Expanding HRA Options Effective 2020

On June 13, 2019, The Departments of Health and Human Services, Labor, and Treasury issued the final rule expanding health reimbursement accounts (HRAs) which allows employers greater flexibility in the breadth and scope of HRAs available for their employees.

Background:

Since 2013, regulations have prohibited employers from paying for an employee’s individual health insurance policy and required that HRAs offered to employees be integrated with a group health plan. In 2016, Qualified Small Employer HRAs (QSEHRA) were developed to allow small employers (under 50 lives) to offer an HRA with IRS defined annual limits (in 2019 $5,150/individual and $10,450/family) to be used to pay for individual health premiums of minimum essential coverage when the employer does not offer a group health plan. In October of 2017, President Trump issued an Executive Order that in part directed the agencies to end rules that prohibited employers from paying for individual health insurance premiums through an HRA.

Two New HRA Options arising out of the Executive Order effective January 1, 2020 are:

1. Individual Coverage HRA
2. Excepted Benefit HRA

Individual Coverage HRA:

This HRA would allow employers to provide tax-free funding to an employee’s HRA account that could be used to purchase individual health insurance policies. This differs from the QSEHRA in that there is no requirement around the size of the employer.

• Employers cannot offer both a traditional group health plan and an Individual Coverage HRA to similarly situated employees. However, they can choose a group of employees to offer either the group health plan or the HRA based on a specific class:
  • • • Full-Time Employees*
      • Part-Time Employees*
      • Seasonal Employees
      • Employees covered by a collective bargaining agreement
      • Employees who have not satisfied a waiting period for coverage
      • Non-Resident aliens with no US-based income
      • Employees whose primary site of employment is in the same rating area*
      • Salaried Employees*
      • Non-Salaried Employees*
      • Temporary Employees of staffing firms
      • Combination of 2 or more of the above*
        *Minimum class size requirements will apply depending upon the classes defined (those with asterisk), whether some classes have a group health plan offered, and the size of the employer. (For example, the minimum class size is 10 for employers with 100 or less employees and 20 employees for an employer with 200 or more employees. The minimum class size for mid-sized employers (between 100 to 200) is 10 percent of the total number of employees.)

• The HRA must be offered on the same terms and conditions to all similarly situated employees. Dollar amounts, however, can vary based on age and number of dependents;
• Employees must have the ability to opt out of the HRA and waive future HRA reimbursements at least annually;
• HRA sponsors must be able to vary their HRA terms to account for different effective dates for individual coverage which can vary based on enrollment;
• If an employee stops being enrolled in an individual policy, they forfeit the HRA prospectively;
• Loss of the HRA for reasons other than failing to maintain individual coverage may qualify the HRA for COBRA;
• Individuals covered by the HRA must attest to being enrolled in an individual policy providing minimum essential coverage. Employers can rely on their employees attestation statement as accurate. No further verification is required;
• Individual coverage can be purchased on or off the exchange. It also includes student health coverage;
• Employers can specify reimbursements – premiums only, non-premium cost shares, or particular medical expenses per existing HRA rules. An Individual Coverage HRA that reimburses solely for premiums would not disqualify contributions to an HSA if the individual otherwise meets the requirements (enrollment in a HDHP);
• Under some circumstances, an Individual Coverage HRA may reimburse for Medicare premiums;
• Employers must provide a notice to participants which outlines the terms and conditions of the HRA at least 90 days before the start of the plan year;
• Individual Coverage HRAs are not considered ERISA plans;
• Individual Coverage HRAs are considered an offer of minimum essential coverage for 4980H(a) employer shared responsibility provision. If the Individual Coverage HRA is also deemed affordable, the offer would also satisfy the 4980H(b) employer shared responsibility provision;
• Employees being offered an affordable Individual Coverage HRA will not be eligible for a premium tax credit from the exchange (also must be stated clearly in the employee notice);
• Affordability means that health insurance for the employee should cost no more than 9.86% (indexed annually) of the employee’s household income, using the lowest cost silver plan for self only coverage on the local exchange and incorporating the employer’s contributions. Because this would be a logistical impossibility for most employers, the final notice includes 3 safe harbors to determine affordability:
  • • • Location: This safe harbor allows employers to use the lowest cost silver plan where the employer’s primary site of employment is located as the standard for affordability calculations;
      • Calendar Year: Employers who implement an individual coverage HRA for the following calendar year could use the existing year’s estimates as a baseline for affordability;
      •  Affordability: Since it is unlikely that employers know their employee’s household income, they can use the already established affordability safe harbors of W-2, rate of pay or federal poverty line.

