Sapers & Wallack
News & Events
Information Center
Events
S&W Newsletters
May 10, 2011
In This Compliance Corner Issue:
- Survey Designed to Assist HHS in Determining “Essential Health Benefits” Under PPACA
- Treasury, IRS Request Public Comments for Several Employer Provisions Included in PPACA
- CMS Incorporates PPACA Changes in Final Regulations and Announces Part D Benefit Parameters
- Final Rule Revises List of Documents Accepted for Form I-9
- State Updates: AL, AZ, AR, GA, HI, IA, MD, MI, MN, MO, NJ, NY, OK, PA, RI, TN, UT, VA, WA, WV, WI, WY
HEALTH REFORM UPDATES
SURVEY DESIGNED TO ASSIST HHS IN DETERMINING “ESSENTIAL HEALTH BENEFITS” UNDER PPACA
On April 15, 2011, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) issued a report of employer-sponsored health insurance coverage, as required by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). The purpose of the report is to help the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) determine which health benefits are to be considered “essential” and must, therefore, be offered by qualified health plans under PPACA. Issued in June 2010, the HHS interim final regulations on the restriction of annual and lifetime dollar limits for essential health coverage did not fully define what constitutes an “essential health benefit.” PPACA requires that the HHS issue a more comprehensive definition for the phrase, and assure that these essential benefits are comparable to those offered by typical employer health plans. Consequently, PPACA directed the DOL to provide data on typical employer-sponsored coverage to HHS. The DOL survey presents 2008 and 2009 data from a sample of approximately 3,900 private-sector employers.
DOL Report on “Essential Health Benefits”
Report Results from the Bureau of Labor Statistics
Letter from DOL Secretary Hilda Solis
Source: Littler Mendelson
TREASURY, IRS REQUEST PUBLIC COMMENTS FOR SEVERAL EMPLOYER PROVISIONS INCLUDED IN PPACA
On May 3, 2011, the U.S. Treasury Department and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) released Notice 2011-36, which solicits public input and comment on several issues as the Treasury and IRS work to provide information to employers on how to comply with certain shared responsibility provisions under PPACA. In particular, the notice requests comments on possible approaches employers could use to determine who is a full-time employee. The notice also requests comments regarding how the Treasury, DOL and HHS should interpret the provision that limits the ability of plans and issuers to impose a waiting period for health coverage of longer than 90 days beginning in 2014. By asking for comments and feedback now, the Treasury and IRS are providing ample opportunity for input before proposed regulations are issued at a later date. There are three ways to submit comments.
- E-mail to: Notice.Comments@irscounsel.treas.gov. Include “Notice 2011-36″ in the subject line.
- Mail to: Internal Revenue Service, CC:PA:LPD:PR (Notice 2011-36), Room 5203, P.O. Box 7604, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, DC 20044.
- Hand deliver to: CC:PA:LPD:PR (Notice 2011-36), Courier’s Desk, Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC, between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
The deadline for comments is June 17, 2011.
Notice 2011-36
FEDERAL UPDATES
CMS Incorporates PPACA Changes in Final Regulations and Announces Part D Benefit Parameters
On April 15, 2011, HHS’s Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) issued final regulations relating to the Medicare Part D program. In addition to implementing changes required by PPACA, the regulations clarify various Medicare Part D program participation requirements, strengthen Part D beneficiary protections, and make other technical changes. The regulations include provisions relating to coordination of benefits, enrollment and eligibility provisions, the annual coordinated election period, disenrollment from Part D coverage, and other key definitions under Medicare Part D.
