It would appear that lawmakers in Washington are in agreement on the repeal of new Form 1099 reporting requirements, but can't agree on how to accomplish that. On March 3, the House passed the "Comprehensive 1099 Taxpayer Protection and Repayment of Exchange Subsidy Overpayments Act of 2011" (H.R. 4), which is designed to repeal the expansion of information reporting requirements contained in the section of the ACA that required businesses to file Form 1099 for payments of expenses of $600 or more.
Rep. Daniel Lungren (R-CA), who introduced the bill, has stated that it would "finally provide assurance to small business owners that they will not be subject to this unfair and unnecessary tax reporting burden." The repeal of the expanded reporting requirements has received wide bipartisan support, but many lawmakers are less than pleased with this particular bill, and it is possible that it won't pass the Senate.
According to House Ways and Means Ranking Committee Chairman Sander Levin (D-MI), "the issue is not repeal of this provision of 1099. We on this side not only favor repeal but all of us who were here last session voted for it. We voted to repeal it. It failed because only two people on the then-minority side voted for the bill," adding that the "effort to repeal was blocked on the Republican side last session."
Levin said middle income families would see a tax increase if the bill were passed, explaining that, "It increases how much they will have to pay to the IRS if their income increases over what was projected when they would have obtained health insurance."
The Obama Administration added its two cents in a White House Statement of Administration Policy, stating that, "The Administration strongly opposes the House’s offset to pay for this repeal in H.R. 4," and, "Specifically, H.R. 4 would result in tax increases on certain middle-class families that incur unexpected tax liabilities, in many cases totaling thousands of dollars, notwithstanding that they followed the rules."
On the other hand, the Administration concedes that "the burden created on businesses by the new information reporting requirement . . . as included in Section 6041 of the Internal Revenue Code as modified by Section 9006 of the Affordable Care Act, is too great."
For a comprehensive analysis of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, including the full text of the law and additional information on health reform implementation and other recent developments in employee benefits, just click here.
Monday, March 7, 2011
Friday, March 4, 2011
Obama Administration Gets Seven Days To Appeal Repeal Ruling
Phew! Now those implementing the provisions of the Affordable Care Act can breathe easier—Florida Judge Roger Vinson has delayed his order repealing the entire law and generously granted the Administration of Barack Obama seven days (count them) to appeal his ruling before it takes effect. Assuming the appeal is made, implementation of the law will continue until the case is resolved.
You may recall that Mr. Vinson made his ruling in response to claims made by Florida and 25 other states. In late January, Mr. Vinson issued his original order. Subsequently, the Obama Administration asked Mr. Vinson for a clarification as to whether he intended that the federal government cease implementing the law. In issuing the delay, Mr. Vinson “clarified” that his original order indicated the law could not be implemented.
In a sharp rebuke, Mr. Vinson said that he had not expected that the Administration “would effectively ignore the order and declaratory judgment for two-and-one-half weeks, continue to implement the Act, and only then file a belated motion to ‘clarify.’”
Nonetheless, Mr. Vinson said, “I agree that it would indeed be difficult to enjoin and halt the Act’s implementation while the case is pending appeal. It would be extremely disruptive and cause significant uncertainty.”
Mr. Vinson then concluded, “As both sides have repeatedly emphasized throughout this case, the Act seeks to comprehensively reform and regulate more than one-sixth of the national economy. It does so via several hundred statutory provisions and thousands of regulations that put myriad obligations and responsibilities on individuals, employers, and the states. It has generated considerable uncertainty while the constitutionality of the Act is being litigated in the courts. The sooner this issue is finally decided by the Supreme Court, the better off the entire nation will be. And yet, it has been more than one month from the entry of my order and judgment and still the defendants have not filed their notice of appeal.”
Thus, Mr. Vinson conditioned his delay upon the Administration filing its “anticipated appeal within seven (7) calendar days of this order and seeking an expedited appellate review, either in the Court of Appeals or with the Supreme Court.”
Some of the states involved in the case had delayed beginning implementation of portions of the law. After Mr. Vinson’s stay, at least one of those states, Alaska, finally decided it had better begin the process. In delaying implmentation, Alaska lost its opportunity to get $1 million in federal health care assistance. Money talks both ways.
For a comprehensive analysis of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, including the full text of the law and additional information on health reform implementation and other recent developments in employee benefits, just click here.
You may recall that Mr. Vinson made his ruling in response to claims made by Florida and 25 other states. In late January, Mr. Vinson issued his original order. Subsequently, the Obama Administration asked Mr. Vinson for a clarification as to whether he intended that the federal government cease implementing the law. In issuing the delay, Mr. Vinson “clarified” that his original order indicated the law could not be implemented.
In a sharp rebuke, Mr. Vinson said that he had not expected that the Administration “would effectively ignore the order and declaratory judgment for two-and-one-half weeks, continue to implement the Act, and only then file a belated motion to ‘clarify.’”
