Like most employers, you’ve probably spent the last several months wading through a sea of information on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“ACA”). You may have even begun devising a strategic plan that addresses the Employer Shared Responsibility rules released earlier this year by the Department of the Treasury dubbed as the “Play or Pay” provisions. But just when you think you have it all figured out, there is another set of potential issues to consider before implementing an ACA compliance strategy; the provisions of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).
Most employers are familiar with ERISA when it comes to vested benefits such as retirement plans, but ERISA also applies to non-vested benefit plans including health insurance coverage. Section 510 of ERISA specifically prohibits certain actions that could interfere with an employee’s attainment of a right to a benefit. The statute provides, in part, that “it shall be unlawful for any person to . . . . discriminate against a participant or beneficiary for exercising any right to which he is entitled under the provisions of an employee benefit plan . . . or for the purpose of interfering with the attainment of any right to which such participant may become entitled under the plan.” And, that is where the rub comes in.
ERISA §510 and Workforce Restructuring
In 2014, under the ACA, large employers (those with 50 or more full time equivalent employees) will be required to either offer affordable health coverage to full time employees (classified by ACA as those working 30 or more hours per week) or be subject to a “No Coverage” excise tax as codified in §4980H of the Internal Revenue Code. The ACA’s mandate is an either/or proposition and this key point should not be overlooked during ACA compliance planning.
Many large employers have indicated that they will consider adopting financial strategies aimed at minimizing their exposure to Play or Pay penalties through workforce realignment initiatives designed to replace full time employees with part time workers and further limit hours worked by part time employees to fewer than 30 hours per week. This is a strategy that may be particularly attractive to employers with variable, per diem workforces; high turnover and/or lower paid workers. In certain cases, however, workforce restructuring efforts may open up ERISA §510 exposure and, as a result, employers considering realignment strategies will want to tread carefully and ensure that their actions to minimize exposure to penalties under the ACA don’t end up creating replacement liability under ERISA.
To bring an action under ERISA §510, an employee is required to demonstrate that his employer interfered with an ERISA guaranteed right to participate in the employer’s health plan. However, since health benefits are not considered vested for purposes of ERISA, employers are free to periodically modify coverage provided as well as eligibility for benefits under an existing health plan without interfering with rights guaranteed to employees. Thus, modification of the health plan or modification of an employee’s work requirements does not, in and of itself, constitute a problem under ERISA. On the other hand, if an employee is eligible for health care benefits under an existing plan and the employer curtails working hours specifically to create ineligibility for attainment of coverage and/or avoid a potential “Play or Pay” penalty, an ERISA complaint may be actionable.
Consider the following examples: The employer currently offers healthcare coverage to all of its full time employees who work 40 hours per week and their dependents. Part time employees who work fewer than 40 hours a week are not eligible for coverage. In 2013, as a means of avoiding the 2014 No Coverage penalty, the employer adopts a workforce realignment plan that effectively reduces the hours for all current non-covered, part time employees to less than 30 hours per week by the close of the year. Because the employer has not interfered with any part-time employee’s current or attainable right under the employer’s health plan, the realignment action would not be considered an ERISA violation.
On the other hand, if the employer goes further and similarly reduces the hours of full time employees who are either currently covered or who expect to be covered after satisfaction of a plan waiting period, a §510 claim would likely survive because, in this instance, the employer has interfered with a current or attainable benefit under the plan.
Alternatively, consider the employer who has traditionally offered healthcare coverage to all of its employees who work at least 4 days, or 32 hours, per week. After performing an analysis of anticipated premium increases, the employer concludes that it must limit its offer of coverage to a smaller employee group working at least 40 hours per week because it simply cannot afford to continue benefits for an expanded portion of its workforce. Thus, the employer modifies the eligibility provisions of the plan to require at least 40 hours per week as the threshold for coverage eligibility and changes other coverage provisions of the plan to reduce the impact of the expected premium increase while also, subsequently, cutting the hours of current employees who work fewer than 40 hours per week, limiting them to no more than 24 hours/3 days per week to avoid exposure to the “Play or Pay” penalties. In this case, an affected employee who loses hours but who is no longer eligible for coverage due to the changed eligibility requirements would likely have no claim under §510 of ERISA.
In all cases, it is imperative that employers considering realignment strategies that could result in plan changes and/or workforce changes should consult with qualified counsel to determine the risk associated with HR strategies in the face of the ACA requirements. 2013 will be a year of careful planning and analysis of what the ACA means to employers and it is not too soon to start thinking about compliance strategies that will minimize risk as well as financial impact. And, as always, when dealing with issues related to ERISA rules, consult with qualified counsel.