The regulations are specifically relevant to Part D plan sponsors, but also affect employers since group health plans must cooperate with Part D plans and enrollees in order to coordinate benefits. Generally, under the Medicare Secondary Payer rules, Part D coverage will be secondary to group health plan coverage for active employees. So that Part D plans may determine whether their coverage is primary or secondary, individuals who enroll in Part D must provide the Part D plan with information about any other prescription drug coverage they have, including group health plan coverage. CMS requires that most group health plans offering prescription drug coverage to Part D eligible individuals must disclose to those individuals and to CMS whether the plan’s coverage is creditable or non-creditable. Coverage is creditable if the actuarial value of the coverage equals or exceeds the actuarial value of defined standard Part D coverage. In other words, if the plan’s coverage is at least as good as standard Medicare prescription drug coverage, then the coverage is creditable.
Importantly, PPACA amended the Social Security Act to move the Medicare Part D annual enrollment period to Oct. 15 through Dec. 7. This change is effective for the 2012 Part D enrollment, which will occur in the fall of 2011. As a result, references to the Nov. 15 through Dec. 31 annual enrollment period in the notices of creditable or non-creditable coverage are no longer accurate. Presumably, employers will now need to update the notices of creditable or non-creditable coverage and most likely plan sponsors will need to provide these notices by Oct. 15, 2011, a month earlier than previously required. Please note that CMS has not yet issued revised model forms or other guidance, but plan sponsors should watch for future revisions and update existing notices in the interim.
In connection with the creditable coverage requirement, on April 4, 2011, CMS issued an announcement relating to Medicare Part D benefit parameters for 2012. In the announcement, CMS released the following parameters for the defined standard Medicare Part D prescription drug benefit, which will assist plan sponsors in determining whether their plan’s prescription drug coverage is creditable for 2012:
- Deductible: $320 (a $10 increase from 2011)
- Initial coverage limit: $2,930 (a $90 increase from 2011)
- Out-of-pocket threshold: $4,700 (a $150 increase from 2011)
- Total covered Part D spending at the out-of-pocket expense threshold for beneficiaries who are not eligible for the coverage gap discount program: $6,657.50 (a $210 increase from 2011)
- Estimated total covered Part D spending at the out-of-pocket expense threshold for beneficiaries who are eligible for the coverage gap discount program: $6,730.39 (a $246.67 increase from 2011)
- Minimum co-payments under the catastrophic coverage portion of the benefit
- $2.60 for generic/preferred multi-source drugs (a 10-cent increase from 2011)
- $6.50 for all other drugs (a 20-cent increase from 2011)
Final Medicare Part D Regulations
CMS Medicare Part D Benefit Parameter Announcement
FINAL RULE REVISES LIST OF DOCUMENTS ACCEPTED FOR FORM I-9
On April 14, 2011, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced a final rule that adopts, without change, an interim rule to improve the integrity of the Form I-9 process. Employers must complete Form I-9 for all newly hired employees to verify their identity and authorization to work in the United States. The main changes made by the interim rule and adopted by the final rule include prohibiting employers from accepting expired documents for completion of Form I-9 and updating the Lists of Acceptable Documents.
Employers may continue to use the current version of Form I-9 (Rev. 08/07/2009) or the previous version (Rev. 02/02/2009). The final rule will be effective on May 16, 2011.
Final Rule
USCIS News Release
USCIS Questions and Answers
Link to Form I-9 and Updated I-9 Handbook for Employers
STATE UPDATES
ALABAMA
On April 14, 2011, Alabama lawmakers passed HB 61, which was also recently signed by the governor and is now law as Act 2011-155. Under previous state law, qualifying employees were allowed to deduct from Alabama gross income 50 percent of the amounts they pay as health insurance premiums as part of an employer-provided health insurance plan. Similarly, a qualifying employer, with respect to the payment of health insurance premiums paid on behalf of employees, was allowed to deduct from Alabama taxable income 50 percent of the amounts paid on behalf of their employees. However, HB 61 increases the potential tax deduction under both circumstances to 100 percent.
