Top Milliman blog posts in 2014

December 15th, 2014

By Javier Sanabria

Milliman consultants had another prolific publishing year in 2014, with blog topics ranging from healthcare reform to HATFA. As 2014 comes to a close, we’ve highlighted Milliman’s top 20 blogs for 2014 based on total page views.

20. Mike Williams and Stephanie Noonan’s blog, “Four things employers should know when evaluating private health exchanges,” can help employers determine whether a PHE makes sense for them.

19. Kevin Skow discusses savings tools that can help employees prepare for retirement in his blog “Retirement readiness: How long will you live in retirement? Want to bet on it?

18. The Benefits Alert entitled “Revised mortality assumptions issued for pension plans,” published by Milliman’s Employee Benefit Research Group, provides pension plan sponsors actuarial perspective on the Society of Actuaries’ revised mortality tables.

17. In her blog, “PBGC variable rate premium: Should plans make the switch?,” Milliman’s Maria Moliterno provides examples of how consultants can estimate variable rate premiums using either the standard premium funding target or the alternative premium funding target for 2014 and 2015 plan years.

16. Milliman’s infographic “The boomerang generation’s retirement planning” features 12 tips Millennials should consider when developing their retirement strategy.

15. “Young uninsureds ask, ‘Do I feel lucky?’” examines the dilemma young consumers face when deciding to purchase insurance on the health exchange or go uninsured.

14. Last year’s #1 blog, “Retiring early under ACA: An unexpected outcome for employers?,” is still going strong. The blog authored by Jeff Bradley discusses the impact that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act could have on early retirees.

13. Genny Sedgwick’s “Fee leveling in DC plans: Disclosure is just the beginning” blog also made our list for the second consecutive year. Genny explains how different fee assessment methodologies, when used with a strategy to normalize revenue sharing among participant accounts, can significantly modify the impact of plan fees in participant accounts.

12. Doug Conkel discusses how the Supreme Court’s decision to rule on Tibble vs. Edison may impact defined contribution plans in his blog “Tibble vs. Edison: What will it mean for plan sponsors and fiduciaries?

11. In her blog “Retirement plan leakage and retirement readiness,” Kara Tedesco discusses some problems created by the outflow of retirement savings. She also provides perspective on how employers can help employees keep money in their plans.

Read more…

Electronic Health Records , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Provider risk-sharing: Back to the Future?

December 18th, 2014

By Javier Sanabria

What would Marty McFly and Doc Brown have thought about the present provider risk-sharing environment had their mission been to scout its arrangement in Back to the Future Part II? Encountering Milliman consultant Courtney White’s article “Back to the future: Provider risk-sharing: 1985 or 2015?” during their time travel would give them good perspective.

Here’s an excerpt of what they would read:

While the current provider risk posture may seem much like the 1990s, the lessons learned from that time, coupled with the recent legislative initiatives, have created a risk-taking environment that is very different from the past. A renewed (and justified) interest has emerged in creating provider organizations and in seeing providers take on more risk.

There are a number of initiatives influenced by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), such as accountable care organizations (ACOs), the level playing field created by risk mitigation, the product transparency existing on the exchanges, and carrier loss ratio requirements, along with a focus on quality and innovation. The ACA created a number of issues that are distinctly different from the past and that a provider organization should consider when structuring a risk-taking arrangement, including:

• Homogeneity of the covered population
• ACA-enabled parameters such as:
– Cost-sharing reduction subsidies for low-income individuals
– Risk adjustment
– Reinsurance
– Risk corridors

Reform , ,

Regulatory roundup

December 16th, 2014

By Employee Benefit Research Group

More healthcare-related regulatory news for plan sponsors, including links to detailed information.

Deadline for submission of 2014 reinsurance and risk adjustment program claims and enrollment data delayed
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has released a notification extending the deadline for submission of the first production file to the External Data Gathering Environment (EDGE) server by issuers with plans that are subject to HHS-operated reinsurance and risk adjustment distributed data reporting requirements under 45 CFR § 153.700. The new submission day is December 19.

For more information, click here.

Form W-2 reporting of employer-sponsored health coverage
The IRS has published guidance on Form W-2 reporting of employer-sponsored health coverage. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) requires employers to report the cost of coverage under an employer-sponsored group health plan. Reporting the cost of healthcare coverage on the Form W-2 does not mean that the coverage is taxable. The value of the employer’s excludable contribution to health coverage continues to be excludable from an employee’s income, and it is not taxable. This reporting is for informational purposes only and will provide employees useful and comparable consumer information on the cost of their health care coverage.

For more information, click here.

Health Insurance Oversight System (HIOS) Non-Federal user manual released
The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) have published a user manual explaining the functionality of the Non-Federal module within the Health Insurance Oversight System (HIOS). The manual provides information on registering organizations within HIOS, role request, role approver administrator functionality, creating and managing plans, completing HIPAA Opt Out elections, and editing HIPAA Opt Out elections. This manual provides step-by-step instructions for the features and functionalities available in the Non-Federal Module.