Excepted Benefits HRA:

Currently, only HRAs classified as an excepted benefit HRA (reimburses only limited expenses, such as vision or dental) can be stand-alone/not integrated with the medical plan. The new Excepted Benefit HRA would allow a stand-alone HRA to also reimburse cost sharing expenses and still qualify as an excepted benefit if it meets certain requirements:

• The maximum benefit cannot exceed $1,800 for the plan year (indexed annually);
• Must be offered alongside a traditional group health plan although employees do not have to be enrolled in the traditional plan;
• The HRA must be available on the same terms for all similarly situated individuals regardless of health factor. Similarly situated means job classification, such as full-time, part-time, different geographic locations, union, non-union, and different occupations or even dates of hire or length of service ;
• Reimburses cost sharing expenses as well as premiums for excepted benefits (such as vision, dental, std), short-term medical plans, and COBRA premiums (individual or group premiums, Medicare premiums are not eligible);
• No employer size requirement;
• Can permit rollover of unused amounts;
• Subject to Section 105(h) nondiscrimination rules.

Despite Recent Court Ruling – ACA Enforcement Is Still the Law of the Land… For Now

On December 14^th, the U.S. District Court for the Fifth Circuit in Texas ruled the Affordable Care Act (ACA) unconstitutional in light of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 which eliminated the tax penalty under the individual mandate. The district court sided with 20 Republican state attorneys general that argued since the individual mandate was eliminated, the entire law was invalidated. The ruling went further and also ruled that all of the consumer protections under the ACA were tied to the individual mandate and they were also unconstitutional. These include the prohibition against insurers charging patients more for pre-existing conditions, allowing children to stay on their parent’s plans until age 26, and removal of caps on coverage.

What’s Next?

The judge in the case did not rule the law has to be enjoined immediately, however, it is unclear when the ruling would take effect. Sixteen Democratic state attorneys general and the District of Columbia filed a motion asking the court to clarify the impact of the ruling and confirm that the ACA “is still the law of the land.” Additionally, a series of appeals will most likely keep the ruling from being enacted anytime in the near future… thus:

• People can still enroll in ACA health plans in states with extended deadlines (without an extension, exchange enrollment ended on December 14^th.);
• There is no impact on 2019 plans that people may have recently enrolled in. Immediately following the ruling, Seema Verma, Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, stated the ruling “has no impact on current coverage or coverage in a 2019 plan;”
• Employers still face IRS deadlines to file forms 1095-B and 1095-C. (1095-B and 1095-C forms must be delivered to individuals by March 4, 2019. The 1094 and 1095 B & C forms must be filed with the IRS by February 28^th if filing paper and April 1^st if filing electronically);
• The Employer Mandate is still in force, penalties have been and will continue to be assessed for failure to file these returns;
• With the Employer Mandate still in force, Applicable Large Employers (ALEs) should continue to follow the Employer Shared Responsibility Rules (ESR) to avoid a penalty. This means offering a plan that meets minimum value and affordability to at least 95% of your full time employees (defined as those working at least 30 or more hours per week).

The case will most likely make its way to the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals and then to the U.S. Supreme Court before any definitive action can be considered.

Improving the ACA: What’s on employers’ wish list

The article below was published on September 27, 2017 by Employee Benefit News, written by John Barkett and Julie Stone.

The Affordable Care Act brought some significant changes to employer-sponsored healthcare, which employers factored into their long-term healthcare strategies. Revised plans were built to comply with the law’s many complex requirements, even though employers hoped for relief from the law’s more onerous provisions. Yet, despite the recent legislative drama and the promise of repeal and replace, seven years later the ACA is still the law of the land.

But just because employers continue to execute on their ACA-compliant healthcare strategies, doesn’t mean they aren’t yearning for improvements to the existing law. In fact, there are a number of items on their “ACA improvements wish list.”

