New Guidance on Integrated Health Reimbursement Arrangements

New Call to action

SUBSCRIBE

The Zane Employee Health Benefits blog covers all of employee health benefits - Defined Contribution, private exchanges, individual health insurance, small business health benefits, HRA, and premium reimbursements. Join thousands of others and subscribe now!

Subscribe to RSS feed Add us on Facebook! Follow us on Twitter

Subscribe by email

Your email:

Search

Current Articles | RSS Feed RSS Feed

New Guidance on Integrated Health Reimbursement Arrangements

 

On January 24th, 2013, the Department of Labor posted a new set of FAQs to clarify what criteria Health Reimbursement Arrangements (HRAs) must meet in order to be considered "Integrated" under Section 2711 of the PHS Act. As expected, the FAQs clarify that an HRA is not considered "integrated" unless:

  1. The employer offers primary group health insurance coverage that alone satisfies Section 2711, and

  2. The HRA is only made available to those employees who are enrolled in the primary group health plan coverage outlined in #1.

The FAQ also notes that the federal government plans to issue additional guidance on HRAs and Section 2711. Read on for more information on how future guidance could affect your HRA plan design.integrated HRA

Background on Health Reimbursement Arrangements (HRAs)

HRAs are a type of account-based group health plan and typically consist of a promise by an employer to reimburse medical expenses for the year up to a certain amount, with unused amounts available to reimburse medical expenses in future years (see Notice 2002-45). By its definition, an HRA imposes annual limits. That is, reimbursements an HRA participant may receive during a year are limited to the balance of his or her notional HRA account.

Background on Section 2711 of PHS Act and HRAs

Section 2711 of the Public Health Service Act, as added by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, generally prohibits group health plans from placing lifetime and annual limits on the dollar value of "essential health benefits". On June 28th, 2010, the federal government issued interim final regulations requesting comments regarding the application of the annual limit provisions to certain stand-alone HRAs. To date, a "Final Rule" has not been issued on whether HRAs violate the Statute. However, the new FAQs hint that the departments plan to make certain HRA plans subject to the annual limit requirements.

What Does This Mean for HRAs?

Based on the existing regulations, the following HRA plans will avoid the annual limit requirements of Section 2711:

  1. "Integrated" HRAs

  2. "Flexible Spending Arrangement" HRAs

  3. "Excluded" HRAs

  4. "Excepted" HRAs

  5. "Retiree" HRAs

What does this mean for existing HRAs? If your HRA does not currently fall into one of the above categories, you may need to modify your HRA plan to avoid falling out of compliance with Section 2711.

5 Types of HRAs That Avoid The Annual Limits Requirements

1."Integrated" HRAs

According to the existing regulations, "when HRAs are integrated with other coverage as part of a group health plan and the other coverage alone would comply with the requirements of PHS Act section 2711, the fact that benefits under the HRA by itself are limited does not violate PHS Act section 2711 because the combined benefit satisfies the requirements."

As expected, the new FAQs clarify that an HRA is not considered "integrated" unless:

  1. the employer offers primary group health insurance coverage that alone satisfies Section 2711, and
  2. the HRA is only made available to employees who are also enrolled in the primary group health plan coverage in #1.

Test: Is the HRA integrated with group health insurance coverage that complies with the lifetime and annual limit restrictions? If so, the HRA generally avoids the annual limit requirements.

2. "Flexible Spending Arrangement" HRAs

According to the existing regulations, "a health flexible spending arrangement (as defined in section 106(c)(2)) is not subject to the [annual limit requirements]"

According to IRS Notice 2002-45, "assuming that the maximum amount of reimbursement which is reasonably available to a participant under an HRA is not substantially in excess of the value of coverage under the HRA, an HRA is a flexible spending arrangement (FSA) as defined in § 106(c)(2)."

Test: Does the HRA qualify as a flexible spending arrangement as defined in Section 106(c)(2)? If so, the HRA generally avoids the annual limit requirements.

Section 106(c)(2) Flexible spending arrangement - For purposes of this subsection, a flexible spending arrangement is a benefit program which provides employees with coverage under which—

(A) specified incurred expenses may be reimbursed (subject to reimbursement maximums and other reasonable conditions), and

(B) the maximum amount of reimbursement which is reasonably available to a participant for such coverage is less than 500 percent of the value of such coverage.