To read the entire manual, click here.

Benefit news , , ,

Third quarter financial results for medical professional liability writers, expectations for year-end results

December 11th, 2014

By Javier Sanabria

Medical professional liability (MPL) specialty writers are continuing to benefit from large redundancies in prior-year response levels as they have for several years. But a not so subtle transformation has emerged in the past few years. That transformation is that reserve runoffs are no longer bolstering the profit level. In fact, it could be argued that reserve runoffs are responsible for the profits as a whole. Milliman’s Brad Parker and Chuck Mitchell provide perspective in this article.

The article was originally published in the Medical Liability Monitor.

Medmal , ,

Regulatory action needed to ease LTC rate increases

December 10th, 2014

By Javier Sanabria

Many long-term care (LTC) insurers are seeking premium rate increases due to financial challenges. In the latest issue of Contingencies, Milliman’s Dawn Helwig examines three key assumptions – morbidity, lapse/mortality rates, and interest rates – affecting LTC rates. She also discusses the need for regulatory action “to make the rate increase landscape more predictable” and efficient.

Here is an excerpt:

It’s necessary to find a balanced solution for approving rates that will provide stability in coverage for insureds. Such a solution will preserve the private LTC market and prevent future reliance solely on public programs like Medicaid. In order to achieve this balance, more coordination is needed between regulators and companies in early filing and approval of actuarially justified rate increases. Closed blocks of business must be able to be restored to adequacy to promote long-term stability.

Some possible solutions that have been mentioned include:

• Allowing more policyholder options at rate increase times (benefit reductions).
• Improving communication with policyholders about their options and (if approved) future planned rate increases.
• Requiring companies to annually review their business and to certify whether or not rates need to be increased.
• Allowing rate increases based on updated assumptions that are actuarially supported, regardless of whether the existing block of business has developed enough experience to be considered credible (i.e., regardless of whether the updated assumptions can be demonstrated in the company’s actual experience).
• Requiring companies to file their future plans as part of a rate increase, including what will happen favorably or unfavorably from what was assumed in this filing.
• Allowing increases to be spread out over multiple years. This may require modifying the rate stability requirement that makes an actuary file the full increase needed in order to certify that rates are adequate using moderately adverse requirements.

To read the entire article, click here.

Long Term Care , ,

Regulatory roundup

December 8th, 2014

By Employee Benefit Research Group

More healthcare-related regulatory news for plan sponsors, including links to detailed information.

National health expenditures continued slow growth in 2013
Health spending continued to grow at a slow rate last year the Office of the Actuary (OACT) at the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) recently reported. In 2013, health spending grew at 3.6 percent and total national health expenditures in the United States reached $2.9 trillion, or $9,255 per person. The annual OACT report showed health spending continued a pattern of low growth – between 3.6 percent and 4.1 – percent for five consecutive years.

For more information, click here.

Benefit news ,

On track to have Social Security numbers for group health plan reporting?

December 5th, 2014

By Employee Benefit Research Group

Employers that sponsor group health plans are reminded that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) requires the reporting of employees’ minimum essential coverage for calendar year 2015 and that doing so will necessitate the collection of taxpayer identification numbers (TINs) for all covered individuals, including employees and their dependents. Although the statements for 2015 must be furnished to individuals by Feb. 1, 2016, and filed with the IRS by Feb. 29, 2016 (paper) or March 31, 2016 (electronically), the requesting of Social Security numbers (SSNs) needs to begin now.

Under tax code section 6055 reporting, employers (or parties reporting on behalf of employers) are required to report TINs for all covered individuals. In most cases, TINs are the individuals’ SSNs. This reporting will enable the IRS to confirm that the individuals have minimum essential coverage and are not subject to the penalty for not having appropriate health insurance. The IRS will match the information about dependents on individuals’ tax returns (e.g., Form 1040) with the names and TINs reported by employers. (See also Client Action Bulletin 14-4R)

As reporting entities, group health plan sponsors must make reasonable efforts to obtain TINs, and may do so via oral, written, or electronic means. The efforts should be documented. The IRS’s final rule, issued in March 2014, outlined the following general steps as a reasonable effort:

• Make an initial solicitation for the TIN at the time the relationship with the employee is established, such as at initial enrollment or upon hire, unless the reporting entity already has the employee’s TIN and uses that TIN for all relationships with the employee.
• If TINs are not received at that initial solicitation, the first annual solicitation is generally required by Dec. 31 of the year in which the relationship with the employee began (Jan. 31 of the following year if the relationship begins in December).
• If the TINs are still not provided, a second solicitation is required by Dec. 31 of the following year.
• If at this point the TINs are still not provided, the reporting entity has acted in a responsible manner and need not continue to solicit TINs for those individuals.