Of greatest concern to employers about the ACA is the Cadillac tax, the excise tax on what the law defines as “high-value” health plans. Even though imposition of the tax is delayed until 2020, most employers believe it will constrain their flexibility to expand or improve benefits as competition for talent intensifies. They also worry that with low limits on plan values and many open questions on the administration of the tax, it has the potential to prevent them from creating a total rewards portfolio aligned with their overall talent strategy.

Image Source: Benefitnews.com

A 2014 Willis Towers Watson analysis, completed when the Cadillac tax was set to go into effect in 2018, found that nearly half of large U.S. employers would start to incur the tax in its first year. In response, many employers redoubled their efforts to anticipate and modify plans to avoid the tax.

Regardless, employers want the tax eliminated. If that cannot be accomplished, they would like to see regulatory guidance that addresses the provision’s inherent flaws and challenges. Employers would also want the thresholds that trigger the tax revised upward, which would give them more latitude to offer a slate of benefits that meets their business need.

Another ACA provision employers would like to see eliminated is the employer mandate. The mandate requires employers with 50 or more full-time equivalent employees to offer affordable healthcare coverage or face penalties. Employers object to this provision more on principle than out of a desire to discontinue offering healthcare benefits; they want to see less government involvement in employer-sponsored healthcare. But our research shows that the vast majority of employers — especially large employers — have no intention of discontinuing employee health benefits.

A more tactical reason employers want to see the mandate eliminated is because it created onerous compliance and reporting requirements that have significantly increased employers’ annual administrative costs and the complexity of day-to-day management.

Recently, it was revealed that a bipartisan group of lawmakers in the House have been quietly working on a bill that, among other things, would raise the employer mandate size limit from 50 to 500 full-time equivalent employees. Although completely eliminating the employer mandate would be preferred, this would be a welcomed by some employers while exacerbating inequities in the law for others.

Looking even more broadly at ways to improve the ACA, high on employers’ wish list are provisions that would address the high cost of healthcare. Reducing costs was a stated goal of the ACA, but as the law took shape and was debated in Congress, there was little to no agreement on how to achieve this. Interestingly, one of the most significant provision aimed at lowering costs was the creation of the excise tax.

Bottom line: When the ACA was first passed, most employers were apprehensive about several of the law’s provisions and worried about their ability to meet some of its requirements. Seven years later, nearly all employers have made the changes necessary to co-exist with the law. And now, after several attempts to pass healthcare legislation friendlier to employers have failed, many are now hoping Congress will turn its attention to the more productive work of improving existing law.

4 ways employers can prepare for healthcare changes

The article below was published on June 23, 2017 by Employee Benefit News, written by Mark Johnson.

The new healthcare bill, revealed by U.S. Senate Republicans Thursday, could bring significant changes to organizations and their employees. Granted, there’s a long way to go before any Obamacare replacement legislation is signed. But health insurance is a complex component of running any business, and it’s important that employers start preparing for what might come.

Here are four actions items employers should be addressing now.

1. Create a roadmap. A compliance calendar is a helpful tool in identifying major deadlines. Employers are legally obligated to share health insurance and benefits updates with their employees by certain dates. Employees must be given reasonable notice — typically 30 days prior — of a major change in policy. There will likely be a set date for compliance and specific instructions around notice requirements that accompany the new legislation.

One step to compliance is adhering to benefit notice requirements. Benefit notices (i.e., HIPAA, COBRA, Summary Plan Descriptions, Special Health Care Notices, Health Care Reform, Form 5500 and others) vary by the size of the organization. Other steps can be more involved, such as required changes to plan design (e.g., copays, deductibles and coinsurance), types of services covered and annual and lifetime maximums, among others. Create a compliance calendar that reflects old and new healthcare benefit requirements so you can stay on track.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.)
Image Source: benefitnews.com

2. Rally the troops. Managing healthcare compliance spans several departments. Assemble key external and internal stakeholders by department, including HR, finance, payroll and IT.

Update the team on potential changes as healthcare legislation makes its way through Congress so they can prepare and be ready to execute should a new bill be signed. HR is responsible for communicating changes to employees and providing them with information on their plan and benefits. Finance needs to evaluate how changes in the plan will affect the company’s bottom line. Payroll must be aware of how much of an employee’s check to allocate to health insurance each month. In addition, payroll and Human Resources Information Systems (HRIS) are used to track and monitor changes in employee population, which helps employers determine benefit notice and compliance requirements. All departments need to be informed of the modified health insurance plan as soon as possible and on the same page.