3. "Excluded" HRAs

According to the existing regulations, the section 2711 rules "do not prevent a group health plan, or a health insurance issuer offering group health insurance coverage, from placing annual or lifetime dollar limits with respect to any individual on specific covered benefits that are not essential health benefits to the extent that such limits are otherwise permitted under applicable Federal or State law." 

Therefore, HRAs that exclude all essential health benefits and only reimburse non-essential health benefits (e.g. premium expenses) avoid the annual limit requirements.

Test: Does the HRA only reimburse non-essential health benefits? If so, the HRA generally avoids the annual limit requirements.

4. "Excepted" HRAs

The Affordable Care Act and the interim regulations make it clear that PHS section 2711 does not apply to HRAs that qualify as “excepted benefits” under ERISA (see the federal definition of “group health plan”, 42 USCS § 300gg-91). 

Test: Does the HRA qualify as excepted benefits? If so, the HRA generally avoids the annual limit requirements.

5. "Retiree" HRAs

According to the interim regulations, a "retiree-only HRA is generally not subject to the rules in PHS Act section 2711 relating to annual limits."

Test: Does the HRA only cover retirees? If so, the HRA generally avoids the annual limit requirements.

Note: This should not be taken as legal or tax advice.

subscribetoblogctablue

Comments

When I read the FAQ, it is clear that more guidance is needed to understand the impact on the HRA. If i have this right, the FAQ states that the HRA cannot be considered integrated with an individual policy purchased. Therefore it would not be classified an Integrated HRA. So, the HRA would likely considered "stand alone" HRA but could not have limits. Unless, that would put it into the excluded category. Correct? Leaving premium only reimbursements and no payments for essential benefits for providers of care and classifying it an Excluded HRA. Really wish they could respond to that question.  
In addition, if the employer is under 50 FTEs, could the standalone HRA reimburse both non-essential and essential benefits with a limit? Will this become the Small business standard, because there is no requirement on this size employer to offer coverage as required under ACA /PHS and this design gives the small business more flexibility? 
Then larger firms will need to restrict the HRA to be excluded offering only reimbursement of non-essential benefits once they would be subject to penalty. 
Finally, I would be interested in hearing your comments on the HRA and design based on the 400% of FPL. You would think any contribution made by employers would be factored into the payment determination process for those below the 400% FPL 
Posted @ Tuesday, January 29, 2013 8:24 AM by Frank
Under the NEW HRA rules of integration, can employers continue to provide HRA funds to pay for individual insurance plans? I thought this was approved to help fund the Group Health Plan premium contributions. Thanks! 
 
Employers can customize all components of their HRA. If they wish, they may integrate the HRA with various types of health insurance. For example, employers may choose to offer group insurance with an HRA, or they may use the HRA to help employees pay for individual health insurance premiums.
Posted @ Tuesday, January 29, 2013 10:21 AM by Gail Hiller-Lee
This is not the way I am reading it. I think the defined cont HRA individual plans will not work starting 2014. Please see attached doc and follow up if I am reading this wrong. 
http://newsmanager.commpartners.com/nahuw/issues/2013-01-29/index.html
Posted @ Tuesday, January 29, 2013 10:30 PM by Tim
@Tim. Thanks for the link. But I feel that post appeared more certain than the fact than it may be. My read on the FAQ clarified the integrated HRA status. Employers cannot offer a standalone HRA (with a limit) and have employees purchase elsewhere because that would not be considered an integrated plan.  
We did not learn is anything about Excluded HRAs. As I see it, since PPACA eliminated annual or lifetime limits on "essential benefits", the Excluded HRA is exempt from PPACA and can be used to offer limited reimbursements on "non-essential" benefits purchased on the exchange until it the regulations rule it out.  
This may reduce the popularity of the HRA alternative, but I still think it will be the best option going forward for now.  
Posted @ Wednesday, January 30, 2013 12:35 PM by Frank
If I'm understanding this Janary 24 Dept of Labor release, government just killed the idea of HRAs. Is everyone else seeing it that way?  
 
Q2: May an HRA used to purchase coverage on the individual market be considered integrated with that individual market coverage and therefore satisfy the requirements of PHS Act section 2711? 
 