Nonetheless, Mr. Vinson said, “I agree that it would indeed be difficult to enjoin and halt the Act’s implementation while the case is pending appeal. It would be extremely disruptive and cause significant uncertainty.”
Mr. Vinson then concluded, “As both sides have repeatedly emphasized throughout this case, the Act seeks to comprehensively reform and regulate more than one-sixth of the national economy. It does so via several hundred statutory provisions and thousands of regulations that put myriad obligations and responsibilities on individuals, employers, and the states. It has generated considerable uncertainty while the constitutionality of the Act is being litigated in the courts. The sooner this issue is finally decided by the Supreme Court, the better off the entire nation will be. And yet, it has been more than one month from the entry of my order and judgment and still the defendants have not filed their notice of appeal.”
Thus, Mr. Vinson conditioned his delay upon the Administration filing its “anticipated appeal within seven (7) calendar days of this order and seeking an expedited appellate review, either in the Court of Appeals or with the Supreme Court.”
Some of the states involved in the case had delayed beginning implementation of portions of the law. After Mr. Vinson’s stay, at least one of those states, Alaska, finally decided it had better begin the process. In delaying implmentation, Alaska lost its opportunity to get $1 million in federal health care assistance. Money talks both ways.
For a comprehensive analysis of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, including the full text of the law and additional information on health reform implementation and other recent developments in employee benefits, just click here.
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
Need For Health Reform Greater Than Ever
Two new reports from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, the National Healthcare Quality Report and the National Healthcare Disparities Report, seem to bolster the need for provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. These reports found that health care quality and access are lower than is desirable, that access to and disparities in care are not improving and some are worsening.
In the report summary, the AHRQ wrote that “our analyses indicate that health care quality in America is suboptimal. The gap between best possible care and that which is routinely delivered remains substantial across the Nation.”
Access to health care services and disparities in care are especially connected to socioeconomic status, race, and ethnicity. For example, low income individuals overwhelmingly experienced worse quality of care (in 82% of measures) and access to care for all care measures than did high income; followed by Hispanics (in three-fifths of measures for quality of care and four-fifths of measures for access to care) compared with nonHispanic whites; and blacks (in two-fifths of measures for quality of care) compared with whites.
But it isn’t just the disadvantaged uninsured that experienced lower than desired quality and access to care—on average, individuals received recommended preventive services two-thirds of the time and appropriate acute care services and recommended chronic disease management services three-quarters of the time. Also, individuals reported barriers to care 20% of the time with 60% of individuals indicating that their “usual” medical provider hhad no office hours on evenings or weekends.
The AHRQ reports also found that individuals with private non-group health insurance are nearly three times as likely as those with private, employer-sponsored health insurance to pay high premiums and out-of-pocket medical expenses.
Adults age 18 through 44 and Hispanics are least likely among all age and ethnic groups to have health insurance. Of particular note is that the percentage of people with health insurance worsened for middle-income individuals. In the current, depressed economic climate, middle-income individuals are increasingly vulnerable to loss of health insurance.
“We need to improve access to care, reduce disparities, and accelerate the pace of quality improvement, especially in the areas of preventive care, chronic disease management, and safety,” the AHRQ concluded. The ACA is attempting to do just that, if only we will work with it.
For a comprehensive analysis of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, including the full text of the law and additional information on health reform implementation and other recent developments in employee benefits, just click here.
In the report summary, the AHRQ wrote that “our analyses indicate that health care quality in America is suboptimal. The gap between best possible care and that which is routinely delivered remains substantial across the Nation.”
Access to health care services and disparities in care are especially connected to socioeconomic status, race, and ethnicity. For example, low income individuals overwhelmingly experienced worse quality of care (in 82% of measures) and access to care for all care measures than did high income; followed by Hispanics (in three-fifths of measures for quality of care and four-fifths of measures for access to care) compared with nonHispanic whites; and blacks (in two-fifths of measures for quality of care) compared with whites.
But it isn’t just the disadvantaged uninsured that experienced lower than desired quality and access to care—on average, individuals received recommended preventive services two-thirds of the time and appropriate acute care services and recommended chronic disease management services three-quarters of the time. Also, individuals reported barriers to care 20% of the time with 60% of individuals indicating that their “usual” medical provider hhad no office hours on evenings or weekends.
The AHRQ reports also found that individuals with private non-group health insurance are nearly three times as likely as those with private, employer-sponsored health insurance to pay high premiums and out-of-pocket medical expenses.
Adults age 18 through 44 and Hispanics are least likely among all age and ethnic groups to have health insurance. Of particular note is that the percentage of people with health insurance worsened for middle-income individuals. In the current, depressed economic climate, middle-income individuals are increasingly vulnerable to loss of health insurance.
“We need to improve access to care, reduce disparities, and accelerate the pace of quality improvement, especially in the areas of preventive care, chronic disease management, and safety,” the AHRQ concluded. The ACA is attempting to do just that, if only we will work with it.
For a comprehensive analysis of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, including the full text of the law and additional information on health reform implementation and other recent developments in employee benefits, just click here.