3. Get connected. It’s essential to verify information as it’s released, via newsletters, seminars, healthcare carriers, payroll vendors and consultants. These resources can help employers navigate the evolving healthcare landscape. Knowledge of changes will empower an organization to handle them effectively.

4. Evaluate partnerships. There’s no better time for employers to examine their current partners, from an insurance consultant or broker to the accounting firm and legal counsel. An employer’s insurance consultant should be a trusted adviser in working on budgeting and benchmarking the company plan, administering benefits, evaluating plan performance and reporting outcomes. Finding an insurance solution that meets a company’s business goals, as well as its employee’s needs, can be accomplished with a knowledgeable, experienced insurance partner.

Staying ahead of healthcare changes is essential for organizations to have a smooth transition to an updated healthcare plan. Strategic planning, communication among departments and establishing the right partnerships are key. Employers must be proactive in addressing healthcare changes so they are ready when the time comes.

Health care reform: Don’t wait for the politicians

The article below is from BenefitsPRO written by Dinesh Sheth on May 16, 2017.

Let the politicians argue about who is going to pay for health care and who is not.
Photo: Getty Images

Business owners across all industries are facing uncertainty surrounding the status of current laws and regulations. A Republican majority in Congress and the new presidential administration have created a climate of de-regulation. Luckily, or perhaps unluckily, depending on your view, U.S. employers of all sizes are currently facing a potentially major regulatory change with U.S. Republicans attempting to replace the Affordable Care Act (ACA) with their own bill: the American Health Care Act (AHCA). Now, the big question is: “What will be next?”

Aside from the implications this holds for the health care industry, enacting the ACHA would have a tremendous impact on employers by repealing the mandate that requires certain businesses to offer health insurance to their employees. While most businesses would likely support fewer regulations, repealing this mandate would do little to help them encourage healthier behaviors amongst their employees; and at the end of the day, that is the only true way to lower health care costs. Rather, repealing the mandate simply means that fewer Americans will be insured and that the cost-burden will shift to employees and their families.

Whether or not the current administration or even the public at-large wants to admit it, someone is going to pay for the costs of health care. All current or proposed laws and regulations do is juggle who is going to pay and who is not. Behind all these changes, however, it’s necessary to understand that employers need healthy, productive employees in order for their business to function, In addition, they want them to be insured at a reasonable cost, while also staying healthy and avoiding getting sick or injured. If the goal really is to lower actual costs, then this is where the real debate must be focused. Since it’s impossible to predict exactly how legislative initiatives will play out, employers should double down on their approach to employee wellbeing and examine how a holistic approach to wellness will improve the health of their workforce and bottom line, independent of laws or mandates from Washington.

Tell your Senators to Preserve the Employer-Based System and Permanently Repeal the Cadillac/excise Tax!

The National Association of Health Underwriters (NAHU)

Operation Shout!

On May 4, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 1628, the American Health Care Act (AHCA), a reconciliation bill to repeal and replace portions of the ACA. It will now be considered by the Senate, where it is expected to be significantly altered, including possibly addressing two critical NAHU policy priorities: the employer exclusion of health insurance and the Cadillac/excise Tax. NAHU strongly opposes any efforts that would undermine the employer-sponsored health insurance system by eliminating or placing a cap on the employer-tax exclusion of health insurance and is strongly advocating a full repeal of the Cadillac/excise Tax, which under the AHCA would only be temporarily delayed.

More than 175 million Americans currently receive their coverage through the employer-based system, largely due to the tax exclusion where employers provide contributions for an employee’s health insurance that are excluded from that employee’s compensation for income and payroll tax purposes. Proposals that would cap the exclusion would devalue the benefit and serve as one of the largest tax increases in history for middle-class Americans, forcing many to drop employer-sponsored insurance, including dependent coverage, and be forced to seek coverage in the volatile individual market, where premiums are ever-increasing. Employers would be incentivized to only offer coverage to their employees that would fall below the value of the cap in order to avoid paying any increased taxes, potentially resulting in a race to the bottom for employers to sponsor insurance that wouldn’t meet the cap’s thresholds and further shifting costs onto employees.

