreements (BAA). In this second Webinar, we’ll discuss HIPAA Business Associate Agreements. What do agents and employers need to change in their business associate agreements under the new rules, IF ANYTHING? What will be the new conduct of the agent be under the new HITECH rules?

This seminar is designed to answer questions regarding BAAs. The learning outcomes are whether or not a new Business Associate Agreement is even needed and the changes needed to meet the new HIPAA rules. This seminar is designed for agents and HR staff.

Speakers

Ric Joyner, MBA, CEBS, GBA, CFCI and CEO of eflexgroup.com with Todd Martin, JD and Partner of Reinhart Law will be presenting these urgent compliance issues in a lively, fast-paced fashion.

Please join us for both important Webinars.

Seminar Times— 10.00 AM Central Standard Time, 11.00 AM Eastern Standard Time, 9.00 AM Mountain Time, or , 8.00 AM Pacific Standard Time.

Cost

Seats are limited.

Clients are free. (Clients are defined as brokers and employers who have one of our products for their employees.

One seat (you may use a speaker phone for staff) $25.00

Brokers who want additional seats for client attendance: $99.00 (have each client use the comp code b=client)

Register and Pay

This seminar is recorded and is included in the cost of your registration.

Step 1: Register for the seminar here:

Pay for the seminar here: http://www.eflexgroup.com/webinar/payment/

post Category: Health Insurance post Comments postFebruary 18, 2010

Rate hikes on health insurance prompt more criticism from Obama administration

By Amy Goldstein
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, February 18, 2010; 7:27 AM

The Obama administration plans to step up its criticism Thursday of health insurers’ recent efforts to raise their rates — an attempt to harness public aggravation with the industry and rebuild momentum for broad changes to the nation’s health-care system.

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius has scheduled a late-morning news conference, at which she is to cite half a dozen examples, from Maine to Washington state, in which insurers have in the past year sought large premium increases on people who buy coverage individually. In all but one case, according to a report to be released by HHS, state insurance regulators rejected all or part of the requested increases.

The administration’s attempt to focus attention on insurance prices broadens a strategy it began to employ 10 days ago, when Sebelius wrote a pointed letter to one insurer, Anthem Blue Cross of California. She demanded to know why the company had alerted about 800,000 policyholders that their premiums would rise by as much as 39 percent because of the escalating costs of health care. In response to HHS’s inquiry, Anthem postponed the increase by two months.

The new report cites another example from this year: Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield of Maine is asking that state to approve a 23 percent rise in premiums for its individual-market customers, after state regulators slashed an 18 percent increase that the insurer requested in 2009. The other cases in the HHS report are from last year.

Most of the instances in the report focus on rates for individuals who buy insurance policies on their own, a partof the insurance market that historically has been the most expensive and widely regarded as flawed. But the report also says that three insurers in Rhode Island asked last year for rate increases — ranging from 13 percent to 16 percent — for all kinds of coverage; state insurance regulators ordered them to withdraw the requests.

Robert Zirkelbach, a spokesman for America’s Health Insurance Plans, the industry’s main lobbying organization, said the administration’s attention to insurance rates was misplaced, because its members were merely responding to changes in the prices charged by hospitals, doctors and pharmaceutical manufacturers.

"The focus needs to be on the underlying increase in health-care costs," Zirkelbach said. He added that the spike in individual insurance rates also stems, in part, from the recession, which he said prompted some younger and healthier Americans to stop buying insurance, leaving companies to sell a greater share of their individual policies to people who are older and sicker and, thus, more expensive to insure.

HHS is casting the insurance industry in an unflattering light during a moment of deep uncertainty over the fate of Congress’s intense debate about the health-care system’s future. Democrats in the House and the Senate have passed health care legislation that in part contains new rules for the insurance industry. But efforts to resolve the bills’ differences were thrown askew by a GOP victory in a special Senate election last month in Massachusetts, which has given the Republicans more clout in that chamber.

In a week, President Obama is to convene a summit with invited congressional leaders from both political parties. White House officials portray the event as a forum to revive momentum behind health-care legislation. Health-care specialists on and off Capitol Hill regard the session as a test of how much change remains feasible.

An administration official, speaking on the condition of anonymity before Sebelius’s remarks, called the attempted rate increases "powerful examples of why we need health-insurance reform."

post Category: IRS, Tax, Taxes, Treasury Department, sex change operation post Comments postFebruary 4, 2010

By Ric Joyner, MBA, CEBS, GBA, CFCI

Harry Beker Chief, Health & welfare Branch Office of the Division Counsel/Associate Chief Counsel (Tax Exempt and Government Entities) confirmed today that sex change operations are considered qualified expenses for section 213d and can be reimbursed in HRAs, FSAs, and HSAs. If an employer wishes to prevent this type of reimbursement in the future the plan document must specifically exclude the procedure.

