Tag Archives: Patient Protection Affordable Care Act

Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act: Employer Mandate delayed again for mid-sized employers

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) announced on Feb. 10, 2014, that it will delay enforcement of the Employer Mandate as it applies to certain employers and will permit larger employers to offer coverage to a lower number of full-time employees in 2015.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Health Care Reform) requires an employer with at least 50 full-time equivalent employees to:

  • Offer health care coverage to substantially all of its full-time employees; and
  • Offer affordable health care coverage providing minimum benefits to all of its eligible full-time employees.
Read full article

Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act Alert-Issue 3: Health Care Reform – Employer "Pay or Play" Mandate in 2014

The re-election of President Obama and the lack of change in the control of the houses of Congress effectively ensure that the provisions of Health Care Reform will remain in place and will continue along the path of implementation.

This is the third Alert in a series designed to help employers understand and address the effects of Health Care Reform on your businesses so you are in the best position to make decisions in response to these new requirements. Our first Alert dealt with the implementation of new health flexible spending account limits; our second Alert provided guidance on reporting cost of health care coverage on form W-2. At this point, most of the regulatory guidance needed has either not yet been issued or has only been issued in proposed form. Therefore, we will provide the best possible guidance based on existing knowledge. 

Read full article

Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act Alert-Issue 3: Health Care Reform – Employer "Pay or Play" Mandate in 2014

The re-election of President Obama and the lack of change in the control of the houses of Congress effectively ensure that the provisions of Health Care Reform will remain in place and will continue along the path of implementation.

This is the third Alert in a series designed to help employers understand and address the effects of Health Care Reform on your businesses so you are in the best position to make decisions in response to these new requirements. Our first Alert dealt with the implementation of new health flexible spending account limits; our second Alert provided guidance on reporting cost of health care coverage on form W-2. At this point, most of the regulatory guidance needed has either not yet been issued or has only been issued in proposed form. Therefore, we will provide the best possible guidance based on existing knowledge. 

Read full article

McDonald Hopkins Law Firm Alert: Attention Employers: Is your company in compliance with the Affordable Care Act?

Cleveland, Ohio (July 6, 2012) – When the U.S. Supreme Court last week held the individual mandate provision of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to be constitutional, the Court also upheld all of the other employer and group health plan provisions in the Act. With effective dates of the Act’s various provisions spread over four years, employers should now be reviewing all of the Act’s provisions and confirming that they – and their group health plans – are in compliance with the provisions currently effective, and are taking the necessary steps to comply with provisions becoming effective in the future. 

Read full article

HEALTH REFORM: U.S. Supreme Court’s Ruling on the Affordable Care Act: What Does It Mean?

By now, every American who pays any attention to the news is aware that the Supreme Court of the United States has upheld essentially all of the Obama administration’s Affordable Care Act (“ACA”). We have posted a copy of the lengthy opinion, concurrence, and dissent on our website. For now, we should be focusing on what the case of National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius actually will cause to occur.

For those who haven’t yet dissected the opinions, the Court’s controlling decision does two things. First, by a 5-4 majority led by the Chief Justice, the Court upheld the individual mandate, the single most controversial and essential provision of the ACA, not under the Commerce Clause, as its proponents primarily urged, but under the tax power—not as a requirement to buy health insurance, but as a tax if individuals don’t. The four “liberal” Justices, concurring, would have upheld the mandate under the Commerce Clause. The net of this is that the Chief Justice surprised many people by creating a majority to uphold the law, but he also stood as a bulwark against the expansion of the Commerce Clause to cover inactivity. In other words, you can’t be forced to eat broccoli, but you might be subject to a tax or fine if the consumption of broccoli is found by Congress to be an important national interest and you refuse to eat it.

Read full article