Agencies propose overhaul of fixed-indemnity plan rules 

   
   
July 18, 2023
To further President Biden’s goal of strengthening the Affordable Care Act (ACA), the departments of Labor, Treasury, and Health and Human Services recently issued an array of proposed rules. This GRIST focuses on the proposals most pertinent to employers — specifically, proposed changes to fixed-indemnity excepted-benefit coverage and the tax treatment of employer-provided accident and health plans. If finalized, the changes may require many employers to modify certain plan designs and administrative processes. In particular, employers could no longer offer a preventive services plan and a group hospital fixed-indemnity plan to the same group of employees.

Proposed changes to group fixed-indemnity excepted-benefit rules

Under current regulations, group hospital indemnity or other fixed-indemnity insurance is considered an “excepted benefit” under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) and the ACA if the policy meets all of these conditions:

  • Is issued separately
  • Isn’t coordinated with exclusions in other health benefits provided by the same employer
  • Pays benefits regardless of whether other coverage offered by the same employer pays for the same event
  • Must pay a fixed dollar amount per day (or other period) of hospitalization or illness, regardless of the amount of expenses incurred

Excepted benefits are not subject to many group health plan standards, such as the ACA’s prohibition on annual or lifetime dollar limits on essential health benefits and the requirement for first-dollar coverage for preventive care. Excepted benefits also don’t count as minimum essential coverage (MEC) for employer shared-responsibility purposes. Employer-sponsored hospital or similar fixed-indemnity plans or policies that fail to meet excepted-benefit requirements must meet the full panoply of group health plan standards or risk incurring fairly steep penalties of $100 per day per affected member. Separate penalties for failure to provide the summary of benefits and coverage required by the ACA might also apply (up to $1000 per failure).

The departments propose the following modifications to the excepted-benefit rules out of concern that consumers may confuse fixed-indemnity excepted-benefit coverage with comprehensive health coverage.

New standards for “fixed” benefits. The proposed rules would provide new standards describing what it means for group hospital or other fixed-indemnity excepted-benefits coverage to provide benefits in a “fixed” amount (i.e., per period). The dollar amount would remain fixed regardless of the services or items received, actual or estimated amount of expenses incurred, severity of the illness or injury, or other characteristics particular to a covered participant’s or beneficiary’s course of treatment. The dollar amount also would not vary on any other basis (such as a per-item or per-service basis). The proposed rules provide examples of designs that fail to satisfy the new standard:

Example 1. An employer sponsors a group health plan that provides coverage through an insurance policy. The policy pays benefits related to hospital stays at a fixed percentage of expenses up to a maximum of $100 a day. This policy doesn’t qualify as an excepted benefit under the proposed rules because the coverage pays a percentage of expenses incurred rather than a fixed dollar amount per day (or other time period, such as per week). Even if the policy in practice pays the $100  maximum for every day of hospitalization, the coverage still isn’t an excepted benefit.

Example 2. An employer-sponsored policy provides benefits when a person receives certain specific items and services in a fixed amount— for example, $50 per blood test or $100 per visit. This policy is not fixed-indemnity excepted-benefit coverage because the benefits are not paid (i) in a fixed dollar amount per time period and (ii) without regard to the services or items received. Furthermore, adding time limits (i.e., $50 per blood test per day) wouldn’t change the result — the benefits would still be payable without regard to the services or items received and would not satisfy the proposed excepted-benefit rules.

In the preamble to the rules, the departments state that they “will closely examine as part of potential enforcement actions” whether group fixed-indemnity excepted-benefit coverage that claims to provide benefits per day (or other time period) is actually paying per service or item.

Informal coordination with another group health plan prohibited. Group fixed-indemnity excepted-benefit coverage can’t coordinate with an exclusion under a group health plan sponsored by the same plan sponsor. The departments propose to broadly interpret prohibited “coordination” to include informal coordination with an employer’s group health plan. The proposed rules include the following example of prohibited informal coordination between an employer’s fixed-indemnity policy and group health plan.

Example 3. An employer sponsors a group health plan that offers a benefit package covering only  preventive services (and excluding all other health benefits) and a hospital insurance policy paying a fixed dollar amount per day of hospitalization for a wide variety of illnesses that are not preventive services. Both the preventive-services plan and the hospital insurance policy are offered at the same time and can be elected together. The hospital insurance policy does not qualify as fixed-indemnity excepted-benefit coverage because the policy coordinates with exclusions in the preventive services plan. The result would be the same even if the preventive services plan were offered at a different time than the insurance policy and even if the insurance policy did not pay benefits for a wide variety of illnesses.