Following is Mr. Beker’s confirmation email.

Question posed by Ric Joyner:

From: Ric Joyner [mailto:ric.joyner@eflexgroup.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2010 4:07 PM
To: Beker Harry
Cc: Jamie Johnson
Subject: sex Change operations

Does this mean FSA, HRA, HSA too?

Sex-Change Costs Are Tax-Deductible, U.S. Court Rules

Answer

From: Beker Harry [mailto:Harry.Beker@XXXXXXXX.TREAS.GOV]
Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 7:07 AM
To: Ric Joyner
Subject: RE: sex Change operations

Yes

Court’s decision and discussion is provided for background:

Sex-Change Costs Are Tax-Deductible, U.S. Court Rules

Ryan J. Donmoyer Ryan J. Donmoyer

1 hr 14 mins ago

Feb. 3 (Bloomberg) — Costs incurred in sex-change operations and procedures are tax-deductible, the U.S. Tax Court ruled.

The Washington-based court decided yesterday that hormone therapies and sex reassignment surgeries are necessary to treat gender identity disorder, a disease, in the case of a Boston- area man who became a woman named Rhiannon O’Donnabhain.

“The Court is persuaded that petitioner’s sex reassignment surgery was medically necessary,” Judge Joseph Gale wrote in a 69-page decision for the majority.

The decision is the first to rule that sex-change operations qualify as medical care and overturns a 2005 Internal Revenue Service policy denying medical expense deductions in such operations on the grounds they are ‘cosmetic.’’

The case involves a $5,679 tax bill assessed by the IRS, which denied medical deductions claimed by O’Donnabhain after she underwent sex reassignment-surgery in 2000. O’Donnabhain, a civil engineer who joined the U.S. Coast Guard during the Vietnam War, was diagnosed with gender identity disorder in 1997.

O’Donnabhain sued the IRS after it denied her deduction of $25,000 in out-of-pocket medical costs associated with the surgeries and other care such as hormone treatments and counseling, according to Boston-based Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, which represented her in court.

Deduction Rules

Medical expenses are deductible after they exceed 7.5 percent of adjusted gross income. Cosmetic surgery generally doesn’t qualify.

O’Donnabhain, who became a woman after 20 years of marriage that produced three children while simultaneously struggling with her gender identity, argued her medical costs were no different than heart surgery.

Yesterday, a majority of the court sided with her, ruling the IRS was wrong to deny her deductions.

The contention that O’Donnabhain “undertook the surgery and hormone treatments to improve appearance is at best a superficial characterization of the circumstances that is thoroughly rebutted by the medical evidence,” Gale wrote.

The decision “recognizes that expenses related to medical care for transgender people should be treated no differently than expenses related to an appendectomy or chemotherapy,” said Karen Loewy, a lawyer with Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders in Boston who represented O’Donnabhain. “The dismissal of these medical expenses as illegitimate and not deductible was discrimination, pure and simple.”

Differing Opinion

In an opinion that dissented in part, Judge David Gustafson said that O’Donnabhain may have suffered a “serious mental condition.” Still, he said her condition met a strict definition of non-deductible “cosmetic surgery.”

“Congress did not provide that an appearance-improving procedure will nonetheless be deductible if it merely ‘mitigates a disease,’” Gustafson wrote.

The decision was first reported by the TaxProf Blog, run by University of Cincinnati law professor Paul Caron.

The case is O’Donnabhain v. Commissioner, 134 T.C. No. 4 (Feb. 2, 2010).

———————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

Sources: Selected from yahoo news 2-2-10 at 11.59am CST Original source: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=alx_Ag1iU8Q8: Retrieved 12.09 pm 2-4-10 EST

Harry Beker email received 2-4-10 at 7.07am EST sent to ric.joynerATeflexgroup.com

post Category: Health Care Reform post Comments postJanuary 21, 2010

By Shailagh Murray and Paul Kane
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, January 21, 2010; 12:05 PM

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Thursday that the Senate will have to amend its version of a health-care reform bill before her chamber can pass it.

"I don’t think it’s possible to pass the Senate bill in the House," Pelosi told reporters after a morning meeting with her caucus. "I don’t see the votes for it at this time."

Pelosi has been struggling for days to sell the Senate legislation to reluctant Democrats in order to get a health-care bill to the president’s desk quickly. But moderates in her caucus have raised doubts about forging ahead without bipartisan support — a challenge as the midterm election approaches — while liberals rejected the Senate bill as not going far enough.