A failure to receive a TIN does not authorize the employer to terminate coverage. Reporting entities also are permitted to voluntarily report TINs for individuals not enrolled in coverage.

The final rule allows for the reporting of dates of birth in lieu of TINs, but only if the reporting entity is either informed that an individual has no TIN or unable to obtain a TIN after making the aforementioned reasonable efforts. In addition, if an employee adds a new dependent, the employer must again take reasonable efforts to obtain a TIN for that new dependent. Renewed efforts to solicit TINs for individuals already covered are not required.

Employers may use truncated taxpayer identification numbers in lieu of the full identification number when providing the information to the employee. A TIN is truncated when the first five of the nine digits are replaced by asterisks or X marks (e.g., 123-45-6789 becomes XXX-XX-6789). The full TIN must be used in the forms submitted to the IRS.

Noncompliance with the section 6055 reporting requirements subjects the employer to the penalties for a failure to file correct information return and/or for a failure to furnish correct employee statements. The IRS will grant temporary relief from these penalties for incorrect or incomplete information reported on returns and statements filed and furnished in 2016 (relating to coverage in 2015), but only for entities that can demonstrate they made good faith efforts to comply with the requirements.

For additional information about the 6055 information reporting requirements, please contact your Milliman consultant.

Benefit news , , , , ,

Regulatory roundup

December 1st, 2014

By Employee Benefit Research Group

More healthcare-related regulatory news for plan sponsors, including links to detailed information.

HHS releases bulletin clarifying HIPAA privacy rule in emergency situations
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has released a bulletin to ensure that HIPAA-covered entities and their business associates are aware of the ways in which patient information may be shared under the HIPAA Privacy Rule in an emergency situation, and to serve as a reminder that the protections of the Privacy Rule are not set aside during an emergency.

The bulletin describes situations in which covered entities and business associates may disclose protected health information in an emergency, while also emphasizing that in an emergency situation, covered entities must continue to implement reasonable safeguards to protect patient information against intentional or unintentional impermissible uses and disclosures.

To read the entire bulletin, click here.

Benefit news ,

Potential implications of ACA’s three-month grace period

November 26th, 2014

By Javier Sanabria

Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) enrollees who qualify for subsidies are allowed a 90-day premium nonpayment grace period so long as they have paid their first month’s premium. This provision could have adverse effects for the healthcare industry if individuals only pay nine months of premiums for a year’s worth of coverage.

A recent Health Affairs article by Milliman consultant Hans Leida and Manatt’s Michael Kolber offers perspective on how premium rates and exchange participation may be affected by individuals who game the grace period provision.

It is unclear how many individuals are likely to take advantage of this loophole. It seems likely that CMS’s new approach for the federally facilitated exchanges will reduce the number of gamers in those markets somewhat. In states that do not adopt CMS’s approach (or some other method to reduce gaming), the impact will likely be greater.

However, it is also likely that the impact will be smaller in the first years of the exchanges. Many of those newly enrolled through the exchanges are unfamiliar with health insurance in general and the ACA’s arcane rules in particular, and may not realize the potential for gaming. Others may have objections to gaming the system, or may be averse to the perceived risk of being in a grace period.

On the other hand, given the significant potential cost savings for gamers, it seems plausible that—eventually—many low-income individuals will adopt this strategy in order to further reduce their premium costs. For example, the nationwide average monthly premium for the second lowest cost silver plan is approximately $260 for a 35 year old. At that rate, a single enrollee at 250 percent of the federal poverty level would have a monthly net premium of approximately $193 after subsidy.

Over three months, this would amount to $579 of net premium that could be avoided through gaming. The insurer in this case would receive only $67 (the subsidy in the first month) out of the total gross premium of $780…

If even a relatively small fraction chooses to do so, it could have real consequences for premium rates—perhaps requiring an increase of up to several percentage points. Insurers with a greater concentration of subsidy-eligible enrollees, including new market entrants such as consumer operated and oriented plans (CO-OPs) and traditional Medicaid managed care organizations, could see larger impacts.

To read the entire article, click here.

Exchanges , ,

Regulatory roundup

November 24th, 2014

By Employee Benefit Research Group

More healthcare-related regulatory news for plan sponsors, including links to detailed information.

CMS extends deadline for reporting 2014 enrollment counts for reinsurance contributions
The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has extended the due date for contributing entities to submit their 2014 enrollment counts for transitional reinsurance program contributions to December 5, 2014. The January 15 and November 15, 2015, payment deadlines remain unchanged.

For more information, click here.

DOL updates mental health parity part of self-compliance tool and FAQs
The Employee Benefits Security Administration of the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) has updated its website with the following:

• Updates to the mental health parity web page
Mental health parity part of the self-compliance tool
Mental health parity provisions questions and answers in the updated Compliance Assistance Guide

• Updated Compliance Assistance Guide
Health benefits coverage under federal law

Benefit news , ,