This post was contributed by Stephen R. Kern, Esq., a Member in the Employee Benefits Practice Group.
The U.S. Department of Labor (the "DOL") has recently enhanced its enforcement activities with respect to group health plans by significantly increasing the number of audits it is conducting. In addition, the DOL’s audit letters contain significant document requests …
In the past year there has been a flurry of activity in the courts and the General Assembly surrounding the availability of unemployment compensation benefit to employees within the state. To start off 2012, amendments to the Pennsylvania Unemployment Compensation Law (“Act 6” or “amendments”) took effect and imposed a requirement that claimants “mak[e] an active search for suitable employment” in order to be eligible for UC benefits. Prior to Act 6, Pennsylvania was the only state that did not require a UC claimant to search for work in order to qualify for benefits. Act 6 directed the state’s Department of Labor and Industry (“L&I”) to establish the specific search efforts necessary for a claimant to satisfy the active search requirements…
Continue Reading Pennsylvania Regulatory Review Panel Disapproves of L&I’s New UC Active Work Search Requirements
Historically, in determining whether an employee discharged for absenteeism and tardiness was eligible for unemployment compensation benefits, the court’s analysis had focused on the final incident that led to termination. Specifically, even where the employer could point to a pattern of excessive absenteeism as the cause for discharge, the employee was not disqualified from receiving benefits if the last absence was justified. Late last year, however, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania issued a decision that appears to undermines this “last in time” approach.
Continue Reading Employee’s History of Absenteeism Sufficient to Deny UC Benefits Even if Final Incident Justified
In 2009, the Family and Medical Leave Act was amended to expand military leave entitlements available under the Act. Last week, the Department of Labor issued new regulations implementing and clarifying these amendments. In conjunction with these new regulations, the DOL has made revisions to its mandatory poster–Employee Rights and Responsibilities under the FMLA. Employers must begin using the updated poster no later than March 8, 2013.
Continue Reading Employers Required to Display New FMLA Poster by March 8, 2013
Late last week, the Departments of Labor, Treasury, and Health and Human Services issued a new Frequently Asked Question (“FAQ”) page addressing implementation questions under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“PPACA”). Of particular note in the latest FAQ is the Departments’ announcement is the delayed effective date for the written notice of …
On December 28, 2012, the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) issued long-awaited proposed regulations regarding the “shared responsibility” penalty provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“PPACA”). In addition to consolidating prior IRS guidance on the subject, the proposed regulations also contain some surprising interpretations of PPACA’s penalty provisions. Employers will likely be pleased by some of these interpretations and disappointed with others.
Continue Reading IRS Proposed Regulations On PPACA’S Shared Responsibility Provisions Full of New Year Surprises (Some Good For Employers – Some Not)
This post was contributed by Eric N. Athey, Esq., a Member in McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC’s Labor and Employment Practice Group.
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act ("PPACA") requires "large employers" (i.e., those regularly employing 50 or more full-time equivalents) to provide "affordable" health coverage of "minimum value" to "full-time employees" and…
With the re-election of President Obama in November, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (a.k.a. “healthcare reform” or “Obamacare”) survived its second major challenge in 2012. Many employers had been awaiting the outcome of the election before devoting substantial effort to long-term compliance planning. The period of “wait and see” is now over and employers are well-advised to start looking ahead to 2014, when the Act’s most significant provisions take effect. Employers should expect a steady stream of PPACA guidance and regulations flowing out of Washington over the next twelve months. The first significant post-election installment of PPACA guidance was issued on November 20, 2012 when the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”), U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”) and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) jointly issued two Proposed Rules and one Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
Continue Reading Healthcare Reform Update: Recent Federal Guidance Focuses on 2014
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“PPACA”), otherwise known as Health Care Reform, is now 2 ½ years old. It narrowly survived its first major legal challenge with the Supreme Court’s decision in July. PPACA survived its second big hurdle with the re-election of President Obama earlier this month. While many of PPACA’s biggest requirements do not take effect until 2014, employers and health plans must be mindful of the flurry of compliance requirements that will soon take effect under the Act. Here is a quick look at the PPACA compliance issues that employers and health plans should be focused on now.
Continue Reading Health Care Reform Update – Five Compliance Issues Employers Should Focus on Now
Employers and wellness advocates have long been confounded by the complex gauntlet of federal laws and regulations that must be considered when structuring wellness programs. HIPAA’s non-discrimination requirements, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (“GINA”) and, perhaps most daunting, the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) are among the laws that come into play when an employer is considering its wellness plan options.
Perhaps the most closely watched legal issue concerning wellness programs is this: May an employer offer a health coverage premium discount to those employees who complete a “health risk assessment” (“HRA”) that is administered in connection with a wellness program? Or, put another way, may employees who choose not to complete an HRA be subject to a premium surcharge? HIPAA regulations clearly allow employers to offer “bona fide wellness programs” with limited premium discounts; however, tying a discount to completion of an HRA presents a potential rub under the ADA.
Continue Reading Federal Appeals Court Gives Wellness Program a Clean Bill of Health
