Can Employers Pay for Employees' Individual Health Insurance?

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

Can Employers Pay for Employees' Individual Health Insurance?

 

Employers are allowed to use Health Reimbursement Arrangements (HRAs) to reimburse employees tax free for individual health insurance premiums, similar to the way employers contribute on a tax free basis to group premiums. This has been clarified with the release of numerous U.S. Treasury and State publications spelling out how employers can use HRAs for tax-free reimbursement of the premiums paid for personal health insurance policies. See "Insurance Premiums" in IRS Publication 502. Also see IRS Publication 969.employer payment of individual health insurance

There are specific HIPAA and ERISA regulations governing the distribution of individual health insurance policies at the workplace--basically restricting employer involvement with the sale or administration of employee Individual health insurance policies.   The HRA administration platform utilized should ensure employer compliance with these regulations.

Today, less than 50% of small employers offer any employee health benefits, and every year 2 million fewer employees receive group coverage due to rising cost. 


Confusing,
 Outdated and Unenforced State Insurance Regulations

HRA tax-free reimbursement by employers to employees for the cost of individual health insurance premiums is absolutely allowed in all U.S. States. Period.

In some states, there are confusing, outdated and unenforced insurance regulations stating or implying that the payment by an employer with less 50 employees of an individual policy premium could result in the insurance company having created a "group plan"-- thus, requiring the insurance company to offer the same individual policy to all employees of the "small employer" regardless of health status. 

While such specious regulations have never been tried in the courts, if they were tried and proven valid, such validity could only benefit both employers and employees. Most insurance carriers ignore these regulations entirely when a proper HRA administration system is utilized or take a "don't ask don't tell" policy with respect to their policyholders. 

Note that these regulations do not apply to employers, since state insurance departments regulate insurance carriers (NOT employers). 

These insurance department regulations are practically unenforceable since: 

  1. When reimbursing an employee’s HRA claim through a HIPAA- and ERISA-compliant platform, employers are unaware whether the HRA reimbursement is for a doctor visit or a health insurance premium; and 

  2. Insurance carriers are unaware if, after a policyholder pays a monthly premium, the policyholder later receives reimbursement from their employer for the premium.

As a further complication, several states such as many states recently began requiring small employers to offer either Section 125 (Cafeteria Plan) or Section 105 (HRA) tax-free reimbursement of employees' individual health policy premiums.

 

hra-whitepaper-101

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

subscribetoblogctablue

Comments

In some states,there are confusing,outdated and unenforced insurance regulations stating or implying that the payment by an employer with less 50 employees of an individual policy premium is best to share in the blog also there are better opportunity to share.

Posted @ Friday, April 06, 2012 4:19 PM by weight loss pills
It depend upon company policy.

Posted @ Friday, April 06, 2012 4:21 PM by Mesothelioma
Mesothelioma, great point!  I have researched this exhaustively and have come to the conclusion that while it may work in theory, carriers in IL and WI generally have a question on their applications asking if the employer is funding the premium and to answer yes, would disqualify an individual plan.  To say no would be, in my opinion, material misrepresentation and could cause a policy to be rescinded. 

Additionally it is my understanding that if a plan (or HRA) is employer sponsored or endorsed in any way, it is then subject to HIPAA, ERISA, etc.  What about the mandates that apply to group health plans?  Individual plans are in and of themselves discriminatory.  "Practically uninforceable" is not the same as ethical or right. 

Posted @ Friday, April 06, 2012 4:22 PM by Me
Hi Carrie, 

"The employer can use an ERISA and HIPAA-compliant defined contribution health plan to contribute to employees' individual health insurance costs without violating federal law.
The federal government has guidelines for employers who want to contribute to an employee's individual health insurance premiums. Specifically, the employer must take special steps to avoid "employer endorsement" of the individual plans.

To avoid endorsement of individual health insurance plans, compliance includes the following restrictions on the actions of employers:
Employers must not be involved in employees' decision to purchase individual health insurance, or their decision on which insurer or plan to use. They must not get involved in any negotiations with an insurance carrier over price or benefits of individual health insurance plans, and must not provide employees with claim forms or other materials related to their individual health insurance policies.Employers may not directly pay premiums on individual health insurance policies. They must not receive any compensation from an insurance carrier in connection with an employee's individual health insurance policy.Employers must not become involved in any claim dispute between an employee and an insurance carrier; all inquiries must be directed to the insurer.

To comply with point (1) above, while still making contributions to a defined contribution health plan that can reimburse for individual health insurance premiums, employers should follow these additional guidelines:
Employers must not pressure employees to use the defined contribution to pay for individual insurance coverage. In addition to reimbursing for health insurance premiums, employers should also allow the use of funds for qualified medical expenses.Employers must limit their role to simply verifying that a qualified medical expense (such as an individual health insurance premium) was incurred, and then reimbursing such amount from the defined contribution."
http://www.zanebenefits.com/re... 