HB 61
Source: Littler Mendelson
ARIZONA
On April 27, 2011, HB 2556 was signed into law. The new law allows small employers (between 2 and 50 employees) to claim an Arizona tax credit for providing a qualified health insurance plan for employees who are Arizona residents. Specifically, the new law provides that the tax credit will be available to employers through Dec. 31, 2014, provided that they pay at least $360 during the year for health insurance premiums or as contributions to a Health Savings Account (HSA) for every employee enrolled in the health plan. By amendment, the new law also requires that the amount of any deduction that is claimed in computing federal adjusted gross income for health insurance premiums or contributions to an HSA for which the Arizona tax credit is claimed must be added to Arizona adjusted gross income.
HB 2556
Source: Littler Mendelson
On April 26, 2011, the governor signed SB 1365 into law. This legislation, known as the “Protect Arizona Employees’ Paychecks from Politics Act”, prohibits employers from deducting wages to make a payment for political purposes unless the employee has provided written or electronic authorization. Further, such an authorization will expire unless it is made annually. Arizona defines “political purposes” as “supporting or opposing any candidate for public office, political party, referendum, initiative, political issue advocacy, political action committee or other similar group.” If an employer knowingly deducts payments for political purposes without the employee’s consent, the employer could be fined at least $10,000 for each violation. This legislation is effective Oct. 1, 2011.
On April 18, 2011, the governor signed into law SB 1363. This legislation prohibits employers from withholding an employee’s wages past the date specified in the employee’s written revocation of authorization for withholding. There are two exceptions to the prohibition in which the employer may continue to withhold past the specified authorization revocation date: 1) to resolve a debt or obligation to the employer; and 2) to obey a court order requiring continued withholding.
ARKANSAS
On April 1, 2011, HB 1915 was signed into law, creating Act 1042. The purpose of the Act is to require health insurance plans to provide coverage for gastric pacemakers. As a result, a health benefit plan that is issued for delivery, renewed, or otherwise contracted for in the state of Arkansas must provide coverage for gastric pacemakers. However, eligible charges and limits or exclusions from coverage may be based either on medical necessity or the plan’s coverage criteria. A plan may also require prior authorization in the same manner as any other covered benefit and may impose copayments, deductibles, or coinsurance amounts that have parity with other benefits under the plan.
On April 1, 2011, HB 2137 was signed into law, creating Act 1054. The purpose of the Act is to amend the requirements for rescission of life and health insurance policies. The law amended the Arkansas Insurance Code to reflect that statements made during negotiations for life or accident and health insurance policies are considered representations and not warranties. As a result, unless the misrepresentation is considered fraudulent or material, recovery under the policy or contract may be limited with regard to omissions, concealment of facts, or incorrect statements.
On April 4, 2011, SB 839 was signed into law, creating Act 1155. The purpose of the Act is to protect patients by ensuring that prior authorization procedures do not intrude on the relationship between a physician and a patient or put cost savings ahead of optimal patient care. The Act creates a new subsection within the insurance statutes of the state relating to prior authorization, the definitions associated with such, as well as the procedures to be followed when an adverse prior authorization determination has been received.
On April 4, 2011, SB 213 was signed into law, creating Act 1119. The purpose of the Act is to make changes to existing regulation of coverage of in vitro fertilization procedures. Existing state law requires all accident and health insurance companies doing business in the state to include in vitro fertilization as a covered expense. The Act expanded the requirement to now include procedures as well as services, including those performed at state health departments. The services or procedures must now conform to the guidelines and minimum standards of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists for in vitro fertilization clinics or the American Society for Reproductive Medicine for programs of in vitro fertilization.
GEORGIA
On April 27, 2011, the Georgia governor signed into law HB 168, which brings the Georgia state tax laws into conformance with the federal Internal Revenue Code (IRC) as of Jan. 1, 2011. As background, Georgia, unlike some states, does not automatically adopt the current version of the federal IRC. The Georgia legislature periodically updates the statutory definition of the federal IRC to include any federal provisions that may have become effective in prior years. Specifically of interest to employers sponsoring group health plans is the PPACA requirement to provide coverage for adult children up to age 26 and the potential tax implications of providing such coverage when the state tax law does not mirror the federal IRC. As a result of HB 168, Georgia state law now provides that such adult dependent coverage is excludable for state income tax purposes.