In addition to opposing proposals to cap the exclusion, we are strongly advocating a complete repeal of the Cadillac/excise Tax. Currently set to take effect in 2020 under a two-year delay, this tax calls for a 40% excise tax on the amount of the aggregate monthly premium of each primary insured individual that exceeds the year’s applicable dollar limit, which will be adjusted annually to the Consumer Price Index plus one percent. Given that the pace of medical inflation is well beyond that of general inflation, the tax is destined to outgrow itself in short order and many employers will be impacted by the cost of the tax and the enormous compliance burden that the tax creates. The AHCA, as passed by the House, would only delay the tax until fiscal year 2026.

Over the coming weeks, as the Senate debates the AHCA and the other healthcare-reform proposals, we urge all agents, brokers and your clients to tell your senators not to do anything that would undermine the employer-sponsored health insurance system and to fully repeal the Cadillac/excise tax. You can help us spread the message by taking action below:

1. Contact your senators. Send an Operation Shout today asking your senators to oppose any changes the employer tax exclusion and to support a full repeal of the Cadillac/excise Tax. You can also call your senators at the numbers below.
2. Tell your employer clients to take action. Your employer clients would be most directly impacted by the elimination or cap of the employer tax exclusion and are seeking a full repeal of the Cadillac/excise Tax. Tell them to take action here.
3. Share your story. As a licensed insurance specialist who works closely with employers to help them offer and utilize employer-sponsored health insurance, stories about how the employer tax exclusion directly impacts your clients will demonstrate the value of the exclusion and the need to preserve it, as well as the need to fully repeal the Cadillac/excise Tax. We will share your stories with appropriate legislators and staff. You can share your story here.

Take Action today and tell your senators to preserve the employer-based system and permanently repeal the Cadillac/excise Tax!

Don’t want to send an email? No problem, you can also reach your senators by phone:
Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D) can be reached at (202) 224-2823.
Sen. Christopher Murphy (D) can be reached at (202) 224-4041.

This call to action is designed as an email message to your legislators. You are welcome to use the prepared text as talking points to call your legislators, or to expand on the prepared message to share your personal story on how this issue will impact you and your clients.

ACA Fee Moratorium and Self-Funding

When Congress delayed the Cadillac Tax until 2020, the same law placed a one-year moratorium on the annual fee the ACA imposes on health insurance carriers. While the fee does not have a direct impact on TPAs or self-funded plans, it does sometimes impact stop loss premiums. Since this fee applied to insurance carriers and not the majority of self-funded plan costs claims, some small group plans that moved to level funding may experience a slight cost increase in 2017. When the tax returns in 2018, the revenue targets are expected to increase. If the tax increases from its previous levels of 3% to 4%, the potential savings available to self-funded and level funded plans will increase as well.

How New York’s canceling health coverage for 130,000 workers

Article written by Michael W. Ferguson, as seen in the New York Post

New York’s state legislators are thinking small — literally.

The state’s definition of “small business” expanded Jan. 1, thanks to legislation passed in 2013. Many firms that thought of themselves as medium-size are now legally considered “small.” One consequence: They’re barred from choosing self-insurance — a form of health coverage that allows employers to pay their employees’ medical bills directly.

State legislators must restore this vital health care option for these newly small businesses. If they don’t, firms may have to slash their benefits — or stop offering them altogether.

Firms that offer conventional health insurance pay monthly premiums to insurers to cover medical claims for their employees. Companies that self-insure, by contrast, pay the doctor when an employee goes in for a check-up or an operation.

That can save businesses big money. By one estimate, companies can cut their health care costs by up to 25 percent by self-insuring.

Self-insurance also enables employers to provide higher-quality care. Because they’re not bound to the generic health care options provided by insurers, they can customize coverage for their employees’ unique needs.

Cadillac Tax Delayed Until 2020

When President Obama signed the new Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2016 into law in late December, he delayed both the Cadillac and Medical Device taxes by two years, from 2018 to 2020. The legislation also provided for the deductibility of the Cadillac Tax, which is an excise tax of 40% on the “excess benefit” of high cost employer-sponsored coverage, regardless of whether the health plan is fully insured or self-funded.

