Daily Report Online
  • News
  • Special Reports
  • Court Opinions
  • Court Calendars
  • Bench Guide
  • Public Notices
  • Contact
  • Books
  • Events
  • Classifieds

Home > Employers must determine who is a full-time employee to ensure health act compliance

Font Size: increase font decrease font

In Practice

Employers must determine who is a full-time employee to ensure health act compliance

New rules will require large employers to provide affordable group health coverage to full-time workers or face penalties

By L. Scott Austin and David Mustone All Articles 

Daily Report

February 12, 2013

  •    
  •    
  •    
  •      
 
Photo of David Mustone

David Mustone is a partner with Hunton & Williams in McLean, Va.

Photo of Scott Austin

L. Scott Austin is a partner with Hunton & Williams in Atlanta

With a substantial portion of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) set to go into effect in 2014, employers are working to determine how the law will affect them, their business and their employees.

Because the law will require most employers to provide affordable minimum essential health insurance coverage to full-time employees or face financial penalties, employers must understand how the law defines full-time workers, as well as the penalties that businesses can face for failing to comply or choosing not to provide coverage.

Under provisions called employer shared responsibility rules, the PPACA requires large employers (generally those with 50 or more full-time employees) to provide affordable group health coverage with sufficient value to full-time employees and their dependents. Full-time employees are generally defined as those who work on average at least 30 hours per week. Employers that fail to comply with these rules can face penalties.

What are the potential penalties?

The failure to offer coverage penalty applies if at least one full-time employee obtains subsidized coverage on an exchange where the employer does not offer coverage to at least 95 percent of its full-time employees and their dependents. This penalty—which can be up to $2,000 per year for each full-time employee (in excess of 30)—will be based on the total number of full-time employees an employer has, regardless of how many employees have government-subsidized exchange coverage.

The insufficient coverage penalty applies if the employer offers full-time employees coverage, but the coverage is either unaffordable (individual premium cost exceeds 9.5 percent of the employee's household income) or does not provide minimum value (plan pays less than 60 percent of the covered costs). Proposed regulations released by the IRS provide guidance and alternative safe harbors for calculating whether health coverage is unaffordable, including use of an employee's W-2 earnings. The potential penalty for insufficient coverage is $3,000 per year for each employee who obtains government-subsidized coverage on an exchange.

Employers also should note that in determining whether an employer is subject to these provisions (i.e., is a "large employer"), the IRS controlled group rules are applied—meaning that all affiliated employers for which there is 80 percent or greater common ownership will be treated as a single employer. However, compliance with the employer shared responsibility rules—and any associated penalties—will generally be assessed on an employer-by-employer basis.

Who is considered a full-time employee?

As an employer, the determination of who is a full-time employee will be crucial in evaluating your options for complying with the employer shared responsibility rules, and equally important, designing your group health plan's eligibility and participation requirements.

Because there can be various ways of assessing what constitutes a full-time employee eligible for coverage under the PPACA, the IRS has issued guidance in the form of several notices, as well as temporary regulations. These guidelines set out criteria and standards that can help employers make accurate determinations when hiring new employees, including:

• Initial measurement period: A designated period of not less than three months or more than 12 months used in determining whether a newly hired variable or seasonal employee is full-time.

• Standard measurement period: An annual designated period of not less than three months or more than 12 months used to determine whether an ongoing variable or seasonal employee is full-time.

A browser or device that allows javascript is required to view this content.

Continue reading

  • 1
  • 2

Next



Subscribe to Daily Report

You must be signed in to comment on an article

Find similar content

Companies, agencies mentioned

    
  • PPACA
  • IRS

Key categories

    
  • Insurance Law

Most viewed stories

    
  1. Real Estate Lawyers Target Closing Vendors
    •      
  2. DeKalb Judge Dismisses, Then Recuses
    •      
  3. Wage-and-Hour Suits Up For Fifth Straight Year
    •      
  4. Lawyer Discipline: Cases Include Suspension, License Surrender
    •      
  5. DeKalb DA Tries To Serve Judge During Jury Selection
    •      
lawjobs.com

TOP JOBS

MORE JOBS

POST A JOB

From the Law.com Network

The General Counsel and the Compensation Committee

Your Company's Been Hacked -- What Comes Next?

Simpson Helps Yahoo, Tumblr Connect for $1 Billion Deal

Kasowitz Benson Launches in Los Angeles

Contrite Companies Can Win Forgiveness in Bribery Cases
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Plaintiffs Want to See Toyota's 'Crown Jewels'
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Collaboration Is Key to Defending Cyberattacks

Stanford Law Builds on Role as Legal Tech Incubator

Prolific ADA Plaintiff Faces Nemesis in Harassment Suit

Ullyot Exit Closes Chapter for Facebook

South Florida Attorneys Lead Force-Placed Insurance Fight

Lawsuit Names Missing Fla. Attorney for Alleged Fraud
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Circuit Voids $3 Million Judgment Against 'Girls Gone Wild' Producer

Judge Says Boston Bombings Had No Effect on Terrorist Sentences
  •      
    • Subscription Required

The Affordable State-Specific Practice Solution
Available in NY, NJ, PA and CT editions - research, draft and prepare even the most complex cases with ease.

Judge Declines to Block Act-of-War Defense in 9/11 Case
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Panel Finds 'Excessive' City Fine for Poaching Antenna From Trash
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Lawsuit Testing Federal Porn Regulation Allowed to Survive

Ex-College QB Can Press Claim Over EA's Video Game
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Law Schools Are Looking Beyond LSATs, Says Mich. Dean

Is Freezing Your Eggs the Solution?

Advising Clients on Weather and the Workplace
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Texas Sues BP, Transocean, Halliburton, Anadarko Entities
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Brooks Looks To Political Ally For Criminal Defense

Attorney Fee Hearing in Waffle House Sex Case Heats Up
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Corporate Bribery Case Part Of National Trend
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Court Continues To Grant Lawyers Fraud Immunity
  •      
    • Subscription Required

  • About |
  • ALM Properties |
  • ALM Reprints |
  • Customer Support |
  • Privacy Policy |
  • Terms & Conditions |
  • ALM User License Agreement
ALM Media