HAWAII
On May 2, 2011, the Hawaii governor signed into law HB 546. The new law prohibits discrimination in employment on the basis of gender identity or expression. Gender identity or expression includes a person’s actual or perceived gender, as well as a person’s gender identity and gender-related self-image, appearance or expression, regardless of whether such gender identity is different from that traditionally associated with the person’s sex at birth. According to HB 546, employers may not base hiring, compensation, termination, or other employment-related decisions on the basis of gender identity.
On April 25, 2011, the governor signed into law SB 1273. The new law provides that an accident and health or sickness insurer must comply with applicable federal law. Specifically, the new law gives the Insurance Commissioner the authority to enforce the consumer protections and market reforms relating to insurance as set forth in PPACA.
IOWA
On April 12, 2011, SF 512 was enacted, which relates to the coupling of certain Iowa tax provisions with the federal Internal Revenue Code. As background, PPACA provides for health care coverage for nonqualified tax dependents through age 26. The federal law provides that the value of this coverage for an adult dependent is not subject to federal income tax. Prior to SF 512, Iowa law provided for health care coverage for nonqualified dependents through age 24, and provided that this coverage was not subject to Iowa income tax. The Iowa Department of Revenue has determined that, under Iowa law, the value of health care coverage provided for a nonqualified dependent age 25 or 26 is not subject to Iowa income tax. Thus, Iowa now follows the Internal Revenue Code as amended through Jan. 1, 2011 in regard to dependents through age 26.
However, there is a significant difference in federal and Iowa state tax with respect to state and federal tax treatment with respect to same-sex spouses and their children. Specifically, effective for tax years beginning after April 24, 2009, benefits that are tax-exempt when extended to opposite sex spouses and the children of opposite sex spouses are exempt from Iowa tax, but not federal tax.
MARYLAND
On April 12, 2011, the Maryland governor signed into law HB 87, the Job Applicant Fairness Act. The new law prohibits employers from using an applicant’s or employee’s credit report or credit history in employment-related decisions, including denying employment, discharging an employee, and determining compensation, terms, conditions or privileges of employment. There are some exceptions to the new prohibitions, including an exception for employers that are required to perform credit checks under state or federal law. Certain financial institutions that accept federally-insured deposits and entities that are registered as investment advisors with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission are also exempt from the law. Lastly, the law does not apply to employers who have a substantially job-related bona fide business purpose for seeking the credit information. Positions for which an employer has a bona fide business purpose for obtaining an employee’s credit report include those in which the employee is in a managerial role, has access to personal information of a customer, employee, or employer, has fiduciary responsibility to the employer, or has access to trade secrets or other confidential business information.
In addition, under HB 87 employers that willfully or negligently violate the credit history information discrimination prohibitions may be fined up to $500 for a first violation and up to $2,500 for each subsequent violation. Thus, employers should update plan documents to reflect these new requirements before the law becomes effective on Oct. 1, 2011.
On April 12, 2011, the governor signed HB 1085, which relates to disability insurance policies. Specifically, HB 1085 provides that a disability insurance policy may not be sold, delivered, or issued for delivery in Maryland by a carrier if the policy contains a clause that purports to reserve sole discretion to the carrier to interpret the terms of the policy or to provide standards of interpretation or review that are inconsistent with the laws of Maryland.
MICHIGAN
On March 22, 2011, Governor Rick Snyder signed SB 20, creating Public Act 10 of 2011. This new law bars the Michigan Occupational Safety and Health Administration from promulgating a rule or establishing a standard regarding workplace ergonomics which is more stringent than any issued by the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration. The new law does not apply to the adoption by reference of a federal workplace ergonomics rule and is effective March 24, 2011.