Pelosi described House Democrats as vehemently opposed to several provisions in the Senate legislation, including one that benefits only Nebraska’s Medicaid system — a deal to win the support of Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) — and a tax plan on expensive health-care benefits.

"There are certain things the members simply cannot support," she said.

Aides said afterward that the best option would be for the Senate to pass a bill that fixes those and other issues under fast-track rules that require a simple majority. But the Senate has not agreed to do so.

Republican Scott Brown’s victory Tuesday in a Senate special election in Massachusetts blindsided Obama and Democratic leaders, who had nearly reached the finish line on an ambitious overhaul of the nation’s health-care system and were beginning to turn their attention to other challenges, namely creating jobs and lowering the deficit.

The loss of their Senate supermajority has required a frantic reassessment of their strategy. Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) have pledged to complete work on the massive bill they started nearly a year ago, but they have yet to identify a clear way forward that will appeal broadly to their rank-and-file.

Obama added to the confusion Wednesday when he seemed to endorse one option: having both the House and the Senate start from scratch, by voting on a scaled-back package of popular provisions that would crack down on insurance companies but provide health coverage to far fewer additional people.

"We know that we need insurance reform, that the health insurance companies are taking advantage of people," Obama told ABC News in an interview. "We know that we have to have some form of cost containment because, if we don’t, then our budgets are going to blow up. And we know that small businesses are going to need help."

But the White House quickly moved to clarify that the president still wants comprehensive reform.

"Right now there are a lot of discussions going on about the best path forward," spokesman Reid Cherlin said in a statement. "But let’s be clear that the president’s preference is to pass a bill that meets the principles he laid out months ago: more stability and security for those who have insurance, affordable coverage options for those who don’t, and lower costs for families, businesses, and governments."

reiterated Wednesday her resolve to send a health-care bill to Obama’s desk. "We heard the people, and hopefully we will move forward with their considerations in mind. But we will move forward in the process," Pelosi told the U.S. Conference of Mayors in a speech.

Reid, meanwhile, struck a more cautious note. "We’re not going to rush into anything," he told reporters after a Senate Democratic lunch. "Remember, the bill we passed in the Senate is good for a year. There are many different things that we can do to move forward on health care, but we’re not making any of those decisions now."

Caution from moderates

Moderate members of Reid’s caucus also urged restraint, interpreting the Massachusetts outcome as a clear signal against advancing such a huge bill along party lines.

"I felt from the beginning that the best way to adopt anything as major as health-care reform was to do it in a bipartisan way," said Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.). "You’ve got to listen to the message from Massachusetts, and I think it was all about, they want us to work together, they don’t want us to do too much at once, and they want to feel that we’re listening to them."

The health-care legislation is only one of several major bills on which Reid now needs, in the wake of the Massachusetts result, to win Republican votes.

The Senate on Wednesday took up a proposal to increase the nation’s debt ceiling, but it is not clear whether, even before Brown is sworn in, enough Democrats are willing to vote for the measure to overcome GOP objections. Bills to change immigration laws and curtail greenhouse-gas emissions, two other Obama priorities, will not even come to the Senate floor without Republican support.

Tuesday’s election also deepened the uncertainty surrounding another top administration goal — overhauling the nation’s financial regulatory system. A version of the legislation passed the House last month, but it has met stiff resistance from Republicans on the Senate banking committee, primarily over the creation of a Consumer Financial Protection Agency.

Brown on health care

Brown was elected to replace the late Edward M. Kennedy (D), the Senate’s longtime champion of universal health care. He struck a conciliatory note during a Wednesday news conference in Boston, telling reporters that he supports expanding health-care coverage.

"I think it’s important for everyone to get some form of health care," Brown said. "So to offer a basic plan for everybody, I think, is important. It’s just a question of whether we’re going to raise taxes, we’re going to cut half a trillion from Medicare, we’re going to affect veterans’ care. I think we can do it better."

But if the senator-elect was willing to consider a health-care bill, most Republicans voiced relief that they may have dodged the current Democratic effort. Asked Wednesday whether the bill is dead, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) responded, "I sure hope so."

Sen. Susan Collins (Maine) is one of a handful of Republican moderates whose votes are certain to be sought by Obama and Reid in the months ahead on various bills. She said she remains open to a health-care compromise, but she worried that economic issues are more pressing.

"Many of us have heard from our constituents that, in addition to their overall concern about health care, they would like to see the administration and Congress focus on economic issues," Collins said. "That’s the message from back home."