 
No. The Departments intend to issue guidance providing that for purposes of PHS Act section 2711, an employer-sponsored HRA cannot be integrated with individual market coverage or with an employer plan that provides coverage through individual policies and therefore will violate PHS Act section 2711. 
Posted @ Wednesday, January 30, 2013 2:55 PM by Todd
@Todd, I hear what you posted but disagree with your statement, "just killed the idea of HRAs". Read your post. The HRA cannot be integrated with the individual market coverage under PHS Act 2711. To satisfy 2711 using an HRA it must be integrated with a qualified employer sponsored insurance product, and the employee must be in both.  
 
I assume you don't think the HRA will exist as an excluded HRA. That option still looks look to me. 
Posted @ Wednesday, January 30, 2013 4:10 PM by Frank
I totally agree with you Rick. I expect the HRA to be the best option for my small business clients going forward. Not sure why they should worry about non-compliance with 2711 and even the larger companies may be find it better.  
What do you think this FAQ does to the Private Health Exchanges as envisioned by AON Hewitt, Towers Watson, and Mercer?
Posted @ Thursday, January 31, 2013 9:44 AM by Frank
The FAQs don't say HRAs cannot reimburse premiums (that's an entirely separate issue under the IRC code Section 106 and 105).  
 
The FAQs simply say they intend to issue guidance making stand-alone HRAs generally subject to PHS Section 2711. What does this mean?  
 
It means, based on the existing regulations (see http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/29/2590.715-2711), HRAs that don't fall into one of the above 5 categories may need to be redesigned to avoid falling out of compliance with 2711 (assuming the expected new guidance comes out making HRAs subject to 2711).  
 
As HRAs are technically self-insured group health plans, they are not required to cover essential health benefits. Remember, 2711 annual limits rules only applies to essential health benefits.  
 
We notified NAHU that the article referenced above is misleading.
Posted @ Thursday, January 31, 2013 9:47 AM by Rick Lindquist
<<What do you think this FAQ does to the Private Health Exchanges as envisioned by AON Hewitt, Towers Watson, and Mercer?>> 
 
I think the key take-away is that the administration does not want HRAs and Individual Coverage to be used to circumvent the "Shared-Responsibility" Rules, which will negatively affect many of the private exchange concepts I have seen.
Posted @ Thursday, January 31, 2013 9:57 AM by Rick Lindquist
It seems to me that the DOL is very clear: an employer can not use an HRA for individual health insurance. The blog post tries to parse the DOL's wording to keep hope alive... I wouldn't feel comfortable recommending an "excluded" HRA to a group client.  
 
Also, the cost for individual coverage will likely double from today's rates in 2014 becasue of ACA requirements such as essential benefits, modified community rating, etc. The cost savings for employers offering individual policies will disappear. Why would an employer risk setting up an "excluded HRA" if individual policies cost more than group plans? They wouldn't.
Posted @ Friday, February 01, 2013 5:40 PM by Bruce
NAHU is certainly not in favor of stand alone HRA's evidenced by their biased opinion from 1/29 and their members being stuck in a"group mode" agenda. Being an individual agent ONLY I have witnessed the scurge of small employer plans that ruin the finances of their healthy employees. EVERYONE should own their own plan. That is the message we should be focused on, whether there is a tax advantage or not. If all individual HRA's become non-compliant, then ALL employers should drop traditional, non-CDHP Group coverage for the wellfare of their employees. And Bruce, costs will rise even higher with small group plans compared to individual, guaranteed!
Posted @ Monday, February 04, 2013 9:34 AM by FKW
@Bruce There are still a few reasons employers will still opt for an “excluded HRA” even if the premiums are a bit higher in the individual marketplace (speaking mostly about groups with less than 50 full-time employees not worried about “penalties” for not offering health coverage). 
 
1. Many employees and their families will qualify for tax credits through the exchanges bringing down the cost of individual polices. Likely these tax credits will be more valuable than what employers are willing to contribute each month for family coverage. 
 
2. Employers will be able to maintain a relatively constant contribution each year without having to pay 20-30% increases year after year. Some employees might see their premiums go up, but the employers will likely keep their contributions relatively flat. 
 
3. Much less ER admin burden with HRA individual plans; will take out the yearly open enrollment, think tanks, application collection, employee deductions, carrier billing/reconciliation, etc.  
 