Posted @ Friday, April 06, 2012 4:22 PM by Rick Lindquist
Health insurance is most vital of all the insurance plans. It provides cover for your health issues. The Health Insurance you go for should emphasis preventive measures and support rather than offering cover over treatments 


Posted @ Friday, April 06, 2012 4:23 PM by Affordable Insurance
Are you that stupid?  Health insurance that "you go for" should pay for the BIG STUFF that would be difficult or impossible for you to pay for if you are the "lucky" person that ends up needing it . . . a major accident, open heart surgery, cancer treatment, neonatal ICU, and so forth.  The routine (e.g., tonsilitis) and preventative stuff is rellatively inexpensive, and we would be best off paying for such things out of our pockets.  The obviously predictable things like pregnacy are likewise irrational to insure (though complications of pregnancy is a reasonable thing to insure against).  What the ignorant masses fail to understand is that insurance companies operate on a margin, so if you are expected to have $80 in claims, the company will charge you $100 in premium to pay the $80 plus cover expenses (comissions, administration requried to review/pay the claim, taxes, yadda yadda) and profit.  So everytime a bunch of do-gooders add a requirement that some routine sort of thing (like a mamogram) be added to coverage, it actually costs the consumer more than it would to pay for the mamogram herself and buy the same insurance w/o the mamogram coverage.  What's worse, for those people on the borderline of being able to afford insurance, the mandates push the cost out of reach.  The sad truth here is this: virtually no preventative measure provides a net financial savings to the overall cost of care for society as a whole; in fact, on average, the added cost of all those tests far exceeds the money saved on treatment (and sometimes people with false positives on their tests get unneeded treatment).  Moreover, with the notable exception of colonoscopy, the "preventative "tests provide virtually no beneficial outcome in terms of survival and/or disability related to the conditions that the tests are checking for.  The term "preventative test" is actually a euphamism, as having the test will not prevent a thing.  The two best things to "prevent" disease is to stop using tobacco or illegal drugs in any way shape or form, and to lose weight (a major driver of diabetes and joint degredation, and a stress on the heart).  WAKE UP AMERICA

Posted @ Friday, April 06, 2012 4:24 PM by Me112233
O CANADA MY HOME AND NATIVE LAND!!! loving my social health care!!

Posted @ Friday, April 06, 2012 4:24 PM by Homeworker11
They can and I think they're willing as long as the employee deserves to have the best health insurance, right?
Posted @ Saturday, June 16, 2012 11:24 AM by forhealthplans.com
Won't the defined contribution plan as described above which pays for all 213(d)expenses be considered a "stand alone" HRA and therefore disallowed after 1/1/14?
Posted @ Wednesday, September 05, 2012 10:11 AM by Joe
Won't the defined contribution plan as described above which pays for all 213(d)expenses be considered a "stand alone" HRA and therefore disallowed after 1/1/14?
Posted @ Wednesday, September 05, 2012 10:11 AM by Joe
An HRA is a Section 105 ERISA group health plan. If it qualifies as a flexible spending arrangement under section 106, excepted benefits, or does not provide coverage for "essential benefits", then is currently exempted from the annual limit requirements of health reform.  
 
The final regulations have not yet been issued with respect to stand-alone HRAs that do not qualify for one of the above exemptions.  
 
HRAs paired with group health plans that together are considered qualified health plans are also exempted.
Posted @ Wednesday, September 05, 2012 2:00 PM by Rick Lindquist
A change in the regulations under the new federal health care law related to annual dollar limits is adversely impacting the viability of newly established HRAs. Can you tell me what steps to take to offer a stand alone HRA that is compliant with the new regulations.
Posted @ Monday, September 17, 2012 10:50 AM by Patti
HHS has not yet determined whether stand-alone HRAs are subject to the annual limit requirements. Instead, they requested comments.  
 
However, HHS did go ahead and exempt certain HRAs.  
 
First, I recommend you speak to a Zane HRA specialist for more information on your specific needs.  
 
Generally, the following types of HRAs are already exempted from the annual limit requirements:  
 
1. HRAs that meet the definition of flexible spending arrangements in Section 106 (c)2  
2. HRAs that only reimburse non-essential health benefits (e.g. premium, dental and vision only)  
3. Excepted HRAs (e.g. standalone dental or vision hras)  
4. HRAs integrated with a qualified group health insurance plan  
 
See http://www.zanebenefits.com/free-business-defined-contribution-healthcare-kit for a starter kit you may find helpful. 
 
Posted @ Monday, September 17, 2012 11:57 AM by Rick Lindquist
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.