Search form

Healthcare Subsidies for Grad Students: An ACA Conundrum

By Joy M. Napier-Joyce, Melissa Ostrower and Kellie M. Thomas
  • June 17, 2016

Colleges and universities historically have provided graduate student employees (e.g., teaching assistants) with a stipend or reimbursement to help defray (or even fully cover) the cost of their medical coverage under the student health plan. Competing guidance from the Departments of Health and Human Services (“HHS”), Labor (“DOL”), and the Treasury (collectively, the “Departments”) under the Affordable Care Act (“ACA”) will soon make such arrangements problematic.

Four years ago, HHS released regulations clarifying that student health insurance is a form of individual market coverage (rather than a group health plan). This was meant, in part, to ensure that students enrolled in these plans benefit from consumer protections applicable to individual market coverage under the ACA. About a year later, the Departments issued guidance that effectively prohibits employers from using a health reimbursement arrangement (an “HRA”) to reimburse employees for individual market coverage. The goal there was to prevent employers from incentivizing employees to opt for public exchange coverage over an employer group health plan. The result? Any school that provides a stipend to student employees enrolled in a student plan is considered to be using an HRA to reimburse individual market coverage, and could be subject to penalties.

Such penalties are severe. This type of HRA would be considered its own group health plan, and thus would be subject to the ACA’s market reforms, which include, among other things, prohibitions on annual and lifetime limits and on cost-sharing for preventive services (each of which this type of HRA would inherently fail to satisfy). Such a failure can result in a penalty of up to $100 per day per employee under Internal Revenue Code §4980D.

While none of the above-described guidance was likely intended to keep schools from being able to offer these healthcare stipends to their graduate student employees (a point which an IRS representative informally confirmed to Jackson Lewis shortly after this clash in the guidance came to the attention of practitioners), the Departments appear to have doubled down on their position with the release of Notice 2016-17 and corresponding guidance from the DOL and HHS. This most recent guidance states that schools must re-structure their graduate student benefits and provides a period of transition relief by indicating that no penalties will apply for plan years beginning prior to January 1, 2017.

On whether there has been any talk of extending or making permanent the transition relief, given the unintended consequences of the prior guidance to graduate student subsidies, an IRS representative indicated to Jackson Lewis that the IRS was not aware of any such talks, but pointed out that the problem is a “three agency question” and that another Department could propose a permanent fix.

In the meantime, schools continue to wrestle with the issue. Solutions under consideration include allowing graduate student employees to participate in the school’s employee group health plan (under the ACA, an employer may provide a stipend/reimbursement through an HRA that is integrated with the employee group health plan) or offering a cash bonus that, at the student’s discretion, can be put toward the cost of healthcare.

Please contact Jackson Lewis if you have any questions.

©2016 Jackson Lewis P.C. This Update is provided for informational purposes only. It is not intended as legal advice nor does it create an attorney/client relationship between Jackson Lewis and any readers or recipients. Readers should consult counsel of their own choosing to discuss how these matters relate to their individual circumstances. Reproduction in whole or in part is prohibited without the express written consent of Jackson Lewis.

This Update may be considered attorney advertising in some states. Furthermore, prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Jackson Lewis P.C. represents management exclusively in workplace law and related litigation. Our attorneys are available to assist employers in their compliance efforts and to represent employers in matters before state and federal courts and administrative agencies. For more information, please contact the attorney(s) listed or the Jackson Lewis attorney with whom you regularly work.

See AllRelated Articles You May Like

August 17, 2018

Illinois Secure Choice Retirement Savings Program No Longer Mandatory?

August 17, 2018

The future of the Illinois Secure Choice Savings Program Act (Secure Choice) is uncertain following Governor Bruce Rauner’s amendatory veto that could make employer participation in the Secure Choice program optional. The legislation, as enacted, makes participation in the Secure Choice program mandatory for covered employers that do... Read More

August 13, 2018

What Employers Need to Know About the Illinois Secure Choice Mandatory Retirement Savings Program

August 13, 2018

Employers in Illinois with at least 25 employees must comply with the Illinois Secure Choice Savings Program Act (Secure Choice) or offer employees an employer-sponsored retirement plan. Secure Choice is set to roll out in November 2018. Secure Choice applies to Illinois employers that do not sponsor a qualified retirement plan. The... Read More

July 18, 2018

Employee Benefits Newsletter – Summer 2018

July 18, 2018

In this issue: New Agency Guidance Makes Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act Enforcement a Priority. A review of the parity compliance issues for plans and insurers providing mental health and substance use disorder benefits. Finding Missing Participants in a Regulatory Fog. A discussion of the efforts of the Department... Read More

Related Practices