Public Act 10 of 2011, SB 20
Source: Littler Mendelson
MINNESOTA
The Minnesota Insurance Commissioner issued a notice on its website that effective May 1, 2011, the technology surcharge relating to producer licenses is reduced to $35. As background, Minn. Stat. sec. 45.24 authorizes the Commissioner to impose a surcharge on the fee for producer license origination or renewal. The surcharge is meant to fund the establishment of an electronic licensing database system for licensing origination, renewal, and tracking the completion of continuing education requirements.
MISSOURI
The State Senate’s non-binding Resolution 27 urges the state Attorney General to either file his own lawsuit or join an existing lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of PPACA. Also, the Resolution urges the state Attorney General to defend the validity of Missouri’s Proposition C, approved in 2010, which protects Missourians from being penalized for refusing to purchase private health insurance, and protects their right to offer or accept direct payment for health care.
Resolution 27
Source: Littler Mendelson
NEW JERSEY
On April 20, 2011, the New Jersey Division of Taxation issued Technical Advisory Memorandum 14 (TAM-14) relating to the tax treatment of dependent coverage for adult children under PPACA. According to TAM-14, for New Jersey state tax purposes, the value of any employer-provided accident or health plan coverage or reimbursements for an employee’s child that is excluded from the employee’s federal income should also be excluded from the employee’s New Jersey state gross income, regardless of the age of the child. TAM-14 also clarifies that New Jersey state tax law does not conform to federal tax rules of Internal Revenue Code section 125, relating to pre-tax employee or employer contributions made to cafeteria or flexible benefit plans. Thus, those types of contributions are considered gross income for New Jersey state tax purposes.
NEW YORK
As previously reported in our April 12, 2011, edition of Compliance Corner, the New York Wage Theft Prevention Act became effective on April 9, 2011, and increases employers’ obligations regarding notice and recordkeeping of wage information, and penalties for nonpayment and underpayment of wages under the New York Labor Law. The New York Department of Labor (NYDOL) Commissioner has prepared templates that employers may use to satisfy the notice and acknowledgement requirement of the Act. The templates are available in English, Spanish, Chinese and Korean, and the Commissioner anticipates creating templates in Creole, Polish and Russian. If a template is not available in the primary language identified by the employee, the employer may satisfy the notice and acknowledgement requirement by providing the English template to the employee. The templates, along with instructions, guidelines, and frequently asked questions regarding the Act may be accessed at the NYDOL website on Wage and Hour Law, linked below.
OKLAHOMA
SB 547 was approved on April 20, 2011. The bill prohibits elective abortion coverage by a qualified health plan offered through an exchange created to comply with PPACA within the state of Oklahoma. “Elective abortion” is defined here as an abortion for any reason other than to prevent the death of the mother.
No health plan, including health insurance contracts, plans or policies, offered outside of an Exchange, but within the state, shall cover elective abortions except by optional separate supplemental coverage. The bill allows an individual to purchase optional supplemental coverage, if available, for elective abortions. The supplemental plan must:
- Be paid by a separate premium calculated to fully cover the estimated cost of an elective abortion, per enrollee, as determined on an average actuarial basis.
- Have a separate signature for enrolling in any other health plan that is separate from the elective abortion supplemental plan; and
- Provide a notice to enrollees at the time of enrollment stating the separate cost and that the supplemental plan is optional.
Finally, any employer offering such a supplemental elective abortion plan must provide employees at the beginning of employment and at least once in each calendar year the option to choose or reject the coverage. SB 547 is effective Nov. 1, 2011.
PENNSYLVANIA
On April 13, 2011, Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter signed Bill No. 110111-A, the Fair Criminal Screening Standards Ordinance, which establishes limits and requirements for the screening of criminal records by certain Philadelphia employers. The new ordinance will affect the application and screening processes of many employers. Specifically, the new law precludes city agencies and private employers employing 10 or more persons within the City of Philadelphia from inquiring or requiring information regarding criminal convictions before and during the application and initial interview process, and from inquiring about an individual’s arrests that did not result in a conviction (unless such inquiry is required or permitted by another law). The new ordinance also provides guidelines that employers must follow when making inquiries into an individual’s criminal background after an initial interview or when otherwise permitted by law. The new law will become effective on July 12, 2011.
RHODE ISLAND
On March 4, 2011, the Rhode Island Department of Business Regulation issued Bulletin 2011-1 regarding the fact that Certificates of Insurance cannot be used to amend, expand, or alter the terms of an underlying insurance policy or contract. The Bulletin was issued because it has come to the Department’s attention that third parties are requesting that insurance producers issue certificates of coverage that reflect different terms or conditions than what the underlying insurance policy or contract states. This is a violation of the Rhode Island Unfair Competition and Practices Act, and penalties can include suspension or revocation of a producer’s license.
On April 22, 2011, the Rhode Island Department of Business Regulation issued Bulletin 2011-2, which addresses producer training for the sale, solicitation or negotiation of long term care (LTC) insurance or annuity contracts. Specifically regarding LTC insurance contracts, existing requirements state that insurers and producers must take a one-time eight hour training course. Then, a four hour ongoing training course must be taken every 24 months. The Bulletin advises that in a recent change, both courses must be pre-approved by the Department of Business Regulation. Producers will be considered compliant with this recent change until the next 24-month period for which they must comply with the training that has been pre-approved by the department. This is effective June 1, 2011.
TENNESSEE
On March 31, 2011, the Tennessee governor signed into law SB 519, which is effective immediately. As background, under prior law unless employers specifically posted notice restricting guns from the premise, guns are permitted in most public places. However, many employers that opted to allow handguns in the workplace found themselves facing complaints filed with Tennessee’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (TOSHA). However, SB 519 specifies that permitting handguns at work does not constitute an occupational safety and health hazard for employees in the state. Tennessee employers therefore retain the right and authority to restrict handguns as they see fit, and those employers that choose to allow legally-licensed employees to carry handguns onto workplace property will be protected from possible TOSHA complaints.
UTAH
As part of HB 224, employers cannot require, coerce, or compel anyone to undergo or submit to subcutaneous implantation of Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) tags. Employers that implant employees in violation of the provisions can be sued by employees who are implanted. Employers may also be found to be guilty of a class A misdemeanor and fined up to $10,000, plus up to $1,000 each day until the RFID tags are removed or disabled. Employers may also be imprisoned up to one year or both fined and imprisoned. The legislation is effective May 10, 2011.
On March 23, 2011, the governor signed HB 354, which amends provisions of the Insurance Code by limiting the type of abortion coverage that may be offered in a health benefit plan, on the state health insurance exchange, or on a federally mandated health insurance exchange. Additionally, the bill defines the term “permitted abortion coverage”. The bill is effective on Jan. 1, 2012.
VIRGINIA
On April 6, 2011, the Virginia General Assembly passed HB 2434, which stated their intent to create and operate at least one health benefits exchange to be known as the “Virginia Exchange”. The objective of the Virginia Exchange will be to preserve and enhance competition in the health insurance market, as well as assist qualified small employers in facilitating the enrollment of their employees in qualified health plans offered in the small group market. The legislation requires that the Virginia Exchange meet the relevant requirements of PPACA. The legislation also states that no qualified health insurance plan offered through the exchange will provide coverage for abortions unless performed for very specific reasons as outlined in the legislation. The legislation also contained a provision clarifying that nothing in the act should be construed to recognize the constitutionality of PPACA. This is of specific interest because two of the federal lawsuits concerning the constitutionality of PPACA are based in Virginia. The law is effective July 1, 2011 and will expire on July 1, 2014.
On April 6, 2011, the governor signed HB 1928, which is in direct response to requirements imposed on the states under PPACA, which requires states to adopt an external review program by July 1, 2011. This legislation revises the process for independent external reviews of a health carrier’s adverse decision regarding covered health care benefits. The change in the law eliminates the minimum eligibility threshold, eliminates the $50 filing fee, and expands situations when an independent external review may be requested. The law also requires insurers to incur the full cost of every review, as well as establish an internal appeals process. The law is effective July 1, 2011 and will expire on July 1, 2014.