Employers may have different reasons for offering a plan covering only preventive services. Some employers offer such a plan — which is considered MEC — to certain groups of employees to reduce the risk of an employer shared-responsibility assessment for failing to offer MEC to at least 95% of full-time employees. Employers often pair the preventive services plan with a fixed-indemnity plan — which isn’t considered MEC — to provide additional benefits to employees. This combination of plans won’t be allowed if the proposed rules are finalized without changes. Employers could offer either a preventive services plan or group hospital fixed-indemnity coverage — but not both — to the same group of employees. 

Notice requirement. The departments propose that group hospital or other fixed-indemnity plans or issuers must display a new notice in any marketing, application, enrollment and reenrollment materials (in paper or electronic form, including on a website).

Effective date. The proposed changes would take effect for new fixed-indemnity insurance sold or issued on or after the effective date of the final rules. For current fixed-indemnity coverage, most changes would apply for plan years beginning on or after Jan. 1, 2027, although plans would have to display the notice starting with the plan year after the rules are finalized.

Proposed tax changes for accident and health plans

Tax treatment of benefit payments from fixed-indemnity and similar coverage. The Treasury Department and IRS propose to clarify the tax treatment of benefits paid by fixed-indemnity coverage and any other employer-sponsored accident or health plan that pays benefits without regard to incurred medical expenses. If such coverage is paid for pretax (either employees pay premiums pretax through a cafeteria plan or the employer pays premiums without including the value in employees’ income), all benefit payments will be taxable income to the employee rather than excluded under Internal Revenue Code Section 105(b). This treatment will apply even if the benefit payments are used for medical expenses.

This rule will cover not only fixed-indemnity plans but also any similar plan that pays benefits without regard to incurred medical expenses. For example, if a specified disease or illness policy purchased on a pretax basis pays a lump sum for a particular diagnosis or treatment, the lump sum will be taxable to the employee. Treasury and IRS intend to “look beyond the label” on accident or health benefits to determine whether benefit payments are tied to incurred medical expenses.

Note that this proposed rule does not impact fixed-indemnity or similar coverage purchased on an after-tax basis — either by the employee using after-tax dollars or by the employer reporting the value as imputed income to the employee. Benefit payments from such coverage are not taxable to the employee under Code Section 104(a)(3).

Substantiation. The guidance reiterates the need to substantiate all reimbursements for qualified medical expenses from any employer-provided accident and health plan to exclude those payments from the participant’s gross income. Accordingly, the departments propose to eliminate language in the Code Section 105(b) regulations that might suggest substantiation is not required in some situations.

Effective date. The new tax rules would apply as of the later of their publication date or Jan. 1, 2024.

Other proposed changes

The departments propose a number of significant changes to other types of health coverage:

  • Short-term, limited-duration insurance (STLDI) generally would return to the stricter Obama-era standards.
  • The excepted-benefit requirements for individual hospital or other fixed-indemnity insurance and group indemnity insurance would be aligned (i.e., individual hospital or other fixed-indemnity insurance could no longer make payments per service).

The departments have also asked for comments on specified disease or illness policies (e.g., cancer-only policies) and level-funded plans to inform future rulemaking.

Next steps for employers

Although the proposed rules are not final and any required changes would have a long lead time (the first plan year beginning on or after Jan. 1, 2027), employers currently offering fixed-indemnity policies should consider the potential need to make changes to satisfy the proposed excepted-benefit rules. Employers — especially those that pair fixed-indemnity coverage with a preventive services plan — should assess the impact on their long-term strategy if these rules are finalized as proposed. Employers considering offering fixed-indemnity policies should also be aware that these rules may limit options going forward.

Employers should review how employees are currently taxed for fixed-indemnity and similar benefits and determine what changes will be required to comply with any revised tax rules, which could take effect as early as January 2024. Employers should also confirm that vendors are properly substantiating qualified medical expenses.

Impacted employers may want to submit comments on the proposed rules by the Sept. 11 deadline. In addition to seeking comments on the topics addressed in this GRIST, regulators are asking for input on level-funded plans and disease-specific plans (as well as other topics less relevant to employer plan sponsors).

Related resources

About the author(s)
Related insights