Staff writers Lori Montgomery and Perry Bacon Jr. contributed to this report.

post Category: COBRA, DOL post Comments postJanuary 20, 2010

Via DOL News

The Department of Labor’s Employee Benefits Security Administration COBRA page was updated to add a link to a compliance webcast on the COBRA premium reduction extension provisions being held on January 22 at 1 pm EST. To register, go to https://compx11.eventcenterlive.com/cfmx/ec/register/reg.cfm?BID=1&RegID=284EB0ED

post Category: ARRA, COBRA post Comments post

sent via IRS News

WASHINGTON — Workers who lose their jobs during January and February may qualify for a 65-percent subsidy on their COBRA health insurance premiums, and these newly-eligible individuals, along with those already receiving the subsidy, can now receive it for up to 15 months, according to the Internal Revenue Service.

Created by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, the COBRA subsidy eligibility period was originally scheduled to expire at the end of 2009, and eligible individuals only qualified for the subsidy for nine months. But the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2010, enacted on Dec. 19, extended the eligibility period and the maximum duration of COBRA premium assistance.

As a result, workers who are involuntarily terminated from employment between Sept. 1, 2008, and Feb. 28, 2010, may be eligible for a 65-percent subsidy of their COBRA premiums for a period of up to 15 months. Involuntarily terminated employees who meet certain other requirements, and certain family members of those individuals, are referred to as “assistance-eligible individuals.”

Employers must provide COBRA coverage to assistance-eligible individuals who pay 35 percent of the COBRA premium. Employers are reimbursed for the other 65 percent by claiming a credit for the subsidy on their payroll tax returns: Form 941, Employers QUARTERLY Federal Tax Return, Form 944, Employer’s ANNUAL Federal Tax Return, or Form 943, Employer’s Annual Federal Tax Return for Agricultural Employees. Employers must maintain supporting documentation for the claimed credit.

The administrator of a group health plan or other entity must notify certain assistance-eligible individuals of the extension by Feb. 17, 2010. For assistance-eligible individuals whose nine months of subsidy had already ended, the new law also provides an extended period for the retroactive payment of their 35 percent share during a transition period.

There is much more information about the COBRA subsidy, including questions and answers for employers, and for employees or former employees, on the COBRA pages of IRS.gov.

post Category: Health Care Reform post Comments postJanuary 19, 2010

By Ric Joyner, CEBS

Many of you have watched the race in Mass which is Ted Kennedy’s old seat. Mass is a heavily democratic state. Although this is also a large registered independent state. (see insert below)

There are two people running. Scott Brown a Republican and Martha Coakley a Democrat.

Wall Street Journal: It all comes down to turnout. "The contest may come down to whether the Democratic Party’s traditional allies can overcome what appears to be a surge of local enthusiasm for the Republican candidate."

Boston Globe: Kevin Cullen writes that the black community isn’t energized for Coakley and that’s an "ominous sign" for the Democratic candidate. He came to that conclusion after visiting Blue Hill Avenue and the streets around it — "heart of the biggest minority community in the state."

USA TODAY: John Fritze writes that independents — who make up 51% of the state’s voters — are the key to the election, and polls show they are breaking for Brown.

New York Times: Democrats in Washington are working on Plan B, trying to come up with a way to pass health care with 59 votes in the Senate. One possibility is having the House approve the Senate bill without changes and send it to the President Obama. But Bart Stupak, D-Mich., says the abortion language and the "special-interest provisions for certain states" makes that impossible. He says: “House members will not vote for the Senate bill. There’s no interest in that.”

Politico: In a replay of the Virginia gubernatorial race, Politico writes that Democrats are already playing the blame game. Coakley ran a "sluggish campaign." Obama didn’t do enough "to sell the party’s agenda." The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee didn’t see this coming and didn’t do enough to stop it.

What will this mean for health care vote? Scott Brown says he will vote against the health care bill, and this fact places the 60 vote super majority of the democrats in the Senate in Jeopardy.

Coakley promises to keep the progressive agenda (more government, taxes and government regulation) and Brown espouses a conservative position (lower taxes, less government and fiscal restraint).

This race is an earthquake for the President Obama’s agenda on many fronts, and a forecast of what may happen in the fall 2010 elections.

Early this morning I was watching several news organizations and the voter turnout is high. Fox was reporting that exit interviews of voters were saying; “I am voting for Brown to send a message to Washington about the high taxes, government run health care (note, Mass has a new government run health care program which is what the Obama Care is modeled from. So they know the problems and cost associated with having a government run program) and bailouts and payoffs for voting for health care.

In watching the exit interviews at noon, Fox again was reporting the turnout is heavy, and that many democrats are voting along party lines. Remember that independents are 51% of the voters.

So this should be an interesting race to watch because it could change the entire landscape of health care.