Minimum Value Rules Were Expected, but Worry Employers

Bloomberg Law for HR Professionals is a complete, one-stop resource, continuously updated, providing HR professionals with fast answers to a wide range of domestic and international human resources...

By Kristen Ricaurte Knebel

Sept. 2 — Large employers might not object to being required to provide hospitalization services to meet the ACA's minimum value standard under new IRS proposed rules, but the requirement could be opening a door that self-insured plans don't want to go through.

Most large employers already offer health plans that cover hospitalization, but the new proposed rules could be worrisome because they mandate that a specific benefit be provided by those plans, Kathryn Wilber, senior counsel for health policy at the American Benefits Council, told Bloomberg BNA on Sept. 2.

The Internal Revenue Service and Treasury Department issued proposed rules Aug. 31 saying that eligible employer-sponsored health plans will be considered to provide minimum value coverage only if the plan's share of total allowed costs of benefits provided to an employee is at least 60% and if the plan includes substantial coverage of inpatient hospital and physician services.

The IRS indicated that it would issue rules on this subject matter in conjunction with the Department of Health and Human Services last fall in Notice 2014-69.

While employers are aware that there are other health benefits, such as preventive services, that are required to be offered under other parts of the Affordable Care Act, “we see this minimum value at 60% now being expanded to specifically require a certain benefit and that is opening the door to something that we don’t think Congress intended,” Wilber said.

Missing Elements 

One element that is missing from the proposed rules is any explanatory legal analysis for why the agencies governing the ACA believe hospitalization services are required as opposed to other coverage that is traditionally thought of as fundamental, Rachel Leiser Levy, a principal at Groom Law Group Chartered, Washington, told Bloomberg BNA on Sept. 2.

The proposed rules reference previously released regulations from the HHS saying “the minimum value standard may be interpreted to require that employer-sponsored plans cover critical benefits.”

“I think that does leave the door open for other coverage to be put into that bucket of critical benefits,” Levy said, but she added that there shouldn't be too much concern regarding this possibility because the proposed rules were targeting a specific kind of plan sometimes referred to as a “skinny plan.”

Levy said skinny plans came to the attention of the Obama administration early on when they saw “that there were certain employers who appeared to be trying to thread the needle as finely as they could” by offering plans that provided the least amount of benefits possible to qualify as minimum value and not trigger an ACA penalty.

The proposed rules also don't feature broad transition relief, but that may be balanced by the fact that the HHS already put out regulations covering this topic and the IRS gave notice of its intentions last year, Levy said.

The rules apply for plan years beginning on or after Nov. 3, 2014, and the changes to the minimum value rules don't apply to plans that began before March 1, 2015, which is the 2015 plan year. But that means the rules are in effect for the 2016 plan year, which doesn't give much time, if any, for plans that weren't going to offer the newly required services to make changes.

Alden J. Bianchi, a member at Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky & Popeo PC in Boston, had a slightly different take on what the IRS and Treasury may have to address when they finalize these rules, telling Bloomberg BNA on Sept. 1 that the regulations say that a plan has to provide substantial coverage of in-patient hospital and physician services, but they never define what constitutes substantial.

Final rules will have to address this, because otherwise “people are going to try to push the envelope,” he said.

The Treasury and the IRS said in the proposed rules that they were seeking public input on rules for determining whether a plan provides “substantial coverage” on inpatient hospital and physician services.

To contact the reporter on this story: Kristen Ricaurte Knebel in Washington at

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Jo-el J. Meyer at

For a discussion of premium tax credits in the Tax Management Portfolios, see 389 T.M., Medical Plans — COBRA, HIPAA, HRAs, HSAs and Disability, in Tax Practice Series, see ¶5920, Health & Disability Plans, and in the Health Care Reform Adviser, see 120, Premium Assistance Tax Credit (Code §36B) — After 2013. For a discussion of the assessable payment employers may owe in the Tax Management Portfolios, see 389 T.M., Medical Plans — COBRA, HIPAA, HRAs, HSAs and Disability, and in the Health Care Reform Adviser, see 140, Employer Responsibility Related to Health Care Coverage.


Request Bloomberg Law for HR Professionals