To sum up, if it is allowed by HHS and the tax benefits remain, I see many small employers going to this defined contribution HRA model in 2014 and 2015. However, I am still a bit doubtful this will be allowed as it will direct MANY employees and their families away from employer sponsored plans (ER cost burden) to federally subsided insurance plans which will cost the American taxpayers much more than was originally expected or “promised”. We’ll see I guess! 
Posted @ Monday, February 04, 2013 9:41 AM by Tim
Does anyone know what it takes to make an HRA "excluded"?  
 
I firmly believe defined contribution is the way to go, and it's disappointed to see what looks like our government doing everything possible to discourage consumer-driving healthcare and health insurance.
Posted @ Monday, February 04, 2013 12:51 PM by Todd
What is wrong with the definition in the post above? Excluded HRA reimburse only non-essential benefits.  
 
I understand how the regulations would not accept HRA as integrated with individual polices. But see no reason to not allow employer reimbursement for individual premiums. I would expect any employee eligible for premium reimbursement from an employer HRA would not be eligible for a credit on the funds reimbursed by that employer. Another words, I expect regulations about funding order. Employee purchases on the exchange, but reports HRA funding arrangement, this will reduce the tax credit eligibility for those making less than 400% of FPL. Federal government saves money because of the nice employer HRA. For employees over the 400% FPL, the HRA is much needed funding for premiums for the policy purchased on the exchange. Employer saves by controlling costs increases and lower administration.  
I agree, no more open enrollment, selecting networks/carriers, dealing with claim complaints, COBRA, payroll deduction reconciliation, etc.  
Some small employers will lose the small business tax credit unless they purchase a small group plan under the SHOP.  
 
Posted @ Monday, February 04, 2013 8:07 PM by Frank
To better understand the Excluded HRA, see the post today Are HRAs Required to Cover Essential Health Benefits? 
Posted @ Tuesday, February 05, 2013 5:47 PM by Rick Lindquist
Rick, the post you refer to says that when an ER sets up a section 105 HRA plan to pay the premium of individual plans that this is considered a "self insured group health plan" and DOL would therefore allow this type of arrangement.  
 
I thought that group health plans must offer continuation of coverage (COBRA), non-discrimination testing, and a whole host of other requirements that individual plans do not have to include.  
 
If an HRA is a "self-insured group health plan" and it must comply with all of the requirements of a group plan, wouldn't an ER be better off just setting up a group health plan and not going through the hassle of having all EEs on different plans and trying to figure out how to comply with the non-discrimination rules and other requirements of self-funded group plans?  
 
Posted @ Wednesday, February 06, 2013 12:29 AM by Bruce
@ Bruce You said: "Rick, the post you refer to says that when an ER sets up a section 105 HRA plan to pay the premium of individual plans that this is considered a "self insured group health plan" and DOL would therefore allow this type of arrangement." 
 
No. It says an HRA is a self-insured group plan (regardless of what expenses it reimburses). 
 
@ Bruce You said: "I thought that group health plans must offer continuation of coverage (COBRA), non-discrimination testing, and a whole host of other requirements that individual plans do not have to include." 
 
HRAs (not the individual policies) are subject to these requirements. For info on how COBRA affects HRAs, see Does COBRA apply to Health Reimbursement Arrangements (HRAs)?
 
@ Bruce You said: "If an HRA is a "self-insured group health plan" and it must comply with all of the requirements of a group plan, wouldn't an ER be better off just setting up a group health plan and not going through the hassle of having all EEs on different plans and trying to figure out how to comply with the non-discrimination rules and other requirements of self-funded group plans?" 
 
First, the only group plan the employer should sponsor is the HRA. (The individual polices should not be employer-sponsored). 
 
See Why Businesses Should Never Pay Individual Health Insurance Premiums 
 
Whether or not an employer should offer an HRA vs a traditional group health insurance plan is based on several factors (but, mostly financial post 2014). 
 
If an HRA is a better solution financially for both the employers and employees, perceived hassle is a key concern to address. 
 
This is why an employer should use proper HRA administration software to administer the HRA. 
 
Proper HRA administration software will handle most of the "hassle" automatically for the employer: 
 
1) COBRA (if applicable) 
2) Medicare Reporting 
3) HIPAA Privacy 
4) IRS Form 720 / 5500 Reporting 
5) Online HRA Claim Tracking 
6) Electronic plan creation and documents 
7) SBC 
8) Receipt / Documentation Storage 
9) Accounting for the HRA 
10) etc. 
 
