Resources

Client Alerts, News Articles, Blog Posts, & Multimedia

Everything you need to know about BMD and the industry.

IRS Issues Guidance Relating to High Deductible Health Plans and Coronavirus Testing

Client Alert
March 12, 2020

In response to the Coronavirus/COVID-19 pandemic, the IRS has released guidance in Notice 2020-15 relating to the testing and treatment for individuals covered by a High Deductible Health Plan (HDHP).

Under normal circumstances, an HDHP will fail to satisfy the requirements of an HDHP if it provides coverage for testing or treatment before the annual minimum deductible has been met (subject to certain enumerated well-known exceptions for wellness and preventative care). A plan disqualification would prohibit participants in the HDHP from making contributions to their Health Savings Account as HSAs require coverage by an HDHP.

The Notice provides that an HDHP will not fail to qualify as an HDHP “merely because the health plan provides medical care services and items purchased related to testing for and treatment of COVID-19 prior to the satisfaction of the applicable minimum deductible.” As a result, the fact that an individual is covered by an HDHP will not be impacted by free or reduced charges for testing and treatment of Coronavirus/COVID-19, regardless of whether or not they have met the deductible requirements under the HDHP.

While the IRS has chosen to provide this relief for both HDHPs and those individuals who receive their coverage through such a plan, this announcement has no impact on whether or not an insurance carrier will take any action regarding coverage for these items. Please contact your insurance carrier to determine what, if any, accommodation or arrangement they are making in light of the pandemic.

For questions on this topic or any other tax-related questions for your business, please contact Priscilla Grant at (330) 253-5934 or pagrant@bmdllc.com.

HDHPHigh Deductible Health Plancorona virusirsinsurancePriscilla Grant
Client Alert

Counselor, Social Workers, and Marriage and Family Therapist (CSWMFT) Board Rule Changes

March 29, 2024The Counselor, Social Workers, and Marriage and Family Therapist (CSWMFT) Board has proposed changes to the Ohio Administrative Code rules discussed below. The rules are scheduled for a public hearing on April 23, 2024, and public comments are due by this date. Please reach out to BMD Member Daphne Kackloudis for help preparing comments on these rules or for additional information.Client Alert

Latest Batch of Ohio Chemical Dependency Professionals Board Rules: What Providers Should Know

March 25, 2024The Ohio Chemical Dependency Professionals Board recently released several new rules and proposed amendments to existing rules over the past few months. A hearing for the new rules was held on February 16, 2024, but the Board has not yet finalized them.Client Alert

Now in Effect: DOL Final Rule on Classification of Independent Contractors

March 21, 2024Effective March 11, 2024, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) has adopted a new standard for the classification of employees versus independent contractors — a much anticipated update since the DOL issued its Final Rule on January 9, 2024, as previously discussed by BMD.  In brief, the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) creates significant protections for workers related to minimum wage, overtime pay, and record-keeping requirements. That said, such protection only exists for employees. This can incentivize entities to classify workers as independent contractors; however, misclassification is risky and can be costly.Client Alert

Florida's Recent Ruling on Arbitration Clauses

March 15, 2024Florida’s recent ruling on arbitration clauses provides a crucial distinction in determining whether such clauses are void as against public policy and providers may have the opportunity to include arbitration clauses in their patient consent forms. On March 6, 2024, Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeals reversed and remanded Florida’s Fifteenth Circuit Court ruling of Piero Palacios v. Sharnice Lawson. The Court of Appeals ruled that the parties’ arbitration agreement did not contradict the Legislature’s intent of Florida’s Medical Malpractice Act (the “MMA”), but rather reflects the parties’ choice to arbitrate claims entirely outside of the MMA’s framework. Therefore, the Court found that the agreement was not void as against public policy.Client Alert

Corporate Transparency Act Update 3/14/24

March 14, 2024On March 1, 2024, a federal district court in the Northern District of Alabama concluded that the Corporate Transparency Act (“CTA”) exceeded Congressional powers and enjoined the Department of the Treasury from enforcing the CTA against the plaintiffs. National Small Business United v. Yellen, No. 5:22-cv-01448 (N.D. Ala.). On March 11, 2024, the U.S. Department of Justice appealed the district court’s decision to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.
Older posts
Newer posts