Blog Layout

June 2014

July 8, 2014

Getting a handle on the ACA’s “play or pay” provision

Come Jan. 1, 2015, “large” employers will have to comply with what’s come to be known as the “play or pay” provision of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The original effective date of Jan. 1, 2014, was pushed back to allow health care providers and employers more time to develop and implement the systems they’ll need to meet the requirements of this provision.

While the delay offers business owners some breathing room, many companies will have to do a fair amount of work this year to collect data on the makeup of their workforces and the health care benefits they offer — all of which is necessary to comply with the ACA. Once that’s done, some companies will need to decide whether it makes sense to boost their health care coverage or risk the penalties they may incur if they don’t — that is, to “play or pay.”


Determining large employer status

The play-or-pay provision generally applies to employers that had at least 50 full-time employees, or a combination of full-timers and full-time equivalent (FTE) employees totaling 50 or more, in the preceding calendar year. Under the ACA regulations, full-time employees typically include those who work an average of at least 30 hours each week or 130 hours in a month.

All part-time employees’ monthly hours are totaled and then divided by 120 to convert them to FTEs. For instance, an employer with 30 part-time employees who work 80 hours each month would have 20 FTEs (30 × 80 = 2,400; 2,400/120 = 20).

When determining whether you’ve hit the 50 full-timer/FTE threshold, keep these two points in mind:

  1. An employee’s use of Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) leave and certain other types of leave can’t be used to reduce his or her work hours for these calculations.
  2. If two or more companies share an owner or are related, they may be treated as one when determining whether the group of businesses is subject to the play-or-pay provision.

If you’re unsure of how to calculate the numbers for your business, please contact your financial advisor.

Meeting health plan requirements

To ensure they’ll avoid play-or-pay penalties, large employers must meet the health coverage requirements of the ACA, which include providing “minimum essential coverage” that is “affordable” and offers at least “minimum value.” Here’s how the ACA defines these terms:

Minimum essential coverage. A rather broad classification, this includes many plans that are offered in the small- or large-group market in an employer’s state. However, some limited coverage plans — say, those that cover only specific conditions — may fall short of this criterion.

Minimum value. This criterion generally is met when the health plan picks up at least 60% of total allowed benefit costs.

Affordable. To meet this requirement, an employee’s premiums — for the lowest cost, self-only plan that provides minimum essential coverage and value — must come to no more than 9.5% of his or her household income. Given the difficulty that many employers would face in assessing each employee’s household income, they can instead use one of these three safe harbors: 1) The employee’s annual premium is 9.5% or less of his or her W-2 wages, 2) the employee’s monthly premium is 9.5% or less of his or her hourly pay rate multiplied by 130 hours, or 3) the employee’s annual premium is 9.5% or less of the federal poverty level for an individual.


Action to take now



To prepare for the Jan. 1, 2015, play-or-pay effective date, employers must first determine if they’re large employers under the ACA. Large employers that offer health care coverage should review their coverage options to determine if they meet the requirements of minimum coverage and value, as well as affordability. Employers that don’t offer health insurance or whose coverage options don’t meet the ACA’s criteria should compare the cost of providing coverage to the cost of potential penalties (see the sidebar “How the penalties work”), taking into account that insurance costs are tax-deductible, but the penalties aren’t.

Last, it’s important to keep in mind that the ACA is subject to political uncertainties, and there is a possibility that changes may take place before Jan. 1, 2015.

 

 

This material is generic in nature. Before relying on the material in any important matter, users should note date of publication and carefully evaluate its accuracy, currency, completeness, and relevance for their purposes, and should obtain any appropriate professional advice relevant to their particular circumstances.

Share Post:

By Katrina Arona February 19, 2025
The Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) which took effect on January 1, 2024 required "reporting companies" in the United States to disclose information about their beneficial owners to the Treasury Department's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN). In May 2024, a lawsuit was filed claiming that Congress exceeded its authority under the Constitution in passing the CTA. Background: December 3, 2024 in the Texas Top Cop Shop, Inc., et al. v. Merrick Garland, Attorney General of the United States, et al., Judge Amos Mazzant of the United States District Court (Eastern District of Texas/Sherman Division) issued a preliminary nationwide injunction barring the enforcement of the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA). December 23, 2024 the Nationwide Injunction is lifted and filing deadlines are reinstated. Financial Crimes Enforcement Network of the U.S. Department of Treasury (FinCEN) may again enforce the CTA. FinCEN has not extended any filing deadlines. Therefore, all reporting companies should file immediately any beneficial ownership information reports (BOIRs) that were already due, and reporting companies formed prior to 2024 should file their BOIRs by January 13, 2025 (extended from January 1, 2025). December 27, 2024 the federal appeals court on Thursday reinstated a nationwide injuction halting enforcement of beneficial ownership information (BOI) reporting requirements, reversing an order the same court issued earlier this week. FinCEN issued an updated alert on its BOI information page , saying that companies can voluntarily submit BOI reports. February 7, 2025 FinCEN will consider changes to the BOI reporting requirements if a court grants the government's request for a stay of a nationwide injunction in a Texas case, according to a motion filed Wednesday, February 5th. If the stay is granted, FinCEN will extend BOI filing deadlines for 30 days, the government said in its filing in Samantha Smith and Robert Means v. U.S. Department of the Treasury, No. 6:24-CV-336 (E.D. Texas 1/7/25). BOI reporting is currently voluntary, pending further legal developments. Businesses and stakeholders should stay alert for additional updates as the situation evolves. Current Status: February 18, 2025 A federal court lifted the last remaining nationwide injunction stopping BOI reporting requirements. FinCEN which enforces BOI requirements under the CTA said it would extend filing deadline for initial, updated, and/or corrected BOI reports to March 21. However, reporting companies that were previously given a deadline later than March 21 may file their initial BOI report by that later deadline. Resources for consideration: March 21 BOI reporting deadline set; further delay possible BOI Injunction Lifted FinCEN BOI Center
By Katrina Arona February 12, 2025
February 7, 2025 FinCEN will consider changes to the BOI reporting requirements if a court grants the government's request for a stay of a nationwide injunction in a Texas case, according to a motion filed Wednesday, February 5th. If the stay is granted, FinCEN will extend BOI filing deadlines for 30 days, the government said in its filing in Samantha Smith and Robert Means v. U.S. Department of the Treasury, No. 6:24-CV-336 (E.D. Texas 1/7/25). BOI reporting is currently voluntary, pending further legal developments. Businesses and stakeholders should stay alert for additional updates as the situation evolves
By Katrina Arona February 10, 2025
Some nonprofit executives try to control as much as they can. But micromanagement isn’t conducive to creating an effective team.
Show More
Share by: