by Brenda Berg “Missing participants” have long been a thorn in the side of plan sponsors and administrators, as they are owed a retirement benefit, but are unable to be found or unresponsive to plan communications. As a partial solution, Congress directed the DOL in the SECURE 2.0 Act of 2022 to create a “Retirement Savings Lost and Found”—an online searchable database that would connect missing participants with their retirement benefits—by December 29, 2024. The DOL had contemplated populating the database with information from Form 8955-SSA, which plans already submit to the IRS. Howe ..read more

by Becky Achten “Georgia” on your mind? As we look towards the upcoming Masters golf tournament weekend, our minds turn to the condition of the greens (exquisite), the players tee off order (does afternoon help or hinder Tiger on an expected rainy day?), and who will make that amazing chip shot out of the bunker to save par. It may not get quite the level of TV viewership of other sporting events, but benefit plan administration is a lot like golf: a series of pars, birdies and bogies, and—oh my, not a double bogie! If you’re hitting par with your benefit plans, they’re operating smoothly ..read more

by Bret Busacker There has been a shift taking place in ERISA litigation and compliance that could significantly impact group health plan fiduciary requirements. We anticipate group health plan fiduciary standards will evolve along the same lines as what occurred in the 401(k) industry after the ERISA 408(b)(2) rules became effective in 2012. 401(k) plans for years have been subject to fee disclosure and relatively well-defined fiduciary standards of conduct. Much of the improvement in 401(k) fiduciary practices over the past decade can be attributed to the ERISA 401(k) fee disclosure req ..read more

by Alex Smith A recent decision by a federal district court in Ohio in a health plan benefits dispute highlights the importance for health plan fiduciaries to properly review benefit claim denials to ensure that the claims administrator’s basis for denial is appropriate and that the claims administrator has properly considered information provided by the participant. In this case, the participant sued after he was denied coverage for more than $100,000 of medical bills related to a broken ankle suffered when he was kicked by his bull calf. Even though the participant worked as an HVAC div ..read more

By Kevin Selzer Disputes between plan sponsors and plan service providers are not new. As with any contractual relationship, things don’t always go according to “plan” or at least, as the sponsor expects. When that happens, one of the first things sponsors (and their attorneys) will do is review the provider’s contract. Some sponsors will be surprised to find some very provider-friendly provisions, such as: a provision specifying that the provider is permitted by the contract to act negligently (as long as the conduct does not rise to gross negligence or intentional misconduct), or a pro ..read more

by Brenda Berg The time may have come to add a welfare plan committee to your company’s governance of employee benefit plans. New legal obligations and other developments impose fiduciary risks for welfare plans similar to what already exist for retirement plans. Most employers that sponsor a 401(k) plan or other retirement plan set up a committee to administer and oversee the plan. This is generally a best practice to ensure that the plan is properly administered in compliance with employee benefits laws and, for plans subject to the Employee Retirement Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), to h ..read more

by Alex Smith The Department of Labor (DOL), the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and the Department of Treasury (collectively, the Departments) recently issued proposed Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act (MHPAEA) regulations and their second joint report to Congress regarding their MHPAEA enforcement activities as required under the MHPAEA and the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (CAA). In addition, the DOL issued Technical Release 2023-01P, requesting comments on potential data requirements related to non-quantitative treatment limitations (NQTLs) and netwo ..read more

by Alex Smith Since the Affordable Care Act (“ACA”) became law in 2010, numerous groups have attempted to invalidate the ACA or specific parts of the ACA through litigation. Even after a number of plaintiffs unsuccessfully attempted to invalidate the ACA over the past dozen years, a Federal district court judge in Texas recently invalidated the ACA’s requirement that non-grandfathered group health plans provide preventive care services with an “A” or “B” rating in the current recommendations from the United States Preventive Services Task Force (e.g., certain cancer screenings, depression ..read more

by Becky Achten Bruno Mars may be crooning “Count on me,” but make sure you don’t overcount your retirement plan participants! New rules may allow you to leave some employees out of the count, which could save you the expense of the annual audit. If your retirement plan is considered “large” – generally 100 or more participants – you’re probably in the middle of the Department of Labor required annual independent audit of the financial statements that must accompany the Form 5500. There are a few exceptions to the audit requirement – plans that have less than 100 participants at the begin ..read more

by Lyn Domenick If you remember that title song then you might remember a time before RMDs. Required minimum distributions (RMDs) have been a fixture of retirement plan operations ever since passage of the Tax Reform Act of 1986. One of the provisions in that law was the implementation of the RMD age starting with age 70-1/2; this partially offset lost revenue from the tax cuts in the bill. Many years later SECURE 1.0 increased the RMD age to 72 effective January 1, 2020. SECURE 2.0 increased the RMD age yet again and enacted other RMD-related changes that impact plan operations as descri ..read more