The cost thresholds associated with “high cost” coverage were initially indexed annually from a base value of $10,200 for individual coverage and $27,500 for other than self-only coverage, adjusted to reflect the age and gender composition of the employee population. The Cadillac Tax was originally intended to take effect in 2013, but in 2010, was postponed from 2013 to 2018. The Medical Device tax was originally projected to raise $29 billion over 10 years to help pay for Obamacare. While the delays were welcome news to employers and medical device makers alike, most are still hoping for outright repeals.

The ACA: Repeals, Delays, Changes and Other Updates

Article is from Zack Pace, from Employee Benefit News (EBN)

Commentary: As you’ve no doubt noticed, the federal government made sweeping legislative and regulatory changes to the Affordable Care Act during the fourth quarter of 2015. During the last two weeks of December, I felt like I was drinking from a six-inch fire hose. How about you?

For 2016 planning purposes, I began making a list of the key items that have been repealed or delayed and those that we should continue to keep a keen eye on. With this list now complete, I thought I’d share.

Repealed provisions

1. Free-choice vouchers. Remember those? They were repealed back in 2011.
2. Form 1099 reporting. Remember how much added administrative work this provision would have created?
3. The $2,000-deductible ceiling. This provision coupled with Repealed Provision No. 5 (below) was scheduled to create a perfect storm this year for employers with 51 to 100 employees.
4. The automatic enrollment mandate. Reportedly, our elected representatives pressed for this provision’s repeal not because of its administrative infeasibility but because of the projected loss in tax revenue from increased salary reductions via Section 125 plans. Seriously.
5. The mandatory expansion of small group to 100 employees. I wish I had a quarter from everyone that joked, “Hey, Zack – they named an ACA after you!” How thrilling.

Delayed provisions

1. ACA nondiscrimination requirements. While these TBD rules were delayed indefinitely some time ago, some insiders expect finalization relatively soon. Sections 125 and 105(h) nondiscrimination rules remain alive and well.
2. The Cadillac tax. This excise tax is delayed until 2020. Per industry insiders, it seems awfully likely that this tax will be repealed before then. We’ll see. For those employers that began a multiple-year incremental mitigation strategy (aka glide path), they’ll need to decide if that strategy ought to be put in moth balls for a couple of years. Keep in mind that many employers can likely keep this excise tax at bay until 2022 by simply ending the flexible spending account, making health savings account contributions post-tax and eliminating their richest medical plan. 2022 is six years from now. Who knows where we’ll be by then. When it comes to increased taxation on employer- sponsored health plans, the more immediate concern, apparently, is that Section 125 becomes a bargaining chip during the budget negotiations next year between Congress and the new administration.

Lingering provisions of keen importance

1. Annually determining large-employer status. To determine status for 2016, ask your accountant to run Treasury’s formula to determine how many full-time employees plus full-time equivalents your firm averaged in the previous calendar year. Employers with 50 or more are generally subject to shared responsibility. Employers in most states with 51 or more are generally not subject to the fair health insurance premium rules (only fully insured plans are subject to these latter rules). Can anyone explain to me why they didn’t simply select 50 or 51 for both definitions?
2. Employer shared responsibility. Didn’t we make this topic a little more complicated than it needed to be? It turns out that it’s relatively easy to eliminate this penalty risk by offering to all employees that work 30 hours or more a week a low-cost plan (relatively speaking) that meets minimum value and that has an employee contribution rate for single coverage that meets the federal poverty-level safe harbor (i.e., less than around $93 per month). We can offer this “ACA easy button” plan, continue offering the normative health plans employees prefer and call it a day. Of course, for those employers with seasonal and/or variable-hour employees, tracking complications remain.
3. Eliminating opt-out credits. Under pending regulations, employers that offer cash to those employees that waive the health plan will find it harder to satisfy the affordability requirements of employer shared responsibility. See No. 5 in the below further reading list for more detail.
4. ACA reporting. Also known as Form 1095-C/1094-C reporting. The topic du jour.
5. The market reform rules. For example: elimination of pre-existing condition limitations, age 26 expansion, out-of-pocket limit ceiling, 100% coverage for preventive services (grandfathered plans are exempt from these latter three). If your health plan is fully insured, the insurer should have made these changes. If your plan is self-funded, the TPA should have. Either way, double-check.

To read this article on EBN.BENEFITNEWS.COM click here.