On April 29, 2011, the governor signed both SB 1062 and HB 2467, which are identical bills. The new law requires health insurers to provide coverage for the diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and treatment for ASD in individuals from age two to six, subject to an annual maximum benefit of $35,000 of coverage for applied behavior analysis. The mandate does not apply to small group policies, contracts, or plans. The laws also take into account changes expected to occur as of Jan. 1, 2014 due to PPACA, and state that any benefits mandated under this state law are not required when the plan is offered through the state’s health benefit exchange mandated under PPACA. The provisions of these laws are effective July 1, 2011.
WASHINGTON
On April 22, 2011, the Washington legislature delivered SB 5445 for the governor’s signature. SB 5445 requires the state to establish a health benefit exchange no later than Jan. 1, 2014. As background, PPACA requires states to establish or join a state or regional insurance exchange by 2014. If a state fails to do so, the federal government will set up the exchange(s) in the state. An exchange will create a marketplace for buyers of health insurance, thus giving individuals choices for health coverage. The initial target population for an exchange will be people who purchase individual plans, as well as small businesses with up to 100 employees. In the future, exchanges may be expanded to larger employers. While states are at different stages of establishing exchanges, many states have begun to enact legislation to either study and evaluate and/or establish such exchanges. The passage of this legislation signals the state of Washington’s intent towards implementing its own state exchange.
WEST VIRGINIA
On April 5, 2011, the governor signed SB 408, which amends the Code of West Virginia to establish a health benefit exchange. As background, PPACA requires states to establish or join a state or regional insurance exchange by 2014. If a state fails to do so, the federal government will set up the exchange(s) in the state. An exchange will create a marketplace for buyers of health insurance, thus giving individuals choices for health coverage. The initial target population for an exchange will be people who purchase individual plans, as well as small businesses with up to 100 employees. In the future, exchanges may be expanded to larger employers. While states are at different stages of establishing exchanges, many states have begun to enact legislation to either study and evaluate and/or establish such exchanges. The passage of this legislation signals the state of West Virginia’s intent towards implementing its own state exchange.
WISCONSIN
On April 14, 2011, the Wisconsin Department of Revenue issued a notice to remind taxpayers that the new federal law relating to health care benefits for children under age 27 does not apply for Wisconsin income tax purposes unless the provisions are adopted by the Wisconsin legislature, which has not yet occurred.
Notice
Source: Littler Mendelsonm
On April 15, 2011, Governor Scott Walker signed SB 23 into law. The legislation pre-empts local governments such as cities, villages, and counties from enacting ordinances that would require employers to implement leave policies that deviate from the statewide standard and voids any ordinance that conflicts with the existing statewide standard, including any paid sick day legislation. The passage of SB 23 is in response to a court ruling in March, 2011, which approved Milwaukee’s paid sick leave ordinance directed at large employers. Due to this legislation, the Milwaukee ordinance, which would have entitled employees to one hour of paid sick leave for every 30 hours of paid work within the city, up to 9 days annually, will not be enacted. Instead, SB 23 ensures that all jurisdictions will be uniform with the statewide standard, which requires employers with at least 50 employees to accommodate leave requests for various family and medical reasons. Qualified full-time workers are entitled to take up to six weeks of family leave and two weeks of medical leave during a 12-month period.
WYOMING
On Feb. 19, 2011, Governor Matt Mead signed SJR 0002, which amends the Wyoming Constitution to provide that each competent adult as the right to make his or her own health care decisions. The amendment also states that any person may have the ability to pay directly for health care without penalties or fines, and that the state legislature may prescribe reasonable and necessary restrictions on the right to health care access. Finally, within the constitutional amendment the state retained the right to health care access without undue governmental infringement. However, the legislation will need to be approved and ratified by a majority of the electors at the next general election in order for it to become a valid part of the Constitution.