See HRA Administration - 15 Features To Expect From Your Provider
Posted @ Wednesday, February 06, 2013 9:12 AM by Rick Lindquist
Rick, why wouldn't HRA #2 work....Flexible Spending Arrangement under 106 c 2....where the employer is allowed to reimburses individual premium up to 500% of the value of that premium?
Posted @ Wednesday, February 06, 2013 12:29 PM by Mike
Hi Mike, 
 
#2 does work for premium reimbursement (most HRAs already meet this criteria). 
 
However, the value of "HRA" coverage should not take into account the premium. It should only take into account the employer annual contribution to the HRA.
Posted @ Wednesday, February 06, 2013 12:35 PM by Rick Lindquist
Just when I was about to start an HRA for my 1 employee C corp I find all these comments making it difficult to figure out if it's right for me. Are you guys saying that if I buy insurance through one of the exchanges (reduced rate) then my HRA won't be able reimburse for the premiums without getting some sort of tax bite? Rick, can you please give me some definitive on this subject?
Posted @ Sunday, February 24, 2013 9:23 PM by Terri
Hi Terri, 
 
Sorry for the confusion.  
 
See Stand-alone HRAs Can Still Reimburse Health Insurance Premiums for an article that should address you question. 
Posted @ Monday, February 25, 2013 1:01 PM by Rick Lindquist
Does the Integrated HRA have to have the identical plan year with the group health plan? If I have a client with a 10/1 anniversary and sets up an HRA now, is that OK or do we have to wait and implement it to coincide with the 10/1 group health plan year?
Posted @ Thursday, March 14, 2013 7:38 AM by Tony
Hi Tony, 
An integrated HRA does not have to mirror the group health plan year, although this is most common. Reach out to us and we'd be happy to help with specific questions (1-800-391-9209, sales@zanebenefits.com)
Posted @ Thursday, April 11, 2013 12:51 PM by Christina Merhar
Please explain what a flexible spending HRA is? Does an employer need to make all funds available from day one continuity of coverage rule? Are there special plan documents which need to be drafted stating this is an FSA/HRA? What does the 5x rule really mean?
Posted @ Saturday, May 04, 2013 7:59 AM by John
Hi John, Thanks for the questions. 
 
<<Please explain what a flexible spending HRA is?>> The "FSA-HRA" is still an HRA (not a section 125 FSA as we generally know them). It is defined in Section 106(c)(2), as noted in IRS Notice 2002-45. 
 
<<Does an employer need to make all funds available from day one continuity of coverage rule?>> No. As an HRA, the funds continue to be notional. 
 
<<Are there special plan documents which need to be drafted stating this is an FSA/HRA? >> The HRA plan docs only need to specify that the plan meets the criteria of the FSA-HRA. (no long-term care insurance coverage, and the 5x annual limit plan design). 
 
<<What does the 5x rule really mean?>> The amount of HRA allowance that rolls over from year to year must be capped at 5x the annual allowance. (In other words, an unlimited amount of HRA balance rollover is now limited). 
 
Does that help? 
Posted @ Monday, May 06, 2013 10:35 AM by Christina Merhar
It does help and it makes is seem as if the stand alones are still ok with minor changes..thank you
Posted @ Monday, May 06, 2013 11:08 AM by John
Hi John - You got it!
Posted @ Monday, May 06, 2013 11:14 AM by Christina Merhar
An integrated HRA where the total premium is also integrated: This means a plan might be $300 total. ER pays 70% of premium. This could be construed that the ee is paying for the hra as well. Is this legal? Is it compliant? I know my HRA is compliant. Looking for an answer on if EE contributions are allowed.
Posted @ Monday, May 20, 2013 7:09 PM by beachgal
Hi Marie - Thanks for the comment. With an integrated HRA, EE contributions are allowed for the insurance premium portions. Then the integrated HRA is entirely employer-funded. Does that help? Reach out to us by email or phone and we can help you with the specifics of this plan.
Posted @ Tuesday, May 21, 2013 10:01 AM by Christina Merhar
Post Comment
Name
 *
Email
 *
Website (optional)
Comment
 *

Allowed tags: <a> link, <b> bold, <i> italics

More Info
Product
Customers
Across the Web
Contact Us
Disclaimer: The information provided on this website is general in nature and does not apply to any specific U.S. state except where noted. Health insurance regulations differ in each state. See a licensed agent for detailed information on your state. Zane Benefits, Inc. does